Structural performance of the GFRP-reinforced precast concrete no-gap boat ramp plank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated a new design of boat ramp planks called the “no-gap” concept where individual precast concrete planks reinforced internally with glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) are linked through GFRP rods to provide integrity. The no-gap boat ramp provides an efficient boating infrastructure with reduced maintenance and ease of manufacturing and assembly process, as well as mitigates the risk of injury, as it removes the grout-filled gap that often requires repairs. Five large-scale GFRP-reinforced precast concrete planks with one, two and three segments were manufactured, assembled, and tested to evaluate their performance including load-carrying capacity, strain behaviour, cracking propagation, and failure mechanisms. The study revealed that the presence of the GFRP rod can improve the post-failure behaviour of the GFRP-reinforced precast concrete plank segment. Under flexural-shear loading, joint opening, stress concentration on the rod, and concrete crushing at the joint region were observed. Under only shear loading conditions, the no-gap plank displayed increased joint rotation and stiffness with interlaminar failure of the rod. The gaps in the joint have a negative effect on the flexural performance of the segmental plank, resulting in 37 % and 23 % reductions in initial stiffness and load-carrying capacity, respectively. The numerical model which considers the non-linearity of the concrete, accurately describes the behaviour of the no-gap concrete segmental plank. • New design of GFRP-reinforced concrete boat ramp plank was tested and analysed. • Influence of GFRP rod appearance, gap in the joint, and loading configuration are studied. • Flexural capacity and stiffness, load-strain behaviour, and failure behaviour are presented. • Residual displacement and deflection along the length using DIC have been investigated. • Numerical evaluation of the flexural behaviour is conducted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".