Low-velocity impact and post-impact flexural behavior of novel concrete seawall panels reinforced with composite GFRP bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars can be used to reinforce concrete seawall structures, but there is a notable gap in the existing research regarding seawall’s impact behavior with GFRP bars. This study designed a novel GFRP-reinforced concrete seawall panel reinforced with composite GFRP bars and comprehensively analyzed their low-velocity impact behavior caused by vessel collisions for all impact characteristics: impact force, acceleration, mid-deflection, energy absorption, and strains. Furthermore, three-point flexural test evaluated the post-impact flexural behavior of the panels. The findings indicate that GFRP-reinforced seawall panels can withstand impact forces up to 1.5 m drop height (4415 J) without local and scabbing failure. The mid-deflection, total energy absorption (87%), and the proportion of energy absorbed by GFRP bars increased with increasing drop height, whereas the ratio of energy absorption absorbed by concrete decreased significantly after 1.5 m. None of the GFRP bars ruptured even at the highest impact energy (5886 J), with maximum measured strain being 72% of the GFRP-bar rupture strain. In post-impact, seawall panels retained 67% of their residual flexural strength. The experimental results were verified with the modified single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) equation. The findings enhance understanding on the relationship between impact energy and impact characteristics of GFRP-reinforced seawall panels.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".