GFRP-reinforced concrete segmental decks for maritime infrastructures: structural behaviour review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement presents a promising solution to the durability issues affecting steel-reinforced concrete in marine infrastructure. This review assesses the current state of practice for GFRP-reinforced concrete decks, including non-prestressed, prestressed monolithic, and segmental systems. It identifies the key design parameters – reinforcement ratio and stiffness, deck geometry, concrete strength, pre-tensioning level, and joint details – that govern flexural capacity, shear resistance, and fatigue life. Segmental GFRP-prestressed decks emerge as an advantageous alternative to conventional monolithic construction, providing rapid installation and modular replaceability. Moreover, incorporating the FRP-reinforced segmental deck allows for modular construction in the maritime environment. However, maintaining a pre-compression of 1–2 MPa at segment joints is essential to prevent localised failures. The review discusses critical research gaps, and recommendations are provided to guide design improvements and future studies. By using the GFRP’s non-corrosive nature, designers can achieve concrete decks with a service life beyond 50 years.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".