MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413403582 · doi:10.1080/23789689.2025.2549166

GFRP-reinforced concrete segmental decks for maritime infrastructures: structural behaviour review

2025· article· en· W4413403582 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable and Resilient Infrastructure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticReinforced concreteStructural engineeringForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it