Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40363066›Full record

ReviewPolymers2025

Nondestructive Testing of Externally Bonded FRP Concrete Structures: A Comprehensive Review.

Eyad Alsuhaibani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Eyad AlsuhaibaniDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim University, Buraidah 52571, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-3549-0591

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing application of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites in rehabilitating deteriorating concrete infrastructure underscores the need for reliable, cost-effective, and automated nondestructive testing (NDT) methods. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of existing and emerging NDT techniques used to assess externally bonded FRP (EB-FRP) systems, emphasizing their accuracy, limitations, and practicality. Various NDT methods, including Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR), Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT), Infrared Thermography (IRT), Acoustic Emission (AE), and Impact-Echo (IE), are critically evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in detecting debonding, voids, delaminations, and other defects. Recent technological advancements, particularly the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in NDT applications, have significantly improved defect characterization, automated inspections, and real-time data analysis. This review highlights AI-driven NDT approaches such as automated crack detection, hybrid NDT frameworks, and drone-assisted thermographic inspections, which enhance accuracy and efficiency in large-scale infrastructure assessments. Additionally, economic considerations and cost-performance trade-offs are analyzed, addressing the feasibility of different NDT methods in real-world FRP-strengthened structures. Finally, the review identifies key research gaps, including the need for standardization in FRP-NDT applications, AI-enhanced defect quantification, and hybrid inspection techniques. By consolidating state-of-the-art research and emerging innovations, this paper serves as a valuable resource for engineers, researchers, and practitioners involved in the assessment, monitoring, and maintenance of FRP-strengthened concrete structures.

Indexed as

cost-effective inspectionexternal strengtheningfiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)nondestructive testing (NDT)retrofittingstructural health monitoring (SHM)

Identifiers

PMID40363066
PMCPMC12073467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.