Long-Term Durability of Nonpultruded Curvilinear GFRP Bars Exposed to an Alkaline Environment: Experimental Studies and Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of curvilinear glass fiber‒reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars as the longitudinal reinforcement in curved reinforced concrete (RC) elements has generated significant interest. Even so, there is a lack of comprehensive data on the long-term durability of nonpultruded curvilinear GFRP bars in an alkaline environment. This study represents a pioneering effort to assess the long-term durability of nonpultruded curvilinear GFRP reinforcement, as well as its physical and mechanical properties, to address this research gap. Over 400 bar samples—including #5 curvilinear and straight GFRP bars—were prepared and tested. The physical properties were evaluated in terms of fiber content, cross-sectional area, glass-transition temperature, cure ratio, and water absorption. Tensile, transverse shear, and interlaminar shear tests were performed to assess the mechanical properties. The durability properties were investigated by submerging the samples in an alkaline solution at four different temperatures (24°C, 40°C, 50°C, and 60°C) for three different exposure durations (1,000, 3,000, and 6,000 h). Morphological studies were conducted with scanning electronic microscopy (SEM); elemental analysis was determined with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Additionally, the bars underwent thermal analysis with differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and chemical analysis with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Then, a long-term prediction model was developed to predict the service-life durability of the curvilinear GFRP bars in an alkaline environment. The experimental results indicate that the physical, mechanical, and durability properties of the nonpultruded curvilinear GFRP bars met all the requirements for use as reinforcing bars. In addition, the SEM, EDS, DSC, and FTIR analyses revealed that the curvilinear GFRP bars were highly durable in the alkaline environment. Furthermore, according to the long-term prediction model developed, the tensile strength retention of the curvilinear GFRP bars after 100 years of service life in an alkaline environment was >77%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".