Performance of Newly Developed Thermoplastic Resin for FRP Bars Compared with Vinyl-Ester Resin under Laboratory Accelerated Aging Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites has predominantly relied on thermoset resins, such as polyester, vinyl ester, and epoxy. This study represents a pioneering effort in assessing the durability of a new thermoplastic resin for pultruded FRP rebars used in concrete applications. Given the emerging environmental and sustainability concerns—notably the increasing demand for recyclability—thermoplastic matrix composites offer distinct advantages. More reliable and cost-effective processing techniques involving in situ polymerization of a new liquid thermoplastic acrylic resin during manufacturing have recently been developed. The newly developed thermoplastic resin has been tailored for use in the pultrusion process. One significant advantage of the novel thermoplastic resin is its liquid reactive nature, which facilitates superior impregnation and fiber–matrix bonding, leading to notable enhancements in end-use properties—particularly durability and long-term performance such as fatigue and creep resistance—even under alkaline conditions. The objective of this study was to assess the durability performance of the newly developed thermoplastic resin compared with the most commonly used resin (vinyl ester) for pultrusion of FRP bars. Laboratory accelerated aging testing was conducted under water, saline, and alkaline environments at temperatures of 23°C and 40°C for durations of 1,000 and 3,000 h using dog-bone specimens. The specimens were subsequently analyzed with differential scanning calorimetry, scanning electronic microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and tensile tests. The results indicated that the physicomechanical and microstructural properties of the newly developed thermoplastic resin were not significantly affected by aging environments, performing similarly to vinyl-ester resin. The tensile strength retention was 95%‒98% after exposure to the various environments. Furthermore, one-way analysis of variance analysis revealed no significant difference in the tensile strength of specimens before and after exposure. The results of this study show the feasibility, efficiency, and long-term durability of the newly developed thermoplastic resin for pultruding FRP-reinforcing bars.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".