## 3 Results and Discussion
### Concerning the Mechanical Test and GOM ARAMIS Measurement Series  
The mechanical properties of the test specimens were determined by plotting the force-displacement diagrams, which were determined using the GOM ARAMIS camera and HBM data collector systems. Since the data from the two data collection and measurement systems were not linked, they had to be synchronized and matched later during the evaluation. Figure 6 illustrates the force-displacement diagrams of the specimens, including the reference specimen without reinforcement. All the data in the figure are measured values and maintain a proportional relationship. In this scenario, only the loading speed can be adjusted--either accelerated or decelerated--since the machine applies a constant force of 20 kN. If the measurement speed were increased, the graph's curves would appear shorter, resulting in fewer vertical displacement values. Conversely, reducing the measurement speed would extend the curves, increasing the number of vertical displacement values. The maximum values, so that the diagram does not become overcrowded, are been plotted on the diagram; nevertheless, the differences are still clearly visible. The peak values were in the following descending order: ESD, R, ABS, ENG, GYP, and HI. Their peak values were at 1.021, 0.956, 0.933, 0.928, 0.927, and 0.812 kN. As can be seen from the figure, the reinforced specimens showed different behavior during the loading tests. The staircase-like decreasing structures observed in the results highlight the impact of reinforcement after reaching a peak value, which is particularly noticeable in the ESD, ENG, and ABS specimens. In contrast, this behavior was not evident in the unreinforced (R) specimens or in the GYP and HI specimens. These differences in behavior may be attributed to multiple factors. Firstly, the variations could be linked to the inherent material properties. Specifically, HI and GYP materials exhibit lower tensile strength compared to ESD, ABS, and ENG, which inherently makes them less effective in maintaining structural integrity under load. Additionally, HI and GYP also possess lower heat resistance, as outlined in Table 2, which could further limit their performance under certain conditions. Another potential explanation lies in the chemical interactions between the materials and the concrete medium. Such interactions could compromise the structural integrity of the materials, making them less suitable for broader applications. If this hypothesis were to hold true, it would indicate a significant limitation in the usability of these materials for reinforced concrete structures. Consequently, investigating this phenomenon in greater detail is of critical importance to understanding and addressing the observed differences. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 6, no amplification of the reinforcement effect was observed for the GYP and HI specimens. This further supports the notion that their lower  
Figure 6: Force–displacement diagram of the specimens (ABS, ENG, ESD, GYP, HI, and R). mechanical and thermal performance, combined with possible chemical incompatibility, reduces their effectiveness when used as reinforcing agents. This highlights the necessity for further research to better evaluate the potential of these materials in reinforced concrete applications. In Figure 6, no amplification effect after a peak value is observed in the flattening parts. Specimens R, GYP, and HI exhibited immediate failure, while specimens ESD, ABS, and ENG showed resistance to loading even after fracture (peak value). This shows the brittle behavior of the inner reinforcement material in GYP and HI, which indicates the chemical dissolution of PLA during the 28-day drying cycle. Figures 7-9 show the displacement of ABS2 test specimens in the \(X\) direction during the loading time at 0, 20, and 40 s until a fracture occurred. Figures 7-9 show the variation over time of the displacements of the selected points (which are in the same position in each figure).