An Investigation on Bio-Based Polyurethane Foam Insulation for Building Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bio-based renewable construction material is an old concept. Wood, straw, and other products of nature have been used for millennia around the world. However, in modern construction, the ratio of bio-based to non-renewable building materials is very low. This is primarily due to performance requirements. Purely bio-based construction materials sometimes have performance levels not quite equal to modern construction materials. The biggest challenge for the development of bio-based construction materials is to bring environmental friendliness and high engineering performance together in a single material. This paper presents results from a laboratory screening study on the development and the assessment of rigid partially bio-based polyurethane (PU) foams (seven different formulations) that contain lignin-based polyols, up to 20 % of polyol weight. The formulation strategy, morphology, and hygrothermal performance of rigid bio-based PU foams are presented and compared with the traditional petroleum-based reference PU foam. This study demonstrates that partially bio-based rigid PU foam with appropriate formulation can have characteristics that may be suitable for the construction industry applications. For market acceptance, further investigation is needed on long-term performance and durability.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".