MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Durability of Concrete Cylinders Wrapped with GFRP Made from Furfuryl Alcohol Bioresin

2014· article· en· W2043246324 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Eldridge, Amir Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceFurfuryl alcoholComposite materialDurabilityEpoxyGlass fiberChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very limited studies exist on the durability of “green” biocomposites, particularly resins, in the context of structural engineering applications. This paper investigates the durability of concrete cylinders wrapped with glass fiber reinforced bioresin made from furfuryl alcohol extracted from renewable sources such as corncobs and sugar cane. Conditioning was achieved by immersion of various groups of glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP)-wrapped 153×305 mm cylinders in saline solutions with 3% salt concentration, at 23, 40, and 55°C, for up to 300 days. The groups included control specimens fabricated with conventional epoxy resin for comparison and plain concrete cylinders. Specimens were then tested in axial compression, periodically, at 29, 97, 182, and 300 days. It was shown that control unconditioned epoxy-GFRP and bioresin-GFRP wrapped cylinders had the same strengthening ratio (fcc′/fc′). After conditioning for 300 days, the (fcc′/fc′) ratio retentions for the bioresin-GFRP was 73% at all temperatures, and were 81, 76, and 76% for the epoxy-GFRP at the 23, 40, and 55°C, respectively. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out and showed that the small difference in the 300 days’ strength between the bioresin-GFRP and epoxy-GFRP specimens is statistically significant at the 23°C only, but not at 40°C and 55°C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207