Structural Performance of Sandwich Wall Panels with Different Foam Core Densities in One-way Bending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flexural behavior of a new sandwich panel proposed for cladding of buildings is studied. The panel is fabricated by laminating two glass fiber-reinforced polymer skins to a prefabricated polyurethane foam core. Two different densities for the core are explored, namely; a 0.31 kN/m 3 , referred to herein as ‘soft’ foam, and a 0.63 kN/m 3 , referred to as ‘hard’ foam. Ten 1500 × 300 × 76 mm 3 panels were tested in flexure. For each core density, three similar panels were tested to establish the reproducibility of test results as a measure of quality control of fabrication. The panels were tested in three-point and four-point bending as well as under uniform load. The effect of wind pressure and suction was simulated for some panels by applying cyclic bending. It was shown that flexural strength and stiffness increased substantially, by 165% and 113%, respectively, as the core density was doubled. The contributions of shear deformation of the soft and hard cores to mid-span deflection were 75% and 50%, respectively. Panels with soft cores were vulnerable to localized effects under concentrated loads, and suffered inwards wrinkling of the compression skin at a lower ultimate strength. Low cycle fatigue resulted in some residual deflection upon unloading but insignificant stiffness degradation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".