MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762342641 · doi:10.1089/3dp.2017.0032

3D Printed Sandstone Strength: Curing of Furfuryl Alcohol Resin-Based Sandstones

2017· article· en· W2762342641 on OpenAlexafffund
Bauyrzhan K. Primkulov, Jonathan Chalaturnyk, Richard J. Chalaturnyk, Gonzalo Zambrano Narvaez

Bibliographic record

Venue3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCMG Reservoir Simulation Foundation
KeywordsFurfuryl alcoholCompressive strengthCuring (chemistry)Materials scienceComposite materialBedClassification of discontinuitiesFlexural strengthFabricationMechanical strengthGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMathematicsChemistryAnisotropy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural sedimentary rocks can be widely heterogeneous and often include discontinuities on many scales—no two samples are truly identical. This poses a major roadblock for geomechanical experiments since most of them are destructive in nature. Recent advances in additive manufacturing technology allow fabrication of identical sandstone analogs. The technology allows control over grain size, packing, mineralogy, cementing type and content, bedding orientation, and discontinuities. This article explored how curing temperature affects the strength of sand and furfuryl alcohol resin-based specimens. When cured at optimal oven temperature of 80°C, specimens reach unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 19.0 MPa with only 1.1 MPa in standard deviation. Additionally, this article determines a minimal number of UCS test repetitions required to reach a desired degree of confidence in the strength results. Outcomes of this study can be used as a guide in preparing and strength testing of furfuryl alcohol resin and sand powder-based 3D printed rocks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations61
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue3D Printing and Additive ManufacturingSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207