MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416582375 · doi:10.1177/00219983251403106

Large-scale sandwich panels made of GFRP facings and recycled PET core: Cyclic bending tests, design optimization, and feasibility for building applications

2025· article· en· W4416582375 on OpenAlexaff
Raghad Kassab, Pedram Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandwich-structured compositeFibre-reinforced plasticDeflection (physics)Polyethylene terephthalateCore (optical fiber)BendingTransverse planeGlass fiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the structural performance of sandwich panels composed of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (R-PET) cores and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) facings under cyclic four-point bending loading. This study involves the testing of three large-scale specimens, each measuring 8 feet (2438 mm) in length with an unsupported span of 2286 mm, a width of 4 feet (1219 mm), and a core thickness of 6 inches (152 mm) along with a GFRP facing thickness of 2.5 mm. The study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using R-PET, a sustainable alternative to non-recycled plastics, as the core material of structural insulated panels (SIPs) designed for building applications, including walls, roofs, and particularly floors. While the mechanics of materials and the material properties of both the core and the facings were individually examined—testing the facing axially and the core in shear—such assessments provide preliminary insights into the anticipated structural behaviour of the large-scale FRP-faced SIPs under transverse loads. However, building codes and regulatory officials mandate comprehensive full-scale testing to validate these findings and preclude premature failures in large-scale components. Consequently, this study tested full-scale FRP-faced SIPs under transverse loading, incorporating cyclic loading to evaluate under real-world loading conditions. Additionally, the experimental results were validated through a model, which was then used to create a detailed design table. This table offers essential guidance for designers, specifying the maximum allowable spans for the panels under typical specified dead and live loads uniformly distributed, considering strength and deflection criteria. The design table considers variations in facing thickness, core thickness, and core density, making it an invaluable resource for the preliminary design of floors using these innovative SIPs.

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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207