MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024528813

Structural performance of GFRP reinforced balcony slab with thermal break

2021· dissertation· en· W7024528813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticThermalSlabCantileverBridging (networking)Thermal resistanceThermal insulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal bridging in building envelopes can lead to heat exchange with the outside. Significant thermal bridging occurs through cantilevered balconies, because they pierce through the building envelope. A potential solution is to add a thermal barrier and use materials with low thermal conductivity, such as GFRP, to reinforce balconies. The central objective of this research was to compare the thermal and structural performance of three types of thermal breaks in GFRP reinforced cantilevered balcony slabs. This study is Phase II of a two-phase research project at the University of Manitoba. In Phase I the thermal and structural performance of specimens with ArmathermTM 500 break reinforced with carbon steel, stainless steel and GFRP reinforcement were investigated (Boila, 2018). For this study, nine segments of full-scale balcony slabs were constructed and tested. All specimens were reinforced with #15M GFRP rebars and included a thermal break midway along their length, creating an inside and outside slab separated by this thermal break. Specimen dimensions were 1600 mm by 500 mm by 190 mm. The three types of thermal breaks used in the nine specimens were ArmathermTM 500, DOW and UHMW, and each had a thickness of 13 mm. These breaks were chosen based on their thermal properties, strength and market availability. Six of the specimens (three pairs, each pair with the same type of thermal break) were tested in dual thermal chambers in which the cantilever end, representing the outside slab, was at about -30 °C. The floor end, representing the inside slab was kept at about +21 °C. The purpose was to measure the amount of heat exchange through the slab and its thermal break between the two thermal environments. Thermal breaks were included in the location of maximum moment. Concrete, which carries most of the flexural and shear load, is completely replaced by the thermal break at that location. To evaluate the strength of this connection, structural tests for all nine specimens were carried out to failure by applying a monotonic load at the tip of the cantilever. Strain gauges and PI gauges were installed on rebar and on concrete to measure strain, dilation between thermal break and concrete, as well as crack widths on concrete. An LVDT device measured deflection due to load applied at the cantilevered end. Thermal testing showed that ArmathermTM 500 is the most effective thermal break in decreasing thermal bridging through balcony slabs: In ArmathermTM 500 specimens the temperature difference across the thermal break was 27% and 72% greater than the temperature difference across the thermal breaks in DOW and UHMW specimens, respectively. Structural tests showed that at service load the largest deflection in ArmathermTM 500 slabs was 27% and 42% smaller than the largest deflections in UHMW and DOW slabs, respectively. The dilation between the ArmathermTM 500 and concrete was the smallest among the three thermal break types as well. In slabs with ArmathermTM 500 the dilation was 33% and 18% smaller than that in slabs with DOW and UHMW thermal breaks, respectively. In summary, at service load, the thermal and structural performance of slabs with ArmathermTM 500 thermal break was better than that of specimens with DOW and UHMW thermal breaks.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207