The interaction effect between the two factors was only considered significant on flexural behaviour of modified PMs. According to response graph of Fig. 5, the observed interaction is mainly due to significant differences on flexural behaviours of FW and CW trial formulations when waste content is increased from 4% to 8%. This feature is easily noticeable by the different and opposite slopes of straight lines CW4–CW8 and FW4–FW8; while both pairsof straight lines between points CW0–CW4/CW8–CW12 and FW0–
FW4/FW8–FW12 are nearly parallels. Still, one point must be stressed: as no real differences exist between CW0 and FW0 trial formulations, the effect of ‘GFRP Waste Type’ on global variance of target responses, as well as the effect of its interaction with ‘GFRP waste content’, are weakened, masking somehow the real effects.
The interaction effect between the two factors was only considered significant on flexural behaviour of modified PMs. According to response graph of Fig. 5, the observed interaction is mainly due to significant differences on flexural behaviours of FW and CW trial formulations when waste content is increased from 4% to 8%. This feature is easily noticeable by the different and opposite slopes of straight lines CW4–CW8 and FW4–FW8; while both pairsof straight lines between points CW0–CW4/CW8–CW12 and FW0–FW4/FW8–FW12 are nearly parallels. Still, one point must be stressed: as no real differences exist between CW0 and FW0 trial formulations, the effect of ‘GFRP Waste Type’ on global variance of target responses, as well as the effect of its interaction with ‘GFRP waste content’, are weakened, masking somehow the real effects.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
