Comparison Study On Oil Palm Trunk And Oil Palm Fruit Bunch Fibre Reinforced Laterite Bricks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to compare the physical properties and mechanical properties of Oil Palm Trunk (OPT) fibre and Oil Palm Fruit Bunches (OPFB) fibre reinforced laterite bricks. For comparison purposes, the properties such as dimension, density, water absorption and the compressive strength of both types of bricks were determined. The effects of the incorporation of various amounts of fibres on the above properties were analysed. The tests were carried out according to BS 3821: 1985 for clay bricks.The samples were pressed at the factory Majpadu Bricks Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia and tested at the Material Testing Laboratory, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia.The findings of this research were, firstly, the dimension of bricks content with OPFB fibres were less accurate than bricks with OPT fibres. Secondly, the density of bricks with OPFB fibres was higher than the density of bricks with OPT fibres. Thirdly, in compressive strength of the bricks with OPFB fibres was higher than bricks with OPT fibres, with the maximum fibre content identified as 3 percent fibres. Finally, the water absorption of bricks with OPFB fibres was lower than the water absorption of bricks with OPT fibres. It can be concluded that the bricks with OPFB fibres had better physical and mechanical properties than bricks with OPT fibres.
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 | 0.001 | 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".