Absorption and Strength Properties of Short Carbon Fiber Reinforced Mortar Composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the water absorption and strength properties of short carbon fiber reinforced mortar (CFRM) composite. Four CFRM composites with 1%, 2%, 3%, and 4% short pitch-based carbon fibers were produced in this study. Normal Portland cement mortar (NCPM) was also prepared for use as the control mortar. The freshly mixed mortar composites were tested for workability, wet density, and entrapped air content. In addition, the hardened mortar composites were examined for compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, and water absorption at the ages of 7 and 28 days. The effects of different carbon fiber contents on the tested properties were observed. Test results showed that the incorporation of carbon fibers decreased the workability and wet density, but increased the entrapped air content in mortar composite. Most interestingly, the compressive strength of CFRM composite increased up to 3% carbon fiber content and then it declined significantly for 4% fiber content, depending on the workability and compaction of the mortar. In contrast, the splitting tensile strength and flexural strength of the CFRM composite increased for all fiber contents due to the greater cracking resistance and improved bond strength of the carbon fibers in the mortar. The presence of short pitch-based carbon fibers significantly strengthened the mortar by bridging the microcracks, resisting the propagation of these minute cracks, and impeding the growth of macrocracks. Furthermore, the water absorption of CFRM composite decreased up to 3% carbon fiber content and then it increased substantially for 4% fiber content, depending on the entrapped air content of the mortar. The overall test results suggest that the mortar with 3% carbon fibers is the optimum CFRM composite based on the tested properties.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".