Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Short Pitch-Based Carbon Fiber Reinforced Mortar Composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the performance of the short pitch-based carbon fiber reinforced mortar (CFRM) composite considering its key properties and cost-effectiveness. Five different types of mortar composite were produced using 0-4% volume contents of short pitch-based carbon fibers. The mortar composites were tested for inverted slump cone flow (flow time and volume flow), unit weight, air content, compressive strength, flexural strength, impact resistance, and water absorption. The cost-effectiveness of CFRM was assessed based on the performance to cost ratio (PCR), which was calculated for each mortar composite, considering its workability, mechanical properties, and durability. The inverted slump cone volume flow was counted as a measure of workability, whereas the compressive strength, flexural strength, and impact resistance were considered as the major attributes of the mechanical behavior. In addition, the water absorption was used as a measure of durability. The test results revealed that the mortar composite made with 3% carbon fibers provided adequate workability, a relatively high unit weight and low air content, the highest compressive strength, excellent flexural strength, good impact resistance, and the lowest water absorption. It was also found that the PCR increased up to 3% carbon fibers. Beyond a 3% fiber content, the PCR significantly decreased. The overall research findings revealed that the mortar with 3% carbon fibers was the optimum and most cost-effective mortar composite.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".