Performance Evaluation of Light Transmitting Concrete Made with Plastic Optical Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light transmitting concrete (LTC) is a concrete made with light optical elements (e.g., plastic optical fibers) having the light transmitting property. In addition to its use as aesthetic purpose, LTC enhances the utilization of natural resource by the projection of light through the concrete. Thus, this translucent concrete can be used in structures to make energy efficient and environment friendly structures through the minimization of artificial energy usage. This chapter deals with the performance evaluation of light transmitting concrete (LTC) made with plastic optical fibers (POFs). For this purpose, compressive strength and light transmitting properties of LTC have been investigated and compared with conventional concrete. Experimental results show that the compressive strength at 7 days, 14 days, and 28 days have been increased by 3.47-12.23%, 4.82-14.85%, and 4.07-9.78%, respectively for the LTC made with various percentage of POFs. From the simple light transmission test, it has been found that the LTC made with 0.75 mm, 1 mm, and double layer 0.75 mm POFs can transmit 8%, 9.44%, and 14.8% light, respectively. Results of the present study imply that light transmitting concrete made with POFs can be used for aesthetic and energy saving purpose without compromising the strength.
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".