MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400235006 · doi:10.11159/iccste24.195

Optimization of CF-GP Blended Electrically Conductive Concrete

2024· article· en· W4400235006 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mona El-Hallak, Abdulkader El‐Mir, Omar Najm, Hilal El-Hassan, Amr El-Dieb

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited Arab Emirates University
KeywordsElectrical conductorElectrically conductiveMaterials scienceComposite materialComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feasibility of blending carbon fiber (CF) with graphene powder (GP) to produce electrically conductive concrete has seen limited investigation.This study aims to optimize the mixture proportions of CF-GP blended electrically conductive concrete for superior durability and mechanical characteristics using the Taguchi optimization approach.The design of the experiments was carried out considering four factors, each having three levels.The resulting CF-GP blended electrically conductive concrete mixtures of the L9 orthogonal array were proportioned using different cement content, water-to-cement ratio, volume of ECM, and combination of ECM.Test methods included electrical conductivity and compressive strength.The two quality criteria were given equal weights to determine the optimal levels of factors.The method revealed that the optimum mix for electrical conductivity had a cement content of 400 kg/m 3 , w/c of 0.55, ECM volume of 6%, and ECM combination of 40/60, whereas for compressive strength it had a cement content of 300 kg/m 3 , w/c of 0.50, ECM volume of 2%, and ECM combination of 30/70.Experimental findings endorse the utilization of CF and GP in concrete as a means of improving the electrical performance of concrete.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207