Effect of Cellulose Nanofibers on the Compressive Strength Enhancement of Cement Pastes at Early Ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) on the early-age compressive strength development of cement pastes.CNFs were incorporated at concentrations of 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.15% by weight of cement using a combined ultrasonication and magnetic stirring technique to ensure proper dispersion.The impact was evaluated at 3 and 7 days of curing, with microstructural analysis conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Results showed that all CNF-modified mixtures exhibited enhanced compressive strength compared to the control, with 0.1% CNF concentration showing optimal performance.At 3 days, improvements of up to 49.7% were achieved with 0.05% CNFs, while at 7 days, the 0.1% CNF mixture demonstrated the highest strength enhancement of 69.6%.The strength development analysis revealed significant improvements in hydration rates, with CNF-modified mixtures showing up to 265.5% higher strength gains compared to the control.SEM observations confirmed the formation of a wellintegrated fibrous network and enhanced matrix densification in CNF-modified samples.
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".