## 3 Results and Discussion
### Influence of Cement Content and Solid Mass Concentration  
Table 5 lists the Brazilian split ITS results and peak tensile strain statistics of RSCPB (Group A) and CCPB (Group B). Based on orthogonal analysis of ITS (\(\sigma_{t}\)) and peak tensile strain (\(\epsilon\)), the range \(R\) of average values of \(\sigma_{t}\) and \(\epsilon\) at each level was obtained. The larger \(R\) is, the greater the effect of the variation in the value of this factor on the results is. According to the analysis results shown in Table 6, cement content is the factor that has the greatest impact on strength and strain in different curing periods. This is because the cement content is directly related to the amount of hydration products. The results also show that the importance of solid mass concentration and RS fibers parameters change with increasing curing time, and that the RS parameter is no less important than the solid mass concentration. Figure 4: Stress-strain curves obtained from the Brazilian tests. (**a**-**i**) represent nine formulas in Table 4 respectively. Figure 5: Tensile stress–strain curve of brittle materials. It can be seen from Figure 6a that the stress decreases monotonously with decreasing cement content, which is the same as the conclusion of previous researchers (12,38). In the case of constant cement content, CPB strength decreases over time. According to Figure 6b, the 28 th day \(\sigma_{t}\) is smaller than \(\sigma_{t}\) of the 3 rd day and the 7 th day when the solid mass concentration is constant. The \(\varepsilon\) showed no linear correlation with time regardless of the variation in cement content (\(c\)) and solid mass concentration (\(\omega\)), and always reached its \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Property** & **Curing Age** & **Level** & \(c\) & \(\omega\) & \(m\) & \(I\) & **Significance** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{\(\sigma_{t}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{3d} & \(k_{1}\) & 0.410 & 0.350 & 0.337 & 0.377 & \multirow{8}{*}{\(c>m>l>\omega\)} \\  & & \(k_{2}\) & 0.400 & 0.373 & 0.333 & 0.347 & \\  & & \(k_{3}\) & 0.293 & 0.380 & 0.433 & 0.380 & \\  & & \(R\) & 0.117 & 0.030 & 0.100 & 0.033 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \(k_{1}\) & 0.537 & 0.353 & 0.377 & 0.360 & \\  & & \(k_{2}\) & 0.333 & 0.387 & 0.393 & 0.390 & \\  & & \(k_{3}\) & 0.257 & 0.387 & 0.357 & 0.377 & \\  & & \(R\) & 0.280 & 0.034 & 0.036 & 0.030 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \(k_{1}\) & 0.267 & 0.177 & 0.180 & 0.150 & \\  & & \(k_{2}\) & 0.163 & 0.167 & 0.190 & 0.210 & \\  & & \(k_{3}\) & 0.133 & 0.220 & 0.193 & 0.203 & \\  & & \(R\) & 0.134 & 0.053 & 0.013 & 0.060 & \(c>l>\omega>m\) \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{\(\varepsilon\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{3d} & \(k_{1}\) & 2.167 & 2.570 & 3.300 & 2.417 & \multirow{8}{*}{\(c>m>\omega>l\)} \\  & & \(k_{2}\) & 1.940 & 3.043 & 1.790 & 3.023 & \\  & & \(k_{3}\) & 3.657 & 2.150 & 2.673 & 2.323 & \\  & & \(R\) & 1.717 & 0.893 & 1.510 & 0.700 & \(c>m>\omega>l\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \(k_{1}\) & 3.827 & 4.423 & 4.840 & 4.170 & \\  & & \(k_{2}\) & 4.507 & 4.600 & 4.697 & 4.427 & \\  & & \(k_{3}\) & 5.027 & 4.337 & 3.823 & 4.763 & \\  & & \(R\) & 1.200 & 0.263 & 1.017 & 0.593 & \(c>m>l>\omega\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & & \(k_{1}\) & 3.157 & 2.457 & 2.583 & 2.353 & \\  & & \(k_{2}\) & 2.373 & 2.497 & 2.260 & 3.007 & \\  & & \(k_{3}\) & 1.720 & 2.297 & 2.407 & 1.890 & \\  & & \(R\) & 1.437 & 0.200 & 0.323 & 1.117 & \(c>l>m>\omega\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Orthogonal range analysis results.