###### Abstract
The conventional approaches, which heavily rely on hand cleaning and cutting, suffer from inefficiency and impractically when implemented on a larger scale for industrial manufacturing. [PERSON] et al. [22] and [PERSON] et al. [23] demonstrated that WFT fibers (cut by hand to a length between 30 and 60 mm and diameter between 1 and 1.5 mm) could enhance the post-cracking performance of cementitious composites. In 2017, [PERSON] and colleagues [5] conducted a comparative analysis of nylon fiber obtained from WFT and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers. The fibers were manually cut to achieve a diameter of 0.35 mm and a length of 40 mm. The inclusion of these two kinds of fiber resulted in a reduction in the compressive strength (R\({}_{\text{c}}\)) of the mortar, but concurrently led to enhancements in its flexural strength (R\({}_{\text{f}}\)) and tensile strength (R\({}_{\text{h}}\)). Additionally, the fibers exhibited improvements in the post-cracking behavior of the concrete. [PERSON] et al. 2020 [7] manually cut the WFT to a diameter between 0.45 and 1.5 mm and a length of 40 mm to use them in mortar. They observed a decrease in R\({}_{\text{c}}\) as the fiber percentage increased. The addition of 1% fiber decreased the R\({}_{\text{c}}\) by up to 10% while increasing the R\({}_{\text{h}}\) by 32% in comparison to the controlled mortar. There was an increase in ductility under tensile load and bending loads with the increase in fiber percentage. Most of the previous studies have manually cut the WFT and WFR into fiber (Table 1). The workability of CM is an important parameter and should be discussed, as fiber incorporation has a direct impact on the workability of CM. With increased cohesive \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Authors**} & **Control Mix R\({}_{\text{c}}\) (MPa),** & **Control Mix R\({}_{\text{i}}\) (MPa), Max R\({}_{\text{i}}\)** & **Control Mix R\({}_{\text{f}}\) (MPa), Max.** \\  & **R\({}_{\text{c}}\) (MPa), Aspect Ratio,** & **(MPa), Aspect Ratio, Fiber Dosage (\%).** & **R\({}_{\text{f}}\) (MPa), Aspect Ratio, Fiber Dosage (\%).** \\ \hline
[24] & 66.05, 68.55, 45, 1.0 & - & 5.63, 7.97, 77, 2.0 \\
[25] & 43.18, 41.60, 173, 1.0 & 3.77, 4.44, 173, 3.0 & \\
[26] & 40.12, 40.74, 26.7, 1.0 & - & 3.06, 2.74, 26.7, 1.0 \\
[12] & 32.70, 24.00, 83.3, 1.0 & - & 4.77, 4.37, 83.3, 1.0 \\
[5] & 65.70, 52.50, 57, 1.0 & - & 4.80, 6.80, 57, 1.0 \\
[22] & 51.60, 44.80, 77, 1.5 & - & 4.46, 5.87, 77.0, 1.0 \\
[23] & 71.90, 61.10, 40, 1.0 & 1.53, 1.68, 40, 1.0 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Summary of the literature review (fibers obtained with a manual cutting method). forces, the slump flow or workability of concrete may decrease, depending on the type and quantity of fibers [27; 28]. [PERSON] et al. [22] added 1.5% WFT fibers and observed a 15% decrease in R\({}_{\text{c}}\) of concrete compared to control concrete. Few other studies [11; 25; 26; 29; 30] reported the same trend in their research. On the other hand, [PERSON] et al. [23] observed a slight increase in R\({}_{\text{c}}\) with the addition of fibers. Some authors [31] have reported that the addition of fibers has no effect on the R\({}_{\text{c}}\). Therefore, the effects of fibers on the R\({}_{\text{c}}\) of concrete need to be thoroughly clarified. On the other hand, almost all previous studies have reported an increase in R\({}_{\text{f}}\)[5; 12; 22; 24; 26] and R\({}_{\text{it}}\)[23; 25] with the inclusion of fibers. But the proportion of fiber plays a crucial role here; up to a certain proportion of fiber, R\({}_{\text{f}}\) and R\({}_{\text{it}}\) increase, and with a further increase in fiber dosage, there is a decrease in strength due to its balling problem and uneven distribution [5]. It is recommended to keep the fiber percentage below 2%. Most studies over the past 5 years have used a fiber percentage of less than 2% and reported an increase in R\({}_{\text{f}}\) and R\({}_{\text{it}}\) of fiber-reinforced CM.