# Electro-Thermal Properties of Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Prisms
## 4 Experimental Results
However, for the 1.5% prism, the smoothness is greatly reduced and their right peaks are away from the edge. This is probably caused by its unique heating pattern. 2. The recorded average temperature (the temperature increment from Equation (3) of the minimum volume for 1 min heating is 20.0\({}^{\circ}\) (119.71\({}^{\circ}\)), 30.2\({}^{\circ}\) (117.24\({}^{\circ}\)), 48.6\({}^{\circ}\) (127.22\({}^{\circ}\)) and 35.0\({}^{\circ}\) (137.83\({}^{\circ}\)) for the 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% prism, respectively. The calculated temperature increment is in the order of 2.0%, 1.5%, 0.5% and 1.0% because the weights of the prisms increase with the opposite order of the increment, as shown in Figure 4:0 The recorded average temperature is much smaller than expected. This considerable difference could be caused by (a) the heat diffusion and (b) the current paths outside of the minimum volume. 3. The average temperature is higher in the order of 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0% and 1.5% prism for all heating time periods. 4. The temperature increment for 1 min is 20\({}^{\circ}\) (0.5%) to 48.6\({}^{\circ}\) (1.5%); 19.4\({}^{\circ}\) (0.5%) to 27.5\({}^{\circ}\) (2.0%) for 1 to 3 min, and from 11\({}^{\circ}\) (1.0%) to 14.3\({}^{\circ}\) (2.0%) for 3 to 5 min. The greatest temperature increments are recorded within 1 min, and the increment decreases as the heating time grows. Table 3 shows the increments of the surfaces' average temperature specified in Figure 4:1 The 'Incre' in Table 3 is the temperature increment from the previous heating time. This table reveals that there are no distinctions described in items (3) and (4) for the minimum volume. The average temperature of the surface area informs the following:  
1. The temperature increments are 8.6\({}^{\circ}\), 10.9\({}^{\circ}\), 15.6\({}^{\circ}\) and 15.0\({}^{\circ}\) for the 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% prisms, respectively, for the first 1 min of heating; this shows that the temperature increases more for higher fiber percentage prisms, though the temperature of the 1.5% prism is slightly higher than that of the 2.0% prism. 2. The temperature increments for the first 1 min are higher than those for 1 to 3 min for both the 0.5% and 1.0% prisms, and they are almost the same for the 1.5% and 2.0% prisms. 3. For the 3 to 5 min cases, the increments for 0.5% and 1.0% are slightly different from the first 1 min, but for the 1.5% and 2.0% prisms, the increments are smaller than those for the 1 min and the 1 to 3 min cases. 4. The prism volume covered by the surface is about 11.43 times of the minimum volume. This indicates that the average temperature increments for 1 min heating cannot exceed 10.47\({}^{\circ}\), 10.26\({}^{\circ}\), 11.13\({}^{\circ}\) and 12.06\({}^{\circ}\) for the 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% prisms, respectively, but these temperature values are smaller than the measured values described in item (1), except for the 0.5% prism. This informs that the volumes underneath the surfaces of the 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% prisms have much lower temperature increments than their corresponding surfaces. 5. For the 3(5) min heating cases, the temperature increments expected from Equation (3) are 31.41\({}^{\circ}\) (52.35\({}^{\circ}\)), 30.84\({}^{\circ}\) (51.30\({}^{\circ}\)), 33.48\({}^{\circ}\) (55.80\({}^{\circ}\)) and 36.51\({}^{\circ}\) (60.85\({}^{\circ}\)) for the 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% prisms, respectively. However, the average temperatures of the surfaces shown in Figure 6 are 22.5\({}^{\circ}\) (35.2\({}^{\circ}\)), 25.4\({}^{\circ}\) (36.4\({}^{\circ}\)), 30.1\({}^{\circ}\) (41.0\({}^{\circ}\)) and 34.2\({}^{\circ}\) (46.9\({}^{\circ}\)), which are smaller than those from Equation (3) for all percentage prisms. The ratios of these measured and those from Equation (3), i.e., the heating efficiencies are 0.72 (0.67), 0.82 (0.71), 0.9 (0.74) and 0.94 (0.77), respectively. The ratios are higher for the higher percentage prisms, and they are decreasing with time. Furthermore, the differences between different percentage prisms are reducing.