An Investigation of the Optimal Sample Size, Relationship between Existing Tests and Performance, and New Recommended Specifications for Flexible Base Courses in Texas
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to improve flexible base course performance within the state of Texas while reducing TxDOT’s testing burden. The focus of this study was to revise the current specification with the intent of providing a “performance related” specification while optimizing sample sizes and testing frequencies based on material variability.\n\nA literature review yielded information on base course variability within and outside the state of Texas, and on what tests other states, and Canada, are currently using to characterize flexible base performance. A sampling and testing program was conducted at Texas A&M University to define current variability information, and to conduct performance related tests including resilient modulus and permanent deformation. In addition to these data being more current, they are more representative of short-term variability than data obtained from the literature. This “short-term” variability is considered more realistic for what typically occurs during construction operations.\n\nA statistical sensitivity analysis (based on the 80th percentile standard deviation) of these data was conducted to determine minimum sample sizes for contractors to qualify for the proposed quality monitoring program (QMP). The required sample sizes for contractors to qualify for the QMP are 20 for gradation, compressive strength, and moisture-density tests, 15 for Atterberg Limits, and 10 for Web Ball Mill. These sample sizes are based on a minimum 25,000 ton stockpile, or “lot”. After qualifying for the program, if contractors can prove their variability is better than the 80th percentile, they can reduce their testing frequencies. The sample size for TxDOT’s verification testing is 5 samples per lot and will remain at that number regardless of reduced variability. Once qualified for the QMP, a contractor may continue to send material to TxDOT projects until a failing sample disqualifies the contractor from the program.\n\nTxDOT does not currently require washed gradations for flexible base. Dry and washed sieve analyses were performed during this study to investigate the need for washed gradations. Statistical comparisons of these data yielded strong evidence that TxDOT should always use a washed method. Significant differences between the washed and dry method were determined for the percentage of material passing the No. 40 and No. 200 sieves. Since TxDOT already specifies limits on the fraction of material passing the No. 40 sieve, and since this study yielded evidence of that size fraction having a relationship with resilient modulus (performance), it would be beneficial to use a washed sieve analysis and therefore obtain a more accurate reading for that specification.\n\nFurthermore, it is suggested the TxDOT requires contractors to have “target” test values, and to place 90 percent within limits (90PWL) bands around those target values to control material variability.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».