MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W120239879

Evaluation of the MSCR Test for Canadian Asphalt Binders

2011· article· en· W120239879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R M Anderson, John D’Angelo, J Bukowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltRutDuctility (Earth science)CreepGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceTest methodComposite materialForensic engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Multiple-Stress Creep-Recovery (MSCR) test (AASHTO TP70, ASTM D7405) can be used to calculate the non-recoverable creep compliance (J sub nr) of an asphalt binder. This parameter has been shown to be better correlated with rutting of asphalt mixtures than the G*/sin delta parameter determined using the standard procedure in the Performance Graded (PG) Asphalt Binder Specification. In addition to the compliance, the results from the test can be used to calculate the recovery that occurs after a given loading cycle. This recovery reflects the delayed elastic response of the asphalt binder. Since many common PGPlus tests are used to evaluate if an asphalt binder has been modified with an elastomeric polymer, it is suggested that the MSCR Recovery parameter can be used to replace tests such as Elastic Recovery and Force Ductility. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the properties of several Canadian asphalt binders using the MSCR test, as well as two common PG-Plus tests - the Elastic Recovery and Force Ductility tests. Twenty-two asphalt binders were provided from four suppliers/locations in Canada which represented current asphalt binder products available in 2006 and 2007. Data is shown comparing MSCR results with Force Ductility and Elastic Recovery results. // Le test de recouvrement du fluage aux contraintes multiples (MSCR) (AASHTO TP70, ASTM D7405) peut servir a calculer la conformite au fluage non recouvrable (J sub nr) d'un liant bitumineux. Ce parametre a demontre etre mieux correle avec l'ornierage des enrobes bitumineux que le G * / sin delta parametre determine a l'aide de la procedure standard dans la specification des bitumes classe selon la performance (PG). En plus de la conformite, les resultats du test peuvent servir a calculer la recuperation qui survient apres un cycle de chargement donne. Cette recuperation reflete la reponse elastique retardee du liant bitumineux. Puisque de nombreux tests de PG-Plus courants sont utilises pour evaluer si un liant bitumineux a ete modifie avec un polymere elastomere, il est suggere que le parametre MSCR recuperation peut servir a remplacer les tests tels que la recuperation elastique et la Force ductilite. L'objectif de cette etude est d'evaluer les proprietes de plusieurs liants bitumineux canadiens en utilisant le test MSCR, ainsi que deux tests PG-Plus communs - les tests de recuperation elastique et de Force ductilite. Vingt-deux liants bitumineux ont ete fournis par quatre fournisseurs/endroits au Canada, ce qui representait les liants bitumineux produits actuellement disponibles en 2006 et 2007. Les donnees sont affichees comparant les resultats de la MSCR avec ceux de la Force la ductilite et de la recuperation elastique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207