Field Validation of Laboratory-Predicted Low-Temperature Performance of Hot-Poured Crack Sealants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When properly installed, hot-poured crack sealants are widely accepted as a cost-effective, routine preventive maintenance practice that extends pavement service life by 3 to 5 years. However, current ASTM specifications for selection of crack sealants correlate poorly with field performance. Therefore, an improved sealant specification and selection system is urgently needed. Recently, performance-based guidelines were developed by the pooled-fund North American Consortium expert group for selecting hot-poured bituminous crack sealants. The work proposed a sealant grade system for selecting hot-poured crack sealant on the basis of environmental conditions. A special effort was made to use the equipment originally developed by SHRP, which was used to measure binder rheological behavior as part of the performance grade system. The equipment and testing procedures used for performance grading of binders were modified in accordance with crack sealant behavior. The main objective of this study was to validate the low-temperature selection thresholds for the newly developed performance-based guidelines for selecting hot-poured crack sealants. Thresholds for the crack sealant bending beam rheometer, crack sealant direct tension test, and crack sealant adhesion test were validated. Nine hot-poured crack sealants were installed in four test sites experiencing low temperatures. The field performance of crack sealants was evaluated for 2 consecutive years by detailed field surveys. The field database consisted of 40 sections containing 647 cracks. Overall, results showed good correlation between the proposed selection thresholds and sealant performance in the field.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".