Performance Evaluation of Field-Produced Warm-Mix Asphalt Mixtures in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the resistance of field-produced warm-mix asphalt (WMA) mixtures obtained from field sections in Manitoba, Canada, to moisture damage, reflective cracking, and permanent deformation. The project, constructed in the summer of 2010, included a side-by-side hot-mix asphalt (HMA) control section and three WMA sections in which the Advera, Evotherm 3G, and Sasobit technologies were used. The mixtures' susceptibility to moisture damage was evaluated by their unconditioned and moisture-conditioned indirect tensile strength (ITS) and dynamic modulus (|E * |) at multiple freeze–thaw cycles. All mixtures met the minimum unconditioned ITS criterion of 65 psi at 77°F and the minimum indirect tensile strength ratio of 80% after one freeze–thaw cycle. Although comparable tensile strength and |E * | ratios were observed for the mixtures after one freeze–thaw cycle, the WMA–Sasobit mixture exhibited lower resistance to moisture damage when assessed after three freeze–thaw cycles. Except for the WMA–Sasobit mixture, the WMA mixtures showed similar or higher resistance to reflective cracking when measured by means of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute overlay tester. All WMA mixtures exhibited similar resistance to permanent deformation in the flow number test at the LTPPBind 50% reliability temperature (118°F) as compared with the HMA control section. However, none of the mixtures (including the HMA) met the proposed flow number criterion for WMA. When the mixtures were tested in the flow number test at the effective pavement temperature (92°F), a different ranking for their resistance to rutting was detected. Continuous field monitoring for performance of the various sections will help in assessing any proposed criterion as well as the effectiveness of WMA mixtures in cold weather areas such as Manitoba.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".