MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984719903 · doi:10.3141/2057-14

Asphalt Material Characterization in Support of Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide Implementation in Virginia

2008· article· en· W1984719903 on OpenAlexaff
Gerardo W. Flintsch, Amara Loulizi, Stacey D. Diefenderfer, Brian K. Diefenderfer, Khaled Galal

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradationAsphaltDynamic modulusAggregate (composite)Asphalt pavementCrackingAsphalt concreteRutCreepFatigue crackingMaterial propertiesModulusMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthGeotechnical engineeringCharacterization (materials science)Composite materialStructural engineeringEngineeringDynamic mechanical analysisComputer sciencePolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The procedure proposed in the Guide for Mechanistic–Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures (referred to as MEPDG) heavily depends on the characterization of the fundamental engineering properties of paving materials. This paper presents the results of a project aimed at the characterization of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in accordance with the procedure established by MEPDG to support its implementation in Virginia. The project examined the dynamic modulus, the main HMA material property required by MEPDG, as well as creep compliance and tensile strength, which are needed to predict thermal cracking. Loose samples of 11 mixes (four base, four intermediate, and three surface mixes) produced with PG 64-22 binder were collected from different plants across Virginia. Representative samples underwent testing for maximum theoretical specific gravity, asphalt content by the ignition oven method, and gradation of the reclaimed aggregate. Specimens for the various tests were then prepared by use of the Superpave ® gyratory compactor. The test results showed that the dynamic modulus is sensitive to the mix constituent properties (aggregate type, asphalt content, percentage of recycled asphalt pavement, etc.) and that even mixes of the same type (SM-9.5A, IM-19.0A, and BM-25.0) had different measured dynamic modulus values. The Level 2 dynamic modulus prediction equation reasonably estimated the dynamic modulus measured; however, it did not capture some of the differences between the mixes found in the measured data.

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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207