MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990038488 · doi:10.1080/10298430410001720792

Time–Temperature Superposition and AASHTO MP1a Critical Temperature for Low-temperature Cracking

2004· article· en· W1990038488 on OpenAlexaff
Mihai Marasteanu, Arindam Basu, Simon A.M. Hesp, Vaughan R. Voller

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pavement Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSuperposition principleCreepHardening (computing)CrackingTime–temperature superpositionStructural engineeringRheometerStiffnessTest dataTemperature measurementComposite materialMechanicsThermodynamicsEngineeringRheologyMathematicsViscoelasticityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal stress calculations performed as part of the AASHTO MP1a low-temperature criterion are based on stiffness master curves generated from test data obtained at two temperatures. The time–temperature superposition (TTS) principle is considered valid although no verification of the validity has been reported so far. This paper addresses this issue by comparing the master curves obtained from 4-min creep tests performed at two test temperatures with data obtained in a 2.5-h creep test. Due to the presence of physical hardening a limited analysis is conducted to quantify the effects of physical hardening on the calculation of the critical temperature, T CR. Two methods for calculating T CR are investigated: the Dual Instrument Method and the Single Asymptote Procedure. The analysis indicates that T CR is not sensitive to small deviations from TTS validity. However, T CR as well as the limiting temperatures from Bending beam rheometer stiffness and m-value and Direct tension failure strain are considerably affected by physical hardening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pavement EngineeringSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207