MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033231628 · doi:10.3141/2005-01

Performance Evaluation of Bonded Concrete Pavement Overlays after 11 Years

2007· article· en· W2033231628 on OpenAlexaff
David W Mokarem, Khaled Galal, Michael M Sprinkel

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
FundersFederal Highway Administration
KeywordsOverlayFalling weight deflectometerPortland cementSpallGeotechnical engineeringAsphaltForensic engineeringService lifeCrackingEngineeringStructural engineeringCementMaterials scienceComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete overlays were placed on continuously reinforced concrete (CRC) pavement sections of I-295 near Richmond, Virginia, and I-85 near Petersburg, Virginia. A 2-in. bonded portland cement concrete overlay on I-295 was placed to prevent spalling attributable to improper steel depth of the existing CRC pavement, and a 4-in. bonded portland cement concrete overlay on I-85 was placed to increase the structural capacity of the pavement. The CRC pavements were in reasonably good condition when the overlays were placed. Evaluations of the bonded overlays were conducted immediately after their placement in 1995, in 1999, and in 2006 after 11 years in service. The evaluations included bond strength testing between the overlay and the CRC pavement, chain drag testing to detect delamination between the overlays and the pavement, falling weight deflectometer testing to assess the in situ structural capacity of the bonded overlay pavement sections, permeability testing to determine the permeability conditions of the overlays, and skid resistance testing to check the surface texture conditions. The bonded concrete overlays performed well after 4 and 11 years. The results indicate that bonded overlays extended the life of the existing CRC pavements and are expected to last 20 years or more. The experience gained during 11 years is documented and the use of bonded concrete overlays is recommended where the design life can be realized.

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)0.009
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207