Creep Compliance of Polymer-Modified Asphalt, Asphalt Mastic, and Hot-Mix Asphalt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of using commercial rheometers for comprehensive testing of asphalt binders, asphalt mastics, and hot-mix asphalts (HMA) is explored. Samples of one polymer-modified asphalt, its mix with fine mineral filler (mastic), and one HMA prepared with the same modified asphalt as binders were tested in the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) and the bending beam rheometer (BBR). All tested materials can be characterized by their discrete relaxation and retardation spectra (under the condition of small deformations). DSR testing was performed in the plate–plate and the torsion bar geometry. From the obtained relaxation and retardation spectra, the shear compliance, J(t), was calculated and compared with the tensile creep compliance, D(t), measured in BBR (both creep and recovery experiments were run). A simple relationship between J(t) and D(t) was found for the asphalt binder and the asphalt mastic. In the case of HMA, the bulk compliance, B(t), contributes to D(t) at short and long times. Both the Boltzmann superposition principle and the time–temperature superposition principle hold very well for all tested materials at low temperatures. There are qualitative differences, in the rheological behavior, of the asphalt binder and asphalt mastic on one side and the HMA on the other. These differences can be seen in dynamic (DSR) as well as in transient (BBR) experiments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".