Analysis of Bituminous Crack Sealants by Physicochemical Methods: Relationship to Field Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bituminous crack sealants were analyzed by viscometry, fluorescence microscopy, infrared spectroscopy, thermogravimetry, modulated differential scanning calorimetry, and low-temperature tensile testing. The results indicate that sealants are blends of bitumen, oil, copolymer, and filler. Upon blending, these components produce a three-phase system that consists of a polymer-modified bitumen (PMB) matrix, a filler, and a filler-PMB interface. Spectroscopy and microscopy indicate that the PMB phase is rich in styrene-butadiene copolymer, that the filler is recycled rubber, sometimes mixed with calcium carbonate, and that the interface depends on the filler and the oil content in the sealant. The physicochemical methods were used to predict the short- and medium-term performance of sealant mixtures. The short-term performance predicted from viscometry and microscopy correlated well with the 1-year field performance of the sealants. Sealants showed two glass transition temperatures ( T g ’s), and a reasonable correlation was also found between low T g and medium-term performance in a wet-freeze climate. However, because T g measurements do not account for stress relaxation and aging effects, correlation was not perfect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".