Low-Temperature Binder Specification Development: Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Testing of Asphalt Binders and Mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of low-temperature testing of Bow River asphalt binders and concrete mixtures, unmodified and modified with three commercially used polymers [diblock styrene-butadiene (SB), radial styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), and ethylene-vinyl acetate], are discussed. Thermal stress-restrained specimen tests, at a cooling rate of 10°C/h, were used to evaluate the performance of binders and mixtures. Binders were restrained as direct tension specimens with and without a sharp starter crack. Notching of the samples resulted in lower failure loads for all systems. But three of the four binders failed at warmer temperatures. The fourth binder, an exceptionally tough radial SBS-modified system, remained unaffected in this regard. Changes in failure temperatures ranged from 0°C (radial SBS) to +12°C (diblock SB). A comparison of binder results with those obtained for the mixture yields additional insights. It appears that there are differences between binder and mixture failure modes. The higher stress levels encountered in the mixture give rise to energy dissipating mechanisms that do not occur at the lower stress levels in the binder test. It is unlikely that a specification based on binder failure stress or strain will predict performance in polymer-modified systems. Three-point bend tests on notched asphalt binder or mastic beams may provide more realistic conditions for measuring materials properties. A compression test on the binder or mastic may be used to determine additional important parameters, such as Young’s modulus and yield stress in compression, which along with the failure properties, will likely produce an improved fracture mechanics-based low-temperature failure criterion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".