Threshold Identification and Field Validation of Performance-Based Guidelines to Select Hot-Poured Crack Sealants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hot-poured bituminous crack sealing has been widely accepted as a routine preventative maintenance practice. With proper installation, the sealing is expected to extend pavement service life by 3 to 5 years. However, current specifications for selection of crack sealants correlate poorly with field performance; hence, a set of new testing methods, based on sealant rheological and mechanical properties, was developed recently. Measurements of the mechanical properties of crack sealant at low temperatures are among the criteria introduced as part of the developed performance-based guidelines. The main purpose of this study was to identify and validate the low-temperature selection thresholds for the newly developed performance-based guidelines for selecting hot-poured bituminous crack sealants. In this study, selection criteria for crack sealant bending beam rheometer (CSBBR) and crack sealant direct tension tester (CSDTT) tests were identified. Two performance parameters for CSBBR test were used for the selection criteria: stiffness at 240 s and average creep rate (ACR). Both parameters were identified by comparing laboratory testing results with known sealant field performance, obtained from a long-term study in Canada. The selection criterion for the CSDTT test was extendibility, on the basis of field values reported in the literature. The recommended selection criteria were used to predict the field performance of 12 sealants evaluated by the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). Results showed good correlation between the proposed selection thresholds and NTPEP field sealant performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".