Rheological analysis of multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been known for some time that the current AASHTO M 320-05 specification does not address the true rutting potential of modified asphalt binders. The multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test was proposed by the United States Federal Highway Administration to replace the AASHTO M 320-05 high-temperature specification parameter and various SHRP+test methods. The new parameter of non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, is currently being considered as a replacement for the Superpave high-temperature binder parameter of |G*|/sin δ (ω = 10 rad/s) (AASHTO TP 70-09). An investigation of the suggested new parameter in capturing the rutting potential and a rheological analysis of the MSCR test method were carried out for conventional and modified asphalt binders and are reported in this paper. The laboratory wheel tracking test was conducted to study the rutting potential of asphalt mixes prepared with the same asphalt binders. Correlation of the new parameter, Jnr, with rutting in asphalt mixes is briefly discussed. A linear viscoelastic compliance model was developed to describe the MSCR test and is also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".