MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156570844 · doi:10.1139/t07-022

Creep of compacted recycled asphalt pavement

2007· article· en· W2156570844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chirayus Viyanant, Ellen M. Rathje, Alan F. Rauch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTexas Department of Transportation
KeywordsCreepGeotechnical engineeringStress (linguistics)AsphaltOverburden pressureMaterials scienceDeformation (meteorology)Composite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) can be beneficially used as fill in the construction of earth structures such as embankments and retaining structures. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the creep response of compacted RAP under sustained deviatoric stresses. Constant stress, consolidated-drained triaxial tests were performed on 100 mm diameter, compacted RAP specimens at multiple confining stresses and deviator stress levels. The test data displayed classic creep behavior, with clearly identifiable primary and secondary creep observed in all specimens. Tertiary creep and creep rupture were observed in specimens tested at larger deviator stress levels. The creep response of RAP was significant at confining pressures less than about 272 kPa, while the creep response was less severe at larger confining pressures. Upper yield stress levels, representing the deviator stress levels below which creep rupture does not occur, were identified and shown to be confining stress dependent. In general, the creep potential of RAP is significant and should be considered in design. The developed creep models can be used to predict the time-dependent deformation of earth structures utilizing RAP backfill.Key words: creep, recycled asphalt pavement, time-dependent behavior, rupture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207