Laboratory evaluation of moisture damage in asphalt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, moisture damage in asphalt is determined by laboratory testing of liquid asphalt binder, loose mix, and (or) solid asphalt concrete samples under wet and dry conditions. Yet some asphalt mixes pass such laboratory moisture damage tests but show poor moisture damage potential in the field. To this end, this study presents asphalt constituents such as mastic and matrix testing for true evaluation of field moisture damage in asphalt concrete. Three mixes included in this study have almost identical laboratory moisture damage potential, but coarse mix (SP-III) has higher field moisture damage potential than two fine mixes (SP-B, SP-C). Related to these mixes, three mastics namely natural fines (NF), crushed fines (CF), and combined natural and crushed fines (NF+CF) are tested using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) at varying temperature and frequency. Also, matrix materials passing #4 sieve is tested in DSR, tension, pull-off, and direct shear loadings. It is shown that mastic and matrix test results can better identify field moisture damage of asphalt concrete. Fine mastic and matrix have low moisture damage potential than the coarse matrix and mastic. At high temperature (above 25 °C), shear modulus converges to a small number irrespective of mastic type. Due to moisture conditioning, matrix ultimate stress decreases in tension and pull-off tests but not in shear test.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".