Effect of wide specialty tires on flexible pavement damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental laboratory study was undertaken at Laval University to test the effect of wide specialty farm tires on pavement performance in comparison with reference tires used in the trucking and transportation industry. An indoor test pit was used to build a typical flexible pavement representative of Quebec’s rural road network. The pavement structure was instrumented to monitor vertical stress and strain in the soil and unbound layers, as well as longitudinal and transversal tensile strains at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layer. The selected test matrix involved performing pavement response test for 26 case studies, varying in terms of various axle loads, tire pressures and by wide specialty tires brand, dimension and design. The pavement structure was loaded with single axle farm trailer moving at a speed of approximately 2 km/h. The pavement response results obtained allowed concluding the governing damage parameter is the elastic compressive strain at the top of the subgrade soil, which is associated with the structural rutting of the flexible pavement structure. The tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layer was shown to be much lower than the reference dual truck tires (11R22.5) for the same axle load, and did not change significantly with the increase of axle load (within the range tested in this study). A significant difference in pavement response was observed depending if conventional wide farm tires (bias tires) or flexible radial tires were used to load the pavement structure. While, for the governing damage parameter, the conventional farm tires induce strain equal or slightly lower than the reference tires for the same axle load, the flexible radial tires induce strains that are significantly lower. This difference on the pavement response was in part interpreted as the effect of surface contact stress, which was measured lower for flexible radial farm tires.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".