Modification of Bending Beam Rheometer Specimen for Low-Temperature Evaluation of Bituminous Crack Sealants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is difficult to evaluate effectively the low-temperature stiffness of bituminous hot-poured crack sealants with existing test methods. The standard bending beam rheometer (BBR) was found to be inappropriate for testing soft bituminous-based hot-poured crack sealant, even at a temperature of-40°C. To address this issue, the moment of inertia of the tested beam was increased by doubling its thickness (from 6.35 mm to 12.7 mm). For the new beam dimensions, only 4% of the beam center deflection is due to shear, a value deemed acceptable for sealant evaluation and comparison. On this basis, the BBR stiffness of hot-poured sealants was obtained at several discrete temperatures between-10°C and -40°C to assess the repeatability of the method for the evaluation of the low-temperature stiffness of bituminous sealants. Ten different sealants were tested at -40°C; three of these 10 were further tested at –35°C, –30°C, –28°C, –25°C, and –20°C; and the three “hard” sealants were tested at –10°C. A minimum of three replicates were used. The coefficient of variation on the measured stiffness after 60 s of loading was always lower than 18%, with almost 75% of the measurements having a coefficient of variation less than 10%. A pairwise comparison showed that the modified BBR could be used to classify sealant products according to their measured stiffness. As to the effect of temperature, it was found that the stiffness varies exponentially with temperature in the range of –40°C to –20°C. A statistical analysis of the results indicated that the modified BBR method could be used to classify sealants based on low-temperature stiffness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".