Validation of Long-Term Pavement Performance Prediction Models for Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable characterization of unbound granular material and subgrade resilient modulus requires repeated load triaxial testing, advanced dynamic loading equipment, and technical experience not typically available in many geotechnical laboratories. For Level 2 design inputs, the Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide recommends correlation models to estimate the resilient modulus of unbound granular material and subgrade from basic material properties (e.g., gradation, unconfined compressive strength, and California bearing ratio). These correlation models are developed from data on a wide range of soil and material types; this wide range increases the associated error with resilient modulus prediction. This paper compares laboratory measured resilient modulus for two types of locally available unbound granular materials to the predicted values; models developed under the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program were used. Resilient modulus tests of six gradations of two types of material—100% crushed limestone and gravel—were conducted at two levels of moisture content. Results showed that the LTPP models significantly underestimated resilient modulus for the limestone material and showed high residuals associated with evaluating resilient modulus of both gravel and limestone materials. The coefficient of variation of the root mean square error was 50.3% for gravel and 55.6% for limestone. The high residuals associated with evaluating resilient modulus with the LTPP models justify the development of local prediction models to improve the reliability of Level 2 design inputs for unbound granular materials.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".