How Should You Be Designing Your Permeable Pavements? New ASCE Standard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper outlines technical advances in permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP) design being introduced in the newly created American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard. PICPs include high strength, impermeable concrete units for the surface that meet ASTM or CSA standards. When installed, the joints between units are filled with permeable aggregate to allow for surface water infiltration. The units are placed over an open-graded aggregate bedding course, aggregate base and subbase for water storage and structural support. The design of permeable pavements differ from other traditional pavement systems in that both structural and hydrologic considerations impact the system depth, one of three different infiltration approaches can be used based on site and subgrade conditions, and unique elements are included over sloped subgrades. New to the ASCE standard is structural design for supporting traffic through the use of a mechanistic-empirical model that was developed through full-scale accelerated testing research completed at the University of California Davis Pavement Research Center. The impact of pavement loading is modelled using the pavement layer and subgrade stiffness under dry and wet conditions to determine when a user specified rut depth results from traffic loading. The paper discusses the dichotomy between not compacting the soil subgrade for infiltration, and compacting for enhanced structural support in saturated conditions. Guide construction specifications, construction and maintenance guidelines are provided via checklists. A key tool for assessing surface infiltration and subsequent vacuum cleaning is adoption of an ASTM surface infiltration test for PICP.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.016 |
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".