MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809869545 · doi:10.1520/jte20170353

New Design Method of Asphalt Mixtures Considering Uncertainty

2018· article· en· W2809869545 on OpenAlexaff
Said M. Easa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltMonte Carlo methodContext (archaeology)Standard deviationSensitivity (control systems)Optimal designRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The existing methods of asphalt mixture design are deterministic and rely only on the means of design parameters, such as unit weight and volumetric properties. This article presents a new design method of asphalt mixtures that considers the uncertainties of the measured properties and the calculated design parameters, represented by the coefficient of variation (CV). The uncertainties of the measured properties (typically CV < 1 %) propagate through the calculations and could result in high uncertainties in the calculated design parameters (e.g., CV > 40 %) that make them unreliable. The proposed method is developed in the context of the Marshall mix-design method and is applicable to the Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements method with minor modifications. The Taylor series expansion was used to develop the moments (mean and standard deviation) and CV of the calculated design parameters. The developed formulas were verified using Monte Carlo simulation. Criteria for sample acceptance are then presented based on the uncertainties of the design parameters. The uncertainty information is then used to establish confidence intervals for the design parameters, determine the optimum asphalt content, and compare the results with project specifications. Sensitivity analysis of the mix-design parameters is conducted, and practical implications are discussed. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed method. The proposed method takes the design of asphalt mixtures one step further toward a reliable performance-based design. As such, the method should be of interest to pavement engineers and practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Testing and EvaluationSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207