Investigation on high-temperature performance of waste-based high-viscosity asphalt binders (WHABs) by repeated creep recovery (RCR) test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviewed and compared the test methods for the high-temperature performance of asphalt binder, and selected repeated creep recovery (RCR) test to evaluate the high-temperature performance of three waste-based high-viscosity asphalt binders (WHABs, including D-I, D-II, and F) and a control sample (Tafpack-Super modified asphalt, TMA). Meanwhile, shear stress, test temperature, and aging degree of binders, which could influence high-temperature behavior of binders, were also investigated, and related evaluation indexes including recovery compliance (R), non-recoverable creep compliance (J nr ), and viscous stiffness modulus (G v ) were compared. Results show that WHABs has much better high-temperature performance than TMA; shear stress has the most prominent effect on binders’ high-temperature performance, followed by aging degree, and lastly the selected test temperature in γ–time curve results; R, J nr , and G v values results indicate aging degree has a significant effect on binders, and improving binders’ aging performance can greatly improve the high-temperature performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".