Effect of Cement Content on Cracking Resistance of Full-Depth Reclamation Materials Using the Semicircular Bending Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Full-depth reclamation (FDR) materials are a type of cold-recycled bituminous mixes that are composed of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and virgin aggregates. FDR is often treated with a binder in order to obtain cohesion. It is common to use bitumen emulsion, foam asphalt, and cement. In many parts of the world, when bitumen emulsion or foamed asphalt is used, cement is added as a cobinder to accelerate the curing process and cement hydration produces calcium silicate hydrate that may contribute to mechanical and durability properties. However, because cement creates fragile bonds, too much cement could be problematic for FDR. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the cement proportion on fracture resistance of the FDR materials containing 50 % RAP and 50 % aggregate. Five proportions of the cement were added to the mixtures: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 %. Semicircular bending (SCB) tests were used to evaluate the cracking resistance of the mixture using the strain energy release rate (Jc). A total of 120 semicircular specimens were tested at intermediate temperatures, where 60 specimens were tested in wet condition to investigate the moisture sensitivity. The flexibility index (FI) and the cracking resistance index (CRI) were used to analyze the flexibility and brittleness of the mixtures. Results have shown that the FDR mixtures are more resistant to cracking as the cement content increases. The FI values, ranging between 1.32 and 4.74, revealed that a high percentage of added cement (4 and 5 %) contributes to making the samples behave like brittle mixtures. The CRI results showed a similar trend as the FI results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".