MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018663932 · doi:10.3390/ma13081945

From Complex Modulus E* to Creep Compliance D(t): Experimental and Modeling Study

2020· article· en· W3018663932 on OpenAlexaff
Abdeldjalil Daoudi, Daniel Perraton, Anne Dony, Alan Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepMaterials scienceModulusComposite materialCompliance (psychology)Structural engineeringEngineeringPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creep compliance (D(t)) is a very important input for the thermal cracking resistance in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The aim of the work presented here is to predict the results of creep compliance D(t) from the result of complex modulus E*(ω). The work plan is divided in two main parts: an experimental part consisting of creep tests, and a modeling part. Three configurations were compared together, namely direct tensile, direct compression and indirect tensile tests. The modelling part consists of using a 2S2P1D model coupled to Kopelman approximation to switch from the frequency domain to the time domain. Additionally, 2S2P1D was used to calibrate the generalized Kelvin-Voigt model and get the creep compliance directly from E* results. The experimental results show that D(t) from direct tensile and direct compression are the same in the viscoelastic domain and are greater than D(t) from the indirect tensile test. The indirect tensile test (IDT) seems to be very difficult to achieve compared to the other two variants. The converted results using the 2S2P1D model coupled to Kopelman approximation and the results from the GKV model describe the experimental points very well.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207