Development of a Dynamic Modulus Prediction Model for Hot Mixture Asphalt and Study of the Impact of Aggregate Type and Its Electrochemical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most famous model known in prediction of dynamic modulus for asphalt concretes is the Witczak and Hirsh models. These models didn’t use the mineralogical and chemical properties of aggregates. Witczak models used the passing or refusal percentage to sieve diameters and Hirsh model used the volumetric analysis. All models developed until now considered that the aggregates were geotechnical conforming to standards. In this study the first mineralogical and chemical properties were considered through the percentage of silica in the rock source of aggregates and the electric aggregate particles charge zeta. Dynamic modulus values used for regression process are determined from complex modulus test on nine asphalt concretes mix designed with aggregate types (basalt of Diack, quartzite of Bakel and Limestone of Bandia). Between Twelve initial inputs, the statistical regression by exclusion process keeps only seven parameters as input for the model. The mineralogical model showed good accuracy with R2 equal to 0.09. The student test on the model parameters showed that all the parameters included in the model were meaningful with good p inferior to 0.05. The Fisher test on the model showed the same result. The analysis of the sensitivity of the mineralogical model to zeta potential showed that the dynamic modulus increases with the positive zeta-potentials and decreases with the negative zeta-potentials. The analysis of the sensitivity of the mineralogical model to the silica showed that the dynamic modulus decreases with the increase of the silica.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".