Evaluation of Dynamic Modulus of HMA Sigmoidal Prediction Models and Optimization by Approach of U.S. Mesh Sieve by AFNOR and LC Mesh Sieve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pavement design tools are not universal. Indeed, in the sizing of pavements in the USA, the prediction models used in the calculation of the dynamic modulus of HMA are not adapted to the characterization of the mineral skeleton of the HMA mix designed with the French method. This article aims to assess the predictive models of the dynamic modulus used in the mechanistic-empirical design for their use in the design of bituminous pavements, and to develop new predictive models taking into account the sieve series LC and AFNOR standards. A total of six types of mixtures were subjected to the determination of complex modulus testing by direct tensile-compression on cylindrical specimens (26-700 LC) over a temperature range (5) and frequency (5) data. Dynamic modulus prediction models |E*| are studied Witczak model 1999 and model Witczak 2006. These models do not take into account the AFNOR or LC mesh sieve, an approach was made in relation to the US mesh sieve to replace ρ200 (0.075 mm), ρ4 (4.76 mm), ρ38 (9.5 mm) and ρ34 (19 mm) respectively by the AFNOR mesh P0.08 (0.08 mm), R5 (5 mm), R10 (10 mm) and R14 (14 mm). The result is the production of two models whose are evaluated by correlation with the values |E*| of modulus measured in the laboratory is satisfactory (R2 = 0.83 respectively R2 = 0.71 and p-value = 0.00). The optimization of these approximate models gave new models with the same frame as the original models and a better correlation with the data observed in the laboratory (respectively R2 = 0. 95 and R2 = 0.91 p-value = 0.00).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".