MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081636645 · doi:10.1061/9780784483183.027

Unified Fatigue Tests for Asphalt Materials Using Incremental Repeated-Load Permanent Deformation (iRLPD) Methodology

2020· article· en· W3081636645 on OpenAlexaff
Haleh Azari, Alaeddin Mohseni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltStructural engineeringDeformation (meteorology)Materials scienceComputer scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increased use of recycled materials in asphalt mixtures, a practical fatigue test is needed for determining effect of additives on durability of asphalt mixtures. The current fatigue tests face many challenges in identifying fatigue performance of asphalt mixtures. This is partly because the test variables are different from the conditions in the field. Pavement Systems has developed iRLPD fatigue test for asphalt mixture, where all test variables and their levels are set to simulate field conditions. There are also companion iRLPD fatigue test for asphalt binder and mastic, which follow the same incremental methodology and measures the same fatigue index as those for the mixtures. Therefore, the fatigue resistance of the binder, mastic, and mixture are well correlated. This paper will discuss the iRLPD test results of the FHWA’s accelerated loading facility (ALF) mixtures for a fatigue study. The iRLPD fatigue tests were able to show the difference in fatigue property of extracted binder, recovered mastic, and mixtures of ALF due to use of RAP and RAS. The fatigue indices are also shown to be highly correlated with the number of heavy load repetitions to the first observed cracks in the ALF lanes.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2020Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207