Viscoelastic Mechanical Model of Asphalt Concrete Considering the Influence of Characteristic Parameter of Fiber Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper carries out bending creep tests on polyester fiber-reinforced asphalt concrete beams, and investigates how the volume ratio and aspect ratio of the fibers influence the parameters of viscoelastic mechanical model and the viscoelastic performance of the asphalt concrete. The results show that: with the growing volume ratio and aspect ratio of the fibers, the midspan deflection and bottom flexural-tensile strain of asphalt concrete beams first dropped and then rose over time; the characteristic parameter of fiber content (FCCP) could reflect the overall effects of the volume ratio and aspect ratio of the fibers. On this basis, a viscoelastic mechanical model was established for the asphalt concrete in the light of the influence of FCCP. The test and theoretical results show that, in our tests, the optimal volume ratio of fibers, optimal aspect ratio of fibers, and optimal FCCP are 0.348, 324, and 1.128 for polyester fiber-reinforced asphalt concrete.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".