Adhesion testing procedure for hot-poured crack sealants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces three laboratory tests aimed to assess the bond property of hot-poured crack sealant topavement crack walls. The three tests are designed to serve the respective needs of producers, engineers, andresearchers. The first test implements the principle of surface energy to measure the thermodynamic work of adhesion, which is the energy spent in separating the two materials at the interface. The work of adhesion is reported as a measure of material compatibility at an interface. The second test is a direct adhesion test, a mechanical test which is designed to closely resemble both the installation process and the crack expansion due to thermal loading. This test uses the Direct Tensile Test (DTT) machine. The principle of the test is to apply a tensile force to detach the sealant from its aggregate counterpart. The maximum load, Pmax, and the energy to separation, E, are calculated and reported to indicate interface bonding. The third test implements the principles of fracture mechanics in a pressurized circular blister test. The apparatusis specifically designed to conduct the test for bituminous crack sealant, asphalt binder, or other bitumen-based materials. In this test, a fluid is injected at a constant rate at the interface between the substrate (aggregate or a standard material) and the adhesive (crack sealant) to create a blister. The fluid pressure and blister height are measured as functions of time; the data is used to calculate Interfacial Fracture Energy (IFE), which is a fundamental property that can be used to predict adhesion. The stable interface debonding process makes this test attractive. This test may also provide a means to quantify other factors, such as the moisture susceptibility of a bond. In addition, the elastic modulus of the sealant and its residualstresses can be determined analytically. While the direct adhesion test is proposed as part of a newly developed performance-based guideline for the selection of hot-poured crack sealant, the blister test can be used to estimate the optimum annealing time and installation temperature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".