Evaluation of Dowel Bars Installed in Airfield Concrete Pavement Construction Joints by Using Plastic Sleeves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of an innovative process for installing dowel bars in construction joints without drilling. The procedure involves inserting plastic sleeves with the same outside dimensions as the drilled holes into plastic concrete to create the holes for installation of the dowel bar, rather than drilling. The plastic sleeves are later removed, and the dowel bars are inserted in the holes left behind. To avoid any deleterious effects, the technique must produce dowel bar alignments that are comparable with those of the bars installed under the conventional method and must not cause any other problems. A field test was conducted to evaluate the viability of the new technique. The evaluation is based on the key factors that determine the engineering feasibility of the new procedure, which include dowel bar alignment, consolidation of concrete around the plastic sleeves, and the impact of the insertion techniques on pavement surface profile. The test results showed that the plastic sleeves can produce dowel bar alignments that are comparable with or better than those produced by the conventional drilling method, without any deleterious effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".