Traffic and Climate Impacts on Rutting and Thermal Cracking in Flexible and Composite Pavements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study presented in this paper analyzed four long-term pavement performance (LTPP) test sections located in the states of New York (NY) and California (CA). Two of them are flexible pavement sections, whereas the other two are composite pavement sections. Two levels of analysis—in-state analysis and cross-state analysis—were performed for these pavement sections to determine the impacts of traffic and climate conditions. The performance of the pavement sections was evaluated in respect of thermal cracking and rutting resistance. The in-state analysis focused on comparing the pavement sections located in the same state. The two pavement sections located in CA exhibited insignificant variation in thermal cracking, although one of them had an additional 1.5” (38 mm) dense-graded asphaltic concrete (AC) layer. On the other hand, the additional 1.5” (38 mm) AC layer resulted in a significant reduction in the rutting depth in one pavement section. The in-state analysis of the two pavement sections located in NY revealed that the 0.8” (20.4 mm) chip seal layer had significantly low resistance to thermal cracking and rutting. The cross-state analysis examined pavement sections of comparable structural capacities—two with low structural capacity, and two with high structural capacity. The performance comparison of the two pavement sections with low structural capacity revealed that the chip seal layer exhibited a significantly high rutting depth, i.e., low rutting resistance under high traffic loads in a freezing climate. On the contrary, the two pavement sections with high structural capacity showed relatively high rutting resistance in both warmer and freezing climates. Furthermore, this paper presents the pavement deterioration models for rutting and thermal cracking in the LTPP test sections. These models were developed using multiple linear regression considering the pavement service life (age), traffic load (average annual daily truck traffic, AADTT), and climate impact (freezing index, FI). The deterioration models had coefficients of determination (r2) in the range of 0.82–0.99 and standard errors varying from 0.01 to 9.92, which indicate that the models are reliable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".