MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405311949 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.s532

Investigation of Water Drainage Capability for Porous Asphalt Material with Varying Slope and Porosity Based on Laboratory Experiment

2024· article· en· W4405311949 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anh Tuấn Lê, Quang Dang Nguyen, Viet Hai Vo, Van Chung, Tan Hung Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersViet Nam National University Ho Chi Minh CityHo Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
KeywordsPorosityAsphaltGeotechnical engineeringDrainageMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the water drainage capability of porous asphalt material (PAM) based on laboratory rainfall simulator tests. A series of tests were conducted using a range of slopes and rainfall intensities. The results showed that as the rainfall intensity increased, the water subsurface drainage steadily decreased. When the slope increased, the subsurface outflow of the porous asphalt decreased. Nevertheless, the slope of PAM insignificantly affected the water subsurface drainage. For the PAM specimen with a porosity of 15%, at a rainfall intensity of 2.5 L/min, when the slope increased from 0% to 8%, the subsurface outflow reduced by 2.8%. The investigation of the effect of porosity on subsurface drainage showed that the porous asphalt with a higher porosity displayed a higher subsurface drainage. At the slope of 4%, at a rainfall intensity of 4.9 L/min, for the PAM specimen with porosity of 10% and 15%, the subsurface outflow was 72.3% and 79.1%, respectively. It could be seen that the porosity had a strong effect on the drainage capability of PAM. The above results imply that the utilization of PAM depended more on the porosity than the slope. In the future, further experiments evaluating the water drainage of PAM should be adopted.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207