Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the Appropriate Geometry of Asphalt Specimens for Quality Control Using Impact Resonance Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article investigates the appropriate geometry of asphalt concrete specimens for quality control purposes using the impact resonance test (IRT). The research was divided into two phases, covering numerical and experimental studies at room temperature (23°C) and −20°C. In the first phase, numerical modal analysis and frequency domain analysis studies, with plausible values of moduli and phase angles, were used to make predictions about the range of fundamental frequencies to expect in experimental tests, whereas the second phase intended to adjust and/or confirm decisions suggested from the numerical study. Advanced computational modeling software was used to examine a Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) specimen with a height of 120 mm and a diameter of 150 mm. Further cylindrical (both 120 mm in height, one with a 60-mm diameter and the other a 76-mm diameter) and disc specimens (both 150 mm in diameter, one with a 40-mm height and the other a 60-mm height) were produced from the SGC original specimen for additional tests. Then, the experimental studies revealed that SGC specimens with such a high-damping material are not suitable for IRT experiments at 23°C due to their inability to produce a clear fundamental resonance frequency peak. At −20°C, multiple peaks were detected, which could be a consequence of the specimens’ geometry. Hence, much care should be taken to define the fundamental frequency. For the cylinder geometries at 23°C, the numerical study showed a well-separated peak. Conversely, in the experimental study, no clear resonance peaks, only fluctuations, were detected. Therefore, caution is advisable when interpreting test results. At −20°C, both numerical and experimental studies confirm the detection of single resonance peaks. For the disc geometries with the approximately 60-mm height and 150-mm diameter, both numerical and experimental studies confirm the presence of well-separated antisymmetric and symmetric modes at both temperatures, which suggests using such geometry for quality control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".