Development of apparent viscosity test for hot-poured crack sealants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report focuses on the development of the apparent viscosity test method. This test uses a modified version of the Brookfield rotational viscometer. Based on the results of this study, the measured apparent viscosity of hot-poured crack sealant using SC4-27 spindle at 60rpm (20.4s-1) at the recommended installation temperature was determined to be reasonably representative of sealant viscosity at shear rates resembling field application. To ensure measurement consistency and stability, a 20min melting time and a 30-s waiting time prior to data collection are recommended. To establish precision and bias for the test, a round robin testing was conducted among seven laboratories. Average coefficient of variation within and between laboratories was found to be 2% and 6%, respectively. Using the data from the round robintesting, and based on ASTM precision and bias standard (ASTM practices C802 and C670), maximumpermissible differences within a laboratory and between laboratories were found to be 4.6% and 16.9%.Considering the high polymer or crumb rubber content in crack sealants and sealant temperature sensitivity, the repeatability and reproducibility of the developed test is within an acceptable range. These values arecomparable to those of asphalt binder: 3.5% and 14.5% based on ASTM D4402-02 and 3.5% and 12.1% based on AASHTO 2006 T316.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".