MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AASHTO 1993 Plus: an alternative procedure for the calculation of structural asphalt layer coefficients

2022· article· en· W6921107496 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltAsphalt pavementPavement engineeringViscoelasticityAsphalt concrete

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many road agencies worldwide still use the empirical AASHTO 1993 pavement design method. Since the release of the AASHTO 1993 design guide, many aspects of pavement design have changed, including asphalt material properties, traffic, environmental factors, etc. However, many agencies use a single layer coefficient for asphalt mixtures and pavements are currently designed with inaccurate values, as proved by many. This paper presents a four-step procedure (called AASHTO 93 Plus method) to determine structural layer coefficients of asphalt mixtures. The AASHTO 93 Plus method considers viscoelasticity and temperature-dependency of asphalt mixtures to estimate the layer coefficient. Five-hundred-eighteen (518) flexible pavements from USA and Canada roads and 1599 HMAs from the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) database were analyzed. The results showed that the new material-specific layer coefficients were well above the typical value of 0.44. The total number of 3,726 IRI data records of these 518 pavements were converted to PSI and then compared to those obtained from the traditional AASHTO 93 and AASHTO 93 Plus methods for validation. Results confirmed that the conventional AASHTO 93 method predicts faster deterioration of pavement conditions over time, while the results of AASHTO 93 Plus method better aligned with the field data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207