Adhesion of bituminous crack sealants to aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of bituminous sealants in the field is partly controlled by the properties and strength of the sealant aggregate interface. The thermodynamic work of adhesion represents the energy required for reversible separation of the two materials at the interface. The work of fracture includes the energy required for both reversible and irreversible processes during separation. The excess of work of facture over work of adhesion represents the energy consumed byirreversible processes in the specimen during loading and fracture. In addition, the adhesion strength is related to the properties of the constitutive components. The objective of this study is to measure or predict the adhesion of hot poured bituminous-based sealant to aggregates of different chemical composition. In order to accomplish this, the work of fracture and the thermodynamic work of adhesion were estimated for 14 hot-poured bituminous-based sealants withtwo types of aggregate: limestone and quartzite. The work of adhesion for each sealant-aggregate system was calculated from the contact angle measurements of the system components at corresponding sealant installation temperature. In general, limestone showed better adhesion to hot-poured crack sealant than quartzite. Interfacial parameters such as contact angles and surface tensions were successfully used to differentiate between sealants. These findings were in agreement with preliminary testing results of 14 sealants using a newly developed fixture in the direct tension testing machine. Provided the sealant has an appropriate viscosity to fill the crack, as the sealant surface tension decreases, its adhesion strength increases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".