Contrairement à la volonté affichée du Conseil constitutionnel, ses offices ne sont pas étanches. La Haute instance est saisie sur le fondement de divers articles de la Constitution qui déterminent quel office est sollicité. Le Conseil constitutionnel ne dispose pas de marge de manœuvre puisqu’il ne peut s’évader de l’objet de la saisine. Plusieurs compétences se regroupent dans un office. Quatre offices sont identifiés : l’office de juge de la constitutionnalité protégeant le texte constitutionnel ; l’office de juge électoral chargé de statuer sur les réclamations relatives aux scrutins nationaux ; l’office de juge de la répartition des compétences normatives déterminant si la compétence relève du législateur ou du pouvoir réglementaire et l’office de conseiller devant aviser les pouvoirs publics.Conçu pour lutter contre l’hégémonie parlementaire, l’office du juge de la répartition des compétences normatives du Conseil constitutionnel devait être sa principale raison d’être.Or, le juge de la constitutionnalité a volontairement affaibli cet office pour que la Haute instance ne soit plus assimilée à un auxiliaire du Gouvernement.De plus, l’office de juge de la constitutionnalité s’est immiscé dans les décisions du juge électoral. Ce dernier peut désormais contrôler la constitutionnalité d’une loi a posteriori. De même, les avis, émis par le conseiller, contiennent des examens de constitutionnalité.Le Conseil constitutionnel articule ses offices de façon à favoriser l’un d’eux. L’office de juge de la constitutionnalité a été utilisé pour assurer l’avenir du Conseil constitutionnel en facilitant son intégration dans le paysage juridictionnel français. / Despite the French Constitutional Council intents, its roles are not airtight. The highest constitutional authority can be seized based on various articles of the Constitution which determine which jurisdiction is in fact solicited. The Constitutional Council has no leeway since it can’t evade the subject of the referral. Multiple functions can be grouped in a role. In fact, four roles can be identified: the role of constitutional Judge which consists of protecting the constitutional text; the role of electoral Judge responsible for ruling on claims related to national elections; the role of Judge of distribution of normative powers determining whether jurisdiction falls within the legislator or the regulatory power; and the role of adviser of the public authorities.Originally designed to tackle parliamentary hegemony, the role of Judge of the distribution of the normative powers was the main purpose of the French Constitutional council. However, the Judge of constitutionality has voluntarily weakened this role in order for the High Authority to no longer be assimilated as an auxiliary of the Government.In addition, the role of constitutional Judge interfered with the decisions of the electoral Judge. The latter can now perform a posteriori control of the constitutionality of a law. Similarly, the opinions issued by the advisor-Judge can also contain constitutional examinations.The French Constitutional Council articulates its roles so as to favour one of them. The role of Constitutional Judge has been used to ensure the future of the Constitutional Council by facilitating its integration into the French jurisdictional landscape.

The weakest points in concrete pavement systems are the concrete joints. They are man-made cracks that allow for temperature-related expansion and contraction of concrete slabs. Sealants are commonly used in pavement joints to keep debris, deicing chemicals, and moisture out of the joint. When a joint sealant fails, the pavement can quickly deteriorate; however, when a joint sealant functions well, the pavement maintains its intended performance. Joint sealants are subjected to two forms of mechanical loads in the field: 1) as slabs contract or expand, the sealant is subjected to tension or compression, respectively; and 2) heavy vehicles travel over the joint and deflect the ends of the pavement slabs, causing sealants to shear. Sealants may also be exposed to a range of environmental factors, such as moisture and ultraviolet radiation. In this research project, to simulate the joint sealant performance, samples were made by buttering the three different silicone sealants, namely Sealant 1, Sealant 2, and Sealant 3, between 1" x 1" x 3" Portland Cement Concrete dogbone-shape samples and 0.2" x 1" x 3" glass substrate samples were prepared according to VTM 90 and ASTM C1135, respectively. The tests were carried out employing an Instron Tensile Testing Machine and unique fixtures designed at Virginia Tech to impart mechanical loading. In comparison to Sealant 2, the results demonstrated that Sealant 1 can withstand larger stresses. All the concrete samples failed due to adhesive failure, whereas some of the Sealant 1 glass samples failed due to adhesive failure at low peak loads and others failed due to a combination of adhesive and cohesive failure. Glass samples of Sealant 2 on the other hand showed just cohesive failure. In case of Sealant 3, samples of both ASTM C1135 and VTM #90 showed adhesive failure and failed by showing reasonable strength. / Master of Science / Concrete pavements have a number of man-made joints that separate adjacent slabs. The purpose of these joints is to allow relatively free concrete expansion and contraction owing to changes in temperature and moisture. To ensure longevity of concrete, these joints must be sealed with a long-lasting material that can protect the joints from moisture, dust, and de-icing salts. The focus of this study is on silicone sealants, which have used for years as a joint sealant material. Three different silicone-based sealants were used. And two test methods, VTM-90, and ASTM C1135, were used to conduct the tensile testing. VTM-90 provides the test method to determine bond of silicone sealant to concrete mortar while ASTM C1135 gives the procedure for quantitative measure of tensile adhesion properties of structural sealants. ASTM C1135 In comparison to Sealant 2, the test results showed that Sealant 1 can withstand high loads. All the VTM-90 samples of Sealant 1, 2 and 3, failed because of adhesive failure, whereas some of the Sealant 1 ASTM C1135 samples failed because of adhesive failure at low peak loads and others because of a combination of adhesive and cohesive failure. On the other hand, ASTM C1135 samples of Sealant 2 showed only cohesive failures while Sealant 3 samples showed adhesive failure.

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Dentistry / Master / Master of Dental Surgery

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Dental Surgery / Master / Master of Dental Surgery