4.6 Article

Laboratory Evaluation of Storage Stability for CRM Asphalt Binders

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 14, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14137542

Keywords

CRM binder; storage stability; separation index; viscosity; G*/sin delta

Funding

  1. Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement - Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean government [21TBIP-C161605-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a laboratory investigation on the storage stability of CRM binder and reveals that the conditioned CRM binder has higher viscosity and G * / sin delta value in the bottom part. It is found that G * / sin delta is suitable for evaluating the storage stability of CRM asphalt binder.
This paper conveys the laboratory investigation of the storage stability of CRM binder as a basic study. The CRM binder was produced through the wet process in the laboratory. The percentages of crumb rubber used for rubberized binder were 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%. The samples were prepared according to ASTM D7173. In order to evaluate the properties of each part of the binders, tests were carried out through the rotational viscosity and viscoelasticity, and the separation index was assessed with the G*/sin delta and %rec. In general, the results of this study revealed that (1) the conditioned CRM binders appeared to have higher viscosity in the bottom part compared to the middle and top parts.; (2) similar to the viscosity results, the CRM binders after conditioning showed the highest G*/sin delta value in the bottom part; (3) from the MSCR test, J(nr) and %rec values are observed to have a similar trend with G*/sin delta results, although some of the data were not measured due to the higher load than the DSR test; and (4) it was discovered that the SI from G*/sin delta generally used was suitable for evaluating the storage stability of CRM asphalt binders, compared to the SI from %rec.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available