4.6 Article

Enhanced Acceptance Specification of Asphalt Binder to Drive Sustainability in the Paving Industry

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14226828

关键词

asphalt performance grading; thermal cracking; fatigue; phase angle; creep rate; failure strain

资金

  1. Imperial Oil of Canada [URA 2018-2021]
  2. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (HIIFP 2018-2021)
  3. Chinese Scholarship Council as part of Northeast Forestry University in Harbin, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Testing small amounts of extracted and recovered asphalt binder in accordance with traffic and climate requirements can facilitate the paving industry's transition towards a true circular economy. The enhanced protocol uses a very small amount of material yet provides comparable results, with phase angle measurements appearing to be optimal for performance grading. Further field study is needed to determine if additional binder properties are required for the control of cracking.
Testing small amounts of extracted and recovered asphalt binder as used in construction allows for the acceptance of materials in accordance with traffic and climate requirements. This approach facilitates the sustainable use of resources and thus prepares the paving industry for the true circular economy. Oscillatory, creep, and failure tests in a rheometer are compared for the performance grading of 32 asphalt binders extracted and recovered from real-world contract samples. Films 8 mm in diameter and 0.5 mm thick were tested from 35 to -5 & DEG;C in dynamic shear, followed by shear creep at 0 and 5 & DEG;C, and finally in tertiary tensile creep at 15 & DEG;C. The enhanced protocol uses a very small amount of material in contrast to current methods, yet it provides comparable results. Phase angle measurements appear to be optimal for performance grading, but further field study is required to determine if additional binder properties such as stiffness and/or failure strain would be required for the control of cracking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据