4.6 Article

Selection of Durable, Environmentally Friendly, and Cost-Effective Asphalt Mixtures

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15144873

关键词

volumetric mix design; balanced mix design; asphalt density; warm mix asphalt; life cycle assessment; cracking; rutting; life cycle cost analysis

资金

  1. Oregon Department of Transportation [30530, 19-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, the design of asphalt mixtures has become more complex with the introduction of additives and innovations. Traditional volumetric-based mix designs may lead to premature failure in the field. Therefore, a transition to performance-based mix design is required, along with considerations for life-cycle costs and environmental impact.
In recent years, due to the advent of several additives and innovations, asphalt mix design has become more complex. The mixes meeting the volumetric mix design requirements may still fail prematurely in the field. Thus, a transition from a simplistic volumetric-based mix design to a performance-based mix design is required, which was also envisioned in the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Superpave mix design. In addition to performance verification, asphalt mix designs should also be evaluated for the life-cycle costs and environmental impact to encourage durable as well as sustainable and cost-effective alternatives. In this study, three asphalt mixtures with different reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) contents and additives were evaluated for cracking and rutting performance by using different performance thresholds for asphalt mixtures that are generally used in the construction of high-volume roads in Oregon. A balanced mix design process was followed to determine the required binder content for the three mixtures. Based on the life cycle cost and environmental impact analyses, the mixture with warm mix additive (WMA) was selected as the most economically and environmentally viable asphalt mixture to be used for construction in Oregon.

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