4.6 Article

An Evaluation of the Efficiency of Compartmented Alginate Fibres Encapsulating a Rejuvenator as an Asphalt Pavement Healing System

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app7070647

关键词

self-healing; asphalt pavements; compartmented fibres; calcium alginate; rejuvenation; Indirect Tensile Strength test (ITS); 4 Point Bending fatigue test and Semi Circular Bend test (SCB)

资金

  1. Marie Curie IEF [622863]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the potential methods for evaluating a healing system for asphalt pavements. The healing system under investigation involves compartmented calcium-alginate fibres encapsulating an asphalt binder healing agent (rejuvenator). This system presents a novel method of incorporating rejuvenators into asphalt pavement mixtures. The compartmented fibres are used to distribute the rejuvenator throughout the pavement mixture, thereby overcoming some of the problems associated with alternate asphalt pavement healing methods, i.e., spherical capsules and hollow fibres. The asphalt healing efficiency methods to be evaluated in this paper include: (i) standard test methods for asphalt pavements, such as the Indirect Tensile Strength test and the 4 Point Bending Fatigue test; and (ii) alternative fracture tests such as the SemiCircular Bend test. The study employs fracture theory in order to evaluate the efficiency of the damage repair. The research findings demonstrate that including compartmented calcium-alginate fibres encapsulating a rejuvenator into an asphalt pavement mix does not significantly improve the healing properties of the asphalt pavement. Nevertheless, the findings indicate that, with further enhancement, compartmented calcium alginate fibres may present a promising new approach for the development of self-healing asphalt pavement systems. Additionally, the test results indicate that the 4 point bend fatigue test is the most suitable test for evaluating the performance of self healing asphalt pavements.

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