4.7 Article

Laboratory evaluation of the effects of short-term oven aging on asphalt binders in asphalt mixtures using HP-GPC

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 3087-3093

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.03.012

关键词

Short-term oven aging; RTFO aging; LMS ratio; GPC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both the RTFO (rolling-thin film oven) aging of asphalt binders and the STOA (short-term oven aging) of asphalt mixtures are designed to simulate aging during the construction of hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavements. Many studies have been conducted evaluating the aging effects on asphalt binders since their properties can be easily measured using many conventional tests, such as rotational viscometer, DSR (dynamic shear rheometer), and BBR (bending beam rheometer). However. studies on asphalt mixture aging have been limited to mechanical properties such as strength and fatigue characteristics because considerable effort is required to identify the aging of the asphalt binder in a mixture. This study evaluated the effects of short-term oven aging on asphalt mixtures using the GPC (gel-permeation chromatography) procedure. Nine asphalt mixtures, using three different binder sources, were prepared and five short-term aging methods were used to evaluate these mixes. For comparison, the RTFO aging was also conducted for nine asphalt binders. The aging of a binder within asphalt mixtures. including polymer-modified mixtures, could be identified under various short-term aging conditions. Statistical analysis of the GPC test results indicated that two commonly used short-term aging methods in the laboratory, a 154 degrees C oven aging for 2 h and a 135 degrees C oven aging for 4 h, are not significantly different, based on the increase in the large molecular size (LMS) ratios. The RTFO aging method was found to have less effect on binder aging than the short-term oven aging methods of asphalt mixtures. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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