4.7 Article

Using surface free energy method to study the cohesion and adhesion of asphalt mastic

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 254-260

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.067

关键词

Asphalt; Filler; Surface free energy; Cohesion; Adhesion; Moisture damage

资金

  1. National ScienceFund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China [51225803]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51008099]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to improve the road performance of asphalt mixture, the cohesion and adhesion of asphalt mastic which is the most important component of asphalt mixture were studied. The surface free energy of asphalt was tested using sessile drop method, and the surface free energy of fillers was measured using column wicking method. The work of cohesion and adhesion between asphalt and fillers were calculated through using their surface free energy parameters. The results show that the neat asphalt has higher surface free energy than the modified asphalt. The van der Waals force of surface free energy plays a more important role. The polarity power of modified asphalt is higher than the neat asphalt. The Lewis acid-alkali forces of different fillers have a big difference, while the van der Waals forces are nearly the same. Limestone filler has the biggest surface free energy and the components, and granite filler has the smallest intermolecular forces, and andesite filler has the smallest Lewis acid-alkali force. The specific surface area is an important parameter effecting the interfacial interaction between asphalt and fillers. The work of adhesion at a constant volume ratio has a better regularity than at a constant specific surface area regardless of whether the condition is dry or damp, whether the asphalt is modified or not, and the order is granite filler > andesite filler > limestone filler. A good correlation exists between complex modulus G* and work of adhesion. (C) 2013 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