MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7046604553

Development of a Framework to Evaluate Asphalt Binder and Plant Produced Asphalt Mixes for Acceptance in Canada

2022· dissertation· en· W7046604553 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueMagnetic confinement fusion research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAsphaltAsphalt pavementAggregate (composite)Asphalt concreteRut
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Asphalt binder, sometimes referred to as asphalt cement binder, or asphalt cement, is the binder that holds the aggregates together in asphalt mixes for asphalt concrete pavements. In Canada, asphalt binder properties are accepted in accordance with the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards: AASHTO M 320 – Standard Specification for Performance-Graded (PG) Asphalt Binder. For asphalt mixes, the material is accepted based on criteria set on parameters for aggregates, asphalt binder, recycled materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), and volumetric properties such as air voids, voids in mineral aggregate, and voids filled with asphalt. The parameters are set because they have historically provided a good indication of a mixture’s probable performance. \nAs well, there has always been an interest in determining the properties of asphalt binder of in-situ asphalt mixtures, for research or forensic investigation purposes, or as a way of confirming that the correct asphalt binder was utilized during asphalt mix production, to ensure the desired performance is achieved. With the increased use of RAP, many user agencies are also looking for ways to evaluate the properties of the blended asphalt binder (i.e., new asphalt binder and old binder from RAP) since this also has an impact on the asphalt pavement performance. \nOne option is to conduct mixture performance testing of asphalt mixes. Another option, often selected by users because of its relative simplicity, is to determine the physical properties the recovered asphalt binder from plant produced asphalt mix. Typically, the original and recovered asphalt binders are required to meet the same specification. Although intuitive and relatively simple, using recovered asphalt binder properties – particularly in a specification – is not without some potential concerns. \nThis research compared the physical properties of original asphalt binder to the properties of the same asphalt binder recovered from asphalt mix after plant production. The asphalt mixes included seven surface course mixes, two of which include 15 percent RAP. The asphalt mixes were produced with most common PG grades of asphalt binder used in Ontario. \nThe results showed that the significant increase in ash content in the recovered asphalt binder coupled with the difference in oxidation between laboratory aging and plant production produced rheological properties that show the recovered asphalt was stiffer and less representative of the tank asphalt. There was a statistically significant difference between the tank asphalt properties and the recovered asphalt properties. Additionally, the physical properties of recovered asphalt showed higher variability than the same physical property tests on tank asphalt. \nAdditionally for asphalt binders, the Superpave PG system simulates aging and its effect on the asphalt properties using two accelerated laboratory conditioning procedures: the Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO) test for short-term (production and placement) aging, and the Pressure Aging Vessel (PAV) for longer-term (in-service) aging. However, these aging protocols have been shown to not correlate with actual field aging, posing a challenge for predicting performance. \nThe Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) conducted a study in 2009 that showed that correlation of the PG system can be improved if field aging can be better replicated in the laboratory. Additionally, the Superpave volumetric properties have been shown to not completely predict the long-term performance of asphalt pavements. Therefore, implementation of suitable performance tests and aging protocols is crucial to predict performance and maintain sustainability in highway infrastructure. \nThis research also compared the aging that is simulated by the RTFO and PAV aging in the laboratory, to the short-term aging that occurs during asphalt mix production and placement on a job site. The aging was determined with chemical analysis used to determined concentrations of the asphalt fractions (i.e., saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphaltenes). \nThe concentrations are used to calculate an aging index as an indication of degree of oxidation for laboratory versus field. The outcome of this analysis showed that the level of oxidation offered by RTFO aging of tank asphalt in the laboratory (laboratory short term aging) is less severe and does not simulate the short-term aging obtained in the field through plant production and placement of the hot mix. \nLastly, although the Superpave PG system is an improvement over previous grading systems, the PG system evaluates cracking behavior by only considering properties of asphalt binder and fails to consider the aggregate portion of the asphalt mixes, which makes up about 90 to 95% of the total weight of the asphalt mix. Additionally, new parameters have been researched since the implementation of Superpave that better characterize the oxidative behavior of asphalt binders. In this research, the Delta Tc (ΔTc) parameter is evaluated for the asphalt binders, along with Illinois Flexibility Index Test, and Asphalt Mix Performance Tester (AMPT) Flow Number for the asphalt mixes. \nAs asphalt binders oxidize or age, their ability to relax stresses at low temperatures diminishes. The ΔTc parameter provides an indication of loss of ductility: when the asphalt binder cannot relax the stresses fast enough to prevent breaking. The ΔTc of an aged binder is more negative than that of an unaged binder and would be more likely to exhibit non-load related pavement distresses such as: block cracking, raveling, and longitudinal or transverse cracking. \nThe Flow Number was developed as part of a research sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The intent was to develop and validate simple performance tests for permanent deformation and fatigue cracking to be incorporated in the Superpave volumetric mixture design process. The flow number has been correlated to the mixture’s rutting resistance, with a higher flow number indicating higher resistance to rutting. \nThe Illinois Flexibility Index Test (I-FIT) uses semi-circular bending (SCB) specimen geometry to determine the fracture resistance of an asphalt mixture at an intermediate temperature. Generally, higher FI value indicates the better premature cracking resistance of the asphalt mix. \nCorrelation tables showed that the properties of the tank asphalt binder showed better correlation with the IFIT Flexibility Index and Flow Number of the resultant mixes than with the recovered asphalt binder properties. \nThese results not only provide an evaluation of the impact comparing values of recovered asphalt to test criteria and variability derived for original asphalt, but it also provides framework for moving toward acceptance of asphalt mixes based on performance testing in Canada.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,114
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,827

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0140,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,004
Communication savante0,0130,005
Science ouverte0,0060,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,242
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)→Même sujetMagnetic confinement fusion research→Travaux en français237 207→