Effects of warm mix asphalt additives on performance properties of polymer modified asphalt binders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents an experimental evaluation for the performance properties of polymer modified asphalt (PMA) binders containing warm mix asphalt (WMA) additives. The PMA binders with the additives were produced using two of the available warm asphalt processes (i.e., Aspha-min and Sasobit) and three PMA binders graded as performance grade (PG) 76-22. The warm PMA binders were artificially short-term and then long-term aged using the rolling thin film oven (RTFO) and pressure aging vessel (PAV) procedures. Superpave binder tests were carried out on the binders through the rotational viscometer (RV), the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), and the bending beam rheometer (BBR). In general, the results of this research indicated that (1) the addition of the WMA additives into the PMA binders showed positive effects on increasing rutting resistance at high temperature (based on the high failure temperature values from the DSR test); (2) the PMA binders containing the additives were observed to be less resistant to fatigue cracking at intermediate temperatures compared to the control PMA binders (based on the G*sin δ values at 25 °C from the DSR test); and (3) the addition of wax additive represented a possible lower resistance on low temperature cracking (based on the stiffness and the m-value at –12 °C from the BBR test).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".