Total Recycled Asphalt Mixes: Characteristics and Field Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of recycled materials in asphalt concrete (AC) pavement has increased significantly because of their economic and environmental benefits. The use of recycled materials can pose risks to the performance of asphalt pavements, however. The Illinois Department of Transportation developed five total recycled asphalt (TRA) mixes in the pursuit of environmentally sustainable pavements. These mixes contain up to 60% asphalt binder replacement (ABR) obtained from reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and recycled asphalt shingles. Virgin aggregates were replaced by 100% recycled aggregates including RAP, steel slag, and recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). Based on laboratory testing, all the mixes offered excellent rutting resistance because of their high ABR content. The TRA mixes were relatively less compliant and not very sensitive to field aging, whereas indirect tensile strength tests showed indistinguishable results. All mixes had comparable complex modulus |E*| and phase angle ([Formula: see text]) values at low temperatures. Laboratory-compacted specimens had relatively low flexibility index (FI) compared with field cores taken after construction. The FI values of the field cores decreased with aging, higher recycled materials content, or both. An exponential increase in transverse cracking was observed in the field cores because of their relatively high ABR, RCA/steel slag content, or both. The progression of field transverse cracking over time and FI values are well correlated. A three-dimensionally balanced mix design was introduced and used successfully to distinguish between AC mixes; it is proposed as a tool for better control mix designs and optimum field performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".