Evaluating the Performance of the Asphalt Mixes Containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement by Considering the Effect of Silo Storage Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) in hot mix asphalt (HMA) has been increasing in the last few decades because of its cost benefits and because of a compelling need to preserve the environment and natural resources. It is commonly assumed that HMA containing RAP (HMA-RAP) has an improved resistance to permanent deformation (rutting) and decreased resistance to the fatigue cracking. This is due to the fact that asphalt binder contained in the RAP has been oxidized over the years and is typically stiffer than virgin asphalt binder. However, during the production stage of the HMA-RAP, the blending between aged and virgin asphalt binders would be incomplete or partial, which would lead to heterogeneous distribution of the aged and virgin asphalt binders within the asphalt mix with RAP. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to evaluate the effect of silo storage on the blending mechanism between virgin and RAP asphalt binders and the impact that this would have on performance of the mix. Two plant-produced asphalt mixes (HL-3 and HL-8), typically used in the province of Ontario for surface and base courses in flexible pavements, were considered in this study. The mixes were designed with 15 and 30 % RAP, respectively, and the samples were collected immediately after the production (0 h) or at different silo storage times (1, 4, 8, and 12 h). The temperatures of the collected materials were closely monitored and recorded. The findings of this research indicated that silo-stored samples exhibited some improvement in their rutting and fatigue resistance. The examination of the dynamic modulus master curves indicated that the rheology of the mixes evolved with silo storage and that blending between the aged and the virgin binders has been improved.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".