Mechanical Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Recycled Bituminous Membranes (RBMs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bituminous membranes (BMs) are mainly composed of a polymer-modified bituminous mastic (with filler addition) and reinforcement. In case one face is exposed to air, the external layer is an antiadhesive layer (covered with mineral chips). Because of aging and deterioration, BMs are removed from roofs or bridge decks and landfilled. Nowadays, only a few membrane producers are equipped with recycling plants to recycle BMs in new products, by reintroducing them in the production process. However, the presence of highly modified bitumen in recycled bituminous membranes (RBMs) makes them an interesting opportunity as a recycled component in asphalt pavement materials. The experimental program evaluated the introduction of RBM in asphalt mixtures to evaluate the effect on mechanical properties. The study involved three types of asphalt materials (i.e., mixtures for surface, binder and base layers), two polymer-modified bitumens typically used in Italy (Performance Grade (PG) 76-22 and PG 82-16) and the addition of RBMs containing atactic polypropylene polymer. The preliminary part of the study investigated the maximum dosage of RBMs in PG 76-22 bitumen, in order to obtain a bituminous blend whose properties can be considered intermediate between PG 76-22 and PG 82-16 binders. This part was conducted in terms of continuous performance grade. Consequently, the maximum RBM dosage was adopted to produce three asphalt materials comparing three bitumens (PG 82-16, PG 76-22, and PG 76-22 with RBMs). Asphalt mixtures were characterized in terms of indirect tensile strength, cracking properties, and complex modulus. Results showed that the use of RBMs in asphalt mixtures allows the reduction of around 10 % of the virgin binder used to produce asphalt materials for base, binder, and surface layers. However, the combined use of RBM and reclaimed asphalt pavement can lead to poor cracking resistance properties.
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 | 0.001 | 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".