Sustainable Recycling of Reclaimed Asphalt in Atypical Low-Asphaltene Binders Made from Athabasca Oil Sands Bitumen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilization of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS) in road construction optimizes the use of natural resources by saving on virgin binder and aggregate and, therefore, reducing the overall environmental impact of the industry. This paper presents experimental results of using RAP and RAS with virgin asphalt binders from oil sands deposits in Alberta, Canada. Atypical virgin binder A from an Athabasca source and standard virgin binder C from a Cold Lake source were modified at two different levels of RAP (20% and 40% by weight) and with RAS from a single source. Each blend was tested under three different aging conditions [unaged, rolling thin film oven (RTFO)-aged and pressure aging vessel (PAV)-aged for 20 h]. The RAP sources used in this study came from rehabilitation contracts on Highway 7 and Highway 403 in Ontario, while the RAS was obtained from tear-off shingles sourced locally. Rheological results showed that atypical virgin binder A, containing lower amounts of asphaltenes, accommodates more RAP than harder binder C. The results reveal that A+20% RAP can be used as a lower cost alternative for virgin C, as the two materials possess nearly the same rheological grade (PG 58-28) and flow characteristics. Given the abundance of atypical Athabasca oil sands crudes, it is worthwhile to further investigate low-asphaltene binders produced from such sources for the improved recycling of reclaimed asphalt.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".