Investigation of oil exudation from commercial asphalt binders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil exudation is attracting attention with the increased application of softeners and rejuvenators in the asphalt industry. This study systematically evaluated the oil exudation potential of 19 asphalt binder samples sourced from various North American paving projects. Rheological properties in terms of intermediate temperature performance grade (ITPG), limiting phase angle temperatures (T 30° and T 45° ), as well as differences in the limiting phase angle temperatures (∆T cδ ) were characterized before and after accelerated oil exudation treatment. The results show that T 30° emerges as the most sensitive and reliable indicator for assessing oil exudation effects. In contrast, metrics such as ITPG, T 45° , and ∆T cδ were less effective. The results further revealed that properly designed reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)-modified asphalts—incorporating high-quality RAP and compatible rejuvenators or softeners—are free of oil exudation even at elevated RAP contents, underscoring the critical role of judicious material selection and blending processes. However, binders containing significant quantities of re-refined engine oil bottoms (REOB) exhibited pronounced oil exudation, which is likely to exacerbate cracking failure through deteriorating the binder-aggregate bonding strength in addition to physical hardening. While high grade spans generally correlated with increased oil exudation, notable exceptions were observed when using rejuvenators or softeners compatible with RAP or polymers. These insights underscore the necessity of effective specification criteria and strategic additive selection to mitigate oil exudation, ultimately contributing to enhanced pavement durability and 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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".