Pavement surface and base layer simultaneous reclamation with cement-emulsified asphalt: mix design, effectiveness, and mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address the limited co-recycling of asphalt surface and base layers and the lack of interfacial mechanism studies, this research proposes a composite cold recycling technology using cement-emulsified asphalt (CA) mortar. The method enables synchronous regeneration of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed base material (RBP), with improved mechanical performance through optimized material proportions. A multiscale experimental design refined the RAP/RBP ratio, cement content, and emulsified asphalt dosage. Mechanical tests, pull-off strength, Dynamic Shear Rheometry (DSR), and scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) were conducted to evaluate performance and interfacial bonding. The optimal formulation (1.5% cement, 5% emulsified asphalt) achieved 0.85 MPa tensile strength and 9.8% void ratio. A 7–10 µm interfacial fusion depth and a 12.5% increase in dynamic shear modulus confirmed strong adhesion and fatigue resistance at the RAP interface. In contrast, the RBP interface exhibited irregular cement morphology and weaker bonding, indicating a need for further enhancement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".