Comparison of laboratory performance of two superpave binders mixed with two modifiers
Source abstract
Abstract
This research compares laboratory performance of two superpave modified asphalt binders including PG 64-10 and PG 70-10. A series of laboratory tests were conducted on 14 asphalt mixes treated with 0, 2, 4, and 6% of Acrylate Styrene Acrylonhrtilrei (ASA) polymer and nanoparticles aluminium oxide (Al2O3) by weight of the base asphalt binder.It was found that as the concentration of both modifiers increased, the resistance of asphalt binder PG 64-10 and PG 70-10 to rutting parameter and fatigue parameter increased for concentrations of 2 and 4% only. Increases in complex modulus values were consistently observed for all modified asphalt binders compared to the base asphalt binder. The increment of concentration of ASA polymer and Al2O3 nanoparticles can significantly increase the asphalt binder viscosity. All modified asphalt samples have greater storage stability at high temperatures. Also, it was found that the adding of ASA polymer and Al2O3 nanoparticles to all the mixes results in a substantial impact on the material properties of the asphalt binder. The samples altered with Al2O3 nanoparticles show better results than the samples modified with ASA polymer. The figure of 4% can be considered the optimum amount for both modifiers.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Asphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Polymer Nanocomposites and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Jazan University, Jizan, Saudi Arabia
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/14680629.2002.968993310.1080/14680629.2002.9689933 ↗
2. 10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00103-410.1016/S0950-0618(02)00103-4 ↗
3. 10.1007/s13369-015-1964-710.1007/s13369-015-1964-7 ↗
4. 10.1080/14680629.2017.142200210.1080/14680629.2017.1422002 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.17610.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.176 ↗
6. 10.5383/ijtee.01.01.00610.5383/ijtee.01.01.006 ↗
7. 10.1080/14680629.2011.969035610.1080/14680629.2011.9690356 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.09410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.094 ↗
9. 10.1080/1029843090303335410.1080/10298430903033354 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijprt.2016.11.00410.1016/j.ijprt.2016.11.004 ↗
11. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.5.25910.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.5.259 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jmst.2013.04.00810.1016/j.jmst.2013.04.008 ↗
13. 10.1002/978047088171210.1002/9780470881712 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.03.00810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.03.008 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.02910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.029 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.09710.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.097 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.14210.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.142 ↗
18. 10.3390/ma808523810.3390/ma8085238 ↗
19. Lotfi-Eghilm A. · Advances in Science and Technology · 2016 · 10 · 58
20. 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.00210.1016/j.fuel.2014.11.002 ↗
21. 10.1080/14680629.2015.107700010.1080/14680629.2015.1077000 ↗
22. Memon N. A. · International Journal of Engineering and Technology · 2016 · 8 · 1489
23. Mubaraki M. · International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology · 2012 · 5 · 225
24. Mubaraki M. · Journal of Marine Science and Technology · 2015 · 23 · 373
25. Mubaraki M. · International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology · 2013 · 6 · 8
26. Soos Z. · Journal of Silicate Based and Composite Materials · 2017 · 69 · 89
27. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.08210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.082 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.06310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.063 ↗
29. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000069010.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000690 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.05610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.056 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.12.01310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.12.013 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.04810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.048 ↗