| Literature DB >> 31569626 |
Anik Gupta1, Jorge Rodriguez-Hernandez2, Daniel Castro-Fresno3.
Abstract
Despite the numerous benefits for preserving the hydrological cycle, permeable pavement systems (PPSs) found their major application in parking spots and for light traffic scenarios due to their limited durability and strength. To make the PPSs suitable for heavy traffic conditions without significant distresses, research is shifting toward the adoption of novel binders and additives for designing multifunctional porous asphalt mixtures which make up the surface course of PPSs. Certain additives are well known for enhancing the durability of dense graded asphalt mixtures and improving fatigue and rutting resistance. However, the studies on the influence of additives on abrasion resistance and binder draindown, which are the common problems in porous asphalt mixtures (PAMs), are still not well established. This paper summarizes best practices performed on PAMs and recommends possible future research directions for its improvement. Particular emphasis is placed on strength and resilience of PAMs by incorporating additives like nanosilica, crumb rubber, warm-mix additives, fibers (such as cellulose, glass, steel, and synthetic fibers), and some eco-friendly materials. It was found that different additives seem to have different effects on the properties of PAMs. Moreover, the combination of additives has synergistic benefits for the performance of PAMs, especially in urban pavements.Entities:
Keywords: additives; fibers; permeable pavement systems; porous asphalt mixtures
Year: 2019 PMID: 31569626 PMCID: PMC6804047 DOI: 10.3390/ma12193156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Tests for mechanical resistance and functional performance of porous asphalt mixtures (PAMs).
| Test | Standards | Property Tested | Observations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Cantabro test | EN-12697-17, Tex-245-F, T0733-2011 | Raveling/abrasion resistance | Developed in the University of Cantabria in 1980s [ |
| Wet Cantabro test | Spanish NLT 362/92 | Moisture sensitivity | Samples are conditioned at 60 °C in water to calculate the abrasion resistance in wet conditions [ |
| Rotating surface abrasion test (RSAT) | Stone loss | This test accurately simulates the vehicle tire contact on porous asphalt by application of tangential stresses of a full-sized tire [ | |
| Draindown test | AASHTO T305, EN-12697-18, T0732-2011 | Binder draindown | To quantify the maximum binder content for PAM design. Virgin binder is unable to prevent draindown. Additives or modifiers are used to improve the stability of the mix [ |
| Loaded wheel tracker (LWT) test | AASHTO T324, EN 12697-22 | Rutting behavior | Rutting resistance of PAMs reduces considerably due to high moisture, temperature, and loading conditions [ |
| Indirect tensile strength (ITS) | ASTM D 4123, EN 12697-23 | Strength | The strength of PAMs varies considerably when additives and modifiers are added. |
| Tensile strength ratio | AASHTO T283, EN-12697-12 | Moisture sensitivity | PAMs have very high moisture susceptibility; nanosilica is added to reduce moisture susceptibility of mixes [ |
| Resilient modulus | ASTM D4123 | Stiffness | Resilient modulus represents the ability to recover under repeated loads [ |
| Thermal stress restrained specimen test (TSRST) | AASHTO TP10-93 | Low-temperature cracking resistance | In frozen regions, PAMs incorporated with warm-mix additives can be used to reduce cracking resistance [ |
| Permeability test | ASTM D2434-68; AASHTO T215-14; ASTM PS 129-01 | Permeability coefficient | Permeability depends on the interconnected air voids; constant head tests assume laminar flow which is not the case for PAMs [ |
| Air void content | EN 12697-8 | Air void content | If the air voids are high, more clogging cycles are required to clog the sample [ |
| Acoustic impedance tube | ASTM 1050-10 | Sound absorption | In low-speed vehicles, the noise produced is mainly dependent on the micro texture of the pavement. Macro texture is responsible for noise caused due to high-speed vehicles. The noise reduction depends on the content, size, and distribution of air voids [ |
| British pendulum tester (BPT) | ASTM E303 | Skid resistance | This does not simulate the interaction between the rubber tire and the surface of the pavement as both tests measure the on-spot friction of the pavement [ |
| Dynamic friction tester (DFT) | ASTM E-1911-98 | ||
| Walking friction test (WFT) | Skid resistance | It measures skid between the surface of the pavement and the tire of the vehicle. |
Comparison of performance of additives in PAMs.
| Fibers | Type of Additive | Content (%) | AirVoids (%) | Binder | Binder Content (%) | Mesh Size | length (nm) | Cantabro (dry) | Draindown | ITS | TSR | Stiffness | Permeability | Porosity | Rutting | LTCR @ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanosilica/[ | Additive | 2 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 5 | 10–13 | O | O | O | O | X | X | |||||
| Nanosilica/[ | 4 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 5.5 | 20–30 | O | O | O | |||||||||
| Nanosilica/[ | Additive | 2 (bit) | 10–15 | O | O | |||||||||||
| Nanosilica/[ | Additive | 4 (bit) | O | O | O | O | ||||||||||
| Nanosilica/[ | Additive | 2 (bit) | 20 | 5.16 | O | |||||||||||
| Crumb rubber/[ | Additive | 5 (bit) | PG 64-22 | 5.50 | 30 | X | O | O | XX | X | X | |||||
| Crumb rubber/[ | Additive | 12 (bit) | PG 64-22 | 7.00 | 30 | XX | O | O | XX | XX | X | |||||
| Crumb rubber (additive)/[ | Additive | 10 (bit) | 18.6 | VB 50/70 | 6.50 | 20~200 4~20, 4~200 | O | O | XX | O | ||||||
| Crumb rubber (additive)/[ | Additive | 15 (bit) | 18.6 | VB 50/70 | XX | XX | XX | XX | ||||||||
| Crumb rubber (additive)/[ | Additive | 20 (bit) | 18.6 | VB 50/70 | XX | XX | XX | XX | ||||||||
| Crumb rubber (additive)/[ | Additive | 3, 6, 9 and 12 (bit) | ≈22 | VB 80/100 | 5 | 40 | XX | X | X | X | ||||||
| Crumb rubber (additive)/[ | Additive | 1 (agg) | ≈25 | SBS | 6 | O | X | O | O | XX | O | |||||
| Sasobit®/[ | Warm-mix additive | 2.5 (bit) | 28.78 | PMB 45/80-65 | 5.20 | XX | O | XX | O | |||||||
| Evotherm/[ | Warm-mix additive | 0.5 (bit) | 20.40 | PG 76-22 | 5.70 | O | O | O | O | XX | O | |||||
| Stearic acid amide/[ | Warm-mix additive | 3 (bit) | 23.8 | SBS | XX | X | O | O | O | O | ||||||
| Diatomite/[ | Anti-stripping additive | 2 (agg) | 21 | PG76 | 5.25 | XX | O | |||||||||
| Hydrated lime/[ | Anti-stripping additive | 2 (agg) | 21 | PG76 | 5 | XX | O | |||||||||
| Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) /[ | Anti-stripping additive | 2 (agg) | 21 | PG76 | 5 | XX | O |
Note: * SBS-modified bitumen; O means improvement; #VB Virgin binder; X refers to no significant differences; @LTCR Low-temperature crack resistance; XX refers to adverse effects by the weight of aggregate.
Comparison of performance of fibers in PAMs.
| Fibers/Reference | Content (%) | Air voids (%) | Binder | Binder Content (%) | Length (mm) | Diameter (μm) | Cantabro (dry) | Cantabro (aged) | Draindown | ITS | TSR | Stiffness | Permeability | Porosity | Rutting | LTCR @ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cellulose/[ | 2.5 (agg) | 20.8 | HVB | 5.10 | XX | O | O | - | X | - | - | O | ||||
| Cellulose/[ | 0.3 (mix) | PG 64-22 | 5.50 | 6 | XX | - | O | X | O | X | X | XX | O | |||
| Cellulose/[ | 0–0.5 | 18.6 | PMB 45/80 | 4.70 | 1.1 | 45 | XX | O | X | X | X | O | O | |||
| Cellulose/[ | 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 | SBS * | 5 | 3 | 200 ± 5 | O | O | |||||||||
| Cellulose/[ | 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 (mix) | 20% | VB# 50/70 | 4.50 | 1.1 | 45 | O | O | XX | XX | XX | |||||
| Cellulose/[ | 0.30 (mix) | ≈20 | AR-80 | 5.20 | X | XX | X | X | XX | O | ||||||
| Mineral (basalt)/[ | 0.2 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 5 | 24 | 18 | XX | XX | O | O | X | XX | X | ||||
| Mineral (basalt)/[ | 0.2 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 6 | 24 | 18 | XX | XX | O | O | XX | XX | X | ||||
| Glass/[ | 0.2 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 5 | 12 | 10 | XX | XX | O | O | XX | XX | X | ||||
| Glass/[ | 0.2 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 6 | 12 | 10 | XX | XX | O | O | X | XX | X | ||||
| Polypropylene + glass/[ | 0.3 + 0.1 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 4.5 | 12 + 12 | 2200 + 10 | O | O | O | ||||||||
| Polypropylene + glass/[ | 0.3 + 0.1 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 5.5 | 12 + 12 | 2200 + 10 | O | O | O | ||||||||
| Polypropylene + glass/[ | 0.3 + 0.1 (mix) | VB 60/70 | 6 | 12 + 12 | 2200 + 10 | O | O | O | ||||||||
| Polypropylene/[ | 0.1–0.5 | SBS | 5 | 3 | 25–50 | O | O | |||||||||
| Polyester/[ | 2.5 (agg) @ | 20.1 | HVB | 5.1 | O | O | O | XX | X | XX | XX | O | O | |||
| Polyester/[ | 0.1–0.5 | SBS | 5 | 3 | 20 ± 5 | O | O | |||||||||
| Polyester/[ | 0.10 | ≈21 | SK70 | 4.4 | O | X | ||||||||||
| Mineral/[ | 2.5 (agg) | 20.7 | HVB | 5.1 | O | O | O | - | X | - | - | O |
Note: * SBS-modified bitumen; O means improvement; #VB Virgin binder; X refers to no significant differences; @LTCR Low-temperature crack resistance; XX refers to adverse effects by the weight of aggregate.
Comparison of eco-friendly materials with virgin materials. RCA—recycled concrete aggregate.
| Material | Type ofAdditive | Content% | Air Voids | Binder | BinderContent (%) | Cantabro (dry) | Draindown | ITS | Moisturesusceptibility | Stiff ness | Permeability | Porosity | Rutting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste glass/[ | Aggregates | 94 (agg) | 16.5 | Pen 60/70 | 6 | X | O | O | O | X | X | ||
| RCA/[ | Aggregates | 16 (agg) | 19.5 | Pen 60/71 | 6 | XX | O | O | O | X | X | ||
| Bleaching clay/44[ | Filler | 5 (agg) | PMB 45/80 | 5.1 | XX | O | X | O | XX | ||||
| Red mud/[ | Filler | 1.5 (mix) | ≈18 | SBS | 4.8 | O | O | ||||||
| Activated carbon/[ | Additive | 8 (mix) | 20 | 5.95 | X | O | X | X | |||||
| Activated carbon/[ | Additive | 1–4 (agg) | 21 | SBS * | 6.03 | O | O | XX | O | O | |||
| RCA/[ | Aggregates | 100 (agg) | 19.4 | Pen 60/70 | 5.5 | XX | X | O | O | ||||
| Reclaimed Tetra pak/[ | Fiber | 0.25–0.75 (mix) | ≈20 | VB 50/70 | 4.5 | O | O | O | XX |
Note: O means improvement; * SBS-modified bitumen; X refers to no significant differences-; #VB Virgin binder-; XX refers to adverse effects@ by the weight of aggregates.