| Literature DB >> 35888472 |
Zipeng Wang1, Shaopeng Wu2, Chao Yang2, Jun Xie2, Yongli Xiao3, Zenggang Zhao2, Fusong Wang4, Lei Zhang5.
Abstract
Circular utilization of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) has received extensive attention for its economic and environmental benefits. The application of recycled asphalt mixtures (RAM) in the upper layer of asphalt pavement faces the issue of inferior anti-slip performance and durability. This study aims to recycle steel slag as virgin aggregates in RAM and quantitatively evaluate the service performance of RAM with steel slag. Steel slag and basalt RAM were firstly fabricated and the five different RAP contents were involved. Then tests of Marshall stability, indirect tensile strength and Cantabro spatter loss were conducted to investigate the moisture susceptibility of RAM. Moreover, their high temperature stability, crack resistance and skid resistance were characterized. Indirect tensile fatigue test combined with Hamburg wheel tracking test were carried out to discuss the durability of RAM. The comprehensive performance of RAM with steel slag were quantitatively assessed based on an improved radar chart evaluation method. The results show that involving steel slag reveals a remarkable enhancement function on water stability, high and low temperature performance, skid resistance and fatigue resistance of RAM. Steel slag RAM with 50% RAP content demonstrates a rutting depth of 7.60 mm and a creep slope of 2.54 × 10-4, indicating its superior durability in high temperature and water environment. Compared with the comprehensive evaluation function of 0.5336 for basalt RAM with 30% RAP dosage, steel slag RAM reaches 0.7801, which represents its preferable road performance.Entities:
Keywords: RAP; radar chart evaluation; recycled asphalt mixtures; road performance; steel slag
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888472 PMCID: PMC9318539 DOI: 10.3390/ma15145005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1The experimental program of this research.
The properties indexes of steel slag and basalt.
| Types | Steel Slag | Basalt | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indexes | ||||
| Apparent specific gravity | Particle sizes (mm) | 9.5–16 | 3.369 | 2.983 |
| 4.75–9.5 | 3.327 | 2.974 | ||
| 2.36–4.75 | 3.138 | 2.972 | ||
| Water absorption (%) | Particle sizes (mm) | 9.5–16 | 1.59 | 0.58 |
| 4.75–9.5 | 2.38 | 0.73 | ||
| 2.36–4.75 | 2.82 | 1.04 | ||
| Los Angeles abrasion (%) | 13.9 | 20.7 | ||
| Crushed value (%) | 16.8 | 17.2 | ||
| Polished value (%) | 52 | 46 | ||
| Adhesion level | 5 | 4 | ||
| Free-CaO content (%) | 2.135 | - | ||
Figure 2Grading curve of asphalt concrete (AC)-13: (a) steel slag; (b) basalt.
Figure 3Testing device (a) and schematic diagram (b) of HWT test.
Volume performance parameters of RAM.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | Asphalt-Aggregate Ratio (%) | Bulk Density (g/cm3) | Air Voids (%) | VMA (%) | VFA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag | 0 | 4.9 | 2.653 | 4.2 | 14.1 | 70.3 |
| 10 | 4.9 | 2.645 | 4.3 | 14.2 | 69.6 | |
| 20 | 4.9 | 2.637 | 4.5 | 14.1 | 68.2 | |
| 30 | 5.0 | 2.634 | 3.8 | 14.1 | 73.0 | |
| 40 | 5.0 | 2.624 | 4.0 | 14.2 | 72.0 | |
| 50 | 5.1 | 2.621 | 3.9 | 14.2 | 72.3 | |
| Basalt | 0 | 4.7 | 2.520 | 3.9 | 14.0 | 72.2 |
| 10 | 4.7 | 2.524 | 4.0 | 14.3 | 71.8 | |
| 20 | 4.8 | 2.528 | 3.8 | 14.0 | 72.6 | |
| 30 | 4.8 | 2.523 | 4.1 | 14.2 | 70.8 | |
| 40 | 4.8 | 2.527 | 4.0 | 14.3 | 72.3 | |
| 50 | 4.9 | 2.531 | 3.9 | 14.1 | 72.5 |
Figure 4RMS results of RAM: (a) steel slag; (b) basalt.
Figure 5TSR results of RAM: (a) steel slag; (b) basalt.
Figure 6Spatter loss results of RAM: (a) steel slag; (b) basalt.
Figure 7Dynamic stability results of RAM.
The crack resistance indexes of RAM.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | Maximum Load (N) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Tensile Strain (με) | Stiffness Modulus (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag | 0 | 1252.6 | 10.225 | 3269.2 | 3127.8 |
| 10 | 1238.6 | 10.111 | 3102.2 | 3259.3 | |
| 20 | 1211.6 | 9.891 | 2955.8 | 3346.2 | |
| 30 | 1185.4 | 9.677 | 2813.5 | 3439.4 | |
| 40 | 1153.5 | 9.416 | 2695.9 | 3492.9 | |
| 50 | 1122.3 | 9.162 | 2548.4 | 3595.1 | |
| Basalt | 0 | 1033.5 | 8.437 | 3006.7 | 2806.0 |
| 10 | 1010.2 | 8.247 | 2892.2 | 2851.3 | |
| 20 | 975.3 | 7.962 | 2745.8 | 2899.6 | |
| 30 | 955.7 | 7.802 | 2603.5 | 2996.6 | |
| 40 | 906.5 | 7.400 | 2510.0 | 2948.2 | |
| 50 | 875.1 | 7.144 | 2323.1 | 3075.0 |
Figure 8Texture depth and British Pendulum Number (BPN) results of RAM.
Figure 9Fatigue life curve of RAM: (a) steel slag; (b) basalt.
Fitting coefficient of fatigue equation for RAM.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | Fitting Formula ( | R2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K | n | |||||
| Value | Standard Deviation | Value | Standard Deviation | |||
| Steel | 0 | 16,506.4 | 234.4 | −0.251 | 0.016 | 0.9877 |
| 10 | 15,716.9 | 198.5 | −0.274 | 0.014 | 0.9919 | |
| 20 | 14,190.3 | 105.4 | −0.362 | 0.008 | 0.9984 | |
| 30 | 11,486.9 | 344.0 | −0.546 | 0.034 | 0.9888 | |
| 40 | 9495.0 | 111.5 | −0.707 | 0.013 | 0.9990 | |
| 50 | 8346.9 | 204.7 | −0.797 | 0.027 | 0.9965 | |
| Basalt | 0 | 12,229.8 | 218.0 | −0.502 | 0.020 | 0.9953 |
| 10 | 11,233.9 | 500.1 | −0.555 | 0.049 | 0.9764 | |
| 20 | 10,039.6 | 358.2 | −0.646 | 0.039 | 0.9888 | |
| 30 | 9472.0 | 595.9 | −0.669 | 0.070 | 0.9680 | |
| 40 | 8427.0 | 125.2 | −0.712 | 0.017 | 0.9984 | |
| 50 | 6940.3 | 275.3 | −0.858 | 0.044 | 0.9922 | |
Figure 10Deformation development of RAM with the increasing loading cycle: (a) steel slag; (b) basalt.
The characterization parameters of RAM in HWT test.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | Rutting Depth | Creep Slope (×10−4) | Stripping Slope (×10−4) | Stripping Inflection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel | 0 | −8.61 | −3.06 | / | / |
| 10 | −7.98 | −1.98 | / | / | |
| 20 | −7.51 | −1.91 | / | / | |
| 30 | −6.87 | −1.45 | / | / | |
| 40 | −7.40 | −1.69 | / | / | |
| 50 | −7.60 | −2.54 | / | / | |
| Basalt | 0 | −11.69 | −4.66 | / | / |
| 10 | −10.65 | −3.81 | / | / | |
| 20 | −9.58 | −3.39 | / | / | |
| 30 | −8.49 | −2.54 | / | / | |
| 40 | −9.15 | −3.26 | −5.30 | X = 15,589, Y = −7.19 | |
| 50 | −10.46 | −3.97 | −7.76 | X = 17,065, Y = −8.08 |
Evaluation indicators of RAM with different RAP content.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | Water Stability | Rutting | Crack | Skid Resistance | Durability | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMS (%) | TSR (%) | SL (%) | DS (Times/mm) | TS (με) | TD (mm) | BPN | Intercept K | CS (×10−4) | ||
| Steel slag | 0 | 95.9 | 95.2 | 3.6 | 3962 | 3269.2 | 0.95 | 77 | 16,506.4 | 3.06 |
| 10 | 94.8 | 94.3 | 4.2 | 4038 | 3102.2 | 0.94 | 75 | 15,716.9 | 1.98 | |
| 20 | 94.4 | 92.2 | 4.5 | 4257 | 2955.8 | 0.90 | 73 | 14,190.3 | 1.91 | |
| 30 | 93.0 | 91.5 | 4.9 | 4599 | 2813.5 | 0.86 | 69 | 11,486.9 | 1.45 | |
| 40 | 91.3 | 91.0 | 5.3 | 4846 | 2695.9 | 0.83 | 65 | 9,495.0 | 1.69 | |
| 50 | 90.5 | 89.3 | 5.5 | 5040 | 2548.4 | 0.81 | 63 | 8,346.9 | 2.54 | |
| Basalt | 0 | 93.6 | 93.8 | 4.2 | 3198 | 3006.7 | 0.86 | 65 | 12,229.8 | 4.66 |
| 10 | 93.1 | 92.6 | 4.5 | 3387 | 2892.2 | 0.83 | 62 | 11,233.9 | 3.81 | |
| 20 | 92.5 | 90.7 | 4.8 | 3865 | 2745.8 | 0.81 | 59 | 10,039.6 | 3.39 | |
| 30 | 90.7 | 87.9 | 5.4 | 4118 | 2603.5 | 0.78 | 57 | 9472.0 | 2.54 | |
| 40 | 89.4 | 84.2 | 5.8 | 4315 | 2510.0 | 0.75 | 55 | 8427.0 | 3.26 | |
| 50 | 88.5 | 81.0 | 6.2 | 4773 | 2323.1 | 0.73 | 52 | 6940.3 | 3.97 | |
Evaluation indicators after standardization and non-linear transformation.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | Water Stability | Rutting Resistance | Crack Resistance | Skid Resistance | Durability | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMS | TSR | SL | DS | TS | TD | BPN | Intercept K | CS | ||
| Steel slag | 0 | 1.6550 | 1.5622 | 0.3213 | 0.7357 | 1.6839 | 1.6624 | 1.6544 | 1.6843 | 1.1337 |
| 10 | 1.5449 | 1.4979 | 0.5064 | 0.8145 | 1.5587 | 1.6359 | 1.6043 | 1.6399 | 0.5300 | |
| 20 | 1.4894 | 1.2801 | 0.6726 | 1.0672 | 1.3631 | 1.4828 | 1.5400 | 1.5142 | 0.5055 | |
| 30 | 1.1971 | 1.1836 | 0.9927 | 1.4055 | 1.0601 | 1.2093 | 1.3490 | 1.0688 | 0.3821 | |
| 40 | 0.7223 | 1.1085 | 1.3161 | 1.5571 | 0.7816 | 0.9279 | 1.0554 | 0.6645 | 0.4393 | |
| 50 | 0.5567 | 0.8435 | 1.4367 | 1.6366 | 0.5252 | 0.7486 | 0.8900 | 0.5064 | 0.7985 | |
| Basalt | 0 | 1.3427 | 1.4555 | 0.5064 | 0.3145 | 1.4437 | 1.2093 | 1.0554 | 1.2234 | 1.6884 |
| 10 | 1.2234 | 1.3300 | 0.6726 | 0.3731 | 1.2406 | 0.9279 | 0.8113 | 1.0133 | 1.4978 | |
| 20 | 1.0563 | 1.0619 | 0.9053 | 0.6464 | 0.8956 | 0.7486 | 0.6121 | 0.7615 | 1.3232 | |
| 30 | 0.5929 | 0.6562 | 1.3803 | 0.9042 | 0.6060 | 0.5436 | 0.5131 | 0.6607 | 0.7985 | |
| 40 | 0.4071 | 0.3704 | 1.5663 | 1.1339 | 0.4781 | 0.4113 | 0.4367 | 0.5156 | 1.2538 | |
| 50 | 0.3288 | 0.2594 | 1.6752 | 1.5192 | 0.3244 | 0.3504 | 0.3531 | 0.3808 | 1.5470 | |
Figure 11Radar charts for RAM with different RAP content: (a) 0 RAP; (b) 10% RAP; (c) 20% RAP; (d) 30% RAP; (e) 40% RAP; (f) 50% RAP.
The characteristic vectors and evaluation vectors of matrices.
| Mixtures Styles | RAP Content (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Steel slag | 0 | [6.3817, 8.4425] | [1.0000, 0.9427] |
| 10 | [5.6549, 7.9116] | [0.8861, 0.9385] | |
| 20 | [5.0353, 7.6201] | [0.7890, 0.9579] | |
| 30 | [4.0104, 6.8752] | [0.6284, 0.9685] | |
| 40 | [3.1861, 5.9849] | [0.4993, 0.9458] | |
| 50 | [2.8924, 5.5446] | [0.4532, 0.9197] | |
| Basalt | 0 | [4.6372, 7.1484] | [0.7266, 0.9364] |
| 10 | [3.5555, 6.3461] | [0.5571, 0.9494] | |
| 20 | [2.6350, 5.5926] | [0.4129, 0.9719] | |
| 30 | [1.9216, 4.6464] | [0.3011, 0.9455] | |
| 40 | [2.2578, 4.5889] | [0.3538, 0.8615] | |
| 50 | [2.8556, 4.7042] | [0.4475, 0.7853] |
Figure 12Comprehensive evaluation index of steel slag and basalt RAM.