期刊文献+

基质沥青RTFOT与TFOT两种老化方式的对比分析 被引量:2

Comparative Analysis on Asphalt Aging between RTFOT and TFOT
下载PDF
导出
摘要 对50#、70#和90#三种不同标号基质沥青进行旋转薄膜烘箱(RTFOT)与薄膜烘箱(TFOT)老化,得到老化残留物分别与原样沥青在软化点、针入度、粘度和车辙因子等各项指标上进行对比分析。结果表明:两种老化方式对50#和70#沥青的老化效果相当,规范中认为RTFOT和TFOT两种老化方式可以互相取代的观点是正确的。对于90#沥青,由于通过两种老化方式后的沥青残留物与原样沥青性能上的非同一性,认为两种老化方式对90#沥青的老化程度是不同的,是否可以替代需要做进一步研究。 Comparative analysis between the original un-aged asphalt and the aged residues obtained from 50#,70#and 90# with rotating thin film oven test (RTFOT) and thin film oven test (TFOT) has been conducted re-spectively on viscosity, softening point, penetration and rutting factors. Results have shown that the aging effectof 50# and 70# asphalt by both RTFOT and TFOT is equivalent, so the view of mutual replacement between RT-FOT and TFOT in the Specifications is right. While, as far as 90# asphalt is concerned, because of the differ-ences existing between the original asphalt and aged residues through the two aging ways, the aging effect of RT-FOT and TFOT are different for 90# asphalt, so further research is necessary for the mutual replacement of thetwo methods.
出处 《广东公路交通》 2016年第2期10-14,共5页 Guangdong Highway Communications
关键词 RTFOT TFOT 室内老化 沥青性能 RTFOT TFOT laboratory aging performance of asphalt
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献17

  • 1黄卫东,孙立军,张志全,蒋跃.沥青针入度指数的研究[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2005,33(3):306-310. 被引量:31
  • 2王培荔.沥青路面老化和再生机理分析[J].山西交通科技,2007(1):14-16. 被引量:15
  • 3中华人民共和国交通部.公路工程沥青及沥青混合料试验规程(JTJ052—2000)[s].北京:人民交通出版社,2000..
  • 4Bocci M, Cerni G. The ultraviolet radiation in short - term and long - term aging of bitumen. Proc.2ndEurasphah&Eumbitume Congress, Session 1: Performance Testing and Specifications for Binder and Mixtures, (Barcelona), 2000.
  • 5刘晨光 陈月珠 梁文杰等.道路沥青的化学组成和使用的关系[J].石油炼制与化工,1987,(6):32-37.
  • 6姚德宏,高冰梅,陈鹤玲等.国内道路沥青试验方法与交通部试验规程的差异研究.见:中国石化沥青情报站.第十一次全国石油沥青技术交流会论文集,山东:2008.119~129.
  • 7[2]NCAT.Pavement Recycling Guidelines for State and Local Governments Publication No.FH WA-SA-98-042.
  • 8[4]Henry Sawatzky,Ottawa et al.,Softening Agents for Recycling Asphalt Pavement,US 5,234,494.
  • 9[5]Koppers Company,Inc.,Bituminous Pavement Rejuvenator,US 3,221,615.
  • 10[6]Koppers Company,Inc.,Pavement Dressing Conditioner Formed of Tar Aromatic Solvent and A Bituminous Pavement Rejuvenator,US 4,661,378.

共引文献31

同被引文献12

引证文献2

二级引证文献4

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部