Loading…

Cellulose Microfibril and Micronized Rubber Modified Asphalt Binder

Cellulose microfibrils (CMFs) and micronized rubber powder (MRP) can be derived from low or negative-cost agricultural/industrial waste streams and offer environment-friendly and cost-effective pathways to develop engineering products. This study investigated the efficacy of adding these micromodifi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Fibers 2021-04, Vol.9 (4), p.25
Main Authors: Li, Ang, Danladi, Abdu A., Vallabh, Rahul, Yakubu, Mohammed K., Ishiaku, Umar, Theyson, Thomas, Seyam, Abdel-Fattah M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Cellulose microfibrils (CMFs) and micronized rubber powder (MRP) can be derived from low or negative-cost agricultural/industrial waste streams and offer environment-friendly and cost-effective pathways to develop engineering products. This study investigated the efficacy of adding these micromodifiers on the performance characteristics of asphalt binders. In this work, samples were produced using a mixture of slow-setting anionic asphalt emulsion with various combinations of MRP (at 0, 2 and 10 wt %) and four types of CMFs (hydrophobic and hydrophilic with crystalline ratios of 86% and 95%) at 0, 2 and 5 wt %. The performance of modified asphalt samples was assessed by penetration depth (PD), softening point (SP), and penetration index (PI). Linear regression analysis showed that adding CMFs and/or MRP reduced PD and increased SP values. The type of CMFs significantly affected the performance, which becomes more distinct with the increased weight content of CMFs. While hydrophilic CMFs caused increases in SP and PI values, no clear trend was seen to determine the effect of CMF crystallinity. It was also discovered that the combined addition of CMF and MRP achieved similar PI values at lower total weight content compared to using MRP alone.
ISSN:2079-6439
2079-6439
DOI:10.3390/fib9040025