Next Article in Journal
Research on the Optimization Design of High-Rise Office Building Performance Based on a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm
Next Article in Special Issue
Development and Validation of High-Performance Soil-Cement Panels: A Sustainable and Economical Alternative for Civil Construction
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental and Numerical Analyses on the Flexural Tensile Strength of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Prisms with and Without Rice Husk Ash
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Thermal Conductivity for Buildings’ Composite Panels Including Used Materials on Heat Variation and Energy Consumption
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/buildings15101637
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Case Study of Pavement Construction Materials for Wet-Freeze Regions: The Application of Waste Glass Aggregate and High-Content Rubber Modified Asphalt

by
Kai Xin
,
Meng Wu
,
Dongzhao Jin
and
Zhanping You
*
Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(10), 1637; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15101637
Submission received: 5 April 2025 / Revised: 2 May 2025 / Accepted: 8 May 2025 / Published: 13 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Construction Materials and Technologies for a Sustainable Future)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pavement systems in wet-freeze regions are prone to cracking, rutting, and moisture damage, making it challenging to incorporate recycled materials into asphalt mixtures in a way that enhances sustainability while maintaining performance and constructability. This study investigates and demonstrates the combined benefits of using processed waste glass in a leveling course and high-content crumb rubber in a surface course, focusing on both laboratory and full-scale field assessments in a wet-freeze region of northern Michigan. A leveling course containing 10% waste glass aggregate and a surface course using 16% crumb rubber (by binder weight) modified asphalt were designed with low air voids (3.0–3.5%) to promote thicker asphalt binder films for improved crack resistance. Laboratory results demonstrated that the combination of a 10% glass aggregate leveling course and a 16% rubber-modified surface course significantly enhanced low-temperature fracture energy while maintaining robust rut resistance and moisture durability. Full-scale construction in northern Michigan corroborated these findings; field cores from rubber and glass sections surpassed performance thresholds for rutting, cracking, and noise reduction. This study demonstrates that integrating crumb rubber and waste glass into asphalt pavements offers both environmental and performance benefits. The approach presents a scalable solution for enhancing pavement durability in wet-freeze regions.

1. Introduction

Pavement performance in wet-freeze regions faces major challenges, such as cracking in cold temperatures, rutting, and damage from moisture. Traditional asphalt pavements often experience rapid deterioration under such harsh conditions, leading to increased maintenance costs and shortened service life. Addressing these challenges requires innovations in both material selection and mix design strategies.
Recycled materials such as waste glass and crumb rubber have been considered for asphalt pavement construction due to their potential performance benefits. However, their practical use in cold regions remains limited. Many studies have suggested that glass asphalt is more suitable for use in lower layers, such as leveling or base courses, and low traffic volume roads [1,2,3]. Yet, waste glass typically exhibits a smooth surface texture [4,5], which can lead to poor adhesion and stripping issues [6,7]. This reduced interlock may adversely affect tensile strength [8] and rutting resistance. However, properly designed glass asphalt can enhance its performance [9,10]. Similarly, incorporating crumb rubber from waste tires into asphalt mixtures has been shown to improve rheological properties [11,12,13], rutting performance [14,15,16], and cracking resistance [17,18,19,20]. However, if not carefully managed, the presence of crumb rubber can decrease binder–aggregate cohesion [21,22], thereby impacting the indirect tensile strength and moisture susceptibility [23,24].
While each material offers distinct benefits and drawbacks, their combined use in asphalt pavements for wet-freeze climates has not been extensively studied. This research aims to fill that gap by evaluating the asphalt system that incorporates waste glass aggregate in the leveling course and high-content crumb rubber in the surface course. To address the limitations of each material, this study employs a modified mix design approach with low air void contents (3.0–3.5%) to promote thicker asphalt binder films and enhance overall durability. However, this strategy may introduce potential risks, such as bleeding, due to the relatively high binder content. Nonetheless, the low-traffic context of the project and the prevailing wet-freeze climate reduce the likelihood of rutting-related issues. Therefore, the lower air void design allows the mix to more effectively target low-temperature cracking resistance, which is one of the most critical performance concerns in cold regions.
Field construction inherently involves variability and practical complexities, which further emphasize the importance of evaluating these recycled materials under field conditions. This research was conducted as a case study in Dickinson County, Michigan, where four distinct asphalt mixtures were designed and implemented in a pavement rehabilitation project. The mixtures include conventional asphalt for surface courses and leveling courses, glass asphalt for leveling courses (with 10% of the total aggregate mass replaced by processed waste glass), and a rubber-modified asphalt for surface courses (incorporating 16% crumb rubber by binder weight using a dry process). The project was executed on the same road over three sections, allowing for a direct comparison between conventional and recycled material-modified pavements. A comprehensive evaluation program, which included Superpave mix design assessments, laboratory tests such as disk-shaped compact tension (DCT), Hamburg wheel-tracking test (HWTT), and indirect tensile strength/tensile strength ratio tests (IDT/TSR), as well as field evaluations including field core performance testing and noise measurements, was implemented to assess the performance of these mixtures under severe wet-freeze conditions.
The primary objectives of this study are twofold. First, it seeks to evaluate the laboratory performance and durability of asphalt mixtures modified with recycled waste glass and crumb rubber for the wet-freeze area. Second, this study aims to assess the overall field performance of these modified mixtures through evaluations of rutting resistance, cracking behavior, and noise reduction to validate their practical applicability and long-term durability in real-world environments. By linking mix design strategies with both lab and field results, this study demonstrates the technical feasibility and real-world applicability of integrating recycled materials into pavements for wet-freeze regions.
Overall, this study aims to investigate the technical feasibility and practical aspects of incorporating recycled crumb rubber and waste glass into asphalt mixtures for use in wet-freeze regions. By examining both laboratory and field performance, this research offers practical insights into integrating recycled materials into pavement mixtures, potentially contributing to designs that perform reliably in regions with severe wet and freeze conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mixture Designs and Materials

In this study, a pavement rehabilitation project for a low-traffic-volume road in Dickinson County, Michigan, was selected as a case study to evaluate the feasibility, design strategies, and construction practices of utilizing glass asphalt and rubber-modified asphalt under a wet-freeze environment. Four asphalt mixtures, 5EML, 4EML, glass 4EML, and rubber modified 5EML, based on the State of Michigan’s specification, were designed and implemented. Within Michigan Department of Transportation’s (MDOT) standard framework [25], the 4EML mixture, with a nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) of 12.5 mm, is typically employed as a leveling course, while the 5EML mixture, with a 9.5 mm NMAS, is commonly used as a surface course. Both mixtures are generally designed for roadways with lower traffic volumes, ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 million equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs). All mixtures utilized the same primary aggregate source, and the asphalt binder selected for the project was PG 58-34, with a specific gravity of 1.029. Superpave mix design methodologies were employed to ensure compliance with both volumetric specifications and TSR criteria. While conventional mixtures typically target 4% air voids, this project specified reduced air void contents, 3.0% for the 5EML mixture and 3.5% for the rubber-modified 5EML, 4EML, and glass 4EML mixtures, to enhance resistance to moisture damage and mitigate freeze and moisture damage. Lower air void content was intended to limit water penetration, improve durability under extreme environmental conditions, and extend the pavement’s service life. Standard volumetric parameters, such as voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled with asphalt (VFA), were maintained in accordance with MDOT specifications [25].
The glass 4EML mixture was formulated by replacing 10% of the total aggregate mass with processed waste glass sourced from a municipal waste management facility in Marquette, Michigan. The waste glass underwent screening, crushing, and washing processes to achieve a gradation comparable to that of the control aggregates. The rubber modified 5EML mixture incorporated crumb rubber particles, sourced from Illinois, at 16% by weight of the binder using a dry process. The dry process approach eliminated the need for additional plant modifications or specialized equipment. Figure 1 presents the aggregate gradation curves for all four asphalt mixtures, as well as for the waste glass aggregate. The x-axis represents the sieve size raised to the 0.45 power, and the y-axis shows the percent passing by weight, illustrating the particle size distribution of each material.
To enable direct performance comparisons, the four mixtures were applied in three sections. The first section, serving as the control, spanned approximately 1100 feet and consisted of a 1.5-inch 5EML surface layer over a 2-inch 4EML leveling layer. The second section, designated as the rubber-modified section, extended approximately 2300 feet and featured a 1.5-inch rubber-modified 5EML surface layer over a 2-inch 4EML leveling layer. The third section, referred to as the combination section, covered approximately 4600 feet and included a 1.5-inch rubber modified 5EML surface layer over a 2-inch glass 4EML leveling layer. A schematic representation of the pavement structure and layer composition is provided in Figure 2.

2.2. Plant Production

All four mixtures, 4EML, 5EML, glass 4EML, and rubber modified 5EML, were produced at a nearby hot-mix asphalt (HMA) facility in compliance with standard MDOT quality-control protocols. The mixing temperature was consistently maintained between 304 °F and 314 °F (151 °C and 157 °C) to ensure proper aggregate drying and uniform coating of the binder. During each batch cycle, aggregates were first heated and dried before being blended with the PG 58-34 binder. In addition, for the rubber-modified 5EML mixture, 0.08% Zydex anti-stripping agent was added to enhance the cohesive energy of the binder and improve adhesion between the asphalt and aggregates. In contrast, the other three mixtures (4EML, 5EML, and glass 4EML) did not include any anti-stripping agents during their production.
For the glass 4EML mixture, the waste glass was integrated into the production process without requiring any special handling. The waste glass was introduced directly into the mixer alongside conventional aggregates sourced from the same pit. In the case of the rubber-modified 5EML mixture, a dry process was employed, wherein crumb rubber particles were added to the heated aggregates in the batch mixer prior to the introduction of the binder. A drone-captured aerial view of the asphalt plant is provided in Figure 3.

2.3. Construction and Field Implementation

The rehabilitation project was carried out in three roadway sections following a similar sequence to ensure a stable base and uniform asphalt overlays. Figure 4 shows the location of the project within Dickinson County. First, the existing pavement was pulverized to break it into smaller particles, thereby facilitating its reuse as part of the new base layer. During and immediately after pulverization, water was sprayed onto the material to suppress dust and improve workability. This controlled moisture content also helped achieve better compaction, resulting in a denser and more robust base. After the old road was pulverized, the base layer was recompacted to form a new, stable foundation. Then, a leveling course was placed at a compaction temperature of approximately 278–284 °F (137–140 °C). The same temperature range was maintained for the surface course installation to ensure consistent workability and density. After each layer’s compaction, in situ density testing was performed; if the measured density fell below the 93% target, additional rolling passes were applied until the specified compaction criteria were met. Through coordinated scheduling and consistent construction practices, the entire operation was completed within four days. Figure 5a–f illustrates the key stages of the construction, from establishing the new base layer to placing and compacting the final surface course.

2.4. Laboratory Testing

To evaluate the mechanical properties of the four asphalt mixtures, a comprehensive laboratory testing program was implemented. Plant-mixed materials were collected immediately after production, stored, and reheated in the laboratory for two hours to simulate field aging. Additionally, field cores were extracted from the three constructed sections and two weeks post-construction to assess in-place performance, as shown in Figure 6. The laboratory tests included DCT, HWTT, and IDT/TSR.
DCT testing was conducted at −24 °C to align with the PG of the PG 58-34 binder. The testing procedure followed ASTM D7313 guidelines [26]. Cylindrical specimens were cored, cut into semicircular segments, and precisely notched. Fracture energy and peak load were recorded to evaluate thermal crack resistance. For each asphalt mixture, three replicate specimens were tested for DCT.
Rutting and moisture-induced damage were evaluated using the HWTT with two replicates in accordance with AASHTO T 324 [27]. Cylindrical specimens (150 mm in diameter) were prepared, placed in a 45 °C water bath, and subjected to repeated steel wheel passes. Key parameters, including rut depth progression, stripping inflection point (SIP), and failure pass at 12.5mm rut depth, were documented to characterize permanent deformation and moisture susceptibility.
IDT and TSR were conducted in accordance with AASHTO T 283 [28] to assess moisture sensitivity and tensile strength with three replicate specimens. Specimens were divided into conditioned and unconditioned sets, with IDT measured at 25 °C. TSR was calculated as the ratio of wet to dry tensile strength. A minimum TSR of 80%, as specified by MDOT, was used as the threshold to indicate acceptable moisture resistance and potential long-term pavement performance under repeated condition cycles.
For all the test results, although no formal hypothesis testing was conducted, standard deviations were included to illustrate the variability among replicates.

2.5. Noise Measurement

The primary objective of the noise measurements was to determine whether the alternative mixtures, particularly those sections containing rubber or glass, offered any acoustic advantages relative to the control section. Noise assessments were performed at two distinct intervals: right after construction and one year after construction.
All measurements were conducted in accordance with ANSI S1.4 Type 2 and IEC 61672-1 Class 2 standards. The sound level meter was positioned at a consistent lateral distance from the roadway, ensuring repeatability across all test sections. A lightweight truck was used as the test vehicle for the measurements. To account for varying traffic conditions, vehicle speeds were systematically held at 35, 45, 55, and 65 mph, with three test runs performed at each speed to enhance measurement reliability.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Mix Design Results

Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between binder content and air voids for each mixture, while Table 1 summarizes the optimum binder contents determined at the target air void levels. As shown in the data, all mixtures exhibited relatively high VFA values. This increase can be attributed to the additional binder required to achieve lower air void contents, which effectively fills more of the available void space and results in elevated VFA.
In regions prone to wet-freeze areas, higher VFA values are advantageous because they correspond to thicker binder films, which enhance cracking resistance [29,30]. This is particularly beneficial in wet-freeze climates for the State of Michigan, where low-temperature cracking is a primary concern. Consequently, the design focus shifted toward mitigating low-temperature and fatigue cracking, rather than prioritizing rutting resistance alone. This explains the higher binder content and higher VFA observed across the four mixtures.

3.2. Field-Mixed and Laboratory-Compacted Sample Performance

3.2.1. IDT and TSR

Figure 8a depicts the IDT for both unconditioned and conditioned specimens of the four mixtures. Notably, the rubber-modified 5EML mixture demonstrated the highest IDT overall, exceeding the control 5EML by approximately 25% in the unconditioned state and by around 10% in the conditioned state. While some studies have reported a reduction in IDT when incorporating crumb rubber, this is often attributed to decreased binder–rubber cohesion [31,32,33]. Several studies [34,35,36,37] have demonstrated that anti-stripping agents significantly enhance asphalt–aggregate adhesion, thereby improving moisture resistance in asphalt mixtures. In this study, the incorporation of 0.08% anti-stripping agent and the higher binder content (associated with the lower target air voids) effectively mitigated this issue. These measures enhanced the adhesion between the binder and rubber particles, resulting in improved tensile strength and overall performance.
In contrast, the glass 4EML mixture exhibited a significantly lower IDT than its control 4EML mix. In this study, IDT decreased by approximately 32% in the unconditioned state and 40% in the conditioned state. The results are consistent with findings from Sanji et al. and Kalampokis et al. [37,38], who also reported strength loss with waste glass use. While Hughes et al. [39] noted only a slight reduction at 10% glass replacement, they emphasized that increased binder content can partially offset this effect. These results align with the existing literature, indicating that although glass may weaken tensile strength, thoughtful binder adjustments can help mitigate the impact.
Figure 8b presents the TSR for each mixture under moisture conditioning. The rubber modified 5EML exhibited slightly lower TSR values compared to the 5EML control, yet it still met or exceeded MDOT’s 80% minimum threshold, confirming adequate moisture resistance despite its higher IDT. This outcome suggests that while rubber modification enhances tensile strength, the interactions between the binder and rubber particles may influence moisture-related adhesion within the mixture, resulting in a slightly lower TSR than anticipated.
The glass 4EML similarly recorded lower TSR values compared to the 4EML control, aligning with multiple studies that have observed a decrease in moisture resistance when waste glass is introduced as a partial aggregate replacement. Nevertheless, the glass 4EML mixture still surpassed MDOT’s 80% minimum requirement, indicating that the combination of appropriate gradation and increased binder content can maintain acceptable moisture resistance in a wet-freeze environment.
Overall, both rubber and glass asphalt remain viable under wet-freeze conditions, provided that mix designs include sufficient binder content or anti-stripping strategies to mitigate potential reductions in strength and moisture durability.

3.2.2. HWTT

The rut depth progression curves in Figure 9a reveal distinct performance trends among the four mixtures. The rubber-modified 5EML mixture exhibits the slowest rutting progression, with a gradual increase in rut depth over time, reflecting the best resistance to permanent deformation. In contrast, the glass 4EML mixture displays a steeper initial slope than the 4EML control, indicating reduced early-stage stability under repeated loading. The conventional 5EML and 4EML mixtures lie between these two recycled material asphalt, showing intermediate rut depths that exceed those of the rubber modified 5EML but remain lower than the glass 4EML.
Further insights can be gleaned from the SIP and failure pass at 12.5 mm rut depth shown in Figure 9b. The rubber modified 5EML achieves both the highest SIP and the greatest number of failure passes, surpassing MnDOT’s minimum requirement of 5000 passes [40]. This enhanced performance is largely attributed to the elastic properties of crumb rubber, which help absorb traffic loads and reduce moisture damage [41,42,43,44]. In contrast, the glass 4EML mixture records the lowest SIP and the fewest passes before reaching 12.5 mm of rutting, indicating its susceptibility to permanent deformation and moisture effects. According to Cheng et al. [45] and Airey et al. [46], the smooth texture and relatively poor adhesion of glass particles can lower rutting resistance, particularly if the glass lacks angularity or sufficient hardness. You et al. [2] also tested recycled cathode ray tube glass in asphalt mixtures and found that glass asphalt exhibits lower rutting performance than conventional mixtures, although its performance may be adequate for low-volume roads. Shafabakhsh et al. [47] reported that glass cullet may improve deformation resistance due to higher hardness, but such benefits can depend heavily on gradation and particle shape. In this study, the fine gradation of the glass and its lower hardness likely contributed to reduced rutting performance.
Although glass 4EML does not meet MnDOT’s surface-course requirement of 5000 failure passes at 12.5 mm rut depth, it was specifically designed here as a leveling layer for a lower-traffic roadway. The overlying rubber-modified 5EML surface layer can help distribute traffic loads, potentially mitigating rutting in practice. The combined performance of the rubber 5EML surface over glass 4EML leveling will be evaluated through field core testing, which will be discussed in a subsequent section.

3.2.3. DCT

The DCT results (Figure 10) reveal that the rubber-modified 5EML mixture exhibited a 37% increase in fracture energy compared to the conventional 5EML, while the glass 4EML mixture showed a 29% improvement over the conventional 4EML. These enhancements highlight the benefits of incorporating crumb rubber and waste glass, as both modifications significantly improve the mixtures’ resistance to low-temperature cracking. The best performance of the rubber-modified 5EML mix is largely attributed to the elastic properties of crumb rubber, which enhance energy absorption and crack resistance. Ding et al. [48] reported that as rubber content increases, more energy is consumed by non-destructive deformation rather than crack propagation, thus improving cracking resistance. Similarly, Jin et al. [49] found that incorporating crumb rubber in asphalt mixtures contributes positively to the cracking resistance of surface courses. Moreover, the strengthening effect of rubber modification on the asphalt binder further enhances fracture energy under low-temperature conditions [31,50]. Although the improvement in fracture energy for the glass 4EML mixture is less pronounced than that for the rubber modified mixture, it still demonstrates the potential benefits of using recycled glass to enhance low-temperature performance in leveling course mixtures. While some studies have suggested that waste glass might reduce cracking resistance [2,51,52,53], the target lower air void content, combined with higher binder content, results in a thicker asphalt film and a denser structure in glass 4EML. This likely contributes to its improved cracking resistance, and other studies have shown that properly designed glass aggregate asphalt can achieve similar enhancements [54,55,56]. In this study, all mixtures exceeded MnDOT’s minimum fracture energy requirement of 450 J/m2, confirming their suitability for low-temperature environments.
For the peak load results, both the glass 4EML and rubber modified 5EML mixtures exhibited lower peak loads compared to the control mixes. However, peak load is less critical for evaluating low-temperature cracking resistance. As noted by Mandal et al. [57], peak load can be considered an indicator of flexibility, primarily reflecting crack initiation rather than energy dissipation during crack propagation. The higher fracture energy of the rubber- and glass-modified mixtures underscores their superior ability to resist cracking, despite their lower peak loads.
The rubber-modified 5EML mixture’s exceptional fracture energy makes it an ideal choice for wet-freeze regions, offering enhanced durability and crack resistance. Similarly, the glass 4EML mixture, while not as effective as the rubber-modified variant, provides a sustainable alternative with improved performance over conventional asphalt.

3.3. Field Cores Performance

3.3.1. Field Cores HWTT

The HWTT results for field cores from the three sections: Section 1 (5EML + 4EML control), Section 2 (rubber modified 5EML + 4EML), and Section 3 (rubber modified 5EML + glass 4EML), demonstrate clear performance differences in rutting resistance. As illustrated in Figure 11a, Section 2 exhibited the slowest rutting progression, indicating that the rubber-modified asphalt surface course significantly enhances resistance to repeated loading compared to the control mix. Although Section 3 showed a slightly faster rutting progression than Section 2, it still outperformed the conventional Section 1. This suggests that while the glass 4EML material alone may have the poorest rutting resistance, its use as a leveling layer in combination with a rubber-modified surface can still yield excellent field performance.
A notable observation is the absence of a clear SIP in all three sections, even when rut depths reached 20 mm in Section 1. This indicates that moisture-induced damage was not a significant factor in the observed rutting; instead, the primary mode of deformation was plastic, suggesting that the field-compacted cores achieved excellent density, thereby minimizing water infiltration and preventing stripping.
As shown in Figure 11b, both Sections 2 and 3 met or exceeded MnDOT’s minimum rutting resistance threshold of 5000 passes at 12.5 mm rut depth. Specifically, Section 2 achieved approximately 59% more wheel passes than Section 1, while Section 3 achieved about 23% more than Section 1. These results demonstrate the successful field performance of recycled material asphalt. Overall, with respect to rutting, both Sections 2 and 3 meet the intended performance criteria by effectively incorporating and utilizing crumb rubber and waste glass.

3.3.2. Field Cores DCT

The DCT tests on field cores demonstrate significant improvements in cracking resistance with the incorporation of recycled materials, as illustrated in Figure 12. Specifically, Section 2 exhibited approximately 40% higher fracture energy than the conventional Section 1, while Section 3 showed about 24% higher fracture energy compared to Section 1. These enhancements clearly indicate that the use of rubber-modified asphalt for the surface course, as well as the combination of rubber-modified asphalt for the surface course and glass asphalt for the leveling layer, improves the mixture’s ability to resist low-temperature cracking. Furthermore, the peak load results support these findings, with Section 2 recording a 12% increase and Section 3 a 3% increase in peak load over Section 1.
It is worth noting that the slightly lower fracture energy observed in these composite field cores, relative to uniformly compacted laboratory specimens, can be attributed to the inherent complexity of a two-layer system. Factors such as interface-induced stress concentrations, in situ variability, and subtle early-stage aging effects tend to reduce the measured fracture energy. Nevertheless, all sections exceeded MnDOT’s minimum fracture energy requirement, confirming their suitability for low-temperature environments.
Overall, the field core DCT results affirm that the incorporation of recycled crumb rubber, in combination with waste glass in the leveling layer, successfully enhances cracking resistance. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the construction practices employed in this study.

3.4. Comparison of Field-Mixed and Laboratory-Compacted Samples with Field Core Samples

3.4.1. Field and Laboratory HWTT Comparison

Figure 13 compares the HWTT results of laboratory-compacted specimens with those taken from field cores for three sections. In the laboratory, the SIP typically occurs before reaching a rut depth of 12.5 mm, indicating that moisture-induced stripping is a significant factor. However, in the field-compacted cores, the SIP remains higher than 12.5 mm, indicating that moisture damage does not significantly contribute to rut progression. This discrepancy points to excellent field compaction, which minimizes water infiltration and effectively prevents stripping. As a result, the rutting in field samples appears to be driven more by plastic deformation than by moisture-related mechanisms.
Upon closer examination of the three sections, Section 1 (5EML over 4EML) exhibits laboratory and field results that align closely, reflecting a conventional structure that still achieves reasonable rutting performance. Section 2, featuring a rubber-modified 5EML over a conventional 4EML, exhibits the best overall rutting resistance, mirroring the superior performance observed in its laboratory-compacted counterpart. In Section 3, where a rubber-modified 5EML surface is placed over a glass 4EML leveling course, the presence of the rubber surface course effectively mitigates the poor rutting performance otherwise associated with glass 4EML in laboratory tests. This synergy between rubber and glass ensures that Section 3 also demonstrates robust rutting resistance, highlighting the potential of combining a rubber-modified surface with a glass-modified leveling layer in cold, wet-freeze environments.

3.4.2. Field and Laboratory DCT Comparison

Figure 14 compares the DCT fracture energies for laboratory-compacted specimens and field cores. Although laboratory and field mixtures are identical in composition, the field cores observed lower fracture energy compared to laboratory-compacted specimens. One significant factor is the layer interface and stress concentration. Field cores often encompass multiple pavement layers, and the interface between these layers can act as a localized stress concentrator, promoting crack initiation during DCT testing. Laboratory samples, by contrast, are typically compacted as a single, uniform layer, leading to a more consistent stress distribution.
Another consideration is early-stage aging in real-world environments. Even a short period of exposure to traffic loads, oxidation, and temperature fluctuations can cause the asphalt binder to stiffen, reducing its ability to dissipate fracture energy. Laboratory specimens, prepared and tested under controlled conditions, do not undergo the same level of oxidation or thermal cycling as those in real-world environments before testing.
Additionally, in situ density variations can play a role. Although high-quality field compaction can approximate lab compaction, subtle gradients in air void distribution or minor inconsistencies in rolling can create microstructural differences that lower the mixture’s resistance to crack propagation. Finally, moisture and thermal history could degrade the binder–aggregate bond over time, further decreasing the fracture energy observed in field cores.
Overall, the DCT data confirm that, despite inherent differences between lab and field compaction or aging, most mixtures preserve adequate crack resistance in cold, wet-freeze environments.

3.5. Field Noise Measurement

Figure 15a compares noise measurements taken across three test sections at vehicle speeds of 35, 45, 55, and 65 mph based on controlled tests using a lightweight truck, and Figure 15b compares the average noise level over time. This approach allowed for a comparison of noise levels, contributing to a clearer understanding of how rubber and glass asphalt sections might influence tire–pavement interaction noise. Overall, Sections 2 and 3 (both containing rubber-modified asphalt) exhibited lower noise levels than the conventional Section 1, especially at higher speeds. A key factor appears to be the slightly higher target air void content (3.5% in Sections 2 and 3 vs. 3.0% in Section 1), which prior research has linked to greater sound absorption in rubberized asphalt mixtures. Xu et al. [58,59] demonstrated that crumb rubber introduces additional damping properties and more interconnected void pathways, mitigating vibration-induced noise. Knabben et al. [60] similarly observed that dense-graded rubberized asphalt can exhibit modest but consistent gains in sound absorption compared to conventional mixes. From a mechanistic perspective, the presence of air voids can dissipate acoustic energy by letting some of the vibrating air pass into the pavement. Once inside, frictional losses occur in the void network, lowering the overall noise that radiates back to the surface [61]. The rubber particles further help dampen vibrational modes in the asphalt matrix. While the differences in air void content among Sections 1–3 are relatively small, they likely play a synergistic role alongside the rubber’s inherent damping capability to reduce pass-by noise levels.
Based on Figure 15b, after one year, all three sections experienced some increase in average decibels (dB) due to surface wear and minor clogging of the void structure, but the rubber-modified Sections 2 and 3 showed smaller increments, less than 3 dB increases, than the conventional mix is about 4 dB rise. This suggests that the acoustic benefits of rubberized asphalt persist as the pavement weathers. Notably, adding waste glass in the leveling course (Section 3) did not diminish noise reduction, implying that glass substitution at moderate content does not negate the crumb rubber’s acoustic advantages.
It should be noted that these measurements focused on quantitative external sound levels and did not include subjective (psychoacoustic) evaluations or driver/passenger impressions of noise comfort. Future studies may address whether drivers perceive a meaningful difference in interior cabin noise. It is important to note that this study focused solely on objective, external sound level measurements. Subjective evaluations, such as interior cabin noise or perceived driver/passenger comfort, were not included and represent a valuable area for future research. Future studies should explore psychoacoustic assessments and interior noise levels to determine whether the measured acoustic improvements offer a meaningful experience for road users. Additional research could also examine how different levels of surface porosity or alternative rubber–glass dosage rates affect acoustic longevity. Nonetheless, these initial findings confirm that rubber modification in the surface course effectively lowers noise in cold-region asphalt pavements, and incorporating glass in the leveling layer appears compatible with those noise-reducing benefits.

3.6. Brief Discussion of Life Cycle Assessment and Cost-Benefits

From a cost–benefit and life cycle perspective, Sections 2 and 3 offer tangible advantages over conventional asphalt (Section 1) by reducing landfill dependency for both crumb rubber and waste glass. For agencies prioritizing sustainable infrastructure, even a qualitative assessment reveals meaningful savings: less waste is sent to landfills, and Section 3’s partial replacement of virgin aggregate with glass curtails the environmental impacts of new aggregate production. Although these material substitutions may raise initial production expenses, potential offsets come from lower disposal costs and alignment with government directives incentivizing recycled content. In a previous study conducted on the same roadway, focused only on the rubber-modified section, life cycle assessment (LCA) results showed that incorporating crumb rubber can reduce asphalt binder demand and decrease the environmental burden associated with waste tire disposal [62]. However, the environmental impacts of incorporating a glass-modified leveling course have not yet been fully evaluated at the full scale. In future work, the research team plans to combine long-term field performance data with environmental and cost modeling to develop a performance-driven LCA and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for all three sections. This will provide a more complete understanding of the environmental and economic implications of using both crumb rubber and waste glass in asphalt pavements. Moreover, adopting recycled materials can reduce the long-term carbon footprint while preserving or enhancing pavement performance, thus appealing to agencies seeking both environmental compliance and durable roadways. Taken together, Sections 2 and 3 offer a natural promotional advantage over Section 1, as they visibly demonstrate the reuse of crumb rubber and waste glass, both of which align closely with sustainability objectives and governmental priorities.

4. Conclusions

This case study evaluates the performance of recycled crumb rubber and waste glass in asphalt mixtures for pavement rehabilitation in wet-freeze environments. Four mixtures were designed according to MDOT specifications and implemented in a multi-section field project in Dickinson County, Michigan. The results demonstrate that these recycled materials can significantly enhance pavement performance while supporting sustainability goals. The key findings can be summarized as follows:
(1)
Laboratory tests revealed that targeting lower air voids (3.0–3.5%) and increasing binder content improved low-temperature cracking resistance.
(2)
The rubber-modified 5EML mixture exhibited a significant increase in fracture energy compared to conventional 5EML, while the glass 4EML mixture also showed notable improvement over conventional 4EML. Although the glass mixture had a lower IDT, all mixtures exceeded the 80% TSR threshold, confirming adequate moisture resistance.
(3)
Field performance demonstrates that sections with rubber-modified surface courses achieved superior rutting resistance, exceeding MnDOT’s minimum threshold.
(4)
Field core DCT tests showed that composite systems improved fracture energy compared to the control, despite the complexity of two-layer systems.
(5)
Field noise measurements confirmed that rubber-modified sections maintained lower noise levels over time, highlighting the acoustic benefits of crumb rubber.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that recycled crumb rubber and waste glass can be effectively incorporated into asphalt mixtures to enhance low-temperature cracking resistance, rutting performance, and moisture durability, while also reducing noise levels. These findings provide a sustainable pathway for improving pavement performance in wet-freeze regions, aligning with environmental stewardship goals. In the future, the research team will continue to monitor long-term field performance, including rutting, cracking, surface friction, and noise levels, and offer to understand the long-term impacts of incorporating waste glass and rubber-modified asphalt.

Author Contributions

K.X.: conceptualization, methodology, software, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; M.W.: visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; D.J.: writing—review and editing; Z.Y.: supervision, conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). Grant contract number: Michigan Tech #2201018.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This project is sponsored by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in the interest of information exchange in cooperation with the Dickinson County Road Commission, Michigan, of the United States. Lance Malburg, an engineer of Dickinson County, along with his colleagues, coordinated the project in Dickinson County. Kirsten S. Clemens of the Materials Management Division of EGLE provided significant support for this project. The construction in Dickinson County was completed by the Bacco Construction Company.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DCTDisk-shaped compact tension
HWTTHamburg wheel-tracking test
IDTIndirect tensile strength
TSRTensile strength ratio
MDOTMichigan Department of Transportation
ESALsEquivalent single-axle loads
VMAVoids in mineral aggregate
VFAVoids filled with asphalt
HMAHot-mix asphalt
SIPStripping inflection point
LCALife cycle assessment
LCCALife cycle cost analysis

References

  1. Huang, Y.; Bird, R.N.; Heidrich, O. A review of the use of recycled solid waste materials in asphalt pavements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 52, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. You, L.; Jin, D.; Guo, S.; Wang, J.; Dai, Q.; You, Z. Leaching evaluation and performance assessments of asphalt mixtures with recycled cathode ray tube glass: A preliminary study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. West, R.C.; Page, G.C.; Murphy, K.H. Evaluation of crushed glass in asphalt paving mixtures. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 1993, 1193, 117. [Google Scholar]
  4. Maupin, G. Glasphalt Test Sections in Virginia; Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC): Charlottesville, VA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arabani, M. Effect of glass cullet on the improvement of the dynamic behaviour of asphalt concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1181–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maupin, G. Effect of Glass Concentration on Stripping of Glasphalt (No. VTRC-98-R30); Virginia Transportation Research Council: Charlottesville, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  7. Su, N.; Chen, J. Engineering properties of asphalt concrete made with recycled glass. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2002, 35, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nicholls, J.; Lay, J. Crashed glass in macadam for binder course and roadbase layers. In Performance of Bituminous and Hydraulic Materials in Pavements; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 197–211. [Google Scholar]
  9. Arabani, M.; Mirabdolazimi, S.; Ferdowsi, B. Modeling the fatigue behaviors of glasphalt mixtures. Sci. Iran. 2012, 19, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Androjić, I.; Dimter, S. Properties of hot mix asphalt with substituted waste glass. Mater. Struct. 2016, 49, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xu, O.; Xiao, F.; Han, S.; Amirkhanian, S.N.; Wang, Z. High temperature rheological properties of crumb rubber modified asphalt binders with various modifiers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, G.; Kong, P.; Yu, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhu, M.; Chen, X. Rheological properties of rubber modified asphalt as function of waste tire rubber reclaiming degree. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 130113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gui, W.; Liang, L.; Wang, L.; Gao, X.; Zhang, F. Performance evaluation of warm-mixed crumb rubber modified asphalt based on rheological characteristics. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 285, 122881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ameri, M.; Afshin, A.; Shiraz, M.E.; Yazdipanah, F. Effect of wax-based warm mix additives on fatigue and rutting performance of crumb rubber modified asphalt. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 262, 120882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kocak, S.; Kutay, M.E. Effect of devulcanized rubber modification on the performance grade, fatigue cracking resistance, and rutting resistance of asphalt binders. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Luan, Y.; Ma, Y.; Ma, T.; Wang, C.; Xia, F. Research on the effects of asphalt performance on rutting resistance and its correlation with rutting performance indicators. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 400, 132773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, Z.; Wang, T.; Pei, J.; Amirkhanian, S.; Xiao, F.; Ye, Q.; Fan, Z. Low temperature and fatigue characteristics of treated crumb rubber modified asphalt after a long term aging procedure. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 1262–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rath, P.; Gettu, N.; Chen, S.; Buttlar, W.G. Investigation of cracking mechanisms in rubber-modified asphalt through fracture testing of mastic specimens. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2022, 23, 1544–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, X.; Solaimanian, M. Evaluating fracture properties of crumb rubber modified asphalt mixes. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2019, 12, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, H.; Xu, G.; Chen, X.; Wang, R.; Shen, K. Effect of long-term laboratory aging on rheological properties and cracking resistance of polymer-modified asphalt binders at intermediate and low temperature range. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 226, 767–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yin, D.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; Yin, L.; Liu, S.; Li, L. Enhancing shear resistance in pavement structures with crumb rubber modified asphalt gravel as a bonding layer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 426, 136184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arabani, M.; Tahami, S.A.; Hamedi, G.H. Performance evaluation of dry process crumb rubber-modified asphalt mixtures with nanomaterial. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2018, 19, 1241–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ma, J.; Sun, G.; Sun, D.; Zhang, Y.; Falchetto, A.C.; Lu, T.; Hu, M.; Yuan, Y. Rubber asphalt modified with waste cooking oil residue: Optimized preparation, rheological property, storage stability and aging characteristic. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 120372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Michigan Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Construction. 2020. Available online: https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/-/media/Project/Websites/MDOT/Business/Construction/Standard-Specifications-Construction/2020-Standard-Specifications-Construction.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2025).
  25. ASTM D7313-20; Standard Test Method for Determining Fracture Energy of Asphalt Mixtures Using the Disk-Shaped Compact Tension Geometry. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  26. AASHTO T 324-23; Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2023.
  27. AASHTO T 283; Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  28. Zhang, W.; Shen, S.; Wu, S.; Chen, X.; Xue, J.; Mohammad, L.N. Effects of in-place volumetric properties on field rutting and cracking performance of asphalt pavement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harvey, J.T.; Deacon, J.A.; Tsai, B.W.; Monismith, C.L. Fatigue Performance of Asphalt Concrete Mixes and Its Relationship to Asphalt Concrete Pavement Performance in California. 1995. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80c7d0rc (accessed on 7 May 2025).
  30. Chen, S.; Ge, D.; Jin, D.; Zhou, X.; Liu, C.; Lv, S.; You, Z. Investigation of hot mixture asphalt with high ground tire rubber content. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jin, D.; Ge, D.; Zhou, X.; You, Z. Asphalt mixture with scrap tire rubber and nylon fiber from waste tires: Laboratory performance and preliminary ME design analysis. Buildings 2022, 12, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Navarro, F.M.; Gámez, M.C.R. Influence of crumb rubber on the indirect tensile strength and stiffness modulus of hot bituminous mixes. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2012, 24, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Peng, Y.; Yu, Z.; Long, Y.; Li, Y. Experimental investigation on the effects of a new anti-stripping additive on performance properties of asphalt and its mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 353, 129173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, Y.-R.; Pinto, I.; Park, S.-W. Experimental evaluation of anti-stripping additives in bituminous mixtures through multiple scale laboratory test results. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hesami, E.; Mehdizadeh, G. Study of the amine-based liquid anti-stripping agents by simulating hot mix asphalt plant production process. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 157, 1011–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhu, C.; Tang, J.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H. Effect of liquid anti-stripping agents on moisture sensitivity of crumb rubber modified asphalt binders and mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 225, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sanij, H.K.; Meybodi, P.A.; Hormozaky, M.A.; Hosseini, S.H.; Olazar, M. Evaluation of performance and moisture sensitivity of glass-containing warm mix asphalt modified with zycothermTM as an anti-stripping additive. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hughes, C.S. Feasibility of Using Recycled Glass in Asphalt; Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC): Charlottesville, VA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kalampokis, S.; Kalama, D.; Kesikidou, F.; Stefanidou, M.; Manthos, E. Assessment of waste glass incorporation in asphalt concrete for surface layer construction. Materials 2023, 16, 4938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Newcomb, D.; Zhou, F. Balanced Design of Asphalt Mixtures; Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  41. Xiao, F.; Amirkhanian, S.; Juang, C.H. Rutting resistance of rubberized asphalt concrete pavements containing reclaimed asphalt pavement mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007, 19, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, Z.; Xu, L.; Guan, X.; Li, X.; Xiao, F. Rutting and strain characteristics of rubberized asphalt pavement based on accelerated pavement tester. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fontes, L.P.; Trichês, G.; Pais, J.C.; Pereira, P.A. Evaluating permanent deformation in asphalt rubber mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 1193–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hajikarimi, P.; Rahi, M.; Nejad, F.M. Comparing different rutting specification parameters using high temperature characteristics of rubber-modified asphalt binders. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2015, 16, 751–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cheng, M.; Chen, M.; Wu, S.; Yang, T.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y. Effect of waste glass aggregate on performance of asphalt micro-surfacing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 307, 125133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Airey, G.D.; Collop, A.C.; Thom, N.H. Mechanical performance of asphalt mixtures incorporating slag and glass secondary aggregates. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa (CAPSA’04), Sun City, South Africa, 12–16 September 2004. [Google Scholar]
  47. Shafabakhsh, G.; Sajed, Y. Investigation of dynamic behavior of hot mix asphalt containing waste materials; case study: Glass cullet. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2014, 1, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ding, X.; Huang, F.; Rath, P.; Ye, Z.; Buttlar, W.G.; Ma, T. Comparative fracture resistance assessment of rubber-modified asphalt mortar based on meso-and macro-mechanical analysis. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2023, 24, 2265032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jin, D.; Xin, K.; Yin, L.; Mohammadi, S.; Cetin, B.; You, Z. Performance of rubber modified asphalt mixture with tire-derived aggregate subgrade. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 449, 138261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, H.; You, Z.; Mills-Beale, J.; Hao, P. Laboratory evaluation on high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness of asphalt binder with high percent scrap tire rubber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Min, Z.; Zhou, L.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Y. Performance evaluation of epoxy-asphalt mixture blended with glass aggregate. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 04019083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhou, B.; Zhang, J.; Pei, J.; Li, R.; Zhang, Z. Design and evaluation of high–luminance porous asphalt mixtures based on wasted glass for sponge city. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 273, 121696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lachance-Tremblay, É.; Vaillancourt, M.; Perraton, D. Evaluation of the impact of recycled glass on asphalt mixture performances. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2016, 17, 600–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Feng, C.; Zhang, H.; Jia, W.; Lai, F. The effects of hollow glass microsphere modification on the road performances and thermal performance of asphalt binder and mixture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 220, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kadhim, M.A.; Al-Busaltan, S.; Nemaa, Z.K.; Abo Almaali, Y.; Saghafi, B.; Al-Kafaji, M.; Al-Jawad, O.; Al-Yasari, R. Evaluating the cracking performance indices of half-warm mix asphalt comprising waste glass. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2022, 15, 1262–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Barraj, F.; Mahfouz, S.; Kassem, H.; Khatib, J.; Goulias, D.; Elkordi, A. Investigation of using crushed glass waste as filler replacement in hot asphalt mixtures. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mandal, T.; Hanz, A.J.; Bahia, H.U. Challenges in using the Disc-Shaped Compact Tension (DCT) test to determine role of asphalt mix design variables in cracking resistance at low temperatures. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2019, 20, 1275–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xu, L.; Ni, H.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, D.; Zheng, Y.; Hu, M. Porous asphalt mixture use asphalt rubber binders: Preparation and noise reduction evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Ni, H.; Hu, M.; Sun, D. Optimization design of rubberized porous asphalt mixture based on noise reduction and pavement performance. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 389, 131551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Knabben, R.M.; Trichês, G.; Gerges, S.N.; Vergara, E.F. Evaluation of sound absorption capacity of asphalt mixtures. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 114, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sandberg, U. Low noise road surfaces-a state-of-the-art review. J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. (E) 1999, 20, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xin, K.; Jin, D.; Handler, R.M.; You, Z. Life Cycle Assessment of Rubber Modified Asphalt Pavement in Michigan: A Case Study. In International Symposium on Pavement, Roadway, and Bridge Life Cycle Assessment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 15 01637 g001
Figure 1. Gradation chart of four mixtures and waste glass.
Figure 1. Gradation chart of four mixtures and waste glass.
Buildings 15 01637 g001
Buildings 15 01637 g002
Figure 2. Pavement structure of three sections.
Figure 2. Pavement structure of three sections.
Buildings 15 01637 g002
Buildings 15 01637 g003
Figure 3. View of the asphalt plant.
Figure 3. View of the asphalt plant.
Buildings 15 01637 g003
Buildings 15 01637 g004
Figure 4. Project location.
Figure 4. Project location.
Buildings 15 01637 g004
Buildings 15 01637 g005
Figure 5. Key stages of the field construction.
Figure 5. Key stages of the field construction.
Buildings 15 01637 g005
Buildings 15 01637 g006
Figure 6. Field core samples.
Figure 6. Field core samples.
Buildings 15 01637 g006
Buildings 15 01637 g007
Figure 7. Superpave mix design results.
Figure 7. Superpave mix design results.
Buildings 15 01637 g007
Buildings 15 01637 g008
Figure 8. IDT (a) and TSR (b) results for four mixtures.
Figure 8. IDT (a) and TSR (b) results for four mixtures.
Buildings 15 01637 g008
Buildings 15 01637 g009
Figure 9. HWTT results: (a) rut depth progression curves, (b) failure passes and SIP.
Figure 9. HWTT results: (a) rut depth progression curves, (b) failure passes and SIP.
Buildings 15 01637 g009
Buildings 15 01637 g010
Figure 10. Fracture energy and peak load for four mixtures.
Figure 10. Fracture energy and peak load for four mixtures.
Buildings 15 01637 g010
Buildings 15 01637 g011
Figure 11. Field cores HWTT results for three sections: (a) rut depth progression curves, (b) failure passes at 12.5 mm rut depth and SIP.
Figure 11. Field cores HWTT results for three sections: (a) rut depth progression curves, (b) failure passes at 12.5 mm rut depth and SIP.
Buildings 15 01637 g011
Buildings 15 01637 g012
Figure 12. Field core fracture energy and peak load results for three sections.
Figure 12. Field core fracture energy and peak load results for three sections.
Buildings 15 01637 g012
Buildings 15 01637 g013
Figure 13. HWTT results of laboratory compacted samples and field core samples. Section 1: 5EML + 4EML; Section 2: rubber modified 5EML + 4EML; Section 3: rubber modified 5EML + Glass 4EML.
Figure 13. HWTT results of laboratory compacted samples and field core samples. Section 1: 5EML + 4EML; Section 2: rubber modified 5EML + 4EML; Section 3: rubber modified 5EML + Glass 4EML.
Buildings 15 01637 g013
Buildings 15 01637 g014
Figure 14. DCT results of laboratory compacted samples and field core samples.
Figure 14. DCT results of laboratory compacted samples and field core samples.
Buildings 15 01637 g014
Buildings 15 01637 g015
Figure 15. Field noise results.
Figure 15. Field noise results.
Buildings 15 01637 g015
Table 1. Volumetric properties results.
Table 1. Volumetric properties results.
Design CriteriaSurface CourseLeveling Course
5EMLRubber Modified 5EML4EMLGlass 4EML
Air void3%3.5%3.5%3.5%
Optimum binder content6.2%6.1%5.4%5.7%
VMA min % at Ndesign
(based on Gsb)		15.916.014.515.2
VFA at Ndesign (%)81.178.175.977.0
Dust proportion (PNo200/Pbe)0.880.921.010.79
AdditivesN/A *0.08% anti-stripping agentN/AN/A
* Not applicable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xin, K.; Wu, M.; Jin, D.; You, Z. A Case Study of Pavement Construction Materials for Wet-Freeze Regions: The Application of Waste Glass Aggregate and High-Content Rubber Modified Asphalt. Buildings 2025, 15, 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15101637

AMA Style

Xin K, Wu M, Jin D, You Z. A Case Study of Pavement Construction Materials for Wet-Freeze Regions: The Application of Waste Glass Aggregate and High-Content Rubber Modified Asphalt. Buildings. 2025; 15(10):1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15101637

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xin, Kai, Meng Wu, Dongzhao Jin, and Zhanping You. 2025. "A Case Study of Pavement Construction Materials for Wet-Freeze Regions: The Application of Waste Glass Aggregate and High-Content Rubber Modified Asphalt" Buildings 15, no. 10: 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15101637

APA Style

Xin, K., Wu, M., Jin, D., & You, Z. (2025). A Case Study of Pavement Construction Materials for Wet-Freeze Regions: The Application of Waste Glass Aggregate and High-Content Rubber Modified Asphalt. Buildings, 15(10), 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15101637

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop