Development and Service Performance of Active Anti-Icing Pavement Materials for Energy Efficiency Optimization of Low-Enthalpy Geothermal Deicing Systems
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Raw Materials
2.1.1. Asphalt
2.1.2. Aggregate
2.1.3. Mineral Powder
2.2. Anti-Icing Modifier
2.2.1. Preparation Process of Anti-Icing Modifiers
2.2.2. Experimental Methods for Anti-Icing Modifiers
2.3. Geothermal Heat Exchange Carrier Design and Specimen Preparation
2.3.1. Design of AC-13 Dense-Graded Aggregate Skeleton
2.3.2. Specimen Preparation Simulating Geothermal Service Environment
2.4. Evaluation of Service Performance and Energy Efficiency Stability Testing Methods
2.4.1. Continuous Immersion Test
2.4.2. Seasonal Thermal Cycling and Dynamic Water Erosion Simulation Tests
2.4.3. Validation of Pavement Performance for Geothermal Pavements
- (1)
- High-temperature stability: The dynamic stability (DS) was measured via the rutting test [ASTM D6274-21, ISO 12697-22:2021], conducted using a standard rutting tester (e.g., Pine RT-3000 equivalent) under a wheel pressure of 0.7 MPa at 60 °C.
- (2)
- Moisture stability: The immersion Marshall test (48 h immersion) [ASTM D6927-22, ISO 12697-34:2021] and the freeze–thaw splitting test [ASTM D7557-21, ISO 12697-12:2021], used to determine the Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR), were employed to evaluate the modifier’s impact on the moisture damage resistance of the mixture.
- (3)
- Low-temperature cracking resistance: Low-temperature bending tests on beams [ASTM D7755-21, ISO 12697-44:2021] were conducted at −10 °C with a loading rate of 50 mm/min. The toughness of the mixture under extreme cold conditions was evaluated through the flexural failure strain indicator.
- (4)
- Permeability: The water permeability test [ASTM D6390-21, ISO 12697-45:2021] was used to verify the compactness of the mixture, ensuring it meets the fundamental waterproofing requirements for roads in cold regions.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Optimization of Mix Design for Geothermal Pavement Mixtures
3.1.1. Determination of the Optimal Dosage of Anti-Icing Modifier
3.1.2. Determination of the Optimum Asphalt Content
3.2. Analysis of Release Kinetics and Slow-Release Performance of the Modifier
3.2.1. Time-Course Characteristics of Release Rate and Concentration
3.2.2. Kinetic Modeling of Ion Release and Evaluation of Migration Mechanisms
3.2.3. Comprehensive Performance Evaluation and Screening for Optimal Proportions
3.3. Reliability Evaluation of the Energy System Under Long-Term Service
3.4. Migration Characteristics Under Seasonal Thermal Cycling
3.5. Validation of Pavement Performance for Asphalt Mixtures
- (1)
- High-temperature stability: According to the test conditions specified in Table 13, rutting tests were conducted under 60 °C and a wheel pressure of 0.7 MPa. The experimental results (detailed in Table 14) show that the average repetency (σ) of the anti-icing asphalt mixture reached 5258 mm−1, whereas the ordinary asphalt mixture reached 5409 mm−1. Furthermore, the Coefficient of Variation (v) for the anti-icing mixture (17.8%) and the ordinary mixture (5.09%) indicates that the dispersion of the test data remains within the acceptable statistical variance for heterogeneous asphalt mixtures. Although the value for the anti-icing group is slightly lower than that of the ordinary group, both are significantly higher than the minimum requirement of 800 mm−1 stipulated by the standards. This indicates that the anti-icing mixture maintains excellent resistance to permanent deformation in high-temperature environments and can effectively resist rutting damage under traffic loading, verifying its structural stability under high-temperature service conditions.
- (2)
- Moisture stability: This study evaluated the impact of the anti-icing modifier on the moisture stability and long-term durability of asphalt mixtures under geothermal freeze–thaw cycles using the TSR. Data from Table 15 and Table 16 indicate that the TSR of the anti-icing asphalt mixture reached 85.7%, significantly higher than the 83.07% of the ordinary mixture (t = 2.51, p = 0.02, where t is the test statistic and p is the probability value from Student’s t-test), confirming that the modifier effectively enhances moisture stability. This improvement is attributed to the chemical interaction between anti-icing components and asphalt, alongside the stabilizing effect of the additives, allowing the mixture to maintain high cracking resistance even after freeze–thaw cycles at −18 °C. At the 5.3% OAC, key parameters-including Marshall stability, flow value, and air voids-remained within standard specifications. The synergy between the high-density gradation and the functional modifier effectively mitigates internal stress fluctuations caused by phase changes in the geothermal system, preventing structural loosening or strength attenuation. Ultimately, this system extends the structural lifespan of geothermal pavements in cold regions while maintaining efficient de-icing performance.
- (3)
- Low-temperature cracking resistance: Low-temperature cracking resistance is a fundamental guarantee for the service life of pavements in cold regions. In this study, low-temperature beam bending tests were conducted at −10 °C; the detailed experimental results are presented in Table 17. Data indicate that the average flexural failure strain of the anti-icing asphalt mixture reached 3562 × 10−6, which is significantly higher than the 3163 × 10−6 of the ordinary asphalt mixture. In low-temperature bending tests, a larger failure strain represents a superior low-temperature deformation capacity of the material. This significant improvement demonstrates that the incorporation of the anti-icing modifier enhances the toughness of the mixture during loading. Consequently, the material can better accommodate thermal shrinkage stresses under extreme cold conditions without developing penetrating cracks, successfully achieving the intended anti-cracking objectives of the material development.
- (4)
- Permeability: Regarding pavement compactness, this study performed water permeability tests to verify the waterproof performance of the mixtures. According to the measured results in Table 18, the average seepage coefficient of the anti-icing asphalt mixture was 67 mL/min, compared to 82.2 mL/min for the ordinary asphalt mixture. The experimental findings explicitly indicate that the anti-icing mixture specimens are essentially impermeable, with their permeability fully satisfying the technical quality requirements of current specifications. This result not only confirms the scientific validity of the mixture design but also demonstrates that the addition of the anti-icing modifier does not compromise the compact aggregate skeleton. Consequently, the pavement maintains an excellent waterproof barrier, effectively preventing moisture infiltration into the structural layers and the induction of early distress. In summary, while providing active anti-icing functionality, the anti-icing asphalt mixture comprehensively maintains and optimizes all key pavement performance indicators.
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- Material synergistic enhancement and low-load operation: An optimal modifier formula was successfully screened, featuring a density of 1.8 g/mL and a melting point of 260 °C, demonstrating excellent thermodynamic stability. For the AC-13 anti-icing asphalt mixture, the OAC was determined to be 5.3% with an optimal modifier dosage of 5%. This configuration maintains an active low-freezing point (as low as −21 °C) while sustaining superior structural strength.
- (2)
- Kinetic characteristics and thermo-mechanical coupling reliability: Research on chloride ion release kinetics shows that the leaching process follows a third-order polynomial regression model. Long-cycle immersion tests over 20 days revealed a variation amplitude of only 1.5%, far below the industry threshold of 10%, furthermore, statistical evaluations across all parallel sample groups demonstrated consistently low Coefficients of Variation (CV), confirming the high repeatability of the material preparation process and the uniform reliability of the modifier’s slow-release behavior during long-term thermo-mechanical coupled service, confirming high reliability and uniformity during long-term thermo-mechanical coupled service.
- (3)
- Seasonal thermal storage stability: Under simulated high-temperature summer conditions at 35 °C, the cumulative chloride ion loss was only 0.00968 mol/L, which is lower than the loss level under low-temperature rinsing conditions. This proves the material possesses excellent thermal stability during summer heat collection or seasonal geothermal storage.
- (4)
- Service quality optimization under thermal cycling: The modifier introduction optimized the geothermal heat exchange medium’s service quality. Both the dynamic stability (5258 mm−1) and seepage coefficient (67 mL/min) exceed standard requirements. The TSR (85.7%) and flexural failure strain (3562 × 10−6) reflect high fatigue life and cracking toughness under extreme temperature gradients.
4.1. Research Limitations
- (1)
- Lack of coupling in non-steady-state service environments: The indoor evaluations were primarily conducted in controlled laboratory environments, which do not fully replicate the non-steady-state meteorological conditions, complex traffic loads, and dynamic temperature-humidity fluctuations caused by real-world geothermal pavements.
- (2)
- Energy efficiency model deviation under extreme temperature differences: The test temperature range covers most typical operating conditions but does not yet include extreme temperatures below −30 °C.
- (3)
- Long-term ecotoxicity and hydrothermal balance monitoring: Continuous quantitative monitoring across seasons is needed regarding the long-term ecotoxicity of salt accumulation in soils and its potential impact on local underground hydrothermal balances.
4.2. Recommendations for Future Research
- (1)
- Development of IoT-based on-demand controlled-release algorithms: Future work should leverage geothermal pavement snow-melting test sections for long-term service monitoring. By incorporating multi-source variables such as solar radiation, geothermal fluid circulation temperature, real-time humidity, and traffic load frequency into snow-melting kinetic models, intelligent controlled-release prediction algorithms can be developed based on real-time pavement states and energy cascading utilization intensity.
- (2)
- Exploration of synergistic phase-change behavior under extreme frigid conditions: Further investigation is required regarding the synergistic chemical and thermal phase-change behaviors under extreme cold (below −30 °C). The introduction of high-performance phase-change materials could enhance the inhibition of ice crystal recrystallization, particularly when the geothermal compensation energy efficiency of the slow-release anti-icing modifier system is constrained.
- (3)
- Strengthening long-term ecological evaluation and correlation mapping: It is necessary to define the pollution thresholds of the anti-icing modifiers under variable temperature thermal cycles. Future work should map dosage regulation strategies to the environmental risk indices of geothermal active zones, such as the areas surrounding heat exchange wells, to ensure the long-term sustainability of green energy technologies in asphalt pavements.
- (4)
- Development of smart targeted-activation materials: Researchers should optimize the microscopic geometry and coating processes of modifier particles to develop environment-sensing smart microcapsules. Utilizing phase-targeted activation technology to reduce the ecological footprint will be a core evolutionary direction for integrating green active anti-icing technology with high-efficiency geothermal energy utilization in cold regions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| AC-13 | Asphalt Concrete with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 13 mm |
| CV | Coefficients of Variation |
| DS | Dynamic Stability |
| GGHPs | Gravity Geothermal Heat Pipes |
| GRSSs | Geothermal Road Snow-Melting Systems |
| GSHPs | Ground Source Heat Pumps |
| HHPS | Hydronic Heated Pavement Systems |
| LSM | Least Squares Method |
| OAC | Optimum Asphalt Content |
| PEG | Polyethylene Glycol |
| PVA | Polyvinyl Alcohol |
| SBS | Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene |
| SRAs | Slow-Release Agents |
| TSR | Tensile Strength Ratio |
| VFA | Voids Filled with Asphalt |
| VMA | Voids in Mineral Aggregate |
References
- Tester, J.; Beckers, K.; Hawkins, A.; Lukawski, M. The Evolving Role of Geothermal Energy for Decarbonizing the United States. Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14, 6211–6241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Y.; Li, J.; Xu, H.; Li, Z.; Wang, H. The mechanisms, evaluation and estimation of anti-skid performance of snowy and icy pavement: A review. J. Road Eng. 2023, 3, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, C.; Yu, X.B. An innovative energy pile technology to expand the viability of geothermal bridge deck snow melting for different United States regions: Computational assisted feasibility analyses. Renew. Energy 2018, 123, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirzanamadi, R.; Hagentoft, C.E.; Johansson, P. Numerical Investigation of Anti-Icing Road Surfaces using Hydronic Heating Pavement-Parametric Study. In Building Simulation 2019: 16th Conference of IBPSA, Rome, Italy, 2–4 September 2019; Corrado, V., Fabrizio, E., Gasparella, A., Patuzzi, F., Eds.; IBPSA Publications: Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, 2019; Volume 16, pp. 524–531. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhu, M.; Zhu, Y.; Fan, H.; Wang, Y. Thermal analysis and optimization of an ice and snow melting system using geothermy by super-long flexible heat pipes. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 112, 1353–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, I.H.; Dickson, M. Numerical modeling of heat production using geothermal energy for a snow-melting system. Geomech. Energy Environ. 2017, 10, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Equiza, M.; Calvo-Polanco, M.; Cirelli, D.; SeÃs’orans, J.; Wartenbe, M.; Saunders, C.; Zwiazek, J. Long-term impact of road salt (NaCl) on soil and urban trees in Edmonton, Canada. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajić, P.; Leporace-Guimil, B.; Andrade, C.; Tošić, N.; de la Fuente, A. Chloride-Induced Corrosion Effects on the Structural Performance of Concrete with Rebar and Fibres: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebrahimi Gardeshi, M.; Arab, H.; Benguit, A.; Drogui, P. Runoff water loaded with road de-icing salts: Occurrence, environmental impact and treatment processes. Water Environ. J. 2024, 38, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hintz, W.; Fay, L.; Relyea, R. Road salts, human safety, and the rising salinity of our fresh waters. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 20, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, Y.; Zhang, C.; Chen, J.; Ling, L.; Lai, J.; Yan, T.; Wang, Z. Deicing characteristics and pavement performance of eco-friendly de-icing asphalt mixture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 360, 129565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blázquez, C.S.; Maté-González, M.A.; Vargas, S.A.C.; Herranz, D.H. Harnessing Shallow Geothermal Energy for Road Infrastruc-ture: Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Energies 2025, 18, 6444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Abbasi, A.F.; Ullah, H.; Ha, W.; Lee, S. Investigation of Roadway Anti-Icing Without Auxiliary Heat Using Hydronic Heated Pavements Coupled with Borehole Thermal Energy Storage. Energies 2025, 18, 5546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.; Chen, Z.; Xiao, H.; Ma, Q.; Du, S.; Liu, L. Research on heat conduction and performance optimization of electric heating ultra-high performance concrete pavement snow melting and ice removal systems in cold regions. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2025, 65, 103987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, R.; Li, A.; Huang, W.; Chen, J.; Li, Z.; Ma, Q.; Jiang, F. Super-long gravity heat pipe for geothermal energy exploitation—A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 193, 114286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Shi, H.; Tan, Y.; Ye, Q.; Liu, X. Modeling and assessment of operation economic benefits for hydronic snow melting pavement system. Appl. Energy 2022, 326, 119977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çiçek, A. A novel resilience-oriented energy management strategy for hydrogen-based green buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 470, 143297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniels, J.W.; Heymsfield, E.; Kuss, M. Hydronic heated pavement system performance using a solar water heating system with heat pipe evacuated tube solar collectors. Sol. Energy 2019, 179, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirzanamadi, R.; Hagentoft, C.E.; Johansson, P.; Johnsson, J. Anti-icing of road surfaces using Hydronic Heating Pavement with low temperature. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2018, 145, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnsson, J.; Adl-Zarrabi, B. A numerical and experimental study of a pavement solar collector for the northern hemisphere. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Rees, S.J.; Spitler, J.D. Modeling snow melting on heated pavement surfaces. Part I: Model development. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007, 27, 1115–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Peng, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Chen, Y.; Chu, X. Preparation of a Green Sustained-Release Microcapsule-Type Anti-Icing Agent for Asphalt Pavement and Its Application Demonstration Project. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 4906–4920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Zhang, M.; Liu, S.; Chen, H.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Liu, M.; Liu, R. Study on rheological properties and de-icing function of core-shell salt storage asphalt mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 505, 144804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.Y.; Tan, Y.Q.; Liu, K.; Xu, H.N. Preparation and electrical properties of conductive asphalt concretes containing graphene and carbon fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 318, 125875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, M.; Wu, S.; Wang, C.; Li, Y.; Ma, Z.; Peng, L. A Study on Evaluation and Application of Snowmelt Performance of Anti-Icing Asphalt Pavement. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rees, S.J.; Spitler, J.D.; Xiao, X. Transient Analysis of Snow-Melting System Performance. ASHRAE Trans. 2002, 108, 406–423. [Google Scholar]
- Mo, J.; Wu, K.; Jiang, J.; Qu, L.; Wei, W.; Zhu, J. Intelligent Prediction Model for Icing of Asphalt Pavements in Cold Regions Oriented to Geothermal Deicing Systems. Processes 2026, 14, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Essen, V.M.; Cot Gores, J.; Bleijendaal, L.P.J.; Zondag, H.A.; Schuitema, R.; Bakker, M.; Van Helden, W.G.J. Characterization of Salt Hydrates for Compact Seasonal Thermochemical Storage. In Proceedings of the ASME 2009 3rd International Conference on Energy Sustainability, San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–23 July 2009; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, Z.; Chen, D.; Li, Y.; Yong, L.; min Wang, R. Experimental investigation of underground seasonal cold energy storage using borehole heat exchangers based on laboratory scale sandbox. Geothermics 2020, 87, 101837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, M.; Zhou, J.; Wu, S.; Yuan, H.; Meng, J. Evaluation of long-term performance of anti-icing asphalt pavement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, S.; Zhao, Y.; Ji, Y. Road Performance and Multi-Objective Optimization Study of rWTB-Salt-Retaining Asphalt Mixture. Polymers 2025, 17, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- JTG E42-2005; Test Methods of Aggregate for Highway Engineering. Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2005.
- JTG E20-2011; Standard Test Methods of Bitumen and Bituminous Mixtures for Highway Engineering. Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2011.












| Technical Indicators | Measured Values | Standard Values |
|---|---|---|
| Penetration 25 °C/0.1 mm | 58 | 40–60 |
| Penetration Index PI | 0.127 | ≥0 |
| Softening point TR&B/°C | 84 | ≥60 |
| Ductility (5 °C, 5 cm/min)/cm | 23.1 | ≥20 |
| Kinematic viscosity 135 °C/(Pa·s) | 1.13 | ≤3 |
| Flashing point/°C | 325 | ≥230 |
| Solubility/% | 99.7 | ≥99 |
| Elastic recovery 25 °C/% | 89 | ≥75 |
| 48 h Thermal storage softening point difference/°C | 1.9 | ≤2.5 |
| Density/(g·cm−3) | 1.024 | Measured |
| Quality change/% | 0.05 | ≤1.0 |
| Penetration ratio 25 °C/% | 75.8 | ≥65 |
| Ductility 5 °C/cm | 18.5 | ≥15 |
| Indicator | Unit | Tech. Req. | 11 mm to 22 mm | 6 mm to 11 mm | 4 mm to 6 mm | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse Aggregate (11 mm to 22 mm, 6 mm to 11 mm, 4 mm to 6 mm) | ||||||
| Apparent rel. density | ≥2.60 | 2.704 | 2.688 | 2.692 | T0304 | |
| Water absorption | % | ≤2.0 | 0.39 | 0.93 | 0.98 | T0304 |
| Crushing value | % | ≤26 | 9.90 | 9.9 | 9.9 | T0316 |
| L.A. abrasion loss | % | ≤28 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.8 | T0317 |
| Needle & flake | % | ≤15 | 12.1 | 12.1 | 8.9 | T0312 |
| Particles > 9.5 mm | % | ≤12 | 3.5 | 0.3 | T0312 | |
| Passing 0.075 mm | % | ≤1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | T0310 | |
| Fine Aggregate (0 mm to 4 mm) | ||||||
| Indicator | Unit | Tech. Req. | Measured (0 mm to 4 mm) | Method | ||
| Apparent rel. density | ≥2.50 | 2.69 | T0330 | |||
| Angularity (flow) | s | ≥30 | 35.00 | T0345 | ||
| Sand equivalent | % | ≥60 | 77.78 | T0334 | ||
| Methylene blue | g/kg | ≤25 | 0.25 | T0349 | ||
| Clay content | % | ≤3 | 2.40 | T0345 | ||
| Sample Name: Mineral Filler | Test Equipment: Le Chatelier Flask, etc. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Basis: JTG E42-2005 | ||||
| Indicator | Unit | Tech. Req. | Test Result | Method |
| Apparent density | t/m3 | ≥2.50 | 2.693 | T0352 |
| Particle size range | <0.6 mm (%) | 100 | 100 | |
| <0.15 mm (%) | 90–100 | 98.6 | T0351 | |
| <0.075 mm (%) | 75–100 | 82.3 | ||
| Plasticity index | % | ≤4 | 2.1 | T0353 |
| Hydrophilic coefficient | ≤1 | 0.75 | T0353 | |
| Appearance | No lumps | No lumps | ||
| Heating stability | Measured record | No obvious change | T0355 | |
| Water content | % | ≤1 | 0.1 | T0103 (Drying) |
| Technical Indicator | Technical Parameter |
|---|---|
| Density | 1.8 g/mL |
| Particle size | 0.1 mm to 3 mm |
| Melting point | 260 °C |
| Solution pH value | 8–10 |
| Specimen Shape | Soaking Temperature | Soaking Duration | Soaking Mode | Immersion Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marshall specimen | Room temperature | 24 h | Continuous | Full immersion |
| Cl− Conc. | Temp | −10 °C | 0 °C | 5 °C | 15 °C | 25 °C | 35 °C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle | |||||||
| 1 | 0.00104 | 0.000801 | 0.00114 | 0.00089 | 0.00079 | 0.00090 | |
| 2 | 0.00112 | 0.000869 | 0.00092 | 0.00089 | 0.00088 | 0.00086 | |
| 3 | 0.00124 | 0.000901 | 0.00097 | 0.00091 | 0.00092 | 0.00088 | |
| 4 | 0.00136 | 0.00089 | 0.00102 | 0.00109 | 0.00098 | 0.00095 | |
| 5 | 0.00137 | 0.00091 | 0.00102 | 0.00113 | 0.00102 | 0.00097 | |
| 6 | 0.00146 | 0.00095 | 0.00100 | 0.001117 | 0.00098 | 0.00097 | |
| 7 | 0.00145 | 0.00099 | 0.00103 | 0.001109 | 0.00103 | 0.00103 | |
| 8 | 0.00146 | 0.00103 | 0.00104 | 0.001172 | 0.00104 | 0.00101 | |
| 9 | 0.00151 | 0.00101 | 0.00105 | 0.001266 | 0.00104 | 0.00106 | |
| 10 | 0.00156 | 0.001021 | 0.00107 | 0.001221 | 0.00103 | 0.00102 | |
| Total | 0.01359 | 0.00940 | 0.01031 | 0.010788 | 0.00976 | 0.00968 | |
| Asphalt-Aggregate Ratio (%) | 4.7 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 5.9 | Requirements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk relative density | 2.37 | 2.386 | 2.402 | 2.39 | 2.381 | |
| Air voids (%) | 5.5 | 5.00 | 4.2 | 3.70 | 3.30 | 3–5 |
| Voids filled with asphalt (VFA) (%) | 65.4 | 66.70 | 72.7 | 75.00 | 80.1 | 65–75 |
| Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) (%) | 15.9 | 15.10 | 14.80 | 15.10 | 16.6 | |
| Stability (kN) | 11.67 | 12.84 | 13.40 | 13.17 | 12.24 | ≥8 |
| Flow value (mm) | 2.63 | 2.95 | 3.29 | 3.57 | 3.78 | 1.5–4.0 |
| Sample 1# | Sample 2# | Sample 3# | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) | Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) | Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) |
| 115 | 0.3231 | 0.0091 | 105 | 0.4439 | 0.0125 | 106 | 0.4323 | 0.0122 |
| 339 | 0.3625 | 0.0102 | 280 | 0.4879 | 0.0137 | 211 | 0.4745 | 0.0134 |
| 443 | 0.3789 | 0.0107 | 377 | 0.5016 | 0.0141 | 326 | 0.4919 | 0.0139 |
| 576 | 0.4982 | 0.0140 | 438 | 0.5049 | 0.01424 | 433 | 0.5024 | 0.0142 |
| 662 | 0.4437 | 0.0125 | 525 | 0.5089 | 0.0143 | 522 | 0.5092 | 0.0143 |
| 902 | 0.4647 | 0.0131 | 605 | 0.5115 | 0.0144 | 597 | 0.5122 | 0.0144 |
| 1216 | 0.4804 | 0.0135 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1510 | 0.4882 | 0.0138 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Sample 4# | Sample 5# | Sample 6# | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) | Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) | Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) |
| 110 | 0.3233 | 0.009105 | 76 | 0.4917 | 0.0138 | 108 | 0.2969 | 0.008 |
| 233 | 0.4336 | 0.012214 | 175 | 0.4999 | 0.0141 | 237 | 0.357 | 0.010 |
| 317 | 0.4533 | 0.012771 | 243 | 0.5071 | 0.0143 | 423 | 0.3912 | 0.011 |
| 387 | 0.4689 | 0.013209 | 325 | 0.5099 | 0.0144 | 538 | 0.4161 | 0.0117 |
| 464 | 0.4788 | 0.013487 | 431 | 0.5148 | 0.0145 | 661 | 0.4332 | 0.0122 |
| 541 | 0.4932 | 0.013894 | 552 | 0.5119 | 0.0144 | 760 | 0.4432 | 0.0125 |
| 610 | 0.4947 | 0.013932 | 624 | 0.5134 | 0.0145 | 900 | 0.4563 | 0.0129 |
| 685 | 0.4987 | 0.014049 | 680 | 0.5135 | 0.0145 | 1032 | 0.4696 | 0.0132 |
| 809 | 0.4989 | 0.014055 | 775 | 0.5137 | 0.0145 | 1144 | 0.4792 | 0.0135 |
| — | — | — | 872 | 0.5136 | 0.0145 | 1314 | 0.4874 | 0.0137 |
| — | — | — | 934 | 0.5131 | 0.0145 | 1464 | 0.4902 | 0.0138 |
| — | — | — | 994 | 0.5129 | 0.0145 | 1651 | 0.5006 | 0.0141 |
| — | — | — | 1054 | 0.5125 | 0.0145 | 1830 | 0.5031 | 0.0142 |
| Conventional Anti-Icing Modifier (Control Group) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Time (s) | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) |
| 5 | 0.3306 | 0.0093 |
| 36 | 0.4533 | 0.0128 |
| 68 | 0.5029 | 0.0142 |
| 97 | 0.5334 | 0.0151 |
| 137 | 0.5527 | 0.0156 |
| 156 | 0.5620 | 0.0158 |
| 186 | 0.5661 | 0.0159 |
| 218 | 0.5660 | 0.0159 |
| 262 | 0.5681 | 0.0160 |
| 300 | 0.5672 | 0.0159 |
| Time x = 600 s | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sample No. | Mass Fraction, w (%) | Concentration, c (mol/L) |
| 1# | 0.4279 | 0.0117 |
| 2# | 0.5419 | 0.0142 |
| 3# | 0.4910 | 0.0135 |
| 4# | 0.4194 | 0.0147 |
| 5# | 0.4886 | 0.0362 |
| 6# | 0.4465 | 0.0153 |
| Anti-icing modifier | 0.3912 | 0.0211 |
| Serial No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample A | 0.0541 | 0.1529 | 0.2823 | 0.2911 | 0.2988 |
| Sample B | 0.0467 | 0.1364 | 0.2661 | 0.2716 | 0.2822 |
| Serial No. | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Sample A | 0.3013 | 0.3023 | 0.3033 | 0.3038 | 0.3036 |
| Sample B | 0.28642 | 0.2914 | 0.2934 | 0.2962 | 0.2966 |
| Serial No. | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| Sample A | 0.3041 | 0.3042 | 0.3045 | 0.3045 | 0.3048 |
| Sample B | 0.2971 | 0.2979 | 0.2980 | 0.2988 | 0.2991 |
| Serial No. | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| Sample A | 0.3046 | 0.3046 | 0.3046 | 0.3051 | 0.3051 |
| Sample B | 0.3001 | 0.3002 | 0.3002 | 0.3003 | 0.3003 |
| Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mixture type | AC-13 | Compaction method | Roller compaction |
| Slab size | 300 mm × 300 mm × 50 mm | Compaction speed | 42 min−1 |
| Mixing temperature | 175 °C | Compaction temperature | 160 °C |
| Travel distance | 23 cm ± 1 cm | Test temperature | 60 °C |
| Wheel pressure | 0.7 Mpa |
| Specimen Type | No. | Temp. (°C) | Rut Depth (mm) | Repetency, σ (mm−1) | Avg. σ (mm−1) | v (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45 min | 60 min | ||||||
| Anti-icing Mixture | 1 | 60 | 1.412 | 1.562 | 4200.0 | 5258 | 17.8 |
| 2 | 1.209 | 1.314 | 6000.0 | ||||
| 3 | 1.667 | 1.780 | 5575.2 | ||||
| Ordinary Mixture | 1 | 60 | 1.721 | 1.834 | 5727.0 | 5409 | 5.09 |
| 2 | 1.752 | 1.873 | 5250.0 | ||||
| 3 | 1.800 | 1.921 | 5250.0 | ||||
| Cond. | No. | H1 (mm) | H2 (mm) | H3 (mm) | H4 (mm) | Avg H (mm) | Load (kN) | Str. (MPa) | TSR (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| After F–T | 1 | 64.80 | 64.72 | 64.14 | 64.66 | 64.58 | 8.82 | 0.84 | 85.7 |
| 2 | 64.77 | 64.16 | 64.48 | 64.32 | 64.43 | 9.48 | |||
| 3 | 64.76 | 64.66 | 64.48 | 64.62 | 64.63 | 7.98 | |||
| 4 | 64.66 | 64.66 | 64.34 | 64.77 | 64.61 | 7.23 | |||
| Before F–T | 1 | 64.80 | 64.78 | 64.28 | 64.20 | 64.52 | 11.98 | 0.98 | |
| 2 | 64.52 | 64.64 | 64.77 | 64.60 | 64.63 | 10.51 | |||
| 3 | 64.78 | 64.80 | 64.06 | 64.72 | 64.59 | 8.25 | |||
| 4 | 64.78 | 64.40 | 64.56 | 64.74 | 64.62 | 8.65 | |||
| Ordinary Asphalt Mixture Comparison | |||||||||
| Cond. | Max Density | Bulk Density | Strength (MPa) TSR (%) | Cond. | |||||
| Before F-T | 2.574 | 2.448 | 1.13 | 86.2 | |||||
| After F-T | — | — | 0.98 | ||||||
| Mixture Type | Time, t | Stability, F (kN) | Flow, ∆l (mm) | Avg., F (kN) | Residual (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-icing | 30 min | 15.39 | 3.16 | 15.36 | 88.4 |
| 15.51 | 3.26 | ||||
| 15.41 | 2.25 | ||||
| 15.14 | 2.67 | ||||
| 48 h | 13.89 | — | 13.76 | ||
| 13.92 | — | ||||
| 13.48 | — | ||||
| 13.76 | — | ||||
| Ordinary | 30 min | 14.11 | 28.6 | 14.10 | 88.7 |
| 13.83 | 29.1 | ||||
| 14.36 | 28.3 | ||||
| 48 h | 12.38 | 32.1 | 12.50 | ||
| 12.32 | 32.6 | ||||
| 12.81 | 31.5 |
| Type | No. | Load, F (kN) | Defl., f (mm) | Str., Rm (MPa) | Strain, ε (10−6) | Mod., E (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-icing Mixture | 1 | 1.03522 | 0.729 | 6.77 | 3952.46 | 1713.50 |
| 2 | 0.96734 | 0.556 | 6.09 | 3036.59 | 2006.95 | |
| 3 | 1.20087 | 0.727 | 7.53 | 3960.15 | 1902.42 | |
| 4 | 1.13659 | 0.689 | 7.53 | 3713.88 | 2026.76 | |
| 5 | 0.93171 | 0.577 | 5.79 | 3147.82 | 1838.12 | |
| Avg. | 1.05435 | 0.6556 | 6.74 | 3562.18 | 1897.55 | |
| Res. | 3562 | |||||
| Ordinary Mixture | 1 | 1.323 | 0.603 | 10.73 | 3165.8 | 3388.9 |
| 2 | 1.316 | 0.614 | 10.59 | 3241.9 | 3265.3 | |
| 3 | 1.267 | 0.589 | 10.50 | 3074.6 | 3414.1 | |
| 4 | 1.274 | 0.591 | 10.20 | 3112.1 | 3279.0 | |
| 5 | 1.343 | 0.627 | 10.77 | 3310.6 | 3252.4 | |
| 6 | 1.255 | 0.584 | 10.12 | 3074.8 | 3291.0 | |
| Avg. | 1.296 | 0.601 | 10.48 | 3163.3 | 3315.1 | |
| Res. | 3163 |
| Mixture Type | No. | Time (min) | Water Volume, V (mL) | Seepage Coeff. (mL/min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-icing Mixture | 1 | 3 | 196 | 65.0 |
| 2 | 3 | 204 | 68.3 | |
| 3 | 3 | 206 | 68.7 | |
| Avg. | 202 | 67 | ||
| Ordinary Mixture | 1 | 3 | 240 | 80.0 |
| 2 | 3 | 220 | 73.3 | |
| 3 | 3 | 280 | 93.3 | |
| Avg. | 246 | 82.2 |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Mo, J.; Jiang, J.; Wu, K.; Qu, L.; Wei, W.; Zhu, J. Development and Service Performance of Active Anti-Icing Pavement Materials for Energy Efficiency Optimization of Low-Enthalpy Geothermal Deicing Systems. Processes 2026, 14, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14071124
Mo J, Jiang J, Wu K, Qu L, Wei W, Zhu J. Development and Service Performance of Active Anti-Icing Pavement Materials for Energy Efficiency Optimization of Low-Enthalpy Geothermal Deicing Systems. Processes. 2026; 14(7):1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14071124
Chicago/Turabian StyleMo, Junming, Jiading Jiang, Ke Wu, Lei Qu, Wenbin Wei, and Jinfu Zhu. 2026. "Development and Service Performance of Active Anti-Icing Pavement Materials for Energy Efficiency Optimization of Low-Enthalpy Geothermal Deicing Systems" Processes 14, no. 7: 1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14071124
APA StyleMo, J., Jiang, J., Wu, K., Qu, L., Wei, W., & Zhu, J. (2026). Development and Service Performance of Active Anti-Icing Pavement Materials for Energy Efficiency Optimization of Low-Enthalpy Geothermal Deicing Systems. Processes, 14(7), 1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14071124
