Research Article
Utilization of Waste Glass Powder and Glass Composite Fillers in Asphalt Pavements
Table 11
Comparison of results of this study with the previous studies.
| | Property of mix | Comparison of performance of GP incorporated asphalt mixes with the conventional asphalt mixes having same filler content | | Previous literatures | Current study | | Saltan et al. [27] | Arabani et al. [15] | Simone et al. [28] | Choudhary et al. [30] | GP | GL | | Conventional filler | Stone dust | Stone dust | Stone dust | Stone dust | Stone dust |
| | OAC | 10% (↑) | 6% (↓) | 0% | 2% (↑) | 1–3% (↓) | 5–9% (↓) | | Marshall stability | 24% (↓) | 21% (↑) | — | 6% (↓) | 12% (↓) - 6% (↑) | 3% (↓) - 17% (↑) | | Rutting resistance | — | 51% (↑) | — | — | 0–100% (↓) | 0–100% (↓) | | Cracking resistance | — | 124% (↑) | 12% (↓) – 15% (↑) | 5% (↑) | 24% (↓) –73% (↑) | 1% (↓) –100% (↑) | | Moisture resistance | — | — | — | 80% (↓) | 42–89% (↓) | 6–16% (↓) | | Ravelling resistance | — | — | — | — | 17% (↑) –10% (↓) | 11% (↑) – 21% (↓) | | Resilient modulus | — | 118% (↑) | 0–15% (↑) | 8% (↑) | 5–18% (↑) | 20–50% (↑) | | Cost | — | — | — | 2% (↑) | 9% (↓) – 2% (↑) | 6–9% (↓) | | GHG emission | — | — | — | 2% (↓) | 7–10% (↓) | 24–40% (↑) |
|
|
Note. (↑): increase in comparison to conventional mix; (↓): decrease in comparison to conventional mix.
|
