Material Optimization and Curing Characterization of Cold-Mix Epoxy Asphalt: Towards Asphalt Overlays for Airport Runways

Abstract

Currently, numerous conventional airport runways suffer from cracking distresses and cannot meet their structural and functional requirements. To address the urgent demand for rapid and durable maintenance of airport runways, this study investigates the material optimization and curing behavior of cold-mix epoxy asphalt (CEA) for non-disruptive overlays. Eight commercial CEAs were examined through tensile and overlay tests to evaluate their strength, toughness, and reflective cracking resistance. Two high-performing formulations (CEA 1 and CEA 8) were selected for further curing characterization using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) tests, and the non-isothermal curing kinetics were analyzed with different contents of Component C. The results reveal that CEA 1 and CEA 8 were selected as promising formulations with superior toughness and reflective cracking resistance across a wide temperature range. DSC-based curing kinetic analysis shows that the curing reactions follow an autocatalytic mechanism, and activation energy decreases with conversion, confirming a self-accelerating process of CEA. The addition of Component C effectively modified the curing behavior, and CEA 8 with 30% Component C reduced curing time by 60%, enabling traffic reopening within half a day. The curing times were accurately predicted for each type of CEA using curing kinetic models based on autocatalytic and iso-conversional approaches. These findings will provide theoretical and practical guidance for high-performance airport runway overlays, supporting rapid repair, extended service life, and environmental sustainability.

Keywords: airport overlay; cold-mix epoxy asphalt; curing behaviors; differential scanning calorimetry (DSC); non-isothermal curing kinetics.

Figure 1

Preparation procedure for CEA.

Figure 2

Specimen for overlay tests.

Figure 3

Tensile strengths and elongations at break of eight CEAs.

Figure 4

Tukey’s comparison for CEAs based on elongation at break.

Figure 5

Typical load cycle curves in overlay testing: (a) two-phase damage; (b) three-phase damage.

Figure 6

DSC test curves for CEA 1 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 7

DSC test curves for CEA 8 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 7

DSC test curves for CEA 8 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 8

Starink method for solving $E_{\alpha }$ of CEA 1 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 9

Starink method for solving $E_{\alpha }$ of CEA 8 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 10

Conversion temperature curves of CEA 1 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 11

Conversion temperature curves of CEA 8 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 12

Calculated and experimental rates of CEA 1 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.

Figure 13

Calculated and experimental rates of CEA 8 with Component C contents of (a) 0%; (b) 10%; (c) 20%; (d) 30%.