## 3 Evaluation Methods of the Performance of GSP
### Common Laboratory Testing Methods
#### 3.1.2 Low-Temperature Performance  
Evaluation methods for the low-temperature performance of GSP include the small beam bending (SBB) test, splitting test, and semi-circular bending (SCB) test. Additionally, the creep test and indirect tensile strength (ITS) test are also employed at \(-10\)\({}^{\circ}\)C to inspect the anti-cracking resistance of GSP [6; 108].  
Tensile strength of GSP can approximated to AC in the SBB test, while tensile strain is found lower than AC. This is because the excess stiffness of GSP limits the deformation of whole structure. However, admixtures can be efficient to accomplish a significant enhancement in tensile strength of GSP [38]. That is, the modified GSP shows improved low -temperature performance in the SCB test, creep test, and ITS test at \(-10\)\({}^{\circ}\)C [108].  
However, the laboratory behavior of GSP in splitting tests is far different from that in SBB tests, and both tensile strength and strain are significantly lower than AC's [70]. Modifiers also had a mild effect on GSP in this test. Therefore, these methods need further investigation and selection to uncover properties of GSP concisely. Further, [PERSON] et al., investigated recycled Semi-flexible Pavement material by splitting test at 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which indicated its anti-cracking resistance was positively linked with viscoelasticity of the binder [109].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Authors**} & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-8}  & & & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [30; 95] & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)25} & \multirow{2}{*}{10–25} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)12,000} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.82} & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} \\ \cline{1-1} [PERSON] et al. [6] & & & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [6; 97] & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{33.1} & \multirow{2}{*}{51.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{22,096} & \multirow{2}{*}{95.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} \\ \cline{1-1} [PERSON] [98] & & & & & & & \\ \[PERSON] [99] & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{7.38} & \multirow{2}{*}{27.1} & \multirow{2}{*}{21,000} & \multirow{2}{*}{100.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{6.71} & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} \\ \cline{1-1} [PERSON] et al. [100; 101] & & & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [38] & \multirow{2}{*}{29.5\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)6000} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{22\%} \\ \cline{1-1} [PERSON] et al. [102] & & & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [103] & \multirow{2}{*}{30\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{15,750} & \multirow{2}{*}{110\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{29.5\%} \\ \cline{1-1} [PERSON] et al. [103] & & & & & & & \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [104] & \multirow{2}{*}{25\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{29.52} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{21,725} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{2}{*}{30\%} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Traditional laboratory tests and performance of GSP.