## 2 Test Materials and Testing Scheme
### Testing Scheme  
The diameter of the reinforcement used was 8 mm, and the length was 100 mm. The reinforcement was subjected to acid and alkali washing before the preparation of the coating, and the thickness of the coating was 0.4 mm. The MOCRC was prepared according to the mix ratio in Table 2. The side length of the cube test piece was 100 mm, and the thickness of the protective layer was 46 mm. Group A comprised reinforced MOCC, and group B comprised ACRMOC. After 24 h of forming, the sample was removed, and after 28 days of maintenance, the benchmark value was tested with an HC-U81 multifunctional concrete ultrasonic detector. Tests were conducted twice in the \(x\)- and \(y\)-axis directions. Each face was tested at the test point, as shown in Figure 1, avoiding the coated reinforcement during the test, and the average of four tests was calculated to represent the ultrasonic test results. Then, the mass of the test piece was weighed. Finally, the block was placed in a sodium chloride solution with a concentration of 1.5 mol/L, with the solution height reaching 2/3 that of the test block. After immersion for 1 day, the benchmark value test was performed with a CS350 electrochemical workstation. The electrochemical test diagram is shown in Figure 2. The electrode area of coated steel bar as a working electrode was 25.12 cm\({}^{2}\), and that of the thin stainless-steel plate as an auxiliary electrode was 30 cm\({}^{2}\) larger than that of the working electrode. The saturated KCl electrode was used as the reference electrode. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Species** & **Density** & **pH** & **Alkali** & **Water** & **Bleeding** & & **Compressive** & **Recommended** & **Dosage** \\  & **Value** & **(g/mL)** & & **Content** & **Reduction** & **Rate (\%)** & & **3 d** & **7 d** & **28 d** & \\ \hline PCA(I) & 0.0003 & 8.08 & \(\leq\)3.88 & 34 & 0 & 168 & 149 & 139 & 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Physical indicators of the water-reducing agent. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Detection Indicator** & **Unit** & **Test Result** & **Technical** \\  & & & & **Requirement** \\ \hline Penetration (25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 5 s, 100 g) & 0.1 mm & 88 & 80–100 \\ Penetration index (PI) & — & –\(-\)1.06 & \(-\)1.5–1.0 \\ Ductility at 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C & cm & \(>\)100 & \(\geq\)30 \\ Softening point \(T_{\text{RdB}}\) & \({}^{\circ}\)C & 45.0 & \(\geq\)44 \\ Dynamic viscosity coefficient & — & 281.0 & \(\geq\)140 \\ Flat 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C & — & 295 & \(\leq\)245 \\ Solubility & \({}^{\circ}\)C & 99.74 & \(\geq\)99.5 \\ Wax content (distillation method) & \% & 1.7 & \(\leq\)2.2 \\ Density & g/cm\({}^{3}\) & 0.986 & Measured value \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Quality change} & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)0.8–0.8 \\ RTFOT & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Residual penetration ratio} & 75 & \(\geq\)57 \\ Residual ductility at 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 46 & \(\geq\)8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: YP-modified asphalt technical indicators. According to the previous research results of our research group, the solution immersion test was used to study the durability of concrete [9; 10; 11]. After the benchmark value test, the test piece was immersed in a solution. We conducted an electrochemical test on the test block every 90 days. After the electrochemical test, the test block was dried for 5 days, and then conduct ultrasonic testing and mass loss testing were performed. A standard glass slide was used as the bearing base plate, and the paving thickness of asphalt on the glass slide was 0.2 cm. The prepared asphalt specimen was immersed in magnesium chloride solution (the chloride ion concentration was 1.5 mol/L). Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was conducted every 180 days. The FTIR used in the experiment (Nicolet 6700) had an optical resolution of 0.9 cm\({}^{-1}\), a spectral range of 350-7800 cm\({}^{-1}\), and 15 scanning speeds.