## 3 Results and Discussion
### Creep Characteristics of the Three Asphalt Mixtures
#### 3.2.2 Elastic Parts and Viscous Parts of the Three Asphal Mixtures  
\(E_{1}\) and \(\eta_{1}\) of the Burgers model characterizes the elastic part and the viscous part of the asphalt mixture, respectively [25]. According to the parameters of the Burgers model in Table 7, it can be seen that compared to AM, as the test temperature from 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C to \(-\)20 \({}^{\circ}\)C at 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C decrements, the \(E_{1}\) values of DBFAM increase by 14.9%, 40.3%, 51.28%, 81.62%, 102.0%, 103.1%, and 202.0%, and the \(E_{1}\) values of SBSAM increase by \(-\)19.1%, 11.32%, 5.37%, \(-\)1.49%, 11.16%, 10.3%, 9.2%, and 13.6%, respectively. This means that the addition of diatomic and basalt fibers can significantly improve the resistance of asphalt mixtures to instantaneous elastic deformation, while using SBS can significantly improve the resistance of asphalt mixtures to irreversible deformation. Figure 4 shows the variations of the creep parameters of the three asphalt mixtures with the test temperature. It can be found from Figure 4 that DBFAM has a higher elastic modulus \(E_{1}\) than SBSAM, but the viscosity coefficient \(\eta_{1}\) of SBSAM \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Mistures**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Temperatures (\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolCelsius}\))**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **50** & **40** & **30** & **20** & **10** & **0** & **\(-\)10** & \(-\)20** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{AM} & \(E_{1}\) (MPa) & 94.06 & 87.51 & 100.74 & 130.1 & 190.4 & 199.6 & 206.9 & 208.03 \\  & \(\eta_{1}\) (MPa) & 4.86 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 1.57 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 4.13 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 1.36 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 1.25 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 4.84 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 3.65 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 3.39 \(\times\) 10\({}^{10}\) \\  & \(\eta_{2}\) (MPa) & 85.54 & 86.67 & 800.0 & 714.4 & 6.10 & 62.38 & 62.34 & 61.74 \\  & \(\eta_{2}\) (MPa*) & 1057 & 4817 & 9131 & 20599 & 78224 & 46705 & 3.36 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 3.15 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) \\  & R\({}^{2}\) & 0.9258 & 0.9368 & 0.9373 & 0.9478 & 0.9461 & 0.9525 & 0.9523 & 0.9525 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{DBFAM} & \(E_{1}\) (MPa) & 100.85 & 122.78 & 152.0 & 236.29 & 397.67 & 40.02 & 420.3 & 682.2 \\  & \(\eta_{1}\) (MPa*) & 5.45 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 1.72 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 4.74 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 2.86 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 2.06 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 1.97 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 2.42 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) & 3.26 \(\times\) 10\({}^{11}\) \\  & \(\eta_{2}\) (MPa) & 86.28 & 77.78 & 74.34 & 66.80 & 62.98 & 62.75 & 62.1 & 62.2 \\  & \(\eta_{2}\) (MPa*) & 2930 & 6996 & 15099 & 6988 & 3.59 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 3.52 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 3.85 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 5.56 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) \\  & R\({}^{2}\) & 0.9491 & 0.9611 & 0.9631 & 0.9584 & 0.9559 & 0.9558 & 0.9556 & 0.9556 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{SBSAM} & \(E_{1}\) (MPa) & 76.07 & 97.42 & 106.15 & 128.16 & 211.65 & 220.1 & 226.03 & 236.4 \\  & \(\eta_{1}\) (MPa*) & 1.10 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 3.53 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 1.88 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 1.10 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 8.03 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 8.92 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 1.28 \(\times\) 10\({}^{11}\) & 1.95 \(\times\) 10\({}^{12}\) \\  & \(\eta_{2}\) (MPa*) & 153.38 & 121.73 & 116.50 & 103.26 & 87.09 & 89.59 & 83.85 & 82.34 \\  & \(\eta_{2}\) (MPa*) & 8920 & 1.16 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 4.78 \(\times\) 10\({}^{4}\) & 1.68 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 3.70 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 3.86 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 5.57 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) & 7.63 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) \\  & R\({}^{2}\) & 0.9660 & 0.9230 & 0.9283 & 0.9260 & 0.9092 & 0.9090 & 0.9090 & 0.9082 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: The fitting parameters of the creep compliance based on the Burgers model. is higher than that of DBFAM.