# A Practice for the Application of Waste in Road Asphalt Pavements in an Eco-Friendly Way
## 2 Materials and Methods
### Materials
content were 1.5, 5 and 3.75% by the weight of the grading curve for CMR\({}_{\text{RAP}}\) solution, respectively, and 0.5, 5 and 5% for CMR\({}_{\text{RAPJGW}}\), respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(a)**} \\ \hline
**Asphalt** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Binder**} \\
**Layer** & & & & \\ \hline
**Mixture** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**HMA\({}_{\text{binder}}\)**} & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderCDW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderJGW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Mix design} & Limestone 18/31.50 mm & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & Limestone 12/18 mm & 25\% & 25\% & 23\% & 23\% \\  & Limestone 6/12 mm & 33\% & 0\% & 29\% & 29\% \\  & Limestone 3/6 mm & 0\% & 0\% & 13\% & 13\% \\  & Limestone sand & 38\% & 21\% & 31\% & 31\% \\  & Limestone filler & 4\% & 4\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & **JGW** & 0\% & 0\% & 4\% & 0\% \\  & **FA** & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 4\% \\  & **CDW**1  & 0\% & 50\% & 0\% \\  & bitumen \%wt. (OBC) & 5.00\% & 6.00\% & 5.75\% & 4.75\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(b)**} \\ \hline
**Asphalt** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Base**} \\
**Layer** & & & & \\ \hline
**Mixture** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**HMA\({}_{\text{base}}\)**} & **HMA\({}_{\text{base}\text{GW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{baseFA}}\)** & **CMR\({}_{\text{RAP}}\)** & **CMR\({}_{\text{RAPJGW}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Mix design} & Limestone 18/31.50 mm & 9\% & 9\% & 16\% & 16\% \\  & Limestone 12/18 mm & 32\% & 32\% & 32\% & 7\% & 7\% \\  & Limestone 6/12 mm & 31\% & 31\% & 31\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & Limestone 3/6 mm & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & Limestone sand & 21\% & 21\% & 21\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & Limestone filler & 7\% & 0\% & 0\% & 7\% & 0\% \\  & **JGW** & 0\% & 7\% & 0\% & 0\% & 7\% \\  & **FA** & 0\% & 0\% & 7\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & **RAP**2  & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 7\% \\  & bitumen \%wt. (OBC) & 4.50\% & 4.85\% & 4.25\% & \\  & bituminous emulsion \%wt. & & & & 3.75\% & 5.00\% \\  & cement \%wt. & & & & 1.50\% & 0.5\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Binder Layer (A\({}_{1}\))**} \\ \hline
**Molecule** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**HMA\({}_{\text{binder}}\)**} & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderCDW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderJGW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\)** \\ \hline HP & S & daN & 771.6 & 1245.3 & 1652.2 & 989.8 \\ HP & MS & daN/mm & 285.78 & 366.26 & 532.97 & 314.22 \\ HP & ITSM 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C & MPa & 773 & 1151 & 1236 & 1040 \\ HP & RD & mm & 2 & 1.92 & 1.86 & 1.98 \\ LP & ITS & MPa & 0.77 & 0.66 & 0.95 & 0.92 \\ LP & ITSM 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C & MPa & 14,553 & 15,391 & 16,498 & 16,998 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mechanical characteristics and LCA parameters reported as the decision matrixes A\({}_{1}\) for binder layer adopted for MCDA. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Indicator** & **Unit** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Binder Layer (A\({}_{1}\))**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **HMA\({}_{\text{binder}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderCDW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderJGW}}\)** & **HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\)** \\ \hline HP & S & daN & 771.6 & 1245.3 & 1652.2 & 989.8 \\ HP & MS & daN/mm & 285.78 & 366.26 & 532.97 & 314.22 \\ HP & ITSM 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C & MPa & 773 & 1151 & 1236 & 1040 \\ HP & RD & mm & 2 & 1.92 & 1.86 & 1.98 \\ LP & ITS & MPa & 0.77 & 0.66 & 0.95 & 0.92 \\ LP & ITSM 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C & MPa & 14,553 & 15,391 & 16,498 & 16,998 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mix designs of the (**a**) binders and (**b**) base layers in the studied asphalt mixtures.