## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Pavement Performance Analysis  
According to the test methods described in Section 2.3.1, the pavement performance tests were performed, including high-temperature stability, low-temperature crack resistance, water stability and fatigue resistance. The test results for pavement performance and economy for these five types of bituminous mixtures are summarized in Table 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**n** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** \\ \hline \(RI\) & 0 & 0 & 0.52 & 0.89 & 1.12 & 1.26 & 1.36 & 1.41 & 1.46 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The mean random consistency index \(RI\). From the experimental data in Table 7, the ranking of different indexes for the five kinds of bituminous mixture can be obtained. According to the high-temperature stability results in Figure 4, it can be observed that the order of \(DS\) value was: 70\({}^{\#}\)+M \(>\) 70\({}^{\#}\)+PR \(>\) AR \(>\) SBS \(>\) 70\({}^{\#}\). The high-temperature dynamic stability of bituminous mixture (70\({}^{\#}\)+M) was obviously better than the four other bituminous mixtures, and the dynamic stability of (70\({}^{\#}\)+M) was 161.5% higher than that of (70\({}^{\#}\)+PR). If only considering the relative deformation in the high-temperature stability, the 70\({}^{\#}\)+M bituminous mixture had the lowest, only 1.04%, and the order of the relative deformation was as follows: 70\({}^{\#}\)+M \(<\) 70\({}^{\#}\)+PR \(<\) SBS \(<\) AR \(<\) 70\({}^{\#}\). Comparing the above column heights for different bituminous mixtures, it can be seen that there was little difference in the high-temperature stability performance between the two bituminous mixtures (AR and SBS). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Index**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Bituminous Mixture Type**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**70\({}^{\#}\)**} & **SBS** & **AR** & **70\({}^{\#}\)+M** & **70\({}^{\#}\)+PR** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{High-temperature stability} & \(DS\) & \multirow{3}{*}{1104} & \multirow{3}{*}{4726} & \multirow{3}{*}{5736} & \multirow{3}{*}{25,810} & \multirow{3}{*}{9871} \\  & (times/mm) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\varepsilon_{\rm r}\) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & (\%) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Low-temperature crack resistance} & \(\varepsilon_{\rm B}\) & \multirow{3}{*}{2783} & \multirow{3}{*}{3886} & \multirow{3}{*}{4921} & \multirow{3}{*}{2949} & \multirow{3}{*}{3025} \\  & (\(\mu\varepsilon\)) & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mathrm{d}W/\mathrm{d}V\) & \multirow{3}{*}{10.47} & \multirow{3}{*}{17.55} & \multirow{3}{*}{24.24} & \multirow{3}{*}{10.79} & \multirow{3}{*}{12.38} \\  & (\(\mathrm{d}J\cdot\mathrm{m}^{-3}\)) & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Water stability} & \(TSR\) (\%) & \multirow{3}{*}{80.7} & \multirow{3}{*}{93.6} & \multirow{3}{*}{96.3} & \multirow{3}{*}{85.1} & \multirow{3}{*}{77.8} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(MS_{0}\) (\%) & & & & & \\ \hline Fatigue resistance & \(N_{f}\) (times) & \multirow{3}{*}{6749} & \multirow{3}{*}{15,532} & \multirow{3}{*}{12,031} & \multirow{3}{*}{6310} & \multirow{3}{*}{11,305} \\ \hline Economy & Cost (\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro v}\)-\(\mathrm{t}^{-1}\)) & \multirow{3}{*}{287} & \multirow{3}{*}{338} & \multirow{3}{*}{330} & \multirow{3}{*}{359} & \multirow{3}{*}{401} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Performance results for different kinds of bituminous mixtures. Figure 4: _Cont._  
For the low-temperature crack resistance of the five bituminous mixtures plotted in Figure 3, if only considering the low-temperature bending failure strain, the corresponding order was as follows: AR > SBS > 70\({}^{\#}\)+PR > 70\({}^{\#}\)+M > 70\({}^{\#}\). The ranking of the bending strain energy density was: AR > SBS > 70\({}^{\#}\)+PR > 70\({}^{\#}\)+M > 70\({}^{\#}\). It is evident that the low-temperature crack resistance of the AR bituminous mixture was the best among the five bituminous mixtures, followed by the SBS bituminous mixture.