You are on page 1of 24

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Duplication of this paper for publication or sale is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the Transportation Research Board

Comparative Evaluation of the Stiffness Properties of Warm-Mix Asphalt Technologies and |E*| Predictive Models
Habtamu Zelelew, PhD (Corresponding Author)
ESC Inc, FHWA Office of Pavement Technology 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590, Phone: (202) 366-6606 e-mail: habtamu.zelelew.ctr@dot.gov Federal Highway Administration Office of Pavement Technology 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-1549 e-mail: matthew.corrigan@dot.gov ESC Inc, FHWA TFHRC 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101 Phone: (202) 493-3103 e-mail: satish.belagutti.ctr@dot.gov ESC Inc, FHWA TFHRC 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA Phone: (202) 256-5928 e-mail:jeevan.ramakrishnareddy.ctr@dot.gov

Matthew Corrigan, P.E.

Satish Belagutti

Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

No. of Words = 3235 + 8*500 = 7235 < 7500 Transportation Research Board Committee AFK30: Characteristics of Nonasphalt Components of Asphalt Paving Mixtures For Presentation at the 91st Annual Meeting October 31 2011

1
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

ABSTRACT
Warm-mix Asphalt (WMA) has gained popularity due to rising energy costs and potential reductions in carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. In this paper, a comprehensive laboratory evaluation of WMA technologies stiffness properties and comparison of three |E*| predicting models (Witczak 1-37A, Witczak 1-40D, and Hirsch) are presented. A total of nine WMA technologies were included; six foaming processes (Accu-Shear®, Advera®, Aspha-min®, Aquablack®, Low Emission Asphalt (LEA), and Gencor), two chemical additives (Evotherm® and Rediset®), and an organic additive (Sasobit®). The rheological properties of the asphalt binders were characterized using the dynamic shear rheometer device at four test temperatures (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4°C) and multiple frequencies (0.016 to 25 Hz). The asphalt mixture performance tester was used to capture the stiffness properties of the asphalt mixtures using four temperatures (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4°C) and six frequencies (25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz). The stiffness properties of the WMA technologies as well as their control binders/mixtures were evaluated through the use of master curves (both shear modulus and dynamic modulus). Compared to the control binder and mixture specimens, lower stiffness values were observed for the WMA technologies. Overall, reasonable |E*| predictions of the plant produced WMA technologies were obtained when the Hirsch model was utilized followed by the Witczak 1-40D model and the Witczak 1-37A model.

KEYWORDS: Warm-mix asphalt, shear modulus, dynamic modulus, and |E*| predictions

. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 INTRODUCTION In recent years. The FHWA Office of Pavement Technology introduced the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) equipment for conducting performance-based evaluation of asphalt concrete mixtures. Satish Belagutti. Some WMA technologies have potential benefits in reducing the binder viscosity as well as reducing the short term aging of the mixture during production (1. 2). Among others. several of WMA technologies have emerged in the US market. Matthew Corrigan.Habtamu Zelelew. temperature. the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in collaboration with the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) formed the WMA technical working group in order to address these challenges and implement WMA technologies successfully. Warm-mix Asphalt (WMA) has gained popularity due to rising energy costs. Since then. The dynamic modulus of an asphalt mixture.. potential reductions in carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. rate of loading. To date. is a response developed under sinusoidal loading conditions tested at multiple frequencies and multiple temperatures. over forty-five states and ten Canadian provinces have constructed WMA demonstration projects in their jurisdictions (2). and placed on the roadways. WMA is the name given to a variety of technologies that allow producing asphalt mixtures to lower temperatures at which the material is mixed. When specimens are tested under higher test temperatures and/or 3 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. and the need for sustainable materials. The stiffness and deformation properties of asphalt mixes can be evaluated using this device respectively through the dynamic modulus and flow number tests.g. and specimen conditioning). identified by |E*|. compacted. There is a need to fully understand the properties of WMA technologies including their interaction with the asphalt binder and consequently their potential affect on pavement performance. In 2005. There is a widespread concern in pavement community however that the reductions in binder viscosity and production temperatures may lead WMA mixtures to exhibit lower stiffness properties and consequently prone to rutting as compared to the conventional hotmix asphalt (HMA) mixtures. The first trial WMA field projects were constructed in 2004 in Florida and North Carolina. tuning/calibration. confinement. Another benefit of WMA is that the improved workability which allows incorporation of higher percentages of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) or Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles (RAS) in the asphalt mixture (2). accuracy and repeatability of |E*| measurements can be significantly influenced by the material properties and test conditions (e.

This paper presents a comprehensive laboratory evaluation of WMA technologies stiffness properties. and Hirsch) is also presented. and aging conditions (10-13). lower loading frequencies. The study included nine WMA demonstration projects in eight states visited by the FHWA Mobile Asphalt Trailer Laboratory (MATL) program over the past five years. It underscores identifying the effects of WMA technologies on binder/mixture stiffness properties. In order to achieve these objectives.Habtamu Zelelew. The three most popular models include: the NCHRP 1-37A project (referred in this paper as the Witczak 1-37A model) (4). and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. |E*| is also a crucial input to the AASHTOWare DARWin-ME™ (formerly the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (ME PDG)) which requires laboratory measured (Level 1) or predicted (Level 2 and 3) dynamic modulus for estimating pavement performance (3). the NCHRP 1-40D project (referred in this paper as the Witczak 140D model) (5). the Witczak 1-40D model. OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of this study were to: • • • Identify the effects of WMA technologies on binder stiffness properties. Compare the Witczak 1-37A model. . Identify the effects of WMA technologies on mixture stiffness properties. the strain measuring gauge point locations can loosen and consequently high variations in the measured |E*| are observed. various HMA |E*| predictive models have been developed (4-9). Over the past several years. Matthew Corrigan. Satish Belagutti. and the Hirsch model (6). Witczak 1-40D. rate of loading. laboratory tests were conducted using the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) and AMPT devices respectively to capture the rheological properties of asphalt binders and characterize the stiffness properties of the asphalt mixtures. and the Hirsch model in predicting plant produced WMA |E*|. A comparative assessment of the WMA |E*| predicting models (Witczak 1-37A. Several studies utilized these models to predict HMA |E*| over a range of temperatures.

and Gencor). eight Superpave mixes containing 9. the ASTM D5404 “Standard Practice for Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Evaporator” test protocol was utilized to recover the asphalt binder specimens. All binder tests were conducted at the AMRLaccredited Asphalt Binder Testing Laboratory (ABTL) operated by the FHWA Office of Pavement Technology. 12.5 mm. Ten mix designs meeting the respective state DOT specification were included. Aquablack®. The base binder grade ranged from PG 58-34 to PG 76-22. The project locations covered a wide range of traffic levels as the design gyrations (N design ) ranged from 55 to 125. The DSR testing consisted of 25 mm parallel plate geometry and 1 mm gap setting. Low Emission Asphalt (LEA). MATERIALS The WMA technologies included six foaming processes (Accu-Shear®.5 mm. The specified dosage rates of the WMA technology was added gradually into the base binder. Advera®. the FHWA binder laboratory has been using an 85% toluene and 15% of ethanol mixture for extraction and recovery process. Satish Belagutti. The Silverson high shear mixer was used to blend the base binder and the WMA technology in the laboratory. In addition. The mixture volumetrics and AMPT performance tests were performed by the Mobile Asphalt Mixture Testing Laboratory (MAMTL). and 25 mm and two 19 mm Hveem mixes. BINDER TESTING The AASHTO T164 “Standard Method of Test for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)” test protocol was used for extraction of asphalt binders from the plant produced asphalt mixture specimens. The asphalt binder sources included lab blended and plant supplied specimens. Matthew Corrigan. This test method recommends using Trichloroethylene solvent for extraction and recovery process. . two chemical additives (Evotherm® and Rediset®). and an organic additive (Sasobit®). Asphamin®. 19 mm.Habtamu Zelelew. The rheological properties of the extracted and recovered asphalt binders were then measured following the AASHTO T315 “Standard Method of Test for Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)” test protocol. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 5 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. However.

dosage rates. 21. the asphalt mixture dynamic modulus tests were also conducted using the same set of test temperatures. The Accu-Shear® and Rediset® technologies measured slightly higher stiffness as compared to their control binders primarily at the low reduced frequency ranges (i.016 to 25 Hz). and 54. below 10 Hz). Matthew Corrigan. and Evotherm®) measured comparably similar stiffness values as their control binders when the lower reduced frequency range is considered. Satish Belagutti.1 to 157..4 °C over a wide range of loading frequencies 0. 37.1 rad/s (i.e. Aspha-min®. and Bonaquist (14). Figures 1 and 2 present the comparison of shear modulus |G*| master curves for the control binder and WMA technologies included in the study.1 °C and fitted with generalized logistic function developed by Pellinen.Habtamu Zelelew. Asphalt binders with higher |G*| mostly improve shear deformation resistance. . and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Test Results Shear Modulus Master Curve The frequency sweep tests were conducted to evaluate the stiffness properties of the control binders and binders containing WMA technologies. the WMA technology used. The differences in the stiffness properties amongst these WMA technologies could be explained from the differences in base binder.. The binder specimens were tested using test temperatures of 4.e. and the inherent variability in the DSR test procedures. As described later. 6 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. For the PA0986 project. It is shown in these figures that the asphalt binders containing the organic additive Sasobit® measured high stiffness. 0. Each of the frequency sweep test data was then shifted to a reference temperature of 21. The other WMA technologies (Advera®.4.1.8. the LEA and Gencor technologies demonstrated higher stiffness as compared to the control binder when the high reduced frequency ranges are considered. Witczak.

E+04 1.E+06 1. 7 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.E+06 1.E+08 Shear Modulus.E-02 1.E+10 PG 58-34 Advera 1. (b) CO0777.E+02 1.E+08 Shear Modulus. Satish Belagutti.E+04 1.1 C) (b) 1.E-06 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+00 1. Matthew Corrigan.E+02 1.E+06 1.E-04 1.1 C) (a) Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+00 1.E-04 1. (a) MO0672.E+08 1 2 1.E+08 1. |G*| (Pa) 1. |G*| (Pa) Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+00 1.E+06 1.E-06 1.E+08 1. (c) WY0778.E+02 1.E+06 1.E-06 1. |G*| (Pa) 1. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+04 1.E+04 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E-06 1.E+00 1.E+08 3 4 5 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+10 PG 58-28 1.E+08 Shear Modulus.E+06 1.E+10 PG 70-22 Sasobit 1.E+02 1.E+10 PG 70-22 Rediset Sasobit Shear Modulus.E+08 1.E+04 1.E-02 1. |G*| (Pa) Advera Sasobit Evotherm Aspha-min 1.E+04 1.1 C) (d) FIGURE 1 Shear modulus master curve. .1 C) (c) Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E-02 1.E+02 1. and (d) TX0985.Habtamu Zelelew.E+00 1.E+00 1.E-04 1.E+02 1.

E+02 1.E+08 3 4 5 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21. .E+06 1.E+04 1.E+00 1.E-04 1.E+02 1.E-04 1.E+06 1.E+04 1.E+00 1.E+00 1.1 C) (a) Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+10 PG 64-22 Advera 1.E-04 1.E+04 1.E+10 PG 64-22 Accu-Shear 1. 8 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.E+04 1.E+08 1 2 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21. and (c) IN1099.E-06 1.E+08 Shear Modulus.E+00 1.E-06 1.E+06 1.1 C) (c) FIGURE 2 Shear modulus master curve.E-02 1.E+02 1.E+08 1.Habtamu Zelelew.E-06 1.E+06 1.E+06 1.E+00 1.E+04 1. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+02 1.E+04 1. (a) PA0986.E+02 1. |G*| (Pa) 1. Satish Belagutti.E+08 Shear Modulus. |G*| (Pa) 1. Matthew Corrigan. |G*| (Pa) 1.E+08 1. (b) LA1088.E+06 Gencor 1.E-02 1.E+10 PG 64-22 Accu-Shear Sasobit LEA Shear Modulus.E-02 1.1 C) (b) 1.

5% targeted air voids for the cored and trimmed test specimen. 1. The performance test specimens were cored from the center 100 mm of a 150 mm diameter specimen and the sample ends were trimmed from a height of 180+ mm down to 150 mm.4°C). Dynamic Modulus Test Four test replicates per sample were used for performance testing. The MATL mix design replication (MDR) samples were oven conditioned for 4 hours at 135°C.8°C). .5. and 37. the same set of four replicates were tested at the three lower temperatures (4. The dynamic modulus tests were performed from the lowest temperature to the highest temperature and from the highest frequency to the lowest frequency. Since the dynamic modulus test is non-destructive at low temperatures. Asphalt specimens were immediately fabricated without reheating or additional oven conditioning to eliminate additional mixture aging. 0. Test Results Dynamic Modulus Master Curve The dynamic modulus test data was used to construct master curves for each of the test specimen at a reference temperature of 21.1 Hz. and 0.1°C. 5. 21. The axial stress needed in the unconfined test to produce a target microstrain of 100±15 was used.1. 9 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. Satish Belagutti. while another set of four replicates were tested at the high temperature (54. The data was then shifted along the frequency axis to form a single |E*| master curve using the sigmoidal function given in ME PDG (3). Matthew Corrigan.4.Habtamu Zelelew.0+0.5% air voids in the gyratory compactor in order to achieve the 7. The asphalt mixtures were then compacted to 8. The dynamic modulus |E*| was calculated by dividing the maximum peakto-peak stress by the recoverable peak-to-peak strain. Six loading frequencies were used 25. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ASPHALT CONCRETE MIXTURE TESTING Specimen Preparation Plant produced asphalt mixtures for dynamic modulus specimens were sampled from haul trucks. 10.

In these figures. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Figures 3 through 5 present comparison of |E*| master curves of the control HMA and WMA mixtures for all the projects included in the study. 10 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. In general. This is a concern during the early life of the pavement if high temperatures are encountered and heavy traffic loading is placed on the pavement before it can age and stiffen in place on the roadway. .g. The stiffness properties of all of the asphalt mixtures presented in these figures decreased with an increase in test temperature and increased with an increase in loading frequency. The WMA mixtures containing organic additive Sasobit® exhibited higher stiffness.Habtamu Zelelew. Matthew Corrigan. lower stiffness values were observed for the WMA technologies prepared with foaming processes followed by the chemical additives. WMA dosage rates.. the |E*| master curve plots exhibited similar shape/trend for a wide range of frequencies. particularly at lower and intermediate frequency ranges. production temperatures. Asphalt mixtures with higher |E*| mostly improve stability and rutting resistance. The differences in the stiffness properties of these WMA mixtures could be explained through. Overall. and plant aging. The reduction in stiffness is more pronounced for the asphalt mixtures with Advera® and Aspha-min® technologies and therefore these mixes may be more susceptible to rutting. among others. Satish Belagutti. the MATL mix design replicates (MDR) mixtures measured relatively higher stiffness (except for MO0987 project) as compared to the plant produced HMA mixtures due to additional oven conditioning (4 hours at 135°C). the differences in volumetric properties. angularity and texture). compared to the control HMA mixtures. binder rheological properties. aggregate shape properties (e.

and (c) WY0778.E+01 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.E-06 1.E+01 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E-06 1.E-04 1.E+06 1.1 C) (a) Dynamic Modulus.E+08 3 4 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+02 1.E+03 HMA WMA (Sasobit) 1.E+04 1. (a) MO0672.E+02 1.Habtamu Zelelew.E+06 1.E+08 1 1.E-06 1.E+03 HMA WMA (Advera) WMA (Sasobit) WMA (Evotherm) 1.E+04 1. Satish Belagutti.E+01 1. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1.E+00 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.E+04 1.E+05 Dynamic Modulus.E-04 1.E+02 1.E-04 1.E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21. .E+04 1. 11 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. (b) CO0777.E+02 WMA (Aspha-min) 1.1 C) (c) FIGURE 3 Dynamic modulus master curve.E+04 1.E+00 1.E-02 1. |E*| (MPa) 1. Matthew Corrigan.E+02 1.E+08 2 1.E+06 1.E-02 1.E-02 1.1 C) (b) Dynamic Modulus.E+03 HMA WMA (Advera) WMA (Sasobit) 1.

E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+04 1.E+00 1.E-02 1. (a) MN0884.E+01 1.E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+06 1.E-04 1. Satish Belagutti.E+02 1.E+00 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+08 3 4 5 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.E+02 1.E+02 1. 12 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.E+03 HMA WMA (Rediset 2) WMA (Rediset 10) WMA (Rediset 12) 1.E+03 HMA HMA (MDR) WMA (Advera) WMA (Sasobit) 1.E+08 2 1.E+08 1 1.E+04 1.E+04 1.1 C) (c) FIGURE 4 Dynamic modulus master curve.E-02 1.E-04 1.1 C) (b) Dynamic Modulus.E+06 1. Matthew Corrigan. (b) TX0985.E+00 1.E-06 1.E+06 1.E-04 1.E+05 Dynamic Modulus.E+02 1. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1. and (c) PA0986.E+03 HMA Wear HMA Nonwear WMA (Evotherm) Wear WMA (Evotherm) Nonwear 1.E-06 1.E-06 1.E+01 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.Habtamu Zelelew. .E-02 1.1 C) (a) Dynamic Modulus.E+02 WMA (LEA) WMA (Gencor) 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.E+04 1.E+01 1.E+04 1.

and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+02 1.E+03 HMA WMA (Accu-Shear 1) WMA (Accu-Shear 2) WMA (Accu-Shear 3) 1.E+04 1.5mm WMA (Accu-Shear) 12.E+02 1.1 C) (a) Dynamic Modulus. (a) MO0987.E+01 1.E+01 1.E+06 1.E+02 1.1 C) (b) Dynamic Modulus. 13 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.E-02 1. .E+08 2 1.5mm HMA (MDR) 12.E+04 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.E+02 HMA 19mm HMA (MDR) 19mm WMA (Accu-Shear) 19mm 1.E+04 1.E+04 1. (b) LA1088.E+06 1.E+08 1 1.E+03 HMA 12.E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21. and (c) IN1090.Habtamu Zelelew.E+04 1.E-02 1.E-02 1.E+05 Dynamic Modulus.E-04 1.E+03 HMA HMA (MDR) WMA (Aquablack 6) 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.E-06 1.E-06 1.E+08 3 4 5 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21. Satish Belagutti.E+06 1.E-04 1.E-04 1.E+00 1.1 C) (c) FIGURE 5 Dynamic modulus master curve.E+01 1.E+04 1. |E*| (MPa) 1.5mm 1.E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21. Matthew Corrigan.E+02 WMA (Aquablack 7) WMA (Aquablack 8) WMA (Aquablack 10) 1.E+00 1.E-06 1.

In the logarithmic scale. the binder frequencies at which |G*| measured were multiplied by a factor of 0.Habtamu Zelelew. For this model. and loading frequency. The |E*| predictive capability of these models using plant produced WMA mixture data is presented below. the control HMA mixtures (both plant produced and MATL mix design replication) were not included in the |E*| prediction analysis. the Hirsch model predicted |E*| with the highest coefficient of determination (R2=0. 5. 200) sieve. cumulative percent retained on the 19 mm (3/4 in. The gradation parameters include percent passing on the 0. . voids in mineral aggregates. These models were originally developed using HMA mixture material properties. Matthew Corrigan. In these figures. the loading frequency of the binder is the same as that for the mixture.76 mm (No.9005) and 14 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. and voids filled with asphalt are incorporated.) sieve. and cumulative percent retained on the 4. A total of 570 data points were used involving only WMA mixtures tested at four temperatures and six loading frequencies.075 mm (No. and Hirsch models.159 to calculate the mixture frequencies used in the Witczak 1-40D model. and 6). the binder viscosity and loading frequency parameters are replaced by the binder shear modulus |G*| and the binder phase angle. COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED |E*| Figure 6 presents the comparison of laboratory measured and predicted |E*| using the three models in arithmetic and logarithmic scales. Witczak 1-40D. For the Hirsch model. cumulative percent retained on the 9. The mixture volumetrics include air voids and effective binder content. Detailed explanation of the model equations can found elsewhere (4. aggregate gradation. overprediction of |E*| was observed when the Witczak 1-37A and 1-40D models were utilized.5 mm (3/8 in. Satish Belagutti. binder viscosity. 4) sieve. In this study.) sieve. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |E*| PREDICTIONS This paper also included predictions of |E*| through the use of the Witczak 1-37A. the binder |G*|. The inputs to the Witczak 1-37A model include mixture volumetrics. The over-prediction is pronounced with higher modulus values that correspond to the asphalt mixtures tested at high loading frequencies and low test temperatures. The inputs to the Witczak 1-40D model are similar to the inputs to the Witczak 137A model. In order to meet one of the stated objectives. The Witczak 1-40D model was intended to improve the Witczak 1-37A model and therefore.

3154) followed by the Witczak 1-40D model (R2=0.Habtamu Zelelew.4388).3934) and the Witczak 1-37A model (R2=0. foam. These findings are consistent with the model developers with high correlation coefficient and low error in logarithmic scale for the Witczak 1-40D and Hirsch models (5. Better predictions were obtained using the Witczak 1-37A model following the Hirsch model when the arithmetic scale is considered. Matthew Corrigan.8453 and S e /S y =0. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the lowest error (S e /S y =0. 15 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. and organic) are also shown in Figure 7. chemical.e. 6). Comparisons of the predictive models amongst various WMA technologies (i.. Satish Belagutti. .8074 and S e /S y =0.

and (c) Hirsch. Satish Belagutti.5984 Se/Sy = 0.8453 Se/Sy = 0.3154 5000 0 10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 5 6 7 8 (c) FIGURE 6 Comparison of measured and predicted |E*| in arithmetic and logarithmic scales. (a) Witczak 1-37A.8074 Se/Sy = 0.4388 5000 0 10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 1 2 35000 30000 (a) 100000 25000 10000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) 20000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) R2 = 0.3386 1000 15000 10000 100 R2 = 0. (b) Witczak 1-40D.8854 Se/Sy = 0. 16 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.Habtamu Zelelew. . and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 35000 100000 30000 10000 25000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) 20000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) R2 = 0.6338 1000 15000 10000 100 R2 = 0.4352 1000 15000 10000 100 R2 = 0.3934 5000 0 10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 3 4 35000 30000 (b) 100000 25000 10000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) 20000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) R2 = 0.8106 Se/Sy = 0. Matthew Corrigan.9005 Se/Sy = 0.

Matthew Corrigan. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 100000 Foam Chemical Organic 10000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) Line of Equality 1000 100 10 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 1 100000 Foam Chemical Organic 10000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) (a) Line of Equality 1000 100 10 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 2 100000 Foam Chemical Organic 10000 Predicted |E*| (MPa) (b) Line of Equality 1000 100 10 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 3 4 5 (c) FIGURE 7 |E*| Comparison of measured and predicted |E*| for various WMA technologies. (b) Witczak 1-40D. Satish Belagutti. . (a) Witczak 1-37A. 17 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. and (c) Hirsch.Habtamu Zelelew.

8°C and 54. (c) 10% < e < 20%. (b) 0% < e < 10%. Overall. (d) 20% < e < 30%. the Hirsch model reasonably predicted the plant produced WMA |E*| and demonstrated the highest overall accuracy followed by the Witczak 1-40D model and the Witczak 1-37A model.4°C.Habtamu Zelelew. higher over-prediction errors (e > 50%) were observed for the Witczak 1-37A model followed by Witczak 1-40D model.4°C.4°C and 21. (f) 40% < e < 50%. Satish Belagutti. At 37. the Hirsch model measured the highest under-prediction errors (e < 0%) followed by the Witczak 1-37A model. the over-prediction errors are not higher than 20%. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Accuracy of the |E*| Predictive Models The accuracy of the predictive models was determined by calculating the |E*| percent error (e) which equals the difference between predicted and measured |E*| divided by the predicted |E*|. . (e) 30% < e < 40%. This was expected as the model was developed within the temperature range of 4°C to 38°C (6).1°C. At 4. At these temperature ranges. Negative |E*| percent errors denote under-predictions. 18 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. as it is evident from Figures 6 through 8. and (g) e > 50%. For each test temperature and loading frequency. The summary of the |E*| percent error corresponding to the predictive models for all test temperatures are presented in Figure 8. Matthew Corrigan. The Hirsh model resulted in a gradual prediction error percent increase at 54. an increase in the over-prediction errors was observed in the Witczak 137A and 1-40 models. the |E*| percent error was computed and presented into seven groups: (a) e < 0%. For these temperature ranges.

Satish Belagutti. (b) 21. and (d) 54.4°C.8°C.4°C. Matthew Corrigan. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D 60 Hirsch 60 80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D Hirsch Percent (%) 40 Percent (%) e < 0% 0 < e ≤ 10% 10 < e ≤ 20% 20 < e ≤ 30% 30 < e ≤ 40% 40 < e ≤ 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50% 40 20 20 0 0 e < 0% 0 < e ≤ 10% 10 < e ≤ 20% 20 < e ≤ 30% 30 < e ≤ 40% 40 < e ≤ 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50% 1 2 80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D 60 Hirsch (a) 80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D 60 Hirsch (b) Percent (%) 40 Percent (%) e < 0% 0 < e ≤ 10% 10 < e ≤ 20% 20 < e ≤ 30% 30 < e ≤ 40% 40 < e ≤ 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50% 40 20 20 0 0 e < 0% 0 < e ≤ 10% 10 < e ≤ 20% 20 < e ≤ 30% 30 < e ≤ 40% 40 < e ≤ 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50% 3 4 (c) (d) FIGURE 8 Summary of predicted |E*| percent error (e). 19 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. (a) 4.Habtamu Zelelew.1°C. . (c) 37.

5. Aspha-min®.4. and 0.1. 0. reasonable |E*| predictions of the plant produced WMA technologies were obtained when the Hirsch model was utilized followed by the Witczak 1-40D model and the Witczak 1-37A model. . and plant aging. 37. among others. The rheological properties of the asphalt binders were characterized using the dynamic shear rheometer device at four test temperatures (4. Matthew Corrigan. The following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the findings presented in this study: • The Accu-Shear® and Rediset® technologies measured slightly higher binder stiffness as compared to their control binders primarily at low reduced frequency ranges. Aquablack®. and Gencor). The LEA and Gencor technologies demonstrated higher binder stiffness as compared to the control binder at high reduced frequency ranges.4°C) and six frequencies (25. 10. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 20 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.Habtamu Zelelew. 21. six foaming processes (Accu-Shear®. Low Emission Asphalt (LEA). The asphalt mixture performance tester was used to capture the stiffness properties of the asphalt mixtures using four temperatures (4. and 54.4°C) and multiple frequencies (0. The reduction in stiffness is more pronounced for the asphalt mixtures containing Advera® and Aspha-min® technologies. Witczak 1-40D. Satish Belagutti. 21. The Advera®. Aspha-min®. The WMA mixtures containing organic additive measured higher stiffness. two chemical additives (Evotherm® and Rediset®).1 Hz). 37.4. and 54. • The differences in the stiffness properties of the WMA technologies are attributed to. and Hirsch). the differences in binder rheological properties. lower stiffness values were observed for the WMA technologies prepared with foaming processes followed by the chemical additives. 1.8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This paper presents a comprehensive laboratory evaluation of WMA technologies stiffness properties and comparisons of three |E*| predictive models (Witczak 1-37A. and Evotherm® technologies measured comparably similar binder stiffness values as their control binder at lower reduced frequency ranges.1. It included nine WMA demonstration projects. Advera®. production temperatures. and an organic additive (Sasobit®). • Compared to the control HMA mixtures.016 to 25 Hz). • Overall. volumetric properties.5. WMA dosage rates.8. aggregate structure in the mix.

RECOMMENDATIONS • A comprehensive statistical analysis is needed to further investigate the effects of various properties (e.. Additional investigation into the AASHTOWare DARWin-ME™ predicted pavement distresses versus actual field WMA pavement distresses is required to determine if WMA pavement performance is similar to HMA.g. Matthew Corrigan. aggregate. . binder. WMA dosage rates. and aging) on binder/mixture stiffness performance. • The dataset used in this paper can assist researchers and practitioners to calibrate and validate the AASHTOWare DARWin-ME™ for designing new and rehabilitated WMA pavements. • • Refining the existing |E*| predictive models using WMA material data. Satish Belagutti.Habtamu Zelelew. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 21 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. volumetrics.

. Indiana. Matthew Corrigan. and Wyoming) and the contractors involved in the projects.Habtamu Zelelew. Minnesota. Pennsylvania. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The success of this study is made possible through the close partnership of the transportation community. Louisiana. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 22 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. The authors would also like to acknowledge and extend special thanks to MATL program’s mixture and binder laboratory technicians. Texas. The FHWA Office of Pavement Technology wishes to express sincere thanks to the state Departments of Transportation (Colorado. Missouri. Satish Belagutti.

M. Final Document. In Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2. and Bonaquist. M.. 97-121. Ceylan. and Mirza. R.. Corrigan. 2006. Gibson. D. and Harman. pp. A New Simplistic Model for Dynamic Modulus Predictions of Asphalt Paving Mixtures. M. Bartoszek. 72. T. Gopalakrishnan. pp. Prowell.. R.. Sines. The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). 9. 75. Christensen. 1254-1293. 2006. Cowsert. K. B. W. Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt Concrete.. Vol. 1999. 23 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 75. Quality Improvement Series 125. W.. 699-707.. Washington. R. No. Shenoy. Witczak. Jamshidi. 6. 2003. G. In Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2008. 3. N. pp. 7. B. and Witczak. Newcombe.. D. and Kim. and Jackson. Advanced Approaches to Hot-mix Asphalt Dynamic Modulus Prediction. 381-423.. J.. Warm-mix Asphalt: European Practice. 2011. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 REFERENCES 1... NCHRP 1-37A. 2nd Edition.C. and Frank... J. A. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. MD. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. S. Andrei. M. and Yeaton. S. J. Vol. .. B. Kim. T. Baumgardner. Harmon.Habtamu Zelelew.. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Estimating Dynamic Modulus of Asphalt Concrete. Bari. Prowell. NCHRP 1-37A Project. N. In Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists.. D. D’Angelo... Warm-mix Asphalt: Best Practices. G. Lanham. Matthew Corrigan. 8. Al-Khateeb. D. 5. H. In Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. Harm.. FHWA-PL-08-007. Development of a New Revised Version of the Witczak |E*| Predictive Model for Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures. J.. 7.. Ranjithan. No. Satish Belagutti. M.. Hurley. E.. Development of the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Sakhaeifar. pp. 35. Underwood. Vol. T. R. 2004. 2008. Pellinen. Jones. 4. Appendix CC-4: Development of a Revised Predictive Model for the Dynamic (Complex) Modulus of Asphalt Mixtures.. B. Vol.. G.

C. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. H.C. K. Evaluation of Dynamic Modulus Predictive Equations for NCAT Test Track Asphalt Mixtures. pp. Dongre. Paugh. Washington. 24 TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal. C. Accuracy of Predictive Models for Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt. pp. Washington. L. J. 123. D. American Society of Civil Engineering. Witczak.. Washington. H.. and Gopalakrishnan. Asphalt Mix Master Curve Construction Using Sigmoidal Fitting Function with Non-Linear Least Squares Optimization. No. 13. 11. Washington.C. 12. Geotechnical Special Publication. M. 2005. 2004. No. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. D.. M. D’Angelo. and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2127. 14. A. and Gudimettla. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. C. Comparison of Simple Performance Test |E*| of Accelerated Loading Facility Mixtures and Prediction |E*|: Use of NCHRP 1-37A and Witczak’s New Equations. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.. and Bonaquist. 83-101. Vol. 10.. Robbins. In Recent Advances in Materials Characterization and Modeling of Pavement Systems.. R. D. Azari. D.. 2007. Kim. Ceylan. Matthew Corrigan. 21. 2009. 2011. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. J. and Timm. pp. pp.. 2009. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.C. Pellinen... Field Evaluation of Witczak and Hirsch Models for Predicting Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt. Al-Khateeb. Myers. S. D. T.Habtamu Zelelew.. G. Schwartz. and Gibson. Satish Belagutti. N.. No. R. 286-293. 1-9. Shenoy. 173-186... . 1998. 6...