Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Investigation of the rutting performance of various modified asphalt

mixtures using the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device test and Multiple
Stress Creep Recovery test
Quan Lv a, Weidong Huang b, Husam Sadek c, Feipeng Xiao d, Chuanqi Yan a,⇑
a
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of Ministry of Education Tongji University, 304 Tongda Building 4800 Cao’an Road, Shanghai 201804, China
b
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of Ministry of Education Tongji University, 608 Tongda Building 4800 Cao’an Road, Shanghai 201804, China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 3358 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA
d
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of Ministry of Education Tongji University, 612 Tongda Building 4800 Cao’an Road, Shanghai 201804, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 Seven additives were classified into three grades based on the Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD) testing results.
 An optimal content exists for most additives in achieving the best HWTD testing performance.
 Jnr3.2 did not underestimate the rutting resistance of polymer modified asphalt as G*/sin d did.
 Jnr3.2 was more reliable than G*/sin d in characterizing the rutting potential of asphalt mixtures.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Asphalt modification technology is diversifying and developing complexity to overcome early permanent
Received 13 February 2018 deformation and ensure satisfactory performance for asphalt concrete pavements. The Hamburg Wheel
Received in revised form 2 February 2019 Tracking Device (HWTD) test has been reported to be successful in assessing asphalt mixtures’ rutting
Accepted 3 February 2019
performance. This study includes a comprehensive investigation of the effects of different additives at
Available online 14 February 2019
various contents upon the HWTD testing results of asphalt mixtures. According to the degree of their
improvement of the rutting performance in the HWTD test, additives were classified into three cate-
Keywords:
gories: (1) the first grade including linear styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS), branched SBS and
Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device test
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery test
Gilsonite; (2) the second grade including high-density polyethylene, and polyphosphoric acid; and (3)
Rutting resistance the third grade including crumb rubber. Additionally, it was found that higher dosages of modifiers do
Additives not necessarily result in the improvement of Hamburg performance, and an optimal content exists for
Optimal content most additives. After the extensive mix testing, the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) testing results were
correlated to the HWTD test results in two categories: polymer modified asphalt and non-polymer mod-
ified asphalt. It was found that the compliance value Jnr3.2 from the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery
(MSCR) test did not underestimate the rutting resistance of polymer modified asphalt compared to
non-polymer modified asphalt as the current rutting factor G*/sin d did. Jnr3.2 was more reliable than
G*/sin d in characterizing the anti-rutting performance of asphalt mixtures no matter they were polymer
modified or non-polymer modified. However, different criteria for Jnr3.2 should be adopted for the poly-
mer modified asphalt and non-polymer modified asphalt respectively.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

With the increasing in traffic volumes and heavier loads, rutting

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 1991lvquan@tongji.edu.cn (Q. Lv), hwd@tongji.edu.cn
(W. Huang), hsadek1@lsu.edu (H. Sadek), fpxiao@tongji.edu.cn (F. Xiao),
1992ycq@ tongji.edu.cn (C. Yan).
or permanent deformation continues to be a critical issue for
asphalt pavements [1]. Early rutting compromises the comfortabil-
ity and reduces the life of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pavements, con-
sequently increasing economic costs. There are many factors that
can contribute to the permanent deformation of HMA pavement

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.015
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70
including: asphalt binder type, aggregate characteristic, mix
design, production, construction, climate, and other related factors
[2]. Among them, the selection of asphalt binder plays an impor-
tant role. Thus, it is imperative to choose asphalt binders with a
good resistance to the permanent deformation by using appropri-
ate rutting evaluating methods.
In recent years, modifiers or additives were added to base bin-
ders to ensure the high performance and address the problems of
early rutting for asphalt pavement [3]. On the other hand, the
increasing diversification and complexity of the modification tech-
nology has become a great challenge to the Department of Trans-
portations (DOT) and the agencies regarding how to precisely
evaluate the rutting behavior of tremendous modified asphalt bin-
ders or mixtures. As a result, researchers have spent a lot of time in
developing new methods that can accurately evaluate the rutting
potential of modified asphalt and permanent deformation of their
mixtures [4].
The Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test, an easy test,
has been used throughout the United States to capture the rutting
performance of asphalt binders [5]. It is widely accepted that, com-
pared to the existing superpave rutting factor G*/sin d, the compli-
ance value Jnr from the MSCR test is more related to the rutting
performance of asphalt mixture rutting for base asphalt and
polymer-modified asphalt [6]. However, there is no agreement
on whether the parameter Jnr is still more accurate than G*/sin d
in characterizing the rutting potential of binders modified with
non-polymer additives [7].
In addition, among all the mixture tests, the Hamburg Wheel
Tracking Device (HWTD) test is widely used as a benchmark test
for its successful prediction for the HMA mixtures which are sensi-
tive to viscoplastic flow and moisture induced damage [8]. In Ger-
many, it is proposed as a mandatory test to design asphalt
pavement [9]. Many studies have been conducted to improve the
accuracy and decrease the variability of the test by investigating
the testing configuration, test temperature, results processing,
etc. In 2004, TxDOT revised the specification limit for different bin-
der Performance Grades (PG): PG 64-xx, PG 70-xx, and PG 76-xx
with their respective number of pass criteria: 10,000, 15,000,
20,000 loading passes [10]. Fan Yin et al. proposed a new analysis
method to process the HWTD results and recommended three
novel performance related parameters to evaluate the rutting
resistance and moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixture separately
[11]. Lu suggested that the testing temperatures for HWTD test
specimens prepared with soft binders should be no more than
50 °C to avoid the excessive viscoplastic deformation which will
confound with the moisture induced damage in the stripping stage
[12]. Walubita et al. suggested that the specimens prepared in the
laboratory should be conducted the HWTD test within five days of
compaction to reduce variability [13].
With using the HWTD test to evaluate the influences of var-
ious additives on the rutting sensitivity of asphalt mixture, only
some scattered studies have been reported including anti-
stripping additives [11], rejuvenators [14], hydrated lime [15],
different PG binder grades [16]. To date, there are few studies
Table 1
Descriptions of Modified Asphalt Binders.
Binder type Detailed modification formulas
SBS-modified asphalt x% Linear SBS + 0.15% Sulfur
x% Branched SBS + 0.15% Sulfur
x% Sulfur + 4.5% Branched SBS
Other modified asphalt Gilsonite
HDPE
PPA
Asphalt Rubber Crumb rubber
63
that have provided pavement engineers with a comprehensive
and informative evaluation of the effects that the different
commonly used additives at various contents on the rutting
resistance of asphalt mixtures.
2. Objectives of this study
This paper aimed to use the HWTD test to evaluate the anti-
rutting performance of various asphalt mixtures modified by dif-
ferent additives including: linear styrene–butadiene–styrene
(SBS), branched SBS, sulfur, Gilsonite, high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), crumb rubber, and polyphosphoric acid (PPA). In addition,
the effects of the contents of these additives on the Hamburg per-
formance of the asphalt mixes were studied to find the optimal
content for each modifier. Furthermore, based on the extensive
mix testing results for various modified asphalt mixtures, the com-
pliance value Jnr from the MSCR test was compared with the creep
slope from the HWTD test to verify the feasibility of the parameter
Jnr in predicting the rutting potential of polymer- and non-polymer
modified asphalt binders.
3. Materials and testing methods
3.1. Materials
In this study, a neat asphalt binder meeting PG 64-22 grade was obtained from
an asphalt company. Different contents of linear SBS, branched SBS, sulfur, Gil-
sonite, HDPE, crumb rubber, and PPA were added to modify the same neat binder
PG 64-22 by the weight. The detailed description of the modified asphalt involved
in this paper is listed in Table 1. The sulfur was added to all of the (linear and
branched) SBS modified binders to increase the stability of SBS modified binders
[17]. The preparation procedure for these different modified asphalt binders can
be found in our previous studies [7,18].
The mixture gradation was the typical gradation Sup-12.5 except for the grada-
tion for the AR mixture was the Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete-13 (ARAC-13)
which was suggested by the Arizona DOT [19], the detailed gradation is else-
where[18].The designed asphalt content was 5.0% for all the asphalt mixtures
except the asphalt rubber (AR), which was 6.5%. In addition, all the aggregates used
in this research were basalt, and the filler was limestone.
3.2. Testing methods
3.2.1. Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device test
The HWTD test was performed following the AASHTO T 324-11 [20]. The pair of
two Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) cylindrical specimens with a 150 mm
diameter and thickness of 61 mm were arranged together to be submerged in the
water at 50 °C, and subjected to steel wheel by a 52 passes/min. Each set of speci-
mens experienced 20,000 passes or a maximum 20 mm vertical deformation was
reached. The air voids of HMA specimens were controlled at 7 ± 1 percent. Three
pairs of specimens were tested for each modified asphalt mixture, and the mean
value was reported. The main performance-related parameters obtained from the
HWTD test are as follows:
(1) Creep Slope: related to rutting resistance, the depth of rutting in each load-
ing pass in the creep stage;
(2) Stripping Slope: related to moisture damage, the depth of rutting in each
loading pass in the stripping stage;
(3) Stripping Inflection Point (SIP): indicating the onset of moisture damage, it
is calculated as the intersection of the regressive lines in the creep stage and
the stripping stage.
x Contents (%) ID
1.5, 3.0, 4.5 x% LS
1.5, 3.0, 4.5 x% BS
0.00, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 x% Sul BS
4.0, 8.0, 12.0, 20.0, 24.0 x% Gilsonite
2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0 x% HDPE
0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 2.0 x% PPA
5.0, 10.0, 15.0, 18.0, 20.0 x% AR
64 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70
Fig. 1. The rutting parameters calculated by DWT Pave Track software.
In this study, the Hamburg device was the Double Wheel Track (DWT) produced
by the CONTROLS company and the rutting parameters were calculated by the DWT
pave track software automatically (as shown in Fig. 1) following the IOWA DOT
analysis method [21].
Currently, there are a number of tests available in the United States with vari-
ous configurations and capabilities to evaluate the rutting performance of asphalt
mixture, such as the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD), Asphalt Pavement
Analyzer (APA), and the French Rutting Tester (FRT). A recent nationwide survey
showed that 21 states use the HWTD test, while 17 states use the APA and 12 states
have not implemented a rutting performance test [21]. Results also suggest an
upward trend in the number of states using the HWT device as many states are
in the process of adopting this test in their specifications. Therefore, HWTD test is
becoming more popular than APA to measure the rutting resistance of asphalt mix-
ture in the USA. However, many of the HWTD equipment produced and used in the
USA are not designed for the dry testing conditions including the HWTD in our lab.
As a result, we have to use the wet HWTD test which is introducing water as a
variable.
3.2.2. Dynamic shear rheometer test
The TA AR1500ex DSR device was used to perform the dynamic shear oscillatory
test and the MSCR test. In the MSCR test, twenty cycles are run at the 0.1-kPa stress
level with ten cycles at the 3.2-kPa stress level for a total of 30 cycles according to
AASHTO 70-13 [22]. The first 10 cycles at 0.1 kPa are for conditioning the specimen.
Since the typical pavement temperature in the summer in China is 70 °C, all the DSR
based tests were tested at 70 °C to make results comparable. In addition, all the bin-
ders were Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO) aged according to the ASTM standard [23].
Three pairs of specimens were tested for each asphalt binder and the mean value
was reported.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. HWTD test results for different modified asphalt mixtures
In this section, the summary of the parameters CS, SIP, and SS
are listed in Table 2 for information.
It should be noted that the SIP and the SS are not observed in all
the HWTD tests as shown in Table 2, the SIP is not observed after
20,000 passes in case of SBS branched with sulfur content of
0.20% and 0.25% and also in case of 20.0% and 24.0% Gilsonite. If
there is no SIP, the final rutting depth after 20,000 loading passes
(Rutmax) or the number of passes to failure (NPF) would also be
used as an index to characterize the mixture rutting resistance
under wet condition.
Regarding the CS and the SS, the modifiers generally reduces the
values of the slopes (indicating better rutting resistance) but the
trend is not consistent with dosages and in some cases, such as
crumb rubber at 15.0–18.0%, the slopes are higher indicating less
rutting resistance of the mixtures. The following sections include
details of the results for each group of modifiers sorted by type
of additive, and the rutting curve for each mixture is the average
value of two replicates. The analysis is organized to show the
effects of (1) SBS content, (2) sulfur content for SBS modified mix-
tures, (3) PPA Content, (4) HDPE content, (5) Gilsonite content, and
(6) Crumb Rubber content.
4.1.1. Effects of SBS content
Fig. 2 shows the HWTD rutting curves of the PG 64-22, linear
SBS (LS) and branched SBS (BS) asphalt mixtures.
In Fig. 2, it can be observed that with an increasing SBS content
(both linear and branched SBS), the resistance to the rutting and
moisture damage of the mixture was enhanced, which indicates
that the SBS modifier can improve the mixture’s resistance to the
wheel loading under wet condition. By comparison, the branched
SBS could provide more improvement than could the linear SBS
regarding both anti-rutting and anti-stripping properties. The
1.5% branched SBS asphalt mixture performed even better than
did the 4.5% linear SBS in the HWTD test.
The positive impact that the SBS has on the HWTD testing
results of the asphalt mixtures results from the improved elastic
properties of the SBS modified asphalt [24]. When SBS is added
to the base binder, a rubbery supporting network is created that
increases the viscosity and stiffness of the binder. This network
also enhances the elastic recovery of the binder via improved elas-
tic response when loaded and impedes the movement of the
asphalt film.
The main cause for the improvement in the HWTD test results
of the SBS-modified mixes is the elastic part of the SBS modified
binder instead of the adhesion part of the SBS can be further veri-
fied by two observations from Fig. 2. First, although the stripping
slope of the 4.5% BS mix was steeper than that of the 3.0% BS,
the final rutting depth of the 4.5% BS was still lower than that of
3.0% BS, owing to its superior rutting resistance (shallow creep
slope). Second, the HWTD performance of the 1.5% LS and 3.0%
LS mixes was not notably better than that of the PG 64-22 mix
(base asphalt). The asphalt mixtures that had been modified with
1.5% LS and 3.0% LS still had low SIPs (as shown in Table 2) and
failed prematurely. In fact, in our previous study, it was concluded
 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70
Table 2
Summary of the Parameters CS, SIP, and SS for Different Modified Asphalt Mixtures.
Note: ‘‘NA” = Not Available; ‘‘-” = data not applicable.
that linear SBS had no positive effects on the asphalt adhesion
properties and that low proportions of the linear SBS could even
reduce the bond strength [25]. Furthermore, for the linear SBS, only
highly modified SBS binders were considered to have an acceptable
elastomeric network [26]. Therefore, it is reasonable that only
when the content of LS was increased to 4.5%, the modified LS
asphalt mixture begun to show superior performance compared
with the PG 64-22 mix (neat asphalt).
4.1.2. Effects of different amounts of sulfur for the SBS modified asphalt
mixtures
In this study, different amounts of sulfur were added to the pure
4.5% BS modified binders to prepare x% Sul BS samples at varying
contents. Their HWTD test results are presented in Fig. 3. It can
be seen that the pure BS without sulfur performed the worst in
the HWTD test, indicating that the incorporation of sulfur into
branched SBS HMA mixtures improves their rutting resistance
and lessens their moisture susceptibility. In addition, the optimal
range of added sulfur was observed to be between approximately
65
0.15% and 0.20% from Fig. 3, and the Rutmax of these mixtures
was only approximately 4 mm after 20,000 loading passes under
50 °C wet conditions. Any additional sulfur over this range further
decreased the performance of the asphalt mixture.
As a stabilizing agent, a suitable amount of sulfur can prevent
the separation of SBS modified asphalt, enhance the strength of
molecular grid nodes in the asphalt, and contribute to the forma-
tion of a stable space net structure [17]. However, this network
and coupling effect can also decrease flowability and increase vis-
cosity. High viscosity will result in the insufficient coating of bin-
der on aggregate surface and problems in the workability [27].
Moreover, an excessive amount of this crosslinking agent may also
increase the risk of gelation. These factors potentially explain the
negative effects of an excessive sulfur amount (0.20%) on the rut-
ting performance of the HMA mixtures.
4.1.3. Effects of Gilsonite
In this study, the effect of Gilsonite on the HWTD testing perfor-
mance was also investigated, and the results are given in Fig. 4.
66 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70

Fig. 2. HWTD rutting curves of the PG 64-22, Linear SBS, and Branched SBS asphalt mixtures.

Fig. 3. HWTD rutting curves of 4.5% Branched SBS mixtures with varying sulfur contents.

It can be seen in Fig. 4 that all of the mixtures modified by the Gil-
sonite had better performance in the HWTD test than did the PG 64-
22 control, demonstrating the positive impact of the Gilsonite mod-
ifier on the mixtures’ rutting resistance and moisture sensitivity. A
noteworthy point from Fig. 4 is that there was also an optimal con-
tent of Gilsonite, which was 12.0%. In general, the Gilsonite modifier
was reported to improve the stripping resistance and increase the
stiffness of asphalt mixtures [28], and thus the HWTD test results
of the mixtures modified by it should be improved with increasing
dosage rates of Gilsonite. The reason for this contrast is that adding
Gilsonite to the asphalt binder also increases the binder’s viscosity.
However, high viscosity will result in problems with the asphalt film
covering and adhering to the aggregates completely.
4.1.4. Effects of HDPE
The impacts of HDPE at various dosage rates on the anti-rutting
performance of the asphalt mixtures are presented in Fig. 5. As
shown in Fig. 5, the HDPE modifier increased the rutting resistance
of the asphalt mixtures as other modifiers did. However, the differ-
ence is that the HDPE provided the mixtures with obviously
improved resistance to rutting but did not significantly affect the
stripping slope or the SIPs of the rutting response curves, as shown
in Fig. 5. This observation also confirms the concept above that it is
the elastic property of the modified binder that positively influ-
enced the HWTD test results of the HDPE modifier, which is known
for its elasticity enhancement. In addition, there was an optimal
content of HDPE, which was 6.0%. Excessive HDPE results in the
 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70 67

Fig. 4. HWTD rutting curves of asphalt mixtures with varying gilsonite contents.

Fig. 5. HWTD rutting curves of asphalt mixtures with varying HDPE contents.

instability and high viscosity of the asphalt, which may compro-
mise the HWTD test performance.
4.1.5. Effects of crumb rubber
Fig. 6 presents the HWTD test results of the mixtures containing
various amounts of crumb rubber. Unlike the other modifiers in
this study, it can be seen that there was a poor-performance
dosage range (10.0% 18.0%) for the crumb rubber. The AR mixes
in this range had no better or even worse Hamburg performances
than did the PG 64-22 control, whereas the 15.0% AR mix showed
the worst rutting resistance and moisture sensitivity. It is interest-
ing to note that the 20.0% AR had a qualitative change in its HWTD
test results: its Rutmax after 20,000 loading passes was only
10.52 mm, which is relatively small and considered acceptable.
The reason accounting for these observations may lie in the
adhesion and elastic properties of AR. The crumb rubber has been
reported about its negative influence on the binder’s adhesion
[12,29] and positive enhancement in its elastic response [7]; thus,
there is a balance between these impacts. When the crumb rubber
content is low (15.0%), its negative impact on the mixture’s mois-
ture resistance is dominant, and the addition of the crumb rubber
in this range will compromise the performance of the mixtures.
This balance can be verified in Fig. 6: when the crumb rubber
dosage was less than 15.0%, the creep slopes of the AR mixtures
were basically the same, and the differences in the SS determined
their performance.
However, when the crumb rubber content is high (18.0%), its
positive impact on the elastic property becomes prominent, which
provides the mixture with improved anti-rutting and stripping
performance. A continuous elastic network may form after the
crumb rubber content increases to 20.0%, resulting in a significant
improvement in the HWTD results.
68 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70

Fig. 6. HWTD rutting curves of AR mixtures with varying crumb rubber contents.

4.1.6. Effects of PPA
Fig. 7 shows the rutting response curves of the PPA modified
asphalt mixtures. It can be observed that the PPA increased the
moisture sensitivity of the mixtures. Premature failures and early
SIPs still occurred in the specimens modified with the PPA. Addi-
tionally, the optimal dosage rate of PPA was 0.8%. Compared to
the other modifiers, the HWTD test result performance improve-
ment due to the PPA was slight. In fact, Copeland et al. [30] claimed
that PPA can significantly improve the moisture resistance of
asphalt–aggregate systems. However, previous studies have
reported that the modification of PPA alone cannot remarkably
improve the elastic response of the asphalt binder [31]. Therefore,
the slight enhancement due to the PPA in the HWTD test results
can be explained by its ordinary elastic property, which further
verifies the authors’ notion that it is the enhancement in the elastic
property of the modified binder that determines the mixture’s
HWTD testing results.
4.2. Comparison between HWTD test results and DSR test results
In order to validate the feasibility of the compliance value Jnr
and the current superpave rutting parameter G*/sin d in predicting

Fig. 7. HWTD rutting curves of asphalt mixtures with varying PPA contents.
 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70 69

the rutting potential of polymer- and non-polymer modified

asphalt binders, the parameter CS from the HWTD were compared
with them respectively. The modified asphalt involved in this
study was divided into two categories: polymer modified binders
(including linear SBS, branched SBS, and branched SBS with differ-
ent sulfur additions) and non-polymer modified binders (including
PPA and Gilsonite). Then, two regression analysis between HWTD
test results and DSR test results were applied to polymer modified
binders and non-polymer modified binders respectively. It should
be mentioned that the DSR results for the HDPE modified binders
and Asphalt Rubber not measured due to time or difficulty of han-
dling of some of the binders, therefore the results cannot be gener-
alized to these materials which need further investigation.

4.2.1. Correlation between rutting factor G*/sin d and HWTD rutting

Fig. 9. Correlation between compliance value Jnr3.2 and HWTD parameter CS.
parameter CS
Fig. 8 shows the CS from the HWTD test against the rutting
factor G*/sin d from the DSR test. It can be observed that the
modified asphalt like the superpave rutting parameter G*/sin d
correlation coefficient between the G*/sin d and Creep Slope for
did. This is because that the calculation of the non-recoverable
the non-polymer modified binders was twice as much as that for
creep compliance Jnr3.2 considers the contribution from the elastic
the polymer modified binders. Therefore, G*/sin d can predict the
(recoverable) recovery which is the important property of the poly-
rutting performance more accurately for the non-polymer modi-
mer modified asphalt in determining the rutting resistance of
fied binders than those modified with the polymer. In addition,
asphalt mixtures [6].
the data spots of polymer modified binders were clustering in a
Furthermore, one should note that when the polymer modified
small area compared with spots of non-polymer modified binders.
asphalt and non-polymer modified asphalt had similar Jnr3.2 val-
Although the polymer- and non-polymer modified binders had a
ues, the CS values of polymer modified asphalt were always larger
similar CS range, the maximum value of G*/sin d for the polymer
than those of non-polymer asphalt as shown in Fig. 9. Therefore,
modified binders was less than 5000 Pa while the maximum
although the Jnr3.2 can be used to predict the rutting property of
G*/sin d for the non-polymer modified binders was larger than
modified asphalt mixture, different criteria for Jnr3.2 should be
15,000 Pa. This means that the current superpave rutting factor
adopted for the polymer modified asphalt and non-polymer mod-
G*/sin d underestimated the rutting resistance of polymer modified
ified asphalt.
asphalt.

5. Summary and conclusions

4.2.2. Correlation between compliance value Jnr and HWTD parameter
CS
In this study different types of modifiers were added at different
In this study, the non-recoverable creep compliance at 3.2 kPa
dosages to one base binder. The modified binders were used to pro-
stress level was recorded as Jnr3.2 and compared with the CS from
duce mixtures and test them in the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking
the HWTD test. Fig. 9 shows the CS derived from the HWTD test
Device (HWTD) test to evaluate their rutting resistance and com-
against G*/sin d from the DSR test. It was found that the Jnr3.2 from
pare the effects of the modifiers. After the extensive mix testing
the MSCR test can also capture the rutting resistance of asphalt
including various modified asphalt, the compliance value Jnr from
binders modified with non-polymer effectively.
the multi stress creep and recovery (MSCR) test was compared
By comparing Figs. 8 and 9, the higher R2 in Fig. 9 indicates that
with the creep slope from the HWTD test to investigate the param-
the compliance value Jnr3.2 was more reliable than the G*/sin d in
eter Jnr in characterizing the rutting resistance of polymer- and
predicting the rutting potential of mixtures no matter they were
non-polymer modified asphalt binders. Based on the experimental
polymer modified or non-polymer modified. In addition, the value
results, the following conclusions can be made:
range of Jnr3.2 for polymer- and non-polymer modified binders
were basically the same indicating that the compliance value
(1) Generally, the additives significantly affected the rutting
Jnr3.2 from the MSCR test did not underestimate the polymer
performance of the asphalt mixtures, depending on both
the type and content of the additive. Three grades can be
classified according to the degree of their improvement in
the rutting performance in HWTD test. The first grade is
additives that can significantly enhance the anti-rutting
and anti-stripping properties of mixes and includes: Linear
SBS (LS), Branched SBS (BS) and Gilsonite. By comparison,
the BS provided a greater performance improvement than
did the LS. The second grade is additives that can slightly
improve the HWTD test results of asphalt mixes and
includes high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyphos-
phoric acid (PPA). Although improvements in rutting slopes
and SIP values were achieved, they were not as significant as
the SBS and Gilsonite additives. The third grade is the addi-
tives that could compromise the rutting resistance and
moisture sensitivity of mixes when added to the base
asphalt. This class includes the crumb rubber at certain
Fig. 8. Correlation between rutting factor G*/sin d and HWTD parameter CS.
dosages.
70 Q. Lv et al. / Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 62–70
(2) Based on experimental results, higher dosage rates of modi-
fiers did not necessarily result in the constant improvement
of Hamburg performance. There existed an optimal content
for many additives in this study: 0.15%–0.20% sulfur in the
4.5% BS-modified asphalt, 12.0% for the Gilsonite, 6.0% for
the HDPE and 0.8% for the PPA. Interestingly, there was a
poor-performance dosage range (10.0% 18.0%) for the
crumb rubber. A qualitative change could be observed in
the Hamburg performance of the 20.0% AR mixture. This
change should be noted by researchers and the detailed rea-
sons for this behavior should be further explored.
(3) By comparing the DSR testing results and HWTD test results,
it was found that the compliance value Jnr3.2 from the MSCR
test did not underestimate the rutting resistance of polymer
modified asphalt compared to non-polymer modified
asphalt as the existing rutting factor G*/sin d did. Therefore,
Jnr3.2 can evaluate the rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures
more effectively than G*/sin d no matter the asphalt was
polymer modified or non-polymer modified. However, dif-
ferent criteria for Jnr3.2 should be adopted for the polymer
modified asphalt and non-polymer modified asphalt
respectively.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the important financial
supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
under Grant numbers 51778481 and 51478351.
References
[1] L.F. Walubita, A.N. Faruk, S.I. Lee, D. Nguyen, R. Hassan, T. Scullion, HMA Shear
Resistance, Permanent Deformation, and Rutting Tests for Texas Mixes: Final
Year-2 Report (No. FHWA/TX-15/0-6744-2), Texas A&M Transportation
Institute, 2014.
[2] E.R. Hunter, K. Ksaibati, Evaluating moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes,
Mt. Plains Consortium (2002).
[3] H.R. Jahanian, G. Shafabakhsh, H. Divandari, Performance evaluation of Hot
Mix Asphalt (HMA) containing bitumen modified with Gilsonite, Constr. Build.
Mater. 131 (2017) 156–164.
[4] J.P. Bausano, Development of a new test procedure to evaluate the moisture
susceptibility of hot mix asphalt. 2006.
[5] J. D’Angelo, R. Kluttz, R.N. Dongre, K. Stephens, L. Zanzotto, Revision of the
superpave high temperature binder specification: the multiple stress creep
recovery test, J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 76 (2007) 123–162.
[6] John A. D’Angelo, The relationship of the MSCR test to rutting, Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 10 (2009) 61–80.
[7] N. Tang, W. Huang, M. Zheng, J. Hu, Investigation of Gilsonite-, polyphosphoric
acid-and styrene–butadiene–styrene-modified asphalt binder using the
multiple stress creep and recovery test, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 18 (5)
(2017) 1084–1097.
[8] T. Aschenbrener, G. Currier. Influence of testing variables on the results from
the Hamburg wheel-tracking device. FINAL REPORT (No. CDOT-DTD-R-93-22),
1993.
[9] Y. Yildirim, P.W. Jayawickrama, M.S. Hossain, A. Alhabshi, S.A. Cenk Yildirim, D.
Little, Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Database Analysis FHWA/TX-05/0-1707-7,
Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration,
2007.
[10] A.B. Workie, Comparison Between AASHTO T 283 Test and Hamburg Wheel
Track Test Methods to Determine Moisture Sensitivity of Hot Mix Asphalt
(HMA) (Doctoral dissertation), State University, Oklahoma, 2013.
[11] F. Yin, E. Arambula, R. Lytton, et al., Novel method for moisture susceptibility
and rutting evaluation using Hamburg wheel tracking test, in: Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, NO.2446,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2014, pp. 1–7.
[12] Q. Lu, Investigation of Conditions for Moisture Damage in Asphalt Concrete
and Appropriate Laboratory Test Methods, University of California
Transportation Center, 2005.
[13] L.F. Walubita, A.N. Faruk, J. Zhang, X. Hu, S.I. Lee, The Hamburg rutting test–
effects of HMA sample sitting time and test temperature variation, Constr.
Build. Mater. 108 (2016) 22–28.
[14] S. Im, F. Zhou, R. Lee, T. Scullion, Impacts of rejuvenators on performance and
engineering properties of asphalt mixtures containing recycled materials,
Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 596–603.
[15] Q. Lu, J. Harvey, Laboratory evaluation of open-graded asphalt mixes with
small aggregates and various binders and additives, in: Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, NO.2209,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2011, pp. 61–69.
[16] A. Gogula, M. Hossain, J. Boyer, S. Romanoschi, Effect of PG binder grade and
source on performance of superpave mixtures under Hamburg Wheel Tester
Ames, Iowa, Proceedings of the 2003 Mid-Continent Transportation Research
Symposium, 2003.
[17] J.S. Chen, C.C. Huang, Fundamental characterization of SBS-modified asphalt
mixed with sulfur, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 103 (5) (2007) 2817–2825.
[18] M. Huang, W. Huang, Laboratory investigation on fatigue performance of
modified asphalt concretes considering healing, Constr. Build. Mater. 113
(2016) 68–76.
[19] Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road &
Bridge Construction, Department of Transportation Engineering Records
Section Phoenix, 2000.
[20] AASHTO T324-11, Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing
of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2011.
[21] L.N. Mohammad, M. Elseifi, W. Cao, A. Raghavendra, M. Ye, Evaluation of
various Hamburg wheel-tracking devices and AASHTO T 324 specification for
rutting testing of asphalt mixtures, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 18 (sup4)
(2017) 1–16.
[22] AASHTO TP 70-13, Standard Method of Test for Multiple Stress Creep
Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer
(DSR), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 2014.
[23] ASTM D2872-12. Standard test method for effect of heat and air on a moving
film of asphalt (rolling thin-film oven test). West Conshohocken, PA: Author,
2012.
[24] J.S. Chen, M.C. Liao, M.S. Shiah, Asphalt modified by styrene-butadiene-styrene
triblock copolymer: morphology and model, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (3) (2002)
224–229.
[25] W. Huang, L. Zhou, Evaluation of Adhesion Properties of Modified Asphalt
Binders Using Binder Bond Strength Test, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, NO. 17-02329, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2017.
[26] W. Huang, N. Tang, Characterizing SBS modified asphalt with sulfur using
multiple stress creep recovery test, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 514–521.
[27] H.H. Kim, S.J. Lee, Effect of crumb rubber on viscosity of rubberized asphalt
binders containing wax additives, Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (2015) 65–73.
[28] Q. Lv, W. Huang, F. Xiao, Laboratory evaluation of self-healing properties of
various modified asphalt, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 192–201.
[29] M.C. Cook, T. Bressette, S. Holikatti, et al., Laboratory evaluation of asphalt
rubber modified mixes, in: Proceedings of Asphalt Rubber Conference, Palm
Springs, America, 2006, pp. 599–618.
[30] A. Copeland, J. Youtcheff, A. Shenoy, Moisture sensitivity of modified asphalt
binders: factors influencing bond strength, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, NO. 1998, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
[31] D. Fee, R. Maldonado, G. Reinke, H. Romagosa, Polyphosphoric acid
modification of asphalt, in: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, NO. 2179, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 49–57.