Analysis of Rutting Prediction Criteria Using a

Nonlinear Viscoelastic Model

S. P. Atul Narayan 1; Dallas N. Little, Dist.M.ASCE 2; and Kumbakonam R. Rajagopal 3

Abstract: Several prediction criteria have been proposed to rank asphalt binders based on their rutting performance, and each one has been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shown to be able to predict rutting behavior observed in either accelerated loading field tests or under highway traffic with some level of
success. In this study, an analysis of these rutting prediction criteria was conducted in order to identify the virtues and shortcomings of each.
Asphalt binders that were used in the accelerated loading facility (ALF) study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
were obtained and studied. The experimental data obtained on these binders were fit with a nonlinear viscoelastic model so that it can be used
to predict their response under different loading conditions. By comparing predicted behavior based on the nonlinear viscoelastic model and
the various rutting prediction criteria, the part of the complex nonlinear mechanical behavior of these binders that each criterion addresses was
determined. Results show that each criterion represents the resistance offered by asphalt binders to permanent strain over a specific range of
stresses. Results also show that a simple viscosity test might be sufficient to characterize the rutting performance of asphalt binders accurately.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001078. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Asphalts; Rutting; Viscoelasticity; Nonlinear response; Laboratory tests; Apparent viscosity.

Introduction parameter, and Superpave parameter, ZSV was found to make

The process of predicting the rutting susceptibility of asphalt bind-
ers continues to evolve and be discussed. Several prediction criteria
have been proposed with each being shown to predict the rutting
behavior in some field investigation or some rutting simulation test.
The Superpave criterion, jG
j= sin δ, the first to be introduced, was
observed to correlate reasonably with the rutting resistance of mix-
tures by Dongré et al. (1997) and Stuart et al. (1999). The repeated
creep-recovery test (RCRT) was first suggested by Bahia et al.
(2001a) as a part of a National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-
gram (NCHRP) study. The parameter has since been used by Bahia
et al. (2001b), Bouldin et al. (2001), and Delgadillo et al. (2006) to
predict mixture rutting resistance with reasonable success. These
studies also have illustrated the superiority of this test over the
Superpave rutting criterion. Around the same time, the zero-shear
viscosity (ZSV) test became popular in Europe. Phillips and
Robertus (1996) found it to correlate well with rutting behavior
observed in a Laboratory Test Track. Sybilski (1996) found the param-
eter to predict rutting resistance of mixtures reasonably. Shenoy’s
oscillatory based parameter is another rutting parameter that has
been found to work reasonably well by Shenoy (2001, 2004a).
In field investigations conducted by Rowe et al. (2002) and
Dongré and D’Angelo (2003) comparing ZSV, RCRT, Shenoy’s
1
Visiting Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India (corresponding
author). E-mail: atulnryn@iitm.ac.in
2
Snead Chair Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Texas Transpor-
tation Institute, Texas A&M Univ., 3135 TAMU, College Station, TX
77843-3135. E-mail: d-little@tamu.edu
3
University Distinguished Professor and Forsyth Chair Professor, Dept.
of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M Univ., 3135 TAMU, College
Station, TX 77843-3135. E-mail: krajagopal@tamu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 5, 2013; approved
on March 5, 2014; published online on July 21, 2014. Discussion period
open until December 21, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014137(10)/$25.00.
the best prediction. However, in another field investigation by
Shenoy (2004b), comparing the same rutting parameters, Shenoy’s
parameter was found to make a better prediction.
In order to consider the nonlinearity of the viscoelastic behavior
of asphalt binders in evaluating resistance to rutting offered by the
binders, D’Angelo et al. (2007) introduced the multiple stress creep
recovery test (MSCR). In an FHWA field study comparing this test
with all the other rutting paramaters, the MSCR test was found to
make the best prediction (D’Angelo et al. 2007; Masad et al. 2009).
In fact, it ranked the asphalt binders with respect to their perfo-
mance against rutting in the exact order. Since then, it has been
used to successfully predict rutting behavior in many other labo-
ratory and field investigations (D’Angelo 2009; Anderson et al.
2011).
In this study, many of the proposed rutting parameters are
analyzed, giving due consideration to the nonlinearity of the
mechanical behavior of asphalt binders. Rutting parameters are
merely point measurements from ad hoc experiments on asphalt
binders and do not completely characterize the nonlinear mechani-
cal behavior of these binders. The objective of this study was to
determine how these measurements figure into the overall
nonlinear mechanical behavior of asphalt binders and how they
are relevant to the rutting behavior of asphalt concrete in pave-
ments. This analysis was conducted essentially using predictions
of the mechanical behavior of certain selected asphalt binders
made with the nonlinear viscoelastic model developed by
Narayan et al. (2013).
Analysis Methodology
In an FHWA study with the ALF (Gibson et al. 2012), several test
lanes were constructed with the type of asphalt binder being the
primary variable, and were loaded repeatedly with a constant single
tire load of 45 kN while keeping the temperature of the lanes con-
stant at 64°C. The rut depth and fatigue cracking along each lane
were recorded after every few thousand wheel passes. In addition
to these field observations, as a part of the study, various rutting

© ASCE 04014137-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137

 prediction tests were conducted and the corresponding rutting
prediction parameters were obtained. This FHWA investigation
was utilized for the analysis conducted in this study.
Central to the analysis is the assumption that the rutting ob-
served in the field can be accurately characterized by a RCRT con-
ducted at a judiciously chosen stress level reflecting the stresses
experienced by the binder in the pavement, with creep and recovery
times reflecting the vehicle loading time and the interval between
successive loads. This assumption is supported by the success of
RCRTs and MSCR tests in predicting the rutting performance in
several field studies. In addition, as will be shown later, findings
of the current study indicate that the resistance to permanent strain
in RCRTs over a range of stress levels accurately ranks the binders
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the FHWA ALF study.
With this assumption, the RCRTs provides a common ground
for the analysis. If each rutting parameter can be related to the re-
sponse in RCRTs at some stress levels, then the rutting parameters
can be compared to each other by simply comparing the stress
levels corresponding to each parameter.
The following methodology was used for the analysis:
1. Binders used in the FHWA ALF study were obtained and stu-
died using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). Experiments
were designed in such a way as to elicit the nonlinear viscoe-
lastic behavior of these binders.
2. The same experiments were then numerically simulated using
the nonlinear viscoelastic model. The solutions thus obtained
were fit to the experiment results by varying the model para-
meters. In this way, the model parameters characterizing each
asphalt binder were obtained. Using these model parameters,
the mechanical behavior of the asphalt binders can be pre-
dicted for any loading condition.
3. RCRTs and steady-shear tests were also numerically simulated
for different values of model parameters so as to obtain a re-
lationship between permanent strain in RCRTs and the appar-
ent viscosity. [When steady-shear tests (or constant stress
tests) are conducted on asphalt binders, the stress (or the rate
of shear) would reach a steady-state value after some initial
transient response. The steady-state stress over the applied
shear rate in steady-shear tests (or the applied stress over the
steady-state shear rate in constant stress tests) is called the ap-
parent viscosity of the binder at that shear-rate (or stress).] In
view of such a relationship, to compare the rutting parameters
to each other, the rutting parameters can be related to the ap-
parent viscosity instead of relating them to the response in
RCRTs.
4. Considering these results, the model parameters characterizing
each asphalt binder were used to predict the apparent viscosity
of these binders at different stress levels. The predicted appar-
ent viscosity was plotted as a function of stress for each asphalt
binder.
5. By comparing the ordering of the asphalt binders with respect
to their apparent viscosity at different stress levels, the order-
ing of the binders according to the rutting parameters and the
ordering with respect to the rut depth observed in the field,
these rutting parameters were evaluated, and their virtues and
shortcomings were identified.
The Model
The model of Narayan et al. (2013) is a generalization of the
Oldroyd-B model and incorporates five parameters. It is given
by the following set of equations:
T ¼ −p1 þ 2η̄D þ S ð1aÞ
© ASCE 04014137-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137
n α o ∇
1þ 2n
ðS · SÞn
S þ λS ¼ 2ηD ð1bÞ
η
trðDÞ ¼ 0 ð1cÞ
where T is the Cauchy stress tensor; D is the symmetric part of the
∇
velocity gradient; η, η̄, λ, α, and n are parametric constants; S rep-
resents the upper-convected Oldroyd derivative of S; the parameters
η and η̄ are viscosity parameters; η þ η̄ is the ZSV of the model; η̄ is
the infinite shear viscosity; the parameter λ is a measure of relaxation
time; and α and n determine the shear-thinning behavior and the
nonproportional response in creep and stress-relaxation tests. The
model is capable of describing many of the features of the nonlinear
viscoelastic behavior of asphalt binders, including nonproportional
responses in creep and stress relaxation tests, shear-thinning
behavior, and appearance of normal stress differences in simple shear
flows. It was shown to do this by Narayan et al. (2013).
Materials
Five asphalt binders were chosen for the current study. As men-
tioned previously, these are the same asphalt binders that were used
in the FHWA ALF study (Gibson et al. 2012). The chosen binders,
their type of modification, and performance grades (PGs) are listed
in Table 1. More information about the binders can be obtained
from the FHWA report (Gibson et al. 2012).
Experimentation and Determination of Model Parameters
Experiments were conducted at 64°C, the same temperature at
which the FHWA field study was conducted, in order to determine
the model parameters that characterize each binder at that tem-
perature. A DSR, Physica MCR 300 (Anton Paar GmbH, Graz,
Austria), with 25-mm parallel plate geometry, was used for this pur-
pose. Each experiment set included steady-shear tests at five differ-
ent stress levels and creep-recovery tests at five different torque
levels to observe the shear-thinning behavior and nonlinear creep,
respectively. Moreover, the normal force exerted by the binder on
the geometry was measured during these tests. Each experiment
was repeated three times to ensure the reliability of the results.
The results were checked to make sure that the variation of mea-
surements among the three trials was within 5%.
In order to simulate these experiments using the model, the
initial-boundary value problem of the flow within the parallel-plate
geometry was solved by a semi-inverse method (i.e., by assuming a
specific form for the velocity field in the parallel-plate geometry).
The assumed form for the velocity field is
v ¼ ΩðtÞrzeθ ð2Þ
Table 1. Binders Used in This Study and Their Performance Grades
Binder Modification Continuous PG
SBS 64-40 3.0% SBS 71-38
CR-TB 5.5% crumb 79-28
rubber + 1.8% SBS
Elvaloy 2.2% terpolymer 74-31
PG 70-22 Unmodified 72-23
SBS-LG 3.5% linearly 74-28
grafted SBS
Note: Data from Gibson et al. (2012).
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 where ΩðtÞ is the rate of angle of twist per unit length and fr; θ; zg Table 2. Model Parameters and Fit Error Measurements for Each Asphalt
forms a cylindrical coordinate system. In addition, the tensor S was Binder at 64°C
assumed to take the form η η̄ λ α
0 1 Binder ðPa · sÞ ðPa · sÞ ðsÞ ðs−2n Þ n εfit εpdn
0 0 0
1.8e
S ¼ @0 σ τ A
SBS 64-40 4,134 510 16.39 0.29 0.23 0.42
ð3Þ
CR-TB 3,657 1,107 6.99 1.08 0.28 0.25 0.30
0 τ 0 Elvaloy 2,555 580 4.74 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.37
PG 70-22 75 620 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.20
Consequently, the model reduces to the following equations: SBS-LG 2,342 607 5.07 0.22 0.23 0.30 0.34


α η ηη̄
1 þ 2n ½2ðτ − η̄ κ̇Þ2 þ σ2 n ðτ − η̄ κ̇Þ þ τ̇ ¼ ηκ̇ þ κ̈
η μ μ
ð4aÞ Model Verification
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In order to verify the model and the model parameters character-


α η 2η izing each asphalt binder, the obtained model parameters were used
1 þ 2n ½2ðτ − η̄ κ̇Þ2 þ σ2 n σ þ σ̇ ¼ ðτ − η̄ κ̇Þ ð4bÞ to predict certain experimental results available for these binders by
η μ μ
D’Angelo et al. (2007) and Gibson et al. (2012). In particular, the
where τ , σ, and κ are functions of r and t, and model was used to predict the results of MSCR tests conducted by
D’Angelo et al. (2007) and the ZSV of these binders measured
r
_ tÞ ¼ ΩðtÞ
κðr; ð5Þ by Gibson et al. (2012).
h From MSCR tests, D’Angelo et al. (2007) have presented the
variation of nonrecovered creep compliance with stress for the as-
The torque and normal force exerted on the parallel-plate geom-
phalt binders. Before using the model to predict these results, it
etry are given by
should be noted that that DSRs do not measure nonrecovered creep
Z R compliance directly; rather, they merely measure the torque exerted
MðtÞ ¼ 2π τ ðr; tÞr2 dr ð6aÞ on the plates and the angle of twist per unit length in the parallel
0
plate geometry. Nonrecovered creep compliance is calculated from
Z R
these measurements after assuming that the shear stress and shear
FðtÞ ¼ −π σðr; tÞrdr ð6bÞ strain vary linearly along the radial direction in the parallel-plate
0 geometry. With this assumption, the shear stress and shear strain
at the edge of the plate (τ R and γ R , respectively) can be calculated
from the torque (M) and angle of twist (ϕ) data using the equations
Any experiment in the parallel-plate geometry can be simulated
with the model by solving Eqs. (4)–(6) simultaneously for the given 2
τR ¼ M ð8aÞ
loading condition. Solutions obtained in this way were compared πR3
against experimental results to determine the best-fitting model
parameters corresponding to each asphalt binder. Fitting was con-
and γ R ¼ Rϕ ð8bÞ
ducted by minimizing the error function

 
 
jM̄ ei − M̄mi j 2 2
jF̄ei − F̄mi j 2
ϵfit ¼ maxi þ wN maxi The nonrecovered creep compliance can be calculated from this
M̄ei F̄ei using the equation

2
 
maxi jγ ei − γ mi j maxi jFei − Fmi j 2 12 γ Rnr
þ þ w2N ð7Þ J nr ¼ ð9Þ
maxγ ei maxFei τR
i i

where i represents the ith data point; M̄ and F̄ are the steady-state
torque and normal force from the steady-shear experiments, respec-
tively; γ_ ss is the shear-rate level at which the steady-shear experi-
ment is conducted; γ and F are the creep strain and the normal force
from the creep-recovery test at the highest torque level, respec-
tively; and wN is the weight given to the errors in the predictions
of normal force, which was set at 0.1. The minimization was con-
ducted by trial and error.
The model parameters characterizing each asphalt binder along
with the error measurements of the fits are presented in Table 2. In
addition, the best-fitting model solutions obtained for the CR-TB
binder along with the experimental data are shown in Fig. 1. It
illustrates the efficacy of the model in describing the response
of the binders. The creep strain from the creep-recovery tests
and the steady-state torque from the steady-shear experiments were
described reasonably well by the fits. The model predictions of
the normal force data from the creep-recovery tests were also
reasonably accurate. However, the model was found to underpre-
dict the steady-state normal force in steady-shear tests.
But the assumption that the shear stress varies linearly along the
radial direction is invalid when the mechanical response of the as-
phalt binder is nonlinear. Considering this issue, raw data of angle
of twist per unit length (ϕ) was back-calculated from the nonrecov-
ered creep compliance data J nr and was compared to the model
predictions. Model predictions were obtained for this purpose by
simulating the MSCR test numerically; model parameters charac-
terizing each binder were used in Eqs. (4)–(6), and the resulting
differential equations were solved for appropriate loading conditions.
The ZSV exhibited by the model equals η þ η̄. This value for
each binder was compared to the same experimental measurements
obtained by Gibson et al. (2012). Although more experimental
measurements, like the Superpave criterion and Shenoy’s rutting
parameter for different binders, were available in Gibson et al.
(2012), they were not utilized for the verification simply because
it is impossible to back-calculate the raw data from such information.
The comparison of model predictions of angle of twist per unit
length in MSCR tests with experimental results of the same is pre-
sented in Fig. 2. Similarly, model predictions of ZSV of the asphalt

© ASCE 04014137-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Comparison of model predictions with experimental results on CR-TB, the crumb-rubber modified asphalt binder at 64°C: (a) strain
from creep-recovery tests; (b) normal force from creep-recovery tests; (c) steady-state torque from steady-shear tests; (d) steady-state normal force
from steady-shear tests. ∘ ¼ 0∶1 mN∶m; × ¼ 0∶316 mN∶m; ⋄ ¼ 1 mN∶m; þ ¼ 3∶16 mN∶m; □ ¼ 10 mN∶m

binders in comparison to experimental measurements of the same τ tc Nτ tc

are presented in Fig. 3. In both comparisons, the model was found
to predict the experimental results reasonably well. In particular, it
was found to preserve the ranking of the asphalt binders observed
in these tests. Considering that the model parameters were obtained
from the experimental results of the current study and the exper-
imental results used for the verification are obtained from com-
pletely separate investigations, these comparisons support further
confidence in the model’s ability to predict the mechanical behavior
of the asphalt binders.
Relation between Viscosity and Permanent
Deformation in Creep-Recovery Tests
In the case of one-dimensional models that have been developed to
describe linearized viscoelastic response and even the nonlinear
Oldroyd-B model, it can be shown that the permanent strain in
creep-recovery tests is completely determined by the viscosity of
the model and is independent of any other model parameters, in-
cluding any parameter corresponding to the elasticity of the model.
The relationship between viscosity (η) and permanent strain (γ) is
given by
τt
η¼ c ð10Þ
γ
where τ is the applied stress and tc is the time for which stress is
applied in each cycle. In RCRTs, suppose that γ̄ is the average per-
manent strain per cycle (i.e., γ̄ :¼ Nγ ), where N is the number of
cycles of creep and recovery. Then, for these models, γ̄ is indepen-
dent of N and the viscosity is related to it through
η¼ ¼ ð11Þ
γ̄ γ
Thus, viscosity is a measure of resistance to permanent strain for
these models.
As a logical extension of this relationship to the model of
Narayan et al. (2013), one would expect the permanent strain from
RCRTs at a particular stress level to be related to the apparent vis-
cosity at that stress level
τ tc
η̂ðτ Þ ¼ ð12Þ
γ̄ðτ Þ
where η̂ represents the apparent viscosity. But this relationship
was found to hold true only when the creep time is sufficiently
large. Generally, γ̄ is a function of N, tc , and tr , where tr is the
time alloted for recovery in a cycle, and this relation will not
hold.
In numerical simulations, γ̄ was found to increase with N (when
all the other influencing factors are fixed) until it assymptotically
reaches a constant value as N → ∞. Let γ̄ ∞ ðτ Þ denote the limiting
value of γ̄ðτ Þ as N → ∞, and let ηc∞ ðτ Þ be defined by
τ tc
ηc∞ ðτ Þ :¼ ð13Þ
γ̄ ∞
That is, ηc∞ ðτ Þ is the resistance to permanent strain shown by
the model in an infinitely long RCRT. Through numerical simula-
tions of RCRTs and steady-shear tests, it was found that the ηc∞ ðτ Þ
is bounded below by the apparent viscosity [η̂ðτ Þ] for all values of
tc and tr . A motivation for this result is illustrated in Fig. 4. The
lower bound was obtained by realizing that the permanent strain in

© ASCE 04014137-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 2. Comparison of model predictions with experimental measurements of the nonrecovered compliance at 0.10, 3.20, and 25.6 kPa stress levels
from MSCR tests (data from D’Angelo et al. 2007): (a) J nr at 0.1 kPa; (b) J nr at 3.20 kPa; (c) J nr at 25.6 kPa

repeated creep tests is never greater than the permanent strain in a
single creep-recovery test at the same stress level whose creeping
time equals Ntc . Thus, the apparent viscosity [η̂ðτ Þ] represents the
least resistance shown by the model to permanent strain in RCRTs.
Fig. 3. Comparison of model predictions with experimental measure-
ments of ZSV (data from Gibson et al. 2012)
Here, ηc∞ ðτ Þ is bounded above only by the ZSV if there are no
restrictions on tc and tr . If the ratio tr =tc is fixed, however, a smaller
upper bound can be established. The upper bound for ηc∞ ðτ Þ when
tr =tc is fixed is the apparent viscosity corresponding to the average
stress over the repeated creep test; i.e., η̂½tc =ðtc þ tr Þτ . This was
again found through numerical simulations. This upper bound
was obtained by observing that the permanent strain in infinitely
long RCRTs at a particular stress level (τ ) is never less than the
permanent strain in a single creep-recovery test at a stress
level equal to the average of the stress over a cycle time
[ðτ tc Þ=ðtc þ tr Þ] applied over the total duration of the repeated
creep test (Fig. 4).
Here, ηc∞ ðτ Þ was found to be reasonably close to the ap-
parent viscosity [η̂ðτ Þ] when the creep time (tc ) is sufficiently
large. When tc is small, ηc∞ ðτ Þ is closer to the upper bound, which
is illustrated in Fig. 5. It should be noted that the lower bound is
independent of tr and tc , but the upper bound depends on tr =tc .
When the stress τ is fixed, the upper bound increases as tr =tc
increases.
The bounds established for the resistance to permanent strain
in RCRTs are both based on apparent viscosity. Because
of this relationship, the apparent viscosity can be used in place of
RCRTs to perform the analysis. Rutting parameters can be com-
pared to the apparent viscosity instead of the permanent strain
in RCRTs.

© ASCE 04014137-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. A motivation for the upper bound and lower bound for the con-
vergence limit of average permanent strain in RCRTs as the number of
cycles tends toward infinity
Analysis
The raw data of rut depth from the ALF test lanes was statistically
analyzed using a Hotelling-T2 multivariate equivalence test to
determine whether the rutting observed in different test lanes were
statistically equivalent. In that process, the following ranking
with respect to performance against rutting was established:
SBS 64-40 < Control-PG 70-22 < SBS-LG < Elvaloy < CR-TB.
This ranking, along with the measured permanent deformation in
the field, are given in Table 3.
The objective in this study is not to determine the rutting param-
eter that best correlates with the rutting results of the FHWA field
study. D’Angelo et al. (2007) has already found that the ranking of
the nonrecovered creep compliance at the stress level of 25,600 Pa
from MSCR tests to match the ranking from the FHWA rutting re-
sults exactly. Instead, this study is focused on determining the con-
ditions in which a given rutting parameter is useful in predicting the
level or rank order of asphalt binders with respect to their rutting
performance. This includes determining the reason for the failure or
success of a rutting parameter in ranking the binders. For this pur-
pose, the nonlinear viscoelastic model developed by Narayan et al.
(2013) was used to predict the behavior of asphalt binders in differ-
ent loading conditions.
Fig. 5. Typical variation of ηc∞ ðτ Þ with creep time tc , along with the
upper and lower limits for the same. The model parameters used for
simulation correspond to SBS 64–40 at 64°C; tr =tc was fixed at 10,
and RCRTs were simulated for 1,000 cycles to get an approximate
value for ηc∞ ðτ Þ
© ASCE 04014137-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137
Table 3. Results from the FHWA ALF Study
Binder Rutting (mm) Rank
CR-TB 8.4 1
Elvaloy 11.1 2
SBS-LG 12.6 3
PG 70-22 14.1 4
SBS 64-40 15.1 5
In order to facilitate the comparison of the various rutting
parameters, the apparent viscosity is plotted as a function of stress
for each asphalt binder in Fig. 6. It has already been shown that this
curve characterizes the permanent strain shown by asphalt binders
in repeated creep tests. The apparent viscosity at a particular stress
represents a lower bound to resistance offered by the material to
permanent strain in RCRTs. In what follows, each of the various
rutting prediction criteria is handled separately, and it will be shown
that each rutting parameter is related to the apparent viscosity over a
different range of stress.
The Superpave Rutting Parameter—jG
j= sin δ
The main shortcoming of the Superpave rutting parameter, as
shown by many previous investigations, is that it overpredicts rut-
ting of polymer-modified asphalt binders. This is evident in the
FHWA ALF study as well. The jG
j= sin δ of the control asphalt
binder, the unmodified PG 70-22 binder, was higher than that of
SBS-LG and Elvaloy, while the rutting observed in the ALF facil-
ilty of the two modified binders were discernibly less than that of
the unmodified binder (Fig. 2).
In order to analyze the Superpave parameter and determine the
reason for its failure in predicting rutting performance of polymer
modified bitumens, it is necessary to determine if there is any stress
level at which the permanent strain in RCRTs is characterized by
this rutting parameter. Alternatively, it can be determined if the
Superpave rutting parameter can be related to the apparent viscosity
at some stress level, in view of the relationship between apparent
viscosity and permanent strain in RCRTs.
To this end, it is first necessary to understand how the Superpave
criterion is obtained experimentally. As mentioned previously,
DSRs measure only the torque and angle of twist per unit length
in the parallel plate geometry. After assuming that the response of
the material is linear, which implies that the shear stress and
shear strain linearly vary in the radial direction, τ R and γ R can
Fig. 6. Apparent viscosity of the asphalt binders as a function of stress
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 be calculated using Eq. (8). From τ R and γ R , their corresponding
amplitudes τ̂ R and γ̂ R and the time separation ts between the peaks
of τ R and γ R are determined. Since the assumption of linearity also
implies that the stress response to a sinusoidal strain is sinusoidal,
jG
j and δ can be calculated from these quantities using the
equations
τ̂
jG
j ¼ R ð14aÞ
γ̂ R
and δ ¼ ts ω ð14bÞ
where ω is the frequency of the oscillation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Since, for many polymer-modified binders, the prescribed strain
amplitude for measuring the Superpave parameter may not be
within the linearity limit; the mechanical behavior of asphalt bind-
ers at the prescribed strain level may be nonlinear. Shear stress may
not vary linearly in the radial direction, nor the torque response to a
sinusoidally varying angular velocity be sinusoidal. Let jg
j and Δ
be defined as
τ̂ R
jg
j :¼ ð15aÞ
γ̂ R
and Δ :¼ ts ω ð15bÞ
These quantities, jg
j and Δ, are the ones that are actually cal-
culated in a DSR. Note that jg
j and Δ defined this way are not the
same as jG
j and δ defined in the linearized viscoelastic theory; this
is because of the nonlinearity of the response. It is important to
make this distinction between the two sets of quantities.
For the model, when α is zero, the parameter jG
j= sin δ can be
shown to be equal to
jG
j η̄ω
¼ ð16Þ
sin δ ð β−1 þ 1Þ
1þλ2 β 2 ω2
where ω is the angular frequency of oscillation and β ¼ η̄=η þ η̄.
This relation, for reasonably large ω, can be approximated as
jG
j
¼ η̄ω ð17Þ
sin δ
For cases where α and n are nonzero, the parameter jG
j= sin δ
no longer makes sense as the response in oscillatory tests is non-
linear. For these cases, the parameter jg
j= sin δ, as defined in
Eq. (15), was calculated by simulating the oscillatory experiment
conducted in the DSR, and it was found that for most parameter
combinations, jg
j= sin Δ tends to η̄ω when ω is sufficiently large.
Thus, it can be stated with reasonable confidence that jg
j= sin δ=ω
for large ω is a good measure of the model parameter η̄ whether α
equals zero or not.
For the binders tested in this study, the quantity λβ is large
enough for the relation in Eq. (17) to hold true when the angular
frequency (ω) equals 10 rad=s [from Eq. (16)]. A comparison of the
experimentally observed jg
j= sin Δ with the model prediction of
the same and the quantity η̄ω is presented in Table 4. It can be seen
from this comparison that the experimentally observed value for
each binder correlates well with the model prediction, which in turn
equals η̄ω.
The model parameter η̄ is the infinite shear viscosity of the
model when α and n are nonzero (i.e., when the model shows shear
thinning). For binders that do not show shear thinning, like the
unmodified binder tested in this study, η̄ þ η is the infinite shear
© ASCE 04014137-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137
Table 4. Comparison of jG
j= sin δ from Experiments with the Model
Prediction and the Quantity η̄ω
jG
j= sin δ at jG
j= sin δ at
10 rad=s from 10 rad=s from model
Binder experiments (Pa) predictions (Pa) η̄ω (Pa)
SBS 64-40 5,192 5,115 5,115
CR-TB 12,846 11,117 11,117
Elvaloy 5,359 5,869 5,869
PG 70-22 6,903 6,198 6,198
SBS-LG 6,321 6,111 6,111
viscosity. However, for this binder, at high temperatures such as
those considered in this study, η is small enough that η̄ is a good
approximation of the infinite shear viscosity. As shown previously,
jg
j= sin Δ=ω at 10 rad=s is a good measure of η̄; it characterizes
the infinite shear viscosity, at least for the binders tested in
this study.
Since, for the polymer-modified binders tested in this study, the
infinite shear viscosity represents the resistance to permanent strain
at stress levels of 10 MPa or higher, the equivalence of
jg
j= sin Δ=ω and η̄ implies that the parameter jg
j= sin Δ ranks
these binders based on their resistance to permanent strain at such
high stress levels (Fig. 6). It is at these stress levels that the poly-
mer-modified binders SBS-LG and Elvaloy exhibit less resistance
to permanent strain than the Control PG 70-22 binder. However, the
stresses on the binder in the ALF test lanes should be much lower,
considering that the effective contact stress between the loading
equipment and the test lanes is only about 1 MPa. At such stress
levels, the resistance shown by the two polymer-modified binders is
greater than that of the unmodified binder, as seen in Fig. 6.
This concludes the explanation for the discrepancy between the
actual ALF rutting results and the prediction with the Superpave
parameter, jG
j= sin δ. First, the parameter being measured for pol-
ymer-modified bitumen is a crudely defined jg
j= sin Δ, not
jG
j= sin δ from linear viscoelasticity. Second, the parameter
appears to underestimate the performance of modified binders
because it ranks them based on the resistance that they offer to
permanent strain at relatively high stress levels—stress levels that
are not expected to be experienced by asphalt binders in pavement.
One can also speculate why the parameter has been working well
for unmodified binders. Most unmodified binders do not show
much shear thinning, and their infinite shear viscosity is generally
close to the viscosity at other stress levels. Thus, the Superpave
parameter is as good as any other rutting parameter for these
binders.
Zero-Shear Viscosity
In the FHWA study, the ZSV was not able to accurately rank the
asphalt binders based on their resistance to rutting. The main differ-
ence between the two rankings was the SBS 64-40 binder. While
the rutting resistance of this binder was found to be the lowest in the
ALF rutting tests, the ZSV ranks it near the highest among the
tested binders.
The reason for this difference appears to be straightforward. In
Fig. 6, it can be observed that the apparent viscosity of SBS 64-40
at stress levels less than ∼1,000 Pa is amongst the highest. But
above 1,000 Pa, the apparent viscosity rapidly decreases and
becomes the smallest among all asphalt binders for stress levels
higher than ∼20 kPa. The single tire load on the test lanes in this
FHWA study is relatively high (contact stress of 1 MPa) and the
speed of the loading is relatively low (18 km=h). For this type
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 of loading, one would expect the stresses in the pavement to be
reasonably high (and at those stress levels, consistent with the ob-
served rut depth in the field), and the resistance offered by SBS
64-40 is rather low. ZSV, however, is representative of the resis-
tance offered to permanent strain at relatively low stress levels,
and at those stress levels, the resistance offered by SBS 64-40
to permanent strain is second only to that of CR-TB.
The failure of the ZSV in accurately ranking the performance of
the binders in the FHWA study does not necessarily imply that it is
a poor rutting prediction criterion. Indeed, it has been shown to
correlate well with field measurements of rutting in several inves-
tigations, as listed in the Introduction to this paper. In the previous
section, it was shown that when the creeping time is low and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
recovery time is reasonably high, the resistance that the material
exhibits against permanent strain can be significantly higher than
that represented by the apparent viscosity curve (Fig. 5). Under
such conditions, the ZSV would be representative of the resistance
shown by the binders, even at high stress levels. For example, when
the creeping time is 0.01 s and the recovery time is 10 s, ZSV char-
acterizes resistance to permanent strain at stress levels as high as
100 kPa.
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Test
The MSCR test has already been shown to predict the rutting re-
sults of the ALF study by D’Angelo et al. (2007). The nonrecov-
ered creep compliance at 25.6 kPa was shown to rank the asphalt
binders as observed in the rutting tests. In this study, the model
prediction of the nonrecovered creep compliance of each asphalt
binder at 25.6 kPa was found to agree with the experimental mea-
surements of the same [Fig. 2(c)], which in turn was found to rank
the asphalt binders accurately.
The range of stress levels at which the MSCR characterizes the
resistance to permanent strain in RCRTs is essentially the range of
stress in which the nonrecoverable creep compliance is measured,
namely stress levels ranging from 50 Pa to 25.6 kPa. Moreover,
because of the nature of the test, this range can be extended on
either side, provided that the same experiment procedure can be
used at higher or lower stress levels. However, it must be ques-
tioned whether the binders must be tested at multiple stress levels
if the unnonrecovered creep compliance at only one particular
Fig. 7. The effective stress range of rutting parameters marked on the apparent viscosity versus stress plots
© ASCE 04014137-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137
stress level is used for the ranking. An RCRT at a well-chosen stress
level would be equally effective.
The MSCR test was designed to essentially simulate the traffic
loading on pavements. However, it has been shown that the 1 s
creeping time and 9 s recovery time does not always reflect the
duration of vehicle loading and the rest period between subsequent
loads that are normally observed in highways (Golalipour 2011).
The results of Barksdale (1971) show that the duration of a stress
pulse can be lower than 0.1 s for speeds greater than 50 km=h
(30 mph). In this respect, the results of the current study would
be quite useful. Bounds were estabished for ηc∞ ðτ Þ in the previous
section based on the creeping time and the ratio of recovery time to
creeping time, and these bounds can be easily translated into
bounds for nonrecovered creep compliance. With the help of these
bounds, the nonrecovered creep compliance for any creep time and
recovery time can be estimated if the nonrecovered creep compli-
ance for 1-s creep time and 9-s recovery time is known. In this way,
the current MSCR test with 1-s creeping time and 9-s recovery time
can be used to simulate any traffic loading.
Effective Stress Range of Rutting Parameters
In the previous sections, each rutting parameter was attributed a
stress range—i.e., a range of stress levels at which, if a RCRT
is conducted, the resistance to permanent strain observed in the test
will be accurately characterized by the corresponding rutting
parameter. The ranking of binders based on a rutting parameter
would match the ranking of binders based on RCRTs that are con-
ducted at stress levels within the corresponding range. For instance,
if one needs to know the ranking of asphalt binders with respect to
the resistance to permanent strain in RCRTs at a stress level less
than about 300 Pa, one can perform the ZSV test on the binders
and find the ranking based on ZSV. Similarly, if the ranking with
respect to resistance to permanent strain at stresses greater than
about 7 MPa is needed, one can measure G
= sin δ and rank the
binders accordingly. Considering the relationship to permanent
strain in RCRTs and the apparent viscosity at any given stress level,
each stress range can alternatively be viewed as the range of stress
levels at which the ranking of the apparent viscosity of the binders
matches the ranking based on the corresponding rutting parameter.
These stress ranges of rutting parameters are presented in Fig. 7.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Comparison of rutting measured in ALF tests to the viscosity
predicted for each binder at a stress level of 200 kPa
It should be noted that the stress ranges established for the ZSV
and the Superpave criterion in this study are not concrete, as they
are both based on binders tested in this study. If it is discovered that
for some asphalt binder, the apparent viscosity changes greatly
even at stress levels less than 300 Pa, then the higher end of the
stress range corresponding to the ZSV should be reduced accord-
ingly. Similarly, if for an asphalt binder, the apparent viscosity
changes greatly, even at stress levels greater than 7 MPa, the lower
end of the stress range coresponding to the Superpave criterion
must be increased accordingly.
Also shown in Fig. 7 is the range of stress levels at which the
ranking of the apparent viscosity exactly matches the ranking of the
binders with respect to the rutting behavior observed in the ALF
study. This is labeled the ALF range (which may or may not be
related to the actual stresses experienced by the binder in the
ALF pavement). That is, if one were to conduct RCRTs at some
stress level within this range, one can accurately rank the rutting
behavior in the ALF facility. It can be seen that the ALF range
is overlapped only by the higher end of the stress range correspond-
ing to the MSCR test. Barring that, the ALF range is not covered by
the stress range of any rutting parameter.
Viscosity as an Alternative Rutting Parameter
Considering the relation between the viscosity and permanent strain
established in this study, an alternative rutting prediction parameter
to the nonrecovered compliance from MSCR testing could be the
viscosity at a given stress level. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the
viscosity predicted by the model for the stress levels in the ALF
range accurately ranks the asphalt binders with respect to their
performance against rutting. In particular, a good correlation
was observed between the rutting measured in the field study
and the viscosity predicted at a stress level of 200 kPa (Fig. 8).
The R2 goodness of the fit was 0.9961.
Using viscosity as a rutting prediciton parameter is not entirely
new. In NCHRP Report 459, Bahia et al. (2001a) suggested using a
viscosity parameter, determined from RCRT test results at 100 Pa
and 3,200 Pa, as a rutting parameter. They also used it to predict the
rutting performance of asphalt binders with a reasonable level of
success. ZSV is also a viscosity parameter that has been shown
to predict the rutting performance of binders reasonably. In this
study, the usage of viscosity as a rutting parameter is merely
extended to a wider range of stress levels.
In order to implement this as a full specification, it is first nec-
essary to determine the critical stress level to measure the viscosity.
© ASCE 04014137-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137
This is just as with the MSCR test, where it is necessary to deter-
mine the critical stress at which the nonrecovered creep compliance
must be measured. The critical stress level would depend on
the nature of the traffic—the load of the vehicle, the duration of the
vehicle load, the rest period between subsequent loads, etc. In this
context, it is interesting to observe that the stress range of the ALF
range is about 20 kPa to 1 MPa (Fig. 7), while the contact pressure
of the ALF tire load is 1 MPa. Thus, the ALF range appears to be
related to the contact pressure of the loading. However, this might
simply be a coincidence. One may have to conduct a detailed stress
analysis of the pavement using an accurate mixture model of asphalt
concrete to find out the actual stress on the binder in pavements.
Conclusions
Prediction criteria that have been proposed with regard to rutting
susceptibility were analyzed with the help of a nonlinear viscoelas-
tic model. The results of this analysis essentially show that each
rutting parameter ranks asphalt binders based on their resistance
to permanent strain over a different range of stress levels. While
there appears to be an equivalent relation between these rutting
parameters for the unmodified binder tested in this study, each
rutting parameter represents a markedly different level of resistance
to permanent strain for the modified binders. The Superpave cri-
terion was found to be closely related to the resistance to permanent
strain offered by asphalt binders at relatively high stress levels,
while the ZSV was found to be related to the resistance at relatively
low stress levels. The intermediate range of stress levels was found
to be covered by MSCR tests, with the nonunrecovered compliance
as the rutting parameter.
The apparent viscosity at a chosen stress level is suggested as a
new parameter to predict the rutting susceptibility of asphalt bind-
ers. A relationship between the viscosity and permanent strain from
repeated creep tests already has been shown to exist at low stress
levels for several asphalt binders in previous research (e.g., Merusi
and Giuliani 2011). This relationship was partially extended to
higher stress levels; bounds were established for permanent strain
in RCRTs using the viscosity determined at different stress levels.
Moreover, it was also shown that the viscosity at a judiciously
chosen stress level can accurately characterize the rutting behavior
observed in a field study. Considering that experiments for deter-
mining viscosity are much more straightforward and do not involve
issues with delayed elasticity, as is the case with MSCR tests, it is a
good alternative to these tests for determining rutting susceptibility.
There are, however, certain issues regarding experimental meas-
urement that need to be addressed. Measuring viscosity at relatively
high stress levels can be difficult because most viscometric flows
are susceptible to several flow instabilities; flow in parallel-plate
geometry, in particular, is susceptible to edge fracture and inertial
instabilities. While conducting steady-shear experiments on asphalt
binders at 64°C, edge fracture was observed at shear rates greater
than 3−1 for most of the asphalt binders. These instabilities can be
avoided by decreasing the separation between the plates in the par-
allel plate geometry or by using a cone-and-plate geometry with a
low cone-angle. This is discussed in more detail by Motamed and
Bahia (2011).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Nelson Gibson and the FHWA for materials
and information, and Dr. Eyad Masad for his comments on a
previous draft.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 References
Anderson, R., D’Angelo, J., and Bukowski, J. (2011). “Evaluation of the
MSCR test for Canadian asphalt binders.” 56th Annual Conf. Canadian
Technical Asphalt Association, Tranportation Association of Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Bahia, H., Hanson, D., Zeng, M., Zhai, H., Khatri, M., and Anderson, R.
(2001a). “Characterization of modified asphalt binders in Superpave
mix design.” Rep. No. 459, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Washington, DC.
Bahia, H., Zhai, H., Zeng, M., Hu, Y., and Turner, P. (2001b). “Develop-
ment of binder specification parameters based on characterization of
damage behavior.” J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol., 70, 442–470.
Barksdale, R. (1971). “Compressive stress pulse times in flexible pave-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Politeknik Negeri Bandung on 02/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ments for use in dynamic testing.” Highway Res. Rec., 345, 32–44.
Bouldin, M., Dongré, R., and D’Angelo, J. (2001). “Proposed refinement of
Superpave high-temperature specification parameter for performance-
graded binders.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 1766, 40–47.
D’Angelo, J., Kluttz, R., Dongre, R., Stephens, K., and Zanzotto, L. (2007).
“Revision of the Superpave high-temperature binder specification: The
multiple stress creep recovery test.” J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol.,
76, 123–162.
D’Angelo, J. A. (2009). “The relationship of the MSCR test to rutting.”
Road Mater. Pavement Des., 10(1), 61–80.
Delgadillo, R., Cho, D., and Bahia, H. (2006). “Nonlinearity of repeated
creep and recovery binder test and relationship with mixture permanent
deformation.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board, 1962, 3–11.
Dongré, R., Button, J., Kluttz, R., and Anderson, D. (1997). “Evaluation of
Superpave binder specification with performance of polymer-modified
asphalt pavements.” ASTM Special Technical Publication, Vol. 1322,
American Technical Publisher, Orland Park, IL, 80–100.
Dongré, R., and D’Angelo, J. (2003). “Refinement of Superpave high-
temperature binder specification based on pavement performance in
the accelerated loading facility.” Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res.
Board, 1829, 39–46.
Gibson, N., et al. (2012). “Full-scale accelerated performance testing for
superpave and structural validation.” Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-11-045,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Golalipour, A. (2011). “Modification of multiple stress creep and recovery
test procedure and usage in specification.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
© ASCE 04014137-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2015, 27(3): 04014137
Masad, E., Huang, C., D’Angelo, J., and Little, D. (2009). “Characteriza-
tion of asphalt binder resistance to permanent deformation based on
nonlinear viscoelastic analysis of multiple stress creep recovery
(MSCR) test.” J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol., 78, 535–566.
Merusi, F., and Giuliani, F. (2011). “Intrinsic resistance to nonreversible
deformation in modified asphalt binders and its relation with specifica-
tion criteria.” Constr. Build. Mater., 25(8), 3356–3366.
Motamed, A., and Bahia, H. U. (2011). “Influence of test geometry, temper-
ature, stress level, and loading duration on binder properties measured
using DSR.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0000321, 1422–1432.
Narayan, S. P. A., Little, D. N., and Rajagopal, K. R. (2013). “A nonlinear
viscoelastic model for describing the response of asphalt binders within
the context of a Gibbs-potential based thermodynamic framework.” J.
Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000682, 04014116.
Phillips, M., and Robertus, C. (1996). “Binder rheology and asphaltic
pavement permanent deformation: The zero-shear-viscosity.” Eura-
sphalt Eurobitume Cong., European Asphalt Pavement Association,
Brussels, Belgium.
Rowe, G., D’Angelo, J., and Sharrock, M. (2002). “Use of zero shear
viscosity as a parameter for the high-temperature binder specification
parameter.” J. Appl. Asphalt Binder Technol., 2(2).
Shenoy, A. (2001). “Refinement of the Superpave specification parameter
for performance grading of asphalt.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-947X(2001)127:5(357), 357–362.
Shenoy, A. (2004a). “A comprehensive treatise of the high-temperature
specification parameter—G
/(1-(1/tan d sin d)) for performance
grading of asphalts.” Appl. Rheol., 14(6), 303–314.
Shenoy, A. (2004b). “High temperature performance grading of asphalts
through a specification criterion that could capture field performance.”
J. Transp. Eng., 130(1), 132–137.
Stuart, K., Mogawer, W., and Romero, P. (1999). “Validation of asphalt
binder and mixture tests that measure rutting susceptibility using the
accelerated loading facility.” Rep. No. FHWA-RD-99-204, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Sybilski, D. (1996). “Zero-shear viscosity of bituminous binder and its
relation to bituminous mixture’s rutting resistance.” Transp. Res. Rec.:
J. Transp. Res. Board, 1535, 15–21.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.