Laboratory Evaluation of Workability and Moisture

Susceptibility of Warm-Mix Asphalt Mixtures

Containing Recycled Asphalt Pavements
Abhilash Kusam 1; Haritha Malladi, Ph.D. 2; Akhtarhusein A. Tayebali, Ph.D., P.E. 3; and N. Paul Khosla, Ph.D. 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Warm mix asphalt (WMA) and recycled asphalt pavements (RAP) are two popularly used sustainable technologies in pavement
industry. Because RAP materials contain aged binder, its use is limited to a certain percentage in hot mix asphalt (HMA) as it may affect the
workability and, fatigue and thermal cracking performance. Higher percentages of RAP can be incorporated into HMA with softer asphalt
binder or in combination with softening agent. However, the combination of WMA and RAP may allow for greater percentages of RAP
without modifying the original HMA job mix formula. The objective of this study was to explore the use of higher percentage of RAP, using
two different WMA technologies—Evotherm additive and foamed asphalt—to study the workability and moisture sensitivity of WMA-RAP
asphalt mixtures. The study found that the use of WMA technologies can eliminate the need for a softer grade binder in high RAP mixtures.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001825. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Warm mix asphalt; Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP); Tensile strength ratio (TSR); Moisture susceptibility;
Workability.

Introduction The use of RAP material in mixtures is governed by limiting

Warm mix asphalt (WMA) technologies are relatively new but have
gained popularity with the pavement industry because of reduced
construction temperatures and increased workability at lower tem-
peratures. This reduces emissions, while simultaneously decreasing
the energy required to produce the mixtures, resulting in environ-
mental and economic benefits. Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP)
material is also used commonly as this mitigates the problem of
disposing the material extracted from damaged roads. However,
use of RAP in construction of new pavements can lead to increased
stiffness, lower durability and workability of the mixture if proper
adjustments to mix design process is not followed. NCHRP Report
452 suggests using softer grade binder for high RAP content to
overcome the workability issues (McDaniel and Anderson 2001).
It is hypothesized that when WMA and RAP technologies are used
together, problems with reduced workability owing to the use of
RAP, and the lower stiffness in some cases of WMA mixtures with-
out RAP can be overcome. Various studies have advocated the use
of RAP and WMA in conjunction, as the use of WMA technology
may reduce the effect of stiff aged RAP binder that would other-
wise have a deleterious effect on the fatigue and thermal life of
pavements (Copeland et al. 2010).
1 Prowell 2005; MeadWestvaco Corporation 2015; Copeland et al.
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7908 (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2230-6460. E-mail:
akusam@ncsu.edu
2 study on use of high RAP mixtures (Biro et al. 2009) observed that
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7908.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineer-
ing, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7908.
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineer-
ing, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7908.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 6, 2016; approved on
September 19, 2016; published online on November 17, 2016. Discussion
period open until April 17, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
parameters such as workability, blending of binders, performance
of mixtures, and production temperatures. NCHRP Report 752
suggests the use of the same binder grade that would be normally
used for HMA when less than 15% RAP is used. But for 15–25%
RAP use, a softer binder grade is suggested; and when more than
25% RAP is used the report suggests that blending charts should be
used to attain proper workability (West et al. 2013). A National
Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) study suggests the use
of higher virgin binder content instead of lowering the binder grade
for 25% RAP, and to use a softer grade binder when 50% RAP is
used (Willis et al. 2012).
Various researchers have investigated the effect on workability
and moisture susceptibility attributable to the use of WMA tech-
nologies containing RAP material (Buss et al. 2014; Tao and
Mallick 2009; Mallick et al. 2008). A study on the effect of lower
production temperatures on the rut resistance of the binder using
binder rheology observed that WMA binders when used without
RAP had lower initial stiffness (Wielinski et al. 2009).
Various state highway agencies that have studied mixtures
with RAP material using WMA technology have observed similar
workability, stiffness and in-place densities for WMA-RAP as com-
pared with HMA mixtures (Kristjansdottir et al. 2007; Hurley and
2010). A case study (Copeland et al. 2010) in collaboration with
Florida department of transportation found that WMA mixtures
with 45% RAP were softer than HMA containing 45% RAP. A
at mid-range temperatures (25 to 80°C) the stiffness and resistance
to rutting increased for WMA-RAP mixtures with Sasobit additive
compared with HMA mixtures.
However, there has not been much emphasis on researching
the effect of binder grade on WMA-RAP mixture characteristics.
Moisture damage remains a significant concern with the use of
some WMA technologies such as use of foamed asphalt. With
many WMA additives showing an increased workability at lower
temperatures, and compactness when used with RAP material, it is

© ASCE 04016276-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 necessary to study and ensure that in addition to compactness
behavior of these mixtures, WMA-RAP mixtures are also resistant
to moisture susceptibility. In this study, mixtures with varying per-
centages of RAP were used with Evotherm and PTI Foamer WMA
technologies. The effect of binder grade was also studied for high
RAP mixtures.
Research Objectives
The primary objectives of this research study were to evaluate the
workability and moisture susceptibility of mixtures produced using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by weight of binder was used in PTI Foamer device to produce
foamed binder for mixtures.
The mixing and compaction temperatures for the virgin HMA
mixtures with PG 64-22 binder were selected as 163 and 149°C,
respectively (AASHTO 2013b). For virgin WMA mixtures, the
mixing and compaction temperatures used were 135 and 120°C,
respectively. The selected temperatures are based on specifications
by the manufacturer and a literature survey (Hurley and Prowell
2005; Bonaquist 2011). The mixing and compaction temperatures
used for HMA and WMA mixtures with 20 and 40% RAP were
same as the mixing and compaction temperatures for the virgin

two WMA technologies (use of Evotherm and foamed asphalt)
containing different RAP contents, in comparison to a control
HMA mixture. Additionally, the effectiveness of Evotherm as
an antistrip additive was also evaluated. Three different RAP
percentages—0, 20, and 40% were used. The specific research
objectives of the study were to: (1) characterize and compare
the mixtures based on workability using the % Gmm evolution
curves; (2) evaluate moisture susceptibility of the mixtures using
TSR test; and (3) assess effectiveness of Evotherm additive as an
antistrip additive using TSR test.
Materials Used and Sample Preparation Procedure
Granite aggregate, PG 64-22 and PG 58-28 binders were used in
this study. Mixtures were designed for 9.5B (12.5 mm NMSA) sur-
face course mix. RAP material for mixture was obtained from a
single local source and stockpile to maintain uniformity. In addition
to the aggregates, pond fines passing 75 μm sieve size at 1.5% by
weight of aggregates was also used. The aggregate gradation used
is shown in Fig. 1. PG 58-28 binder was also used in addition to PG
64-22 to check for the need of the use of a softer binder for WMA
mixtures when high RAP (40%) content was used. Three different
RAP contents—0, 20, and 40% were used in this study. An antistrip
additive, AD-here LOF 6500, was added to the binder at 0.75% by
weight of binder.
Two WMA technologies were used in this study—
MeadWestvaco’s Evotherm 3G additive and The PTI Foamer
device. The former is a chemical based and latter is water based
technology. Evotherm was added to the asphalt binder at a rate
of 0.5% by weight of total binder in the mixture. Two percent water
HMA and WMA mixtures. For 40% RAP mixtures, PG 58-28
binder was used in addition to PG 64-22 to investigate the possibil-
ity of eliminating the need for using a softer grade binder when
WMA technology is used. Ignition Oven tests were conducted
to determine the binder content and aggregate gradation for the
RAP material (AASHTO 2007, 2013a)
Volumetric Properties of Various Mixtures Used
Optimum design asphalt content was determined for the HMA
mixtures with 0, 20, and 40% RAP material. Superpave gyratory
compactor (SGC) was used to compact the mixtures to 65 gyrations
(N design ) as per the 9.5B mixture specifications. The optimum as-
phalt contents for the HMA mixtures with 0, 20, and 40% RAP
contents were used to prepare WMA samples and their volumetric
properties were verified. The volumetric property requirements for
the WMA mixtures for all RAP percentages were satisfied when
optimum asphalt content values, corresponding to that of HMA
mixtures were used to prepare the WMA mixtures. Optimum as-
phalt contents were determined to be 6.0, 5.9, and 5.8%, respec-
tively for 0, 20, and 40% RAP content (for both PG 64-22; and
PG 58-22 binder grade in case of 40% RAP use in mixtures).
The volumetric properties of the mixtures are shown in Table 1
and it may be noted that these properties are satisfied based on
Superpave mix design specification limits for all mixtures.
Workability of Mixtures
Following the NCAT (Leiva-Villacorta 2007), workability of the
mixtures was compared in terms of compactness of the mixtures.

100

90

80

70
Percent Passing

60

50

40

30

20
Control Points
10

Sieve Sizes

Fig. 1. Federal highway 0.45 power gradation chart showing aggregate gradation

© ASCE 04016276-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 Table 1. Volumetric Properties for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures
Asphalt concrete mix technology
Mix properties Volumetric
Mixture type at N design HMA Evotherm Foamer requirements
0% RAP mixtures with 6.0% % Va 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0  0.5
PG 64-22 asphalt content Gmm 2.425 2.420 2.410 —
% VMA 17.0 17.2 17.5 >15.0
% VFA 77.1 77.3 77.7 65–78
%Gmm at N ini (7) 89.5 89.3 89.5 ≤89.0
%Gmm at N des (65) 96.1 96.1 96.1 96
20% RAP mixtures with 5.9% % Va 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.0  0.5
PG 64-22 asphalt content Gmm 2.422 2.414 2.415 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

% VMA 17.5 17.6 17.7 >15.0

% VFA 76.0 77.3 76.8 65–78
%Gmm at N ini (7) 88.9 89.2 89.1 ≤89.0
%Gmm at N des (65) 95.7 95.9 96.0 96
40% RAP mixtures with 5.8% % VTM 4.4 4.4 3.9 4.0  0.5
PG 64-22 asphalt content Gmm 2.425 2.437 2.430 —
% VMA 17.5 17.3 17.2 >15.0
% VFA 74.9 74.6 77.3 65–78
%Gmm at N ini (7) 88.9 89.2 89.4 ≤ 89.0
%Gmm at N des (65) 95.6 95.6 96.1 96
40% RAP mixtures with 5.8% % VTM 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.0  0.5
PG 58-28 asphalt content Gmm 2.415 2.436 2.424 —
% VMA 17.6 17.3 17.5 >15.0
% VFA 78.4 75.1 76.6 65–78
%Gmm at N ini (7) 89.9 89.2 89.2 ≤89.0
%Gmm at N des (65) 96.2 95.7 95.9 96

NCHRP Report 691 proposed the use of number of gyrations re- Table 2. N92 Values for All Mixtures Used
quired to reach 92%Gmm , to evaluate workability of asphalt mix- Mixture technology
tures (Bonaquist 2011). Laboratory experiments (Hanz 2012;
RAP HMA EVO Foamer
Faheem and Bahia 2007); and field calibrations (Leiva-Villacorta
2007; Bonaquist 2011) have indicated that N92 (number of gyra- 0% 17 15 16
tions to 92 percent Gmm ) and compaction force index (CFI) are sen- 20% 18 17 16
40% PG 64-22 23 19 16
sitive to WMA additives and the compaction temperatures. It was 40% PG 58-28 16 20 18
also determined that the area under the curve from N ini to 92 per-
cent Gmm , can be used to rank the mixtures based on their work-
ability. In this study the N92 parameter was used to determine
workability. As per a recommendation in the draft appendix to Table 3. Percentage Change in N92 Values for Mixtures With Respect To
HMA Mix with 0% RAP
AASHTO R 35, WMA is more sensitive to compaction tempera-
ture than HMA if the increase in number of gyrations to 92% rel- Mixture technology
ative density (92%Gmm ) exceeds 25% when the compaction RAP HMA (%) EVO (%) Foamer (%)
temperature of WMA is decreased by 30°C (54°F) (AASHTO
0% Control −12 −6
2015). This measure was found to be sensitive to the compaction 20% 6 0 −6
temperature, the WMA process, and the presence of RAP in the 40% PG 64-22 35 12 −6
mixture (Bonaquist 2011; Hanz 2012). Hanz et al. have used this 40% PG 58-28 −6 18 6
as a limiting value in determining the WMA compaction temper-
ature during their proposed mix design process (Hanz 2012).
In this study, for all mixture specimens compacted, the develop-
ment %Gmm curves were determined as a function of number of Workability of Mixtures Compared with that of HMA
gyrations. For 40% RAP content, mixtures prepared with both PG Mixture with 0% RAP (Control Mixture)
64-22 and PG 58-28 were compared. The effect of changing RAP The N92 value of the HMA mixture with 0% RAP was considered
content and mix production technology on compactness was also as the control value. The N92 values and the percentage change in
determined. The number of gyrations to reach 92% Gmm , N92, was N92 values of the mixtures with respect to the control HMA mix
determined for all the mixtures. An average N92 value of three with 0% RAP are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Fig. 2 shows graphical
specimens was used for compactness comparison for each mixture. representation of the N92 values for all the mixtures. From Table 3
Increase in N92 value for a mixture suggests a decrease in work- it is observed that only the HMA mixture with 40% RAP and PG
ability of the mixture. 64-22 binder exceeds the 25% limit on the increase in N92 values
The N92 values of all mixtures were compared with that of compared with HMA mixture with 0% RAP.
an HMA mixture with 0% RAP (control mixture); the effect Therefore, it is concluded that workability of the HMA mixture
of RAP content on workability was studied; and the effect of mix- with 40% RAP and PG 64-22 binder is much lower than the work-
ture technology on workability for different RAP contents was ability of the HMA mixture with 0% RAP. This observation also
evaluated. validates the fact that most agencies require using a softer binder

© ASCE 04016276-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 Workability Trend for all Mixtures
26

Decreasing Workability
22

N92
18

14

10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mix Type

HMA Evotherm Foamer

Fig. 2. Workability of different mixes with varying RAP content

when high RAP contents are used. It is also observed that when
WMA technologies are used, it is not necessary to use a softer
binder (change in binder grade).
Effect of RAP Content on Workability
To measure the effect of RAP content on workability, the percent-
age change in the N92 value with increase in RAP content as
compared with the respective 0% RAP mixture was calculated
for all three mixture technologies. The %Gmm evolution curves
for HMA and WMA mixtures with different RAP contents are
shown in Figs. 3(a–c). Table 4 shows the percentage change in
N92 values with increase in RAP content with respect to the respec-
tive 0% RAP mixture.
From Table 4, it is evident that the increase in RAP content has
very little effect on the workability of foamed mixture. However,
the increase in RAP content in HMA reduces the workability. For
HMA mixtures, when 40% RAP is added and the same binder
grade is used, the workability is much lower based on the criteria
given in the draft appendix of AASHTO R 35. This decrease in
workability can be overcome by using a softer grade binder, PG
58-28, which increases the workability of the HMA mixture with
40% RAP. Similarly, the addition of RAP decreases the workability
for Evotherm mixtures. From Table 4 for Evotherm mixtures, when
40% RAP is added and the same binder grade is used, the increase
in N92 values is more than 25%. Using a softer binder grade does
not help improve the workability as seen in Table 4. However, the
decrease in workability of Evotherm mixture with 40% RAP with
respect to the control HMA mixture with 0% RAP is within the
25% limit (12%) as shown previously.
In conclusion, the workability of HMA and Evotherm mixtures
decreases noticeably with increase in amount of RAP used. How-
ever, increase in RAP content has little effect on workability of
foamed mixtures. Use of softer binder grade increases workability
in HMA mixture when 40% RAP was used, but it had less effect on
the workability of Evotherm and foamed mixtures with 40% RAP.
Effect of Mixture Technology on Workability for
Different RAP Contents
To evaluate the effect of mixture technology on workability for dif-
ferent RAP contents, the percentage change in N92 values of a
WMA mix from that of the HMA mix was calculated for each
RAP content. For 40% RAP mixtures, the HMA mixture with
PG 64-22 binder was designed as control, i.e., the percentage
change in N92 values of WMA mix with PG 64-22 binder and
PG 58-28 binder, and HMA mix with PG 58-28 binder was calcu-
lated with respect to the HMA mix with 40% RAP and PG 64-22
binder. Figs. 4(a–c) show the workability for different mixture tech-
nologies for each RAP content used. Table 5 shows the percentage
change in N92 values attributable to different mixture technologies
used for different RAP contents.
For all three RAP contents, the workability of mixtures in-
creased when WMA technology was used. For 40% RAP mixtures
with PG 64-22 binder, the Foamer mixture has much higher work-
ability compared with the HMA mixture. HMA, Evotherm and
Foamer mixtures with 40% RAP and PG 58-28 all have better
workability than the HMA mix with 40% RAP and PG 64-22
binder.
In conclusion, the use of WMA technology increases the work-
ability of mixtures compared with the HMA mixture for all RAP
contents for the same design binder grade.
Moisture Susceptibility
Modified AASHTO T 283 (AASHTO 2014), “Standard method
of test for resistance of compacted hot mix asphalt (HMA) to
moisture-induced damage” as followed by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) was used to evaluate
the mixtures’ moisture susceptibility using the tensile strength ratio
(TSR). TSR tests were conducted to evaluate moisture susceptibil-
ity of asphalt mixtures with varying RAP content, and produced
using the WMA technologies used in this study. For all mixtures,
a liquid antistrip additive LOF 6500, in the amount of 0.75%
by weight of total binder was used, including the mixture with
Evotherm WMA additive.
The TSR test specimens were prepared as per the standard spec-
ifications and were compacted to a target air void content of
7  0.5% with specimen dimension of 150 mm diameter and
95  5 mm height using the Superpave gyratory compactor. The
specimens were prepared using the same aggregate gradation that
was used for mix design, and the optimum asphalt content deter-
mined during the Superpave mix design are presented in Table 1.

© ASCE 04016276-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 98.0
H0R PG 64-22
96.0 H20R PG 64-22

94.0 H40R PG 64-22

% Gmm
H40R PG 58-22
92.0

90.0

88.0
N initial = 7 N design = 65
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

86.0
1 10 100

(a) No. of Gyrations

98.0
E0R PG 64-22
96.0 E20R PG 64-22
E40R PG 64-22
94.0
E40R PG 58-22
% Gmm

92.0

90.0

88.0
N initial = 7 N design = 65
86.0
1 10 100
(b) No. of Gyrations

98.0
F40R PG 58-22
96.0 F40R PG 64-22
F20R PG 64-22
94.0
% Gmm

F0R PG 64-22
92.0

90.0

88.0
N initial = 7 N design = 65
86.0
1 10 100

(c) No. of Gyrations

Fig. 3. %Gmm evolution curves for HMA, Evotherm and Foamer mixtures with different RAP contents: (a) HMA; (b) Evotherm; (c) Foamer

Table 4. Percentage Change in N92 Values with Increase in RAP (163°C for HMA and 136°C for WMA). The specimens were
Content as Compared with the Respective 0% RAP Mixture for All then cooled for 2 h and cured at 60°C (140°F) for 16 h. After
Three Mixture Technologies curing, the mixtures were heated for 2 h to their respective
Mixture 40% RAP w/ 40% RAP w/ compaction temperatures (149°C for HMA and 120°C for WMA)
technology 20% RAP PG 64-22 binder PG 58-28 binder and then compacted to a height of 95  5 mm using the Superpave
HMA 6 35 −6 gyratory compactor.
EVO 13 27 33 The unconditioned specimens were tested at room temperature,
FOAM 0 0 13 i.e., 25°C (77°F). The saturated specimens were moisture
conditioned before testing as per the modified AASHTO T283
(AASHTO 2014) procedure according to the NCDOT specifica-
For WMA mixtures that used Evotherm, 0.5% dosage by weight of tions. After the conditioning, they were cooled for 2 h in a water
binder content was used. bath at 25°C (77°F). The specimens were then tested for their indi-
In accordance with AASHTO T283 (AASHTO 2014), the loose rect tensile strength (ITS) values. The tensile strength ratio (TSR)
mixtures were prepared at their respective mixing temperatures was determined for all mixtures as a percentage of the conditioned

© ASCE 04016276-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 98.00
H0R PG 64-22
96.00
E0R PG 64-22
94.00 F0R PG 64-22

% Gmm
92.00

90.00

88.00
N initial = 7 N design = 65
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

86.00
1 10 100
(a) No. of Gyrations

98.00
H20R PG 64-22
96.00 E20R PG 64-22

94.00 F20R PG 64-22

% Gmm

92.00

90.00

88.00
N initial = 7 N design = 65
86.00
1 10 100
(b) No. of Gyrations

98
H40R PG 64-22
96 E40R PG 64-22

94 F40R PG 64-22
% Gmm

H40R PG 58-28
92
E40R PG 58-28
90
F40R PG 58-28
88
N initial = 7 N design = 65
86
1 10 100
(c) No. of Gyrations

Fig. 4. %Gmm evolution curves for 0, 20, and 40% RAP mixtures: (a) 0% RAP; (b) 20% RAP; (c) 40% RAP

Table 5. Percentage Change in N92 Values Attributable to Different It is observed from Table 7 that (1) generally, with a couple of
Mixture Technologies for Different RAP Technologies exceptions, the addition of RAP materials increases the ITS in both
Mixtures 0% RAP (%) 20% RAP (%) 40% RAP (%) conditioned and unconditioned state; that is expected because RAP
materials contain harder asphalt (oxidized); (2) in general, the TSR
Evotherm with PG 64-22 −12 −6 −17
Foamer with PG 64-22 −6 −11 −30
ratio decreases with increasing RAP content; and (3) except for
HMA with PG 58-28 — — −30 Foamed mixtures with 40% RAP, all mixtures pass the NCDOT
Evotherm with PG 58-28 — — −13 acceptance criterion of 85% retained TSR. It is noted that all mix-
Foamer with PG 58-28 — — −22 tures contain an LOF 6500 antistrip additive. It is interesting to note
that Evotherm WMA with 40% RAP material barely meets the 85%
acceptance criterion even though in addition to the mix containing
Evotherm, which can also act as an antistrip agent, and LOF 6500
to unconditioned ITS ratio. The required minimum passing ratio by antistrip additive. A previous NCDOT study using similar base ma-
NCDOT is 85%. A summary of the number of specimens tested for terials noted that doubling the amount of antistrip additive from
each mixture in the TSR test is given in Table 6. The results of the 0.75% did not improve the performance of virgin WMA (Malladi
TSR tests for all mixtures are presented in Table 7. et al. 2015). Therefore, samples with an additional amount more

© ASCE 04016276-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 Table 6. Number of Specimens Tested for TSR Test ITS values of conditioned and unconditioned samples and TSR
TSR for all mixtures.
Mixture type % RAP Unconditioned Conditioned
HMA 0, 20, 40 4 4 Effectiveness of Evotherm as Antistrip Additive
EVO 0, 20, 40 4 4
FOAM 0, 20, 40 4 4 MeadWestvaco, the manufacturers of Evotherm suggest that
Evotherm can also be used as an antistrip additive (Kuang 2012).
To test the effectiveness of Evotherm as an antistrip additive,
TSR tests were conducted on virgin mixtures (no RAP) by adding
than 0.75% antistrip additive were not prepared for TSR testing on just Evotherm and no antistrip additive. The results of the TSR
the WMA mixtures. test with only Evotherm and no antistrip additive are shown in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

One anomaly in the results is that the 40% RAP Foamer mix-
tures exhibited very low TSR values. This is probably caused by the
high ITS values exhibited by the unconditioned set of specimens
with 40% RAP foamed mixture. The ITS values for all mixtures
increased with increase in RAP content. However, for HMA
mixtures the ITS values decreased when the RAP content was in-
creased from 20 to 40%. This may be because of the use of a softer
binder, PG 58-28, for HMA mixtures with 40% RAP instead of PG
64-22 which was used for the remaining mixtures. This also ex-
plains why Evotherm and Foamer mixtures with 40% RAP exhib-
ited higher conditioned and unconditioned ITS values than HMA
mixtures with 40% RAP and PG 58-28 binder. Fig. 5 shows the
Table 8. The TSR ratio for mixtures with only Evotherm is 88%
that passes the minimum required TSR value of 85% as specified
by NCDOT; and, therefore, for the mix under consideration,
Evotherm can be used not only as a WMA additive but also as
an antistrip additive.
However, it is emphasized that when RAP is used with the mix,
especially higher contents, it may be necessary to either increase
the Evotherm dosage or add an additional antistrip additive such
as LOF 6500 as used in this study. This observation is based on
Table 7 results that show a 85% TSR ratio for the mix with
40% RAP but containing 0.5% Evotherm and 0.75% LOF 6500
by weight of asphalt.

Table 7. Summary of TSR Test Results of All the Mixtures

Median indirect tensile strength (kPa) Standard deviation (kPa)
Mixture type Conditioned Unconditioned Conditioned Unconditioned TSR (%) Pass/fail (minimum 85%)
HMA 0% RAP 1,074 1,059 26.9 22.3 101.4 Pass
HMA 20% RAP 1,292 1,473 43.2 25.7 87.8 Pass
HMA 40% RAP (PG 58-28) 1,315 1,458 18.9 34.7 90.2 Pass
EVO 0% RAP 796 849 25.1 13.4 93.8 Pass
EVO 20% RAP 1,345 1,495 61.8 70.0 89.9 Pass
EVO 40% RAP 1,360 1,593 26.0 27.3 85.4 Pass
FOAM 0% RAP 1,022 1,082 24.7 16.4 94.4 Pass
FOAM 20% RAP 1,202 1,375 24.5 21.2 87.4 Pass
FOAM 40% RAP 1,503 2,006 27.4 43.3 74.9 Fail
Note: In HMA 40% RAP a softer binder, PG 58-28, was used instead of PG 64-22. This explains the decrease in unconditioned ITS value for HMA mixtures
from 20% RAP to 40% RAP mixtures. This also explains why Evotherm and Foamer mixtures with 40% RAP exhibited higher conditioned and unconditioned
ITS values than HMA mixtures with 40% RAP.

2500 120%
Indirect Tensile Strength (kPa)

100%
2000
Tensile Strength Ratio

80%
1500
60%
1000
40%

500
20%

0 0%
HMA 0% EVO 0% FOAM 0% HMA 20% EVO 20% FOAM 20% HMA 40% EVO 40% FOAM 40%
RAP RAP RAP RAP RAP RAP RAP PG58- RAP RAP
28
Mixture Type

Unconditioned ITS Conditioned ITS Tensile Strength Ratio 85% TSR

Fig. 5. ITS values of conditioned and unconditioned samples and tensile strength ratio

© ASCE 04016276-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276

 Table 8. TSR Test Results for 0% RAP Mixtures with Evotherm as an
AntiStrip Additive and without LOF 6500
Mixture type EVO 0% RAP and no antistrip additive
Median indirect tensile strength (kPa)
Conditioned 827
Unconditioned 939
Standard deviation (kPa)
Conditioned 47.6
Unconditioned 7.5
TSR (%) 88
Pass/fail (minimum 85%) Pass
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE on 12/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Summary and Conclusions
This research study aimed at evaluating the workability and mois-
ture susceptibility of two WMA technologies—Evotherm 3G and
PTI Foamer with three different RAP contents—0, 20, and 40%
and compared them with the corresponding HMA mixtures. A
job mix formula for 9.5 B mixture was used. %Gmm evolution
curves were used to evaluate the workability of the mixtures. The
TSR examined using modified AASHTO T283 was used to evalu-
ate the moisture susceptibility for each mixture. Additionally, the
effectiveness of Evotherm additive as an antistrip additive was also
evaluated using the TSR test.
Specific conclusions based on the results of this study are:
• The optimum binder content decreased by 0.1% by weight of
mix for every 20% increase in amount of RAP in the mix. This
decrease can be attributable to the difference in absorption levels
between RAP and virgin aggregate.
• A softer binder is needed to prepare high RAP HMA mixtures.
The same binder grade can be used for high RAP WMA
mixtures.
• For WMA mixtures with high RAP content, additional dosage
of antistrip additive may be required so that the mixtures can
pass the moisture sensitivity criteria.
• Evotherm as an antistrip additive was effective enough for the
virgin mixtures to satisfy the minimum TSR criteria of 85%
for NCDOT. However, based on TSR test results, with higher
amounts of RAP, it may be necessary to either increase the
dosage of Evotherm or use an additional antistrip additive such
as LOF 6500 as used in this study.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) for funding this research project. The authors are espe-
cially thankful to the personnel at NCDOT M&T laboratory for
their continued support throughout the project.
References
AASHTO. (2007). “Standard method of test for determining the asphalt
binder content of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) by the ignition method.”
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2013a). “Standard method of test for mechanical analysis of
extracted aggregate.” Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2013b). “Standard method of test for viscosity determination of
asphalt binder using rotational viscometer.” Washington, DC.
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 04016276
AASHTO. (2014). “Standard method of test for resistance of compacted
asphalt mixtures to moisture-induced damage.” Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2015). “Standard practice for superpave volumetric design
for asphalt mixtures.” Washington, DC.
Biro, S., Gandhi, T., and Amirkhanian, S. (2009). “Midrange temperature
rheological properties of warm asphalt binders.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:7(316), 316–323.
Bonaquist, R. (2011). “Mix design practices for warm mix asphalt.”
NCHRP Rep. 691, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Buss, A., Kuang, Y., Williams, C. R., Bausano, J., Cascione, A., and
Schram, S. (2014). “Influence of warm mix asphalt additive and dosage
rate on construction and performance of bituminous pavements.”
Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Copeland, A., D’Angelo, J., Dongre, R., Belagutti, S., and Sholar, G.
(2010). “Field evaluation of high reclaimed asphalt pavement-warm-
mix asphalt project in Florida.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2179, 93–101.
Faheem, A. F., and Bahia, H. U. (2007). Using the superpave gyratory
compactor to estimate rutting resistance of hot mix asphalt,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 45–61.
Hanz, A. J. (2012). “Quantifying the impacts of warm mix asphalt on
constructability and performance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Hurley, G. C., and Prowell, B. D. (2005). “Evaluation of Aspha-
Min®Zeolite for use in warm mix asphalt.” National Center for Asphalt
Technology, Auburn, AL.
Kristjansdottir, O., Muench, S., Michael, L., and Burke, G. (2007).
“Assessing potential for warm-mix asphalt technology adoption.”
Transp. Res. Rec., 2040, 91–99.
Kuang, Y. (2012). “Evaluation of Evotherm as a WMA technology com-
paction and anti-strip additive.” M.S. thesis, Iowa State Univ., Ames,
IA.
Leiva-Villacorta, F.. (2007). “Relationships between laboratory measured
characteristics of HMA and field compactability.” M.S. thesis, Auburn
Univ., Auburn, AL.
Malladi, H., Ayyala, D., Tayebali, A. A., and Khosla, N. P. (2015). “Labo-
ratory evaluation of warm-mix asphalt mixtures for moisture and rutting
susceptibility.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0001121, 04014162.
Mallick, R. B., Kandhal, P. S., and Bradbury, R. L. (2008). “Using warm-
mix asphalt technology to incorporate high percentage of reclaimed
asphalt pavement material in asphalt mixtures.” Transp. Res. Rec.,
2051, 71–79.
McDaniel, R., and Anderson, M. R. (2001). “NCHRP 452: Recommended
use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in the superpave mix design method:
Technician’s manual.” Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, DC.
MeadWestvaco Corporation. (2015). “Evotherm®3G warm mix asphalt.”
〈http://nustarenergy.com/Reports/Evotherm%203G/Evotherm3GFV2
.pdf〉 (Oct. 21, 2016).
Tao, M., and Mallick, R. B. (2009). “Effects of warm-mix asphalt additives
on workability and mechanical properties of reclaimed asphalt
pavement material.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2126, 151–160.
West, R., Willis, J. R., and Marasteanu, M. (2013). “NCHRP 752: Im-
proved mix design, evaluation, and materials management practices
for hot mix asphalt with high reclaimed asphalt pavement content.”
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Wielinski, J., Hand, A., and Rausch, D. M. (2009). “Laboratory and field
evaluations of foamed warm-mix asphalt projects.” Transp. Res. Rec.,
2126, 125–131.
Willis, J. R., Turner, P., Julian, G., Taylor, A. J., Tran, N., and de Goes
Padula, F. (2012). “NCAT 12-03: Effects of changing virgin binder
grade and content on rap mixture properties.” National Center for
Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL.
04016276-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.