Mechanical Property Characterization of Warm-Mix

Asphalt Prepared with Chemical Additives

Zhen Leng, A.M.ASCE 1; Angeli Gamez 2; and Imad L. Al-Qadi, Dist.M.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study experimentally characterized the mechanical properties of warm-mix asphalt (WMA) prepared with two chemical
additives: Evotherm 3G and Rediset LQ-1106, using laboratory-mixed and laboratory-compacted (LMLC) specimens. A conventional stone
matrix asphalt (SMA), widely used in expressway overlay projects in the Chicago area, was selected as the control mixture. Two warm SMA
mixtures were prepared by adding 0.5% Evotherm 3G and 0.5% Rediset LQ-1106 by weight of binder, respectively. The performances of the
control SMA, Evotherm SMA, and Rediset SMA were evaluated and compared through extensive laboratory testing, including complex
modulus, loading wheel track, indirect tension, and semi-circular beam at various curing time periods after compaction. This study concluded
that both warm SMA mixtures provided slightly lower tensile strengths and complex moduli than the control SMA. However, the rutting and
fracture resistance potentials of the two warm SMA mixtures were relatively similar to that of the control SMA. The curing time effect on the
performance of the two warm SMA mixtures varied depending on the material property measured as well as the additive type. A strong
correlation between strength gaining and curing time for the two warm SMA mixtures could not be concluded. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT
.1943-5533.0000810. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Warm-mix asphalt; Chemical additive; Dynamic modulus test; Stone matrix asphalt; Wheel track test; Indirect tension
test; Semicircular beam test.

Introduction performance issues of WMA have been brought into question.

Warm-mix asphalt (WMA) is an emerging technology that began in
the mid-1990s to allow for lower asphalt mixture production tem-
peratures in comparison to hot-mix asphalt (HMA). First developed
in Europe, the exploration of the material characterization and ben-
efits of WMA has been continued by the United States. Typically,
the mixing and compaction temperatures for HMA range from
150 to 180°C (300 to 350°F), which could be reduced to as low
as 100 to 140°C (212 to 280°F) for WMA (Angelo et al. 2008).
HMA often involves relatively high energy consumption and sig-
nificant production of greenhouse gases and hazardous fumes,
whereas WMA production and construction result in substantial
reductions in the stack emissions and odors (Leng and Al-Qadi
2011). In addition to addressing environmental issues and reducing
energy consumption, WMA also provides a variety of additional
benefits, such as improved asphalt mixture compaction, increased
use of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), an extended paving
season, reduced oxidative hardening, and decreased worker expo-
sure to noxious fumes (Prowell et al. 2007). However, in conjunc-
tion with the aforementioned potential benefits, durability and
Attributable to less aging during production, WMA becomes more
susceptible to permanent deformation and can possibly be distorted
under early-age traffic (Zelelew et al. 2011). Additionally, because
aggregates are heated at a lower temperature, complete evaporation
of the aggregate moisture may not occur, thereby increasing the
moisture damage susceptibility of WMA.
To evaluate the performance of WMA, multiple studies have
been conducted (Prowell and Hurley 2011; Diefenderfer and
Hearon 2009; Hurley and Prowell 2005a, b; Prowell et al. 2007;
Xiao et al. 2010; Al-Qadi et al. 2012a, b). Most of these studies
reported equivalent performance of WMA with respect to HMA.
However, the performance of WMA could be dependent on the
technology used to produce WMA. Currently, more than 30 WMA
technologies are marketed in the United States (Prowell and Hurley
2011). Owing to different working mechanisms, WMA mixtures
prepared with different techniques may provide different short-term
and long-term performances. Therefore, before a certain WMA is
used in the field, it is important to fully characterize and verify its
performance through comprehensive laboratory testing.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
(corresponding author). E-mail: zhen.leng@polyu.edu.hk
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave.,
Urbana, IL 61801.
3
Founder Professor of Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave.,
Urbana, IL 61801.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 24, 2012; approved on
March 4, 2013; published online on March 6, 2013. Discussion period open
until July 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
Vol. 26, No. 2, February 1, 2014. © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/2014/2-304-
311/$25.00.
Research Objective and Scope
The main objective of this study is to experimentally characterize
the mechanical properties of WMA produced with two types of
chemical additives, Evotherm 3G and Rediset LQ-1106.
To achieve this objective, the following research tasks were
conducted:
1. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of WMA with respect
to HMA through laboratory performance tests. Extensive
laboratory tests were conducted on stone matrix asphalt
(SMA) and two warm SMA mixtures produced with Evotherm
3G and Rediset LQ-1106 additives. The tests included com-
plex modulus, loading wheel track, indirect tensile (IDT)
strength, and semicircular bending (SCB) fracture.

304 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311

 2. Investigation of the curing time effect on various measured
mechanical properties of WMA based on the laboratory test
results. For each type of mixture, performance tests were con-
ducted at various curing periods between 3 h and 7 days after
compaction. During the curing periods, all testing specimens
were stored at room temperature, i.e., 20°C (68°F). Given that
the fracture property is not initially time-critical, the SCB frac-
ture tests were conducted at various curing times between
1 day and 12 weeks after compaction.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Testing Material and Experimental Plan
Testing Material
Warm-Mix Additive
Numerous WMA techniques have been developed with the goals of
reducing the effective viscosity of the binder and/or allowing better
workability to enable full coating and compaction at lower temper-
atures than a typical HMA. These techniques are typically classi-
fied into three categories: (1) organic or wax additives, (2) chemical
additives, and (3) foaming techniques. Chemical additives differ
from organic additives and foaming techniques in such a way that
they do not typically decrease the asphalt binder viscosity. Instead,
they work as surfactants to reduce the aggregate-binder interface
friction, therefore allowing lower mixing and compaction temper-
atures. In this study, two commonly used chemical additives were
investigated: Evotherm 3G and Rediset LQ-1106.
Evotherm 3G, developed by MeadWestvaco, is a water-free
chemical package containing surfactant and an antistripping agent
(MWV 2012). It is suggested to improve aggregate coating, mix-
ture workability, and compaction. Generally, Evotherm 3G can
lower mix temperatures by 33–45°C (60–85°F), and the typical
dosage of Evotherm 3G ranges from 0.4–0.7% by weight of the
binder (MWV 2012). Fig. 1(a) shows the Evotherm 3G additive
used in this study.
Rediset LQ-1106, developed by AkzoNobel Surface Chemistry
LLC, is another liquid WMA additive (AkzoNobel 2012). Similar
to Evotherm 3G, it is suggested that it allowed reduction in mixing
Fig. 1. WMA additives: (a) Evotherm 3G; (b) Rediset LQ-1106
Table 1. Comparison of Control SMA and Warm SMAs
Mix N des NMAS (mm) Binder
Control SMA 80 12.5 6% PG 64-22
Evotherm 3G SMA with 12% GTR
Rediset SMA
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014 / 305
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311
and paving temperatures, providing a built-in anti-stripping effect.
Generally, Rediset LQ-1106 allows the mixing temperature to be
reduced by 15–30°C (25–55°F), and the typical dosage ranges from
0.5–1.0% by weight of binder (AkzoNobel 2012). Fig. 1(b) shows
the Rediset LQ-1106 additive used in this study.
Mixture Design
A 12.5-mm (0.5 in.) SMA, typically used by Chicago-area contrac-
tors on large-scale expressway overlay projects, was selected as
the control mixture for this study. The two WMA evaluated in
this study were prepared by adding 0.5% Evotherm 3G and
0.5% Rediset LQ-1106 by weight of binder to the control SMA,
respectively.
As Table 1 shows, the control SMA is a binder-lift mix with the
nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) of 12.5 mm (0.5 in) and
6% total asphalt binder content. The PG64-22 asphalt binder that is
combined with 12% ground tire rubber (GTR) bumps the actual
performance grade of the binder to PG76-22. It also contains
8% fine fractionated recycled asphalt pavement (FRAP), which
has been obtained from the I-290 resurfacing project. The compac-
tion temperature for the control SMA is determined to be 152°C
(305°F), whereas the compaction temperature for the Evotherm
3G and Rediset SMA mixtures is 127°C (260°F). The gradation
of the control SMA is plotted in Fig. 2.
Laboratory Testing Program
As shown in Fig. 3, four laboratory performance tests were con-
ducted in this study: complex modulus, loading wheel track, IDT
strength, and SCB fracture. Table 2 summarizes the laboratory-
testing matrix including the reported material property, testing tem-
perature, testing condition, and curing periods for each test.
Complex Modulus Test
The complex modulus test was conducted in accordance with
AASHTO TP-62, Determining Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix
Asphalt Concrete Mixtures (AASHTO 2006). For each mix and
curing period, three replicates were prepared for testing. The test
was conducted at room temperature (25°C or 77°F) with varying
frequencies of 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz. The measured complex
Warm SMA Mixing Compaction
Fine FRAP additive temperature (°C) temperature (°C)
8% NA 163 152
0.5% of binder 138 127
0.5% of binder 138 127
 100
modulus for each test was determined using the following
equations:
80 σ0
jE
j ¼ ð1Þ
ε0
Percent Passing (%)

60 σ ¼ σ0 sinðωtÞ ð2Þ

ε ¼ ε0 sinðωt − ϕÞ ð3Þ
40
where jE
j = complex modulus; σ0 = applied steady state stress
amplitude; ε0 = measured strain amplitude; ω = angular frequency
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20 (2πf, where f = frequency); and ϕ = phase angle in radians (ωΔt,

where Δt ¼ time lag between stress and strain).
0 Loading Wheel Test
0.075 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19.0
A Hamburg-type loading wheel tester, manufactured by PMW,
Sieve Size (mm)
Inc., was used to assess the rutting performance of the mixtures.
Fig. 2. Gradation of the control SMA The tests at various curing periods were conducted in accordance
with the TxDOT procedure (TxDOT 2009). However, the testing

Fig. 3. Laboratory test setup: (a) complex modulus; (b) loading wheel; (c) indirect tensilestrength; (d) semicircular beam fracture

Table 2. Laboratory Testing Matrix

Test Complex modulus Hamburg wheel track Indirect tension Semi-circular bending
Material property Complex modulus Rut depth Strength Fracture energy
Temperature (°C) 25 30ðdryÞ=50ðwetÞ 25 −12
Condition 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1 Hz Up to 20 k cycles Max. 10 kN CMODa control at 0.7 mm= min
Curing period 3, 6, and 12 h; 1, 3, and 3, 6, and 12 h; 1, 3, and 3, 6, and 12 h; 1, 3, and 7 days 1, 3, 7 and days; 3, 6, and 12 weeks
7 days 7 days (dry); 7 days (wet)
a
Crack mouth opening displacement.

306 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311

 procedure was modified to a dry condition testing at 30°C (86°F).
The dry condition was selected to better represent the short-term
performance immediately after construction and to allow testing
within a short period of time.
The test was performed by rolling a 738 N (158 lbs) steel wheel
on the specimen surface at 50 passes per minute and stopping after
20,000 passes. The rut depth at a specified number of wheel passes
and the number of passes until failure were reported. For each mix
and curing period, two pairs of replicates were prepared for test-
ing. After the dry-conditioned tests at various curing periods were
completed, specimens cured for seven days were tested under
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the standard condition (wet and 50°C=122°F) to check the rut

depth conformance with the Illinois Department of Transportation
specifications.

Indirect Tensile Test

The IDT strength test was performed in accordance with AASHTO
T-322-07, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Creep
Compliance and Strength of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the
Indirect Tensile Test Device (13), using a universal testing machine
manufactured by Instron, Inc. For each mix and curing time, two
replicates were prepared. The testing specimen was loaded until
failure at a rate of 12.7 mm= min (0.5 in:= min) at room tempera-
ture (25°C or 77°F). The IDT strength was calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:
2P
St ¼ ð4Þ
π·d·b
where St = tensile strength; P = maximum applied load; d =
diameter of specimen; and b = thickness of specimen.
SemiCircular Beam Test
The SCB fracture test was used to characterize the fracture resis-
tance of SMA. Specimens were prepared into semicircular shaped
specimens that were 50 mm (2 in.) thick. A 15 mm (0.6 in.) notch
was cut in the middle of the flat section of the specimen. The test
was performed at a temperature of −12°C (10°F), which is 10°C
(18°F) warmer than the low-temperature binder grade. Using a con-
stant crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) rate mode, the
load, displacement, and CMOD were recorded. The work of frac-
ture was calculated from the SCB test by integrating the load-
CMOD curve using the following equation:
Z
W f ¼ Pdu ð5Þ
Fig. 4. Blending additive and binder using a low-shear mixer
for 5 min, whereas the binder container was placed on top of a
hot plate (Fig. 4). After the additive was completely mixed with
the binder, the binder container was placed back into the oven
at the mixing temperature for another 0.5 h. The temperatures
of the aggregates and binder were continuously monitored using
thermometers during the heating process to ensure the target
mixing temperature was reached prior to mixing.
After the mixing was completed, both the control SMA and the
two warm SMAs were conditioned at their respective compaction
temperatures (see Table 1) for 2 h to simulate the short-term aging
during the field construction. A portable gyratory compactor was
then utilized to compact all testing specimens. The appropriate
specimen dimension and number of specimens for each test are
listed in Table 3. After compaction, all gyratory specimens were
initially cooled down using a fan and then stored in an environ-
mental room at 25°C (77°F) until they were tested at the desired
curing times.
Performance Test Results

The mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures are affected by

where W f = work of fracture; P = applied load; and u = CMOD. numerous factors including aggregate type and gradation, asphalt
The fracture energy was then obtained by dividing the work of binder grade, compaction temperature, curing and aging, anti-
fracture by the fracture area. stripping treatments, and volumetric parameters. In this study,

Testing Specimen Preparation Table 3. Testing Specimen Dimension and Number of Replicates
All laboratory-testing specimens in this study were laboratory- Complex Hamburg Indirect Semicircular
mixed and laboratory-compacted (LMLC). The raw aggregates, as- Test modulus wheel track tension bending
phalt binder, and Evotherm 3G additive were obtained from the
Gyratory specimen 150 (Da) 150 (D) 150 (D) 150 (D)
Geneva Construction’s asphalt plant in Chicago, and the Rediset dimension (mm) 170 (Hb) 130 (H) 150 (H) 150 (H)
LQ-1106 additive was provided by AzkoNobel. # of gyratory specimens 3 2 1 1
For the control SMA, both the batched aggregates and asphalt for each test
binder were heated at the mixing temperature (see Table 1) for 3 h Testing specimen 100 (D) 62 (H) 150 (D) 75 (Rc)
before mixing. For the Evotherm SMA and Rediset SMA, the dimension (mm) 150 (H) 50 (H) 50 (H)
batched aggregates were heated for 3 h at their mixing tempera- # of testing replicates 3 2 2 4
tures. Additionally, the asphalt binder was heated at the mixing for each test
temperature for 2.5 h before the addition of the WMA additive a
Diameter.
to the binder using a dropper [Fig. 1(a)]. The additive was then b
Height.
c
immediately blended with the binder using a low-shear mixer Radius.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014 / 307

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311

 Table 4. Air Void Contents for Testing Specimens
Complex modulus Hamburg wheel track IDT SCB
Mix Average (%) COV (%) Average (%) COV (%) Average (%) COV (%) Average (%) COV (%)
Control SMA 5.9 3 6.2 2 6.0 3 6.0 3
Evotherm SMA 6.0 3 5.7 6 6.3 4 6.3 2
Rediset SMA 6.2 6 5.7 5 6.3 3 6.2 5

laboratory test results were used to compare the performances of than the two warm SMAs. However, a clear trend between the
the SMAs containing two WMA additives (Evotherm 3G and Re- curing time and the moduli cannot be verified for all three
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

diset LQ-1106), compacted at lower temperatures, to the perfor- mixtures. Between the two warm SMAs, the Rediset SMA
mance of the control SMA. The variation of mixture properties demonstrated lower variation with curing time compared to the
with curing time, which describes the possibility of oxidative hard- Evotherm SMA.
ening and strength gain after compaction, was analyzed.

Air Void Contents of Prepared Specimens
To minimize the effect of air void content on the mixture perfor-
mance, all specimens were compacted to the target air void content
of 6.0%. Table 4 summarizes the variation of the actual air void
contents in the specimens. The data shows that the average air void
contents for all tests are within the range of 6.0  0.5%, and the
maximum coefficient of variance (COV) is 6%. This indicates good
repeatability using the laboratory gyratory compactor, which mini-
mized the effect of the air void contents on the testing results.
Complex Modulus
Figs. 5(a and b) compare the measured complex modulus at 25°C
(77°F) for the three mixtures at 0.1 and 10 Hz, respectively. The
columns indicate the average value from the replicates, whereas
the error bars indicate the spread of data within one standard
deviation. In general, the control SMA exhibited a higher modulus
Rutting Potential
Figs. 6(a and b) compare the measured rut depths under dry con-
ditions at 30°C (86°F) for the three mixtures, which were evaluated
at 5,000 and 20,000 cycles, respectively. In contrast to expected
results, the two warm SMAs did not show greater rut depths than
the control SMA. After the 7-day curing period, the Rediset SMA
revealed the smallest average rut depth at 20,000 loading cycles.
Fig. 7 compares the rut depths of the three mixtures under wet
condition at 50°C (122°F) after a 7-day curing in accordance with
wheel track rutting specification test (TxDOT 2009). The results
indicated that the rutting potentials of the three mixtures are rela-
tively similar. However, the Rediset SMA provided the lowest rut
depth among the three mixtures, which coincides with the results of
the wheel track tests under dry conditions. In Illinois, the maximum
allowable rut depth for an asphalt mixture with a PG76-22 asphalt
1.5
3h 6h 12h
1day 3day 7day
Rut Depth at 5000 Cycles

3h 6h 12h

1.0
(mm)

0.5
7 day
7 day

3 day

7 day
3 day
1 day

1 day

1 day
3 day
12 h
3 day
7 day

1 day

7 day
1 day
3 day

12 h

12 h
7 day
1 day
3 day

3h
6h

3h

3h
6h

6h
12 h
12 h

12 h
3h
6h

3h
6h
3h
6h

0.0
(a) Control Evotherm Rediset
(a)
3h 6h 12h
12000
3h 6h 12h
1day 3day 7day
Modulus at 10 Hz (MPa)

10000

8000

6000

4000
3 day

7 day
1 day

1 day

7 day

3 day
7 day

1 day
3 day
12 h

12 h
12 h
3 day
7 day

7 day
3 day
1 day

7 day
1 day

3h
3 day

6h
1 day

6h
3h

6h
3h
12 h

12 h

12 h
3h

3h
6h
6h

3h
6h

2000

0
(b)
(b) Control Evotherm Rediset
Fig. 6. Rut depth under dry condition at: (a) 5,000 cycles; (b) 20,000
Fig. 5. Complex modulus at: (a) 0.1 Hz; (b) 10 Hz cycles

308 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311

 1600
Rediset SMA 1day 3day 7day
4.0
Evotherm SMA 3week 6week 12week
Control SMA

Fracture Energy (J/m 2 )

Rut Depth (mm)

3.0 1200

2.0
800

1.0

12 week

12 week

12 week
6 week
3 week

3 week
6 week

3 week
6 week
7 day
1 day
7 day

1 day
3 day
7 day
3 day

3 day
1 day
400
0.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Loading Cycle 0
Control Evotherm Rediset
Fig. 7. Rut depth under wet condition
Fig. 9. SCB fracture energy

binder is 12.5 mm (0.5 in.) at 20,000 loading cycles. As Fig. 7

shows, all three mixtures were in compliance with the requirement.
Indirect Tensile Strength
Fig. 8 compares the indirect tensile strengths of the control SMA
and the three mixtures at various curing periods. The results show
that the two warm SMAs exhibited lower tensile strengths than the
control SMA within 12 h of curing time after compaction. However,
after the 7-day curing period, the tensile strengths of the three mix-
tures were relatively close.
Additionally, the Fisher Least Significant Difference (LSD) test
was performed with ANOVA for multiple comparisons with each
factor at a significant level of 0.05 (Ott and Longnecker 2000). The
statistical significance of the changes in the mixture properties as a
function of curing time and mixture type was analyzed. The test
results were ranked using letters, and the letter was changed when
the mean was statistically different from others. Letter A was as-
signed to the highest rating property, followed by other letters in
alphabetic order. Using double letter ranking (e.g., A/B) indicated
that the difference in the means was not statistically significant and
the results could fall in either group.

Potential Fracture Resistance

Fig. 9 compares the fracture energies of the three mixtures. The
three mixtures demonstrated varied relationship patterns between
the fracture energy and curing time. The fracture energy of the con-
trol SMA remained almost constant over the curing period, whereas
the fracture energies of the two warm mixtures decreased after three
weeks of curing. In general, the fracture energies of all three mix-
tures are acceptable.
Statistical Analysis of Testing Results
The performance test results were statistically analyzed using the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program. Two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the test results and to
consider each mixture property as the response variable. Other fac-
tors considered in the analysis were curing time and mixture type.
1.00
3h 6h
1day 3day
Tensile Stength (MPa)
Curing Time Effect
Tables 5 and 6 show the LSD results for the effect of curing time on
each mixture property for the Evotherm SMA and Rediset SMA,
respectively. The complex modulus at 10 Hz and the rut depth in
the dry-conditioned load wheel test at 20,000 cycles were used in
the analysis.
From Table 5, the following findings can be observed for the
Evotherm SMA:
• The modulus of the Evotherm SMA varied with the curing time.
Initially, the modulus increased after 1 day and then decreased
after 3 days. Therefore, simple stiffening or softening trend can-
not be concluded.
• The rutting potential of the Evotherm SMA remained constant
within 3 days and then increased at 7 days.
• The tensile strength of the Evotherm SMA remained constant
within 3 days and then increased at 7 days.
• The potential fracture resistance of the Evotherm SMA showed
a decreasing trend over time. It maintained a constant range
12h within the first week and then decreased after three weeks of
7day curing.

0.75

Table 5. Fisher LSD Test Results for the Effect of Curing Time (Evotherm
0.50 SMA)
Curing time
7 day
3 day
1 day
7 day

3 day
3 day

7 day
1 day

1 day

12 h
12 h
12 h

Mixture property 3h 6h 12 h 1 day 3 days 7 days

6h
3h
6h
3h

0.25
6h

3h

Modulus B/CA B/C A/B C B

Rut resistance A A A A A B
0.00 Tensile strength B B B B B A
Control Evotherm Rediset Mixture property Curing time
1 day 3 days 1 week 3 weeks 6 weeks 12 weeks
Fig. 8. Indirect tensile strength results Fracture resistance A A A A/B B B

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014 / 309

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311

 Table 6. Fisher LSD Test Results for the Effect of Curing Time (Rediset 1. The two warm SMAs with Evotherm 3G and Rediset LQ-1106
SMA) performed comparable to the control SMA considering rutting
Curing time potential, complex modulus, potential fracture resistance, and
tensile strength. The performances of the two warm SMAs
Mixture property 3h 6h 12 h 1 day 3 days 7 days
were acceptable in all tests.
Modulus A A A A A A 2. Both warm SMAs provided slightly lower moduli and tensile
Rut resistance A A/B A/B A/B B A/B strengths compared with the control SMA. However, the rut-
Tensile strength B/C B/C B A C A ting and fracture resistance potentials of the two warm SMAs
Mixture property Curing time
were statistically similar to the control SMA.
1 day 3 days 1 week 3 weeks 6 weeks 12 weeks
Fracture resistance A A A B A/B A/B 3. The effect of curing time on the WMA performance varied with
material property and WMA additive. For both Evotherm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SMA and Rediset SMA, the tensile strengths increased after

Table 7. Fisher LSD Test Results for the Effect of Mixture Type
SMA mixture
Mixture property Control Evotherm Rediset
Modulus A B
Rut resistance A A
Tensile strength A B
Fracture resistance A A
From Table 6, the following findings can be observed for the
Rediset SMA:
• The modulus of the Rediset SMA was not affected by the
curing time within 7 days.
• The rutting potential of the Rediset SMA increased at 6 h and
then stayed relatively constant.
• The tensile strength of the Rediset SMA varied with curing time.
It initially increased after 1 day of curing, then decreased at
3 days, and began increasing again at 7 days.
• The potential fracture resistance of the Rediset SMA decreased
after three weeks of curing.
Performance Comparison Between Mixtures
Performances of the three SMAs were compared using ANOVA
with Fisher LSD test based on the laboratory performance test
results. Table 7 shows the ranking of mixture performance for
each property when the data were grouped together for all cur-
ing times. The complex modulus at 10 Hz and the rut depth in
the wet-conditioned wheel test at 20,000 cycles were used in the
analysis.
The results show that the control SMA provided higher modulus
and tensile strength in comparison to the Evotherm SMA and Re-
diset SMA. The rut resistance and fracture resistance potentials of
the three mixtures were statistically similar. However, the two warm
SMAs performed statistically comparable with regards to the
modulus, rutting potential, tensile strength, and fracture resistance
potential.
7 days, whereas the fracture resistance potential decreased
after three weeks. The modulus of the Rediset SMA remained
constant within 7 days, although the modulus of the Evotherm
SMA indicated a higher variation with the curing time. The
rutting potential of the Evotherm SMA stayed constant within
B 3 days and then increased at 7 days; whereas the rutting po-
A tential of the Rediset SMA increased after 6 h and then re-
B mained relatively constant throughout the rest of the curing
A period.
4. The performance test results in this study did not display a
strong evidence to support a stiffening trend with curing time
in the WMA prepared with chemical additives.
Notably, only a limited number of SMAs containing WMA ad-
ditives were investigated in this study. These mixtures were com-
pacted at specific temperatures and tested at specific time periods
after compaction. To further develop the findings and conclusions,
the performance of asphalt mixtures with a broad range of binder
types, aggregate sources, compaction temperatures, and various
percentages and types of WMA additives need to be evaluated
in a future study. In addition, further analysis on the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures containing warm-mix additives
and long-term performance monitoring of field sections should be
considered.
Acknowledgments
This study is based on the mix designs and test procedures used in
the Illinois Tollway Project, Short-Term Performance of Modified
Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) Mixes Produced with Warm Mix
Additives. This project was conducted in cooperation with the
Illinois Center for Transportation, the Illinois Tollway, and Akzo
Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC. The contents of this study reflect
the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Illinois
Center for Transportation, the Illinois Tollway, and/or Akzo Nobel
Surface Chemistry, LLC. Trademark or manufacturers’ names ap-
pear in this paper only because they are considered essential to
the study.

Summary
This study experimentally characterized the mechanical proper-
ties of the warm SMAs prepared with two chemical additives:
Evotherm 3G and Rediset LQ-1106. The performances of the con-
trol SMA, Evotherm SMA, and Rediset SMA, were evaluated and
compared through extensive laboratory tests, including complex
modulus, loading wheel track, IDT strength, and SCB fracture.
In the laboratory tests, LMLC specimens were utilized and exam-
ined at various curing periods after compaction. The following
points summarize the findings of this study:
References
AASHTO. (2006). “Standard practice for mixture conditioning of hot-mix
asphalt (HMA).” AASHTO Designation R30-02, Washington, DC.
AkzoNobel. (2012). “AkzoNoble asphalt applications.” 〈http://www.sc
.akzonobel.com/en/asphalt/Pages/home.aspx〉 (Oct. 22, 2012).
Al-Qadi, I. L., Leng, Z., Baek, J., Wang, H., Doyen, M., and Gillen, S.
(2012a). “Early-age performance evaluation of warm SMA: Lab-
oratory testing on plant-compacted specimens and on-site stiffness
measurement.” Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res. Board., 2306,
86–94.

310 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311

 Al-Qadi, I. L., Wang, H., Baek, J., Leng, Z., Doyen, M., and
Gillen, S. (2012b). “Effects of curing time and reheating on perfor-
mance of warm stone matrix asphalt.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000513, 1422–1428.
Angelo, J. D., et al. (2008). “Warm mix asphalt: European practice.” Rep.
FHWA-PL-08-007, U.S. Dept. of Transp., Federal Highway Admin,
Washington, DC.
Diefenderfer, S., and Hearon, A. (2009). “Laboratory evaluation of a warm
asphalt technology for use in Virginia.” Rep. FHWA/VTRC 09-R11,
Virginia Transp. Res. Council, Charlottesville, VA.
Hurley, G., and Prowell, B. D. (2005a). “Evaluation of Sasobit for use in
warm mix asphalt.” NCAT Rep. 05-06, National Center for Asphalt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology Warangal on 10/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
Hurley, G., and Prowell, B. D. (2005b). “Evaluation of Evotherm for use in
warm mix asphalt.” NCAT Rep. 06-02, National Center for Asphalt
Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
Leng, Z., and Al-Qadi, I. L. (2011). “Comparative life cycle assess-
ment between warm SMA and conventional SMA.” Research Rep.
ICT-11-090, Illinois Center for Transp., Rantoul, IL.
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2014 / 311
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(2): 304-311
Mead Westvaco Corporation (MWV). (2012). “Asphalt additives.” 〈http://
www.meadwestvaco.com/SpecialtyChemicals/AsphaltAdditives/index
.htm〉 (Oct. 22, 2012).
Ott, R. L., and Longnecker, M. (2000). An introduction to statistical
methods and data analysis. 5th Ed., Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA.
Prowell, B. D., and Hurley, G. (2011). Warm-mix asphalt: Best practices.
2nd Ed., National Asphalt Pavement Assoc., Lanham, MY.
Prowell, B. D., Hurley, G., and Crews, E. (2007). “Field performance of
warm-mix asphalt at national center for asphalt technology test track.”
Transport. Res. Rec., 1998(1), 96–102.
Texas Dept. of Transportation (TxDOT). (2009). Hamburg wheel-tracking
test. TXDOT Rep. Designation Tex-242-F, Austin, TX.
Xiao, F., Amirkhanian, S. N., and Putman, B. (2010). “Evaluation of rutt-
ing resistance in warm-mix asphalts containing moist aggregate.”
Transport. Res. Rec., 2180, 75–84.
Zelelew, H., Paugh, C., and Corrigan, M. R. (2011). “Warm-mix
asphalt laboratory permanent deformation performance in the state
of Pennsylvania: A case study.” 90th Annual Transp. Res. Board
(TRB) Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.