AP-T359-21 National Specification For Crumb Rubber Binders in Asphalt and Seals

© Austroads Ltd 2021 | This material is for personal use only, it is not to be used for commercial training purposes,
unless approved by Austroads.
AP-T359-21
Technical Report
Binders in Asphalt and Seals

National Specification for Crumb Rubber
National Specification for Crumb Rubber Binders in Asphalt and Seals
Prepared by Publisher
Robert Urquhart, Young Choi, Conglin Chen & Steve Patrick Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 570 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
John Esnouf
www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

Crumb rubber binders have been used to construct sprayed seals in Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
Australia for many decades but have not been utilised in asphalt in transport and traffic agencies.
the past. Due to the lack of crumb rubber binder grades in the
Australian national polymer modified binder (PMB) specification Austroads’ purpose is to support our member organisations to
(ATS 3110), two Austroads jurisdictions have conducted research to deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
develop specifications for crumb rubber binders that are suitable for succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
use in asphalt. These specifications have been based on US testing transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
protocols rather than ATS 3110-specified tests.
construction and management of the road network and its
This report describes experimental work conducted to propose associated infrastructure.
ATS 3110-related specification limits for a crumb rubber binder which
is representative of the type of binder trialled by Austroads Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
jurisdictions in asphalt, as well as a blend of C170 bitumen and for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
9% w/w crumb rubber (for use in sprayed sealing applications). The consistency for road users.
report also includes the results of asphalt performance tests which
Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
were performed to determine how the level of crumb rubber in a
executive representatives from each of its eleven member
binder affected asphalt mix performance.
organisations:
The report includes literature reviews into a number of crumb rubber • Transport for NSW
related areas and the results of a survey of Australian crumb rubber
manufacturers into the properties of the material they produce. • Department of Transport Victoria
© Austroads Ltd 2021 | This material is for personal use only, it is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads.
• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Keywords • Main Roads Western Australia
Crumb rubber binder, crumb rubber, Australian PMB specification, • Department for Infrastructure and Transport South Australia
asphalt, test method
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics
ISBN 978-1-922382-88-7 Northern Territory
Austroads Project No. APT6173 • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Australian Capital Territory
Austroads Publication No. AP-T359-21
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Publication date September 2021 Development and Communications
Pages 167
• Australian Local Government Association
• New Zealand Transport Agency.
© Austroads 2021 | This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by
any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
Project funding
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Elizabeth Woodall, Derek Harris, Shannon Malone, Jaimi Harrison and Joe Grobler of ARRB for their assistance with the
experimental work and helpful discussions during the project. Thanks also to Laszlo Petho and Warrick Cutler of Fulton Hogan for
providing the aggregate samples used in the asphalt work. Thanks to Jack van Kirk and David Jones (University of California) for
providing the samples of Californian crumb rubber binders that were tested during the project and insightful discussions relating to
Californian crumb rubber binders.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
Crumb rubber binders have been used to construct sprayed seals in Australia for several decades but prior
to about 2017 these types of binders were not used to construct asphalt pavements. As a result of this
long-term use, three crumb rubber binder grades (i.e. S45R, S15RF and S18RF) are currently included in the
Australian national polymer modified binder (PMB) specification (ATS 3110) for use in sprayed seal
applications. Due to the lack of current crumb rubber binder grades in ATS 3110 which are suitable for use in
asphalt applications, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), Main Roads Western
Australia (MRWA) and the Australian Flexible Pavement Association (AfPA) have recently developed
specifications for crumb rubber binders to be used in asphalt by adopting tests and testing protocols used to
characterise crumb rubber binders in the USA. The TMR/MRWA/AfPA specifications were developed based
on a series of recent trials. These specifications characterise crumb rubber binders to be used in asphalt in
terms of different tests and testing protocols than are used when crumb rubber binders are used for the
construction of sprayed seals in Australia.
The main aim of the study was to ascertain whether the crumb rubber binders that have been used/trialled by
TMR/MRWA in asphalt could be specified so that they were consistent with the current ATS 3110-specified
properties of crumb rubber binders used in sprayed seals. This work was expected to allow the type of crumb
rubber binders used by TMR/MRWA to be more easily used by other jurisdictions in asphalt. Work was
additionally performed to propose ATS 3110-specified limits for a binder containing C170 bitumen and 9% w/w
crumb rubber for sprayed sealing applications as this type of binder is commonly used in Victoria and is not
currently included in ATS 3110. A series of asphalt performance tests were also conducted using a single type
of asphalt mix to investigate how the level of crumb rubber in a binder affected asphalt mix performance.
This report includes literature reviews into several crumb rubber related areas and the results of a survey of
Australian crumb rubber manufacturers to determine what limits are being targeted during production.
Reviews investigated the main benefits/impediments of using crumb rubber in road construction,
summarised previous Australian research into the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt, surveyed
Australian and international specifications for crumb rubber used in road construction, and investigated the
relationships between crumb rubber characteristics and binder/asphalt mix performance.
A series of crumb rubber binders containing C170 bitumen and between 5% w/w and 20% w/w crumb
rubber, and a crumb rubber binder meeting ATS 3110 requirements for S45R, were initially produced in the
laboratory and subjected to a range of ATS 3110-specified tests. The test results were then used to propose
ATS 3110-specified limits for a binder which contained C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb rubber
(representative of the binder used in sprayed sealing applications in Victoria) and a binder which contained
C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber (representative of the binder used in TMR/MRWA trials). Based
on this research, specification limits for two new binder grades (i.e. S9R and A18R) have been proposed
which could be included in a future version of ATS 3110. Testing work conducted in the project also
compared the results obtained in selected US-specified tests with ATS 3110-specified tests for a range of
bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders. Correlations were found between US-specified viscosity at
175 °C/190 °C tests and ATS 3110-specified viscosity at 165 °C tests, as well as between US-specified
resilience at 25 °C tests and ATS 3110-specified torsional recovery at 25 °C tests.
Investigations into the effects of crumb rubber level in a binder on asphalt mix performance were conducted
by incorporating binders which contained C170 bitumen and either 9% w/w, 15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb
rubber into a single type of 14 mm gap graded asphalt (GGA) mix. Overall, increasing the level of crumb
rubber in a binder made the asphalt harder to compact at 145 °C, increased its stiffness at intermediate road
temperatures (25 °C) and made it more resistant to rutting at high road temperatures (50 °C). The fatigue
performance of asphalt containing the three crumb rubber binders was similar at a peak strain level of 350 µε
but varied at lower peak strain levels. The fatigue performance of the binders in asphalt appeared to follow
the order 9% w/w crumb rubber binder < 15% w/w crumb rubber binder ~ 18% crumb rubber binder at a
peak strain level of 150 µε. Based on the results obtained in this study, and previous Austroads studies, it
appears that the fatigue performance of a crumb rubber binder in asphalt is affected by the crude source and
manufacturing route which is used to produce the bitumen included in a crumb rubber binder.
Austroads 2021 | page i

Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Benefits and Impediments of Using Crumb Rubber in Road Construction ....................................... 5
2.1 Benefits ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Environmental Benefits .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Performance Benefits in Sprayed Seals and Asphalt ............................................................ 7
2.2 Impediments ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Crumb Rubber Supply .......................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Emissions ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Crumb Rubber Binder Segregation and Degradation .......................................................... 11
2.2.4 Road Construction Costs ..................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 12

3. Previous Australian Research/trials into the Use of Crumb Rubber Binders in Asphalt ................ 13
3.1 Review of National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE) Projects on Crumb Rubber Binders ...... 13
3.1.1 Development of Queensland Specifications to Promote Crumb Rubber Use ..................... 13
3.1.2 NACOE Studies of Crumb Rubber Modified Binder Properties ........................................... 14
3.1.3 Construction of Asphalt Demonstration Sites Using Crumb Rubber Binders ...................... 16
3.1.4 Development of Queensland Crumb Rubber Modified Binder Specifications for
Use in Asphalt ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Review of Western Australian Road Research and Innovation Program (WARRIP) Projects
on Crumb Rubber Binders ................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.1 WARRIP Studies into the Use of Crumb Rubber Binders in Gap Graded Asphalt (GGA) .. 34
3.3 Department of Transport Victoria (DoT Vic) Trials of Crumb Rubber Asphalt .................................. 35
3.4 Local Government Trials in South Australia ...................................................................................... 36
3.5 Discussion/Summary......................................................................................................................... 37
4. Australian and International Specifications for Crumb Rubber Used in Road Construction ......... 39
4.1 Australian Specification Requirements for Crumb Rubber ............................................................... 39
4.1.1 Comparisons with the Austroads Crumb Rubber Specification (ATS 3110) ........................ 40
4.1.2 Comparison of Australian Test Property Requirements for Crumb Rubber ......................... 42
4.1.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 44
4.2 International Crumb Rubber Specifications ...................................................................................... 50
4.2.1 Comparisons with the Austroads Crumb Rubber Specification (ATS 3110) ........................ 50
4.2.2 Comparison of International Test Property Requirements for Crumb Rubber ..................... 55
4.2.3 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 57
Austroads 2021 | page ii

5. Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on Binder and Asphalt Mix Properties........................... 70

5.1 Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on Binder Properties ........................................................ 70
5.1.1 Oliver (1981) ......................................................................................................................... 70
5.1.2 Khalili, Jadidi and Amirkhanian (2019) ................................................................................. 71
5.1.3 Putman and Amirkhanian (2006).......................................................................................... 72
5.1.4 Wang et al. (2012) ................................................................................................................ 73
5.1.5 Singh, Ashish and Jagadeesh (2018) .................................................................................. 74
5.1.6 Dantas-Neto et al. (2006) ..................................................................................................... 78
5.2 Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on Asphalt Properties ...................................................... 79
5.2.1 Wong and Wong (2007) ....................................................................................................... 79
5.2.2 Xiao et al. (2009) .................................................................................................................. 80
5.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 82
5.3.1 Binder Properties .................................................................................................................. 82
5.3.2 Asphalt Properties ................................................................................................................ 83
5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 86
6. Survey of Crumb Rubber Properties Targeted by Australian Suppliers ........................................... 87
6.1 Discussion/Summary......................................................................................................................... 89
7. Binder Test Results ................................................................................................................................ 90
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 90
7.2 Experimental Design ......................................................................................................................... 91
7.2.1 Binder Materials.................................................................................................................... 91

7.2.2 Crumb Rubber Binder Sample Manufacture ........................................................................ 93
7.2.3 Binder Test Procedures ........................................................................................................ 94
7.3 Binders Containing C170 Bitumen and Different Levels of Crumb Rubber ...................................... 94
7.4 Formulation of a Binder which Meets ATS 3110-specified Properties for S45R .............................. 99
7.5 Further Work Investigating the Properties of 20% w/w Crumb Rubber Binders .............................102
7.6 Test Results for US Crumb Rubber Binder Samples ......................................................................107
7.7 Comparisons Between ATS 3110 and US Test Results .................................................................109
7.8 Summary .........................................................................................................................................111
8. Determination of ATS 3110-specified Properties for Different Crumb Rubber Binders ................112
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................112
8.2 Fitted Test Results for Laboratory Blends .......................................................................................112
8.3 Specification Limit Determinations for Different Test Parameters ..................................................113
8.3.1 Viscosity at 165 °C .............................................................................................................113
8.3.2 Torsional Recovery at 25 °C, Softening Point and Consistency 6% at 60 °C....................115
8.3.3 Stress Ratio at 10 °C ..........................................................................................................117
8.3.4 Compressive Limit at 70 °C and Segregation ....................................................................119
8.3.5 Flash Point and Loss on Heating/Mass Change ................................................................119
8.4 Crumb Rubber Binder Properties Presented to Austroads BSTG ..................................................120
8.5 Proposed ATS 3110 Specified Properties for Crumb Rubber Binders ...........................................121
9. Asphalt Test Results ............................................................................................................................125
9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................125
9.2 Experimental Design .......................................................................................................................125
9.2.1 Asphalt Mix Design .............................................................................................................125
9.2.2 Asphalt Specimen Preparation and Testing .......................................................................126
Austroads 2021 | page iii

9.3 PMB-related Test Results Obtained for the C320 Bitumen and A15E Binder Samples and
NACOE Project Binders ..................................................................................................................127
9.4 Asphalt Test Results .......................................................................................................................129
9.4.1 Volumetric Tests .................................................................................................................129
9.4.2 Resilient Modulus Tests .....................................................................................................131
9.4.3 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Tests .........................................................................................133
9.4.4 Asphalt Fatigue Tests .........................................................................................................138
9.5 Summary .........................................................................................................................................146
10. Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................................................148
References ....................................................................................................................................................151
Appendix A Plots of Binder Test Properties Versus Crumb Rubber Binder Composition
Not Included in the Main Body of the Report ........................................................................160
A.1 Blends Containing C170 Bitumen and Different Levels of Crumb Rubber .....................................160
A.2 Blends Prepared During Preparation of a Compliant S45R Grade Crumb Rubber Binder ............161
A.3 Blends Containing 20% w/w Crumb Rubber Prepared at 210 °C ...................................................162
Appendix B Hamburg Wheel Tracking Results Obtained During the Study ........................................163
Appendix C Individual Specimen Results Obtained in Asphalt Fatigue Tests ....................................166
Tables
Table 2.1: Effects of incorporating crumb rubber by the dry process or wet process on the
performance of asphalt .................................................................................................................. 9
Table 3.1: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona ...................................... 18
Table 3.2: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona ......................................... 19
Table 3.3: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in California ................................... 19
Table 3.4: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in California ...................................... 21
Table 3.5: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2017 version of the PSTS112
specification ................................................................................................................................. 23
Table 3.6: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2017 version of the PSTS112
specification ................................................................................................................................. 23
Table 3.7: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the AfPA pilot specification ......... 24
Table 3.8: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the AfPA pilot specification ............ 25
Table 3.9: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2019 version of the PSTS112
specification ................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 3.10: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2019 version of the PSTS112
specification ................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 3.11: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the draft 2018 version of MRWA
Specification 516 .......................................................................................................................... 29
Table 3.12: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the draft 2018 version of
MRWA Specification 516 ............................................................................................................. 30
Table 3.13: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2020 version of MRWA
Specification 516 .......................................................................................................................... 32
Table 3.14: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the 2020 version of MRWA
Specification 516 .......................................................................................................................... 33
Table 3.15: Summary of DoT Vic crumb rubber trial sections ........................................................................ 35
Table 4.1: Australian documents reviewed ................................................................................................... 39
Table 4.2: Comparisons of Australian crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads,
DoT Vic, TMR, TfNSW, DIT and MRWA for use in sprayed seals .............................................. 45
DoT Vic and TfNSW for use in asphalt ........................................................................................ 47
Austroads 2021 | page iv

AfPA, TMR and MRWA for use in asphalt ................................................................................... 48
Table 4.5: International documents reviewed ............................................................................................... 50
Table 4.6: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads
and ASTM for use in asphalt ........................................................................................................ 59
Table 4.7: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads
and Caltrans for use in asphalt .................................................................................................... 61
Table 4.8: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads,
ADOT, TxDOT and FDOT for use in asphalt ............................................................................... 63
SABITA and MTMUA for use in asphalt....................................................................................... 65
ASTM and Caltrans for use in sprayed seals............................................................................... 66
TxDOT and SABITA for use in sprayed seals.............................................................................. 68
Table 5.1: Particle size distributions of the different sized crumb rubber used by Dantas-Neto
et al. (2006) .................................................................................................................................. 78
Table 5.2: Test results obtained by Dantas-Neto et al. for 17% w/w crumb rubber binders blended
for different times at 170 °C ......................................................................................................... 79
Table 5.3: Effect of crumb rubber size on the deformation resistance of different asphalt mixes ................ 80
Table 5.4: Particle size distributions of the crumb rubber samples used by Xiao et al................................. 81
Table 5.5: Effect of size of ambient-ground crumb rubber on asphalt test properties .................................. 81
Table 5.6: Effect of size of cryogenically-ground crumb rubber on asphalt test properties .......................... 81
Table 5.7: Overview of studies into the effects of crumb rubber size on binder properties .......................... 84
Table 5.8: Overview of studies into the effect of crumb rubber size on asphalt mix properties.................... 85
Table 6.1: Comparison of ATS 3110-specified properties for Size 30 crumb rubber with products
manufactured by different suppliers ............................................................................................. 88
Table 7.1: Binder test results for the C170 and C320 bitumen samples used in the study .......................... 92
Table 7.2: Test results for the sample of crumb rubber ................................................................................ 92
Table 7.3: Binder test results for laboratory-prepared blends containing C170 bitumen and different
levels of crumb rubber.................................................................................................................. 95
Table 7.4: Binder test results obtained during formulation work to produce an ATS 3110-compliant
S45R grade binder ....................................................................................................................... 99
Table 7.5: Effects of polymer combining oil addition on the properties of a 20% w/w crumb rubber
binder .........................................................................................................................................103
Table 7.6: Effects of an increased blending temperature and polymer combining oil addition on
the properties of a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder .....................................................................104
Table 7.7: Comparison of grading results for the crumb rubber used in this study and the combined
grading results for crumb rubber obtained from two Californian suppliers ................................107
Table 7.8: Test results obtained for two Californian crumb rubber binder samples ...................................108
Table 8.1: Fitted test results for laboratory blends ......................................................................................113
Table 8.2: Calculated viscosity at 165 °C limits for binders which contain different levels of
crumb rubber .............................................................................................................................114
Table 8.3: Calculated torsional recovery at 25 °C limits for binders which contain different levels
of crumb rubber ..........................................................................................................................115
Table 8.4: Calculated softening point limits for binders which contain different levels of crumb
rubber .........................................................................................................................................116
Table 8.5: Calculated consistency 6% at 60 °C limits for binders which contain different levels
of crumb rubber ..........................................................................................................................116
Table 8.6: Comparison of calculated minimum specification limits for 15% w/w and 18% w/w
crumb rubber binders with ATS 3110-specification requirements for S15RF and
S18RF grade binders .................................................................................................................117
Table 8.7: Calculated stress ratio at 10 °C limits for binders which contain different levels
of crumb rubber ..........................................................................................................................118
Table 8.8: Proposed specification limits for binders containing different levels of crumb rubber ...............120
Austroads 2021 | page v

Table 8.9: Proposed changes to Table 8.1 in ATS 3110 relating to crumb rubber binders for
sprayed sealing applications ......................................................................................................122
Table 8.10: Proposed changes to Table 8.2 in ATS 3110 relating to crumb rubber binders for
asphalt applications....................................................................................................................123
Table 8.11: Proposed updated version of Table 8.4 in ATS 3110 ................................................................124
Table 9.1: Asphalt mix aggregate grading ..................................................................................................126
Table 9.2: PMB-related test results for the C320 bitumen and A15E samples...........................................128
Table 9.3: Test results obtained for the crumb rubber binders used in NACOE asphalt testing ................129
Table 9.4: Volumetric results obtained for asphalt containing the control binders and crumb
rubber binders ............................................................................................................................129
Table 9.5: Volumetric results obtained in the NACOE project ....................................................................129
Table 9.6: Resilience modulus at 25 °C results obtained in Austroads and NACOE studies .....................131
Table 9.7: Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C results for asphalt containing the control binders
and the crumb rubber binders included in the study ..................................................................134
Table 9.8: Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C results obtained in the NACOE project ................................136
Table 9.9: Fitted fatigue test results for the asphalt specimens characterised in the study .......................143
Table 9.10: Fitted fatigue test results for the asphalt specimens characterised in the NACOE study .........144
Table 9.11: Fatigue test results for C170 bitumen samples and 15% w/w crumb rubber binders in
Austroads (2016b)......................................................................................................................145
Table C 1: Individual specimen results obtained in asphalt fatigue at 20 °C tests ......................................166
Figures
Figure 5.1: Effect of crumb rubber size on the elastic recovery at 60 °C of 15% w/w crumb rubber
binders made with Australian 85/100 penetration grade bitumen ............................................... 71
Figure 5.2: Effect of crumb rubber size on the viscosity at 135 °C of 15% w/w crumb rubber binders
made with three different samples of US PG 64-22 grade bitumen ........................................... 73
Figure 5.3: Effects of crumb rubber size on the viscosity at 177 °C of crumb rubber binders made
with US PG 64-22 grade bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber ...................................... 74
Figure 5.4: Effect of crumb rubber size on the viscosity of crumb rubber binders at temperatures
between 120 °C and 180 °C ........................................................................................................ 76
Figure 5.5: Effect of crumb rubber size on G*/sinδ results for crumb rubber binders at temperatures
between 120 °C and 180 °C ........................................................................................................ 77
Figure 5.6: Effect of crumb rubber size on MSCR results at 64 °C for different crumb rubber binders ......... 77
Figure 5.7: Effect of crumb rubber size on LAS results at 25 °C for different crumb rubber binders ............. 78
Figure 6.1: Analysis of 0.30 mm sieve test results for 36 production batches of Supplier E Size 30
crumb rubber ................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 7.1: Photograph of crumb rubber addition during preparation of a crumb rubber blend..................... 93
Figure 7.2: Plot of log10(viscosity) at various temperatures versus crumb rubber content for blends
containing C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber ................................................... 97
Figure 7.3: Torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point versus crumb rubber content for blends
Figure 7.4: Consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C versus crumb rubber content for blends
Figure 7.5: Plot of log10(viscosity) at various temperatures versus polymer combining oil content for
blends containing C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber...................................................100
Figure 7.6: Torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point versus polymer combining oil content for
blends containing C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber...................................................101
Figure 7.7: Consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C versus polymer combining oil content
for blends containing C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber .............................................101
Figure 7.8: Plot of log10(viscosity) at various temperatures versus polymer combining oil content for
blends containing C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured
at 210 °C ....................................................................................................................................105
Figure 7.9: Torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point versus polymer combining oil content for
blends containing C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured
at 210 °C ....................................................................................................................................105
Austroads 2021 | page vi

Figure 7.10: Consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C versus polymer combining oil content
for blends containing C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured
at 210 °C ....................................................................................................................................106
Figure 7.11: Relationships between viscosity at 175 °C/190 °C results and viscosity at 165 °C results
for the bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders included in the study ................................109
Figure 7.12: Relationship between resilience at 25 °C results and torsional recovery at 25 °C results
for the bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders included in the study ................................110
Figure 8.1: Distribution of stress ratio at 10 °C test results for S45R grade binders produced by
different suppliers .......................................................................................................................118
Figure 9.1: Asphalt air void results versus binder viscosity at 165 °C results for binders included
in the Austroads and NACOE projects.......................................................................................131
Figure 9.2: Asphalt resilient modulus at 25 °C results versus binder stiffness at 25 °C results for
Austroads project binders and the Californian crumb rubber binder .........................................132
Figure 9.3: Asphalt resilient modulus at 25 °C results versus binder stress at 3 strain results for
binders included in the Austroads and NACOE projects ...........................................................133
Figure 9.4: Photographs of asphalt specimens containing 9% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber
binders after Hamburg wheel tracking tests...............................................................................135
Figure 9.5: Average rut depth at 50 °C results after 4 000 loading cycles versus consistency
6% at 60 °C results for binders included in the Austroads and NACOE projects ......................137
Figure 9.6: Fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing C320 bitumen and the A15E binder ...........138
Figure 9.7: Fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing the crumb rubber binders and C320
bitumen.......................................................................................................................................139
Figure 9.8: Comparison of the fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing the C170 bitumen
sample used to produce the crumb rubber binders and asphalt containing the C320
bitumen sample used in asphalt work ........................................................................................140
Figure 9.9: Comparison of the fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing the crumb rubber
binders and asphalt containing the C170 bitumen sample used to produce the binders ..........141
Figure 9.10: Statistical analysis of fitted fatigue life results at a peak strain level of 150 µε ..........................142
Figure 9.11: Fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt specimens tested in the NACOE project .....................144
Figure A 1: Stiffness at 25 °C and stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at 10 °C test versus crumb rubber
content for blends containing C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber....................160
Figure A 2: Resilience at 25 °C versus crumb rubber content for blends containing C170 bitumen and
different levels of crumb rubber .................................................................................................160
Figure A 3: Stiffness at 25 °C and stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at 10 °C test versus polymer
combining oil content for blends containing C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber ..........161
Figure A 4: Resilience at 25 °C versus polymer combining oil content for blends containing C170
bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber .........................................................................................161
Figure A 5: Stiffness at 25 °C and stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at 10 °C test versus polymer
combining oil content for blends containing C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber
which were manufactured at 210 °C ..........................................................................................162
Figure A 6: Resilience at 25 °C versus polymer combining oil content for blends containing C170
bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured at 210 °C ...............................162
Figure B 1: Rut depth at 50 °C versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing C320
bitumen.......................................................................................................................................163
Figure B 2: Rut depth at 50 °C versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing an A15E
grade binder ..............................................................................................................................163
Figure B 3: Rut depth versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing a 9% w/w crumb
rubber binder ..............................................................................................................................164
Figure B 4: Rut depth versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing a 15% w/w crumb
rubber binder ..............................................................................................................................164
Figure B 5: Rut depth versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing an 18% w/w crumb
rubber binder ..............................................................................................................................165
Austroads 2021 | page vii

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
During recent decades there has been an increased focus on using sustainable and recycled materials for
road construction and maintenance. Recycled materials regularly used in road construction include glass,
concrete, masonry and brick. Fly ash (which is produced from the combustion of coal) and recycled asphalt
pavement (RAP) are also used extensively in road construction (Austroads 2009).
Crumb rubber, which is predominantly obtained from end-of-life vehicle tyres, has been used in various
countries since the early 1960s in road construction (Bressi et al. 2019). It was first used in road construction
in Australia during the early 1970s (Austroads 2017a, 2018a, Roads and Traffic Authority 1995). Addition of
crumb rubber is known to improve the performance of sprayed seals and asphalt compared to when
unmodified bitumen is used.
The use of crumb rubber binders in road construction allows tyres which have reached their end-of-life to be
used for productive outcomes (rather than sent to landfill, or sent overseas and often burned). Every year
448 000 tonne of tyres reach their end-of-life in Australia (Tyre Stewardship Australia 2019). This
corresponds to 56 million equivalent passenger units (EPUs) where 1 EPU corresponds to a standard 8 kg
car tyre at end-of-life. Annually 62 000 tonne of tyres or 8 million EPUs reach their end-of-life in New Zealand
(Tyrewise 2013).
Crumb rubber is used in road construction by either pre-blending it with bitumen prior to use to produce a
crumb rubber binder (referred to as a ‘wet process’) or blending the crumb rubber with other aggregate
components during the production of an asphalt mix (referred to as a ‘dry process’) (Hunter, Self &
Read 2015). Crumb rubber binders, that are produced by the wet process, have been widely used to
construct sprayed seals in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia for several
decades. As a result of this long-term use, three crumb rubber binder grades (i.e. S45R, S15RF and S18RF)
are currently included in the Australian national polymer modified binder (PMB) specification (ATS 3110).
Crumb rubber has not been extensively utilised in asphalt mixes in Australia in the past. Prior to 2017, crumb
rubber was added to asphalt using the dry process in New South Wales and Victoria (Transport for
NSW 2020a, VicRoads 2020a). The Australian PMB specification includes some information about an
A27RF grade which is associated with including crumb rubber in an asphalt mix by the dry process.
As a result of the lack of wet process crumb rubber binder grades in ATS 3110 which are suitable for use in
asphalt applications, Queensland Department of Main Roads (TMR), Main Roads Western Australia
(MRWA) and the Australian Flexible Pavement Association (AfPA) have recently conducted research to find
appropriate crumb rubber binders which can be used in asphalt (Denneman et al. 2015, Grobler, Beecroft &
Choi 2017, Grobler 2020, van Aswegen 2019, van Aswegen & Latter 2019). This research has focussed on
adopting crumb rubber binder specifications and asphalt construction practices used in California and
Arizona. Due to the adoption of US practices, crumb rubber binders that are used in asphalt in Queensland
and Western Australia are currently specified using different tests and testing protocols than those used to
specify the properties of crumb rubber binders when they are used in sprayed sealing applications. Crumb
rubber binders used in sprayed sealing applications are specified using the same types of tests and testing
protocols as are used to specify all other types of PMBs in the Australian PMB specification.
Austroads 2021 | page 1

1.2 Purpose
The main purpose of research described in this report was to ascertain whether the specified properties of
crumb rubber binders which have been used/trialled by TMR and MRWA in asphalt could be made to be
consistent with the current ATS 3110-specified properties for crumb rubber binders which are used in
sprayed seals (i.e. S45R, S15RF and S18RF grades). If the crumb rubber binders used/trialled by TMR and
MRWA could be specified in terms of ATS 3110 test properties (rather than US binder test properties), then it
would be much easier for other Austroads jurisdictions to adopt the technology developed by individual
jurisdictions. This would be expected to save costs in the long term as it would allow a harmonised approach
and reduce the amount of research/trials needed to use crumb rubber binders nationally in asphalt.
Another aim of the research included in this report was to ascertain whether a crumb rubber binder
containing 91% by weight (i.e. 91% w/w) C170 bitumen and 9% by weight (i.e. 9% w/w) crumb rubber could
be specified in terms of ATS 3110 test properties so that this type of binder could be used on a national
basis to construct sprayed seals. A 9% w/w (or 10 parts) crumb rubber binder is currently used in Victoria to
construct high stress seals (HSS). This type of crumb rubber binder is generally used to aid aggregate
retention on heavily trafficked roads (VicRoads 2020b). A 9% w/w crumb rubber binder is currently specified
in Victoria on a recipe basis which has limited its use by other Austroads jurisdictions. If a 9% w/w crumb
rubber binder could be specified in terms of ATS 3110 test properties, then this type of binder could also be
more easily utilised nationally in sprayed seals.
The final purpose of the research was to compare the laboratory asphalt performance of crumb rubber
binders which contained C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber to determine how the level of
crumb rubber in the binder affected mix performance. This research was anticipated to provide Austroads
jurisdictions with quantitative information about mix performance which could be used to select appropriate
crumb rubber binder grades to be used in asphalt in the future.
The asphalt performance of the crumb rubber binders was compared in the project using the same 14 mm
gap graded asphalt (GGA) mix as was used in National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE) project P75
‘Transferring Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt Technology to Queensland’. This mix was utilised in the
NACOE project to compare the performance of different commercially-produced crumb rubber binders in
asphalt. Research conducted in this project involved comparing the asphalt performance of crumb rubber
binders containing between 9% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber. The asphalt performance of mixes
containing C320 bitumen and an A15E grade PMB were also investigated to ascertain how the performance
of the crumb rubber binders compared with unmodified bitumen and a binder containing a
styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) polymer.
1.3 Scope
The scope of the report includes literature reviews into several crumb rubber related areas which
complement the research described in Section 1.2. These were included in the Austroads brief for the project
as follows:
• an overall review of the benefits and impediments of using crumb rubber in road construction (Section 2)
• a literature review of previous Australian research and trials into the use of crumb rubber binders in
asphalt (Section 3)
• a literature review of national and international specifications for crumb rubber used in road construction
(Section 4)
• a review of the literature which has investigated the relationship between the properties of crumb rubber
(e.g. particle size/grading) and binder/asphalt mix performance (Section 5).
The report also includes the results of a survey of Australian crumb rubber suppliers which investigated the
crumb rubber properties targeted by different suppliers (Section 6).

Section 7 includes the results of binder tests on laboratory-prepared blends of C170 bitumen and crumb
rubber which were used to determine ATS 3110 test property specification limits for blends of C170 bitumen
and different levels of crumb rubber. This section includes the binder test results obtained for laboratory
blends which contained between 5% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber as well as the test results obtained for
a laboratory blend which was formulated to meet ATS 3110 requirements for S45R. Section 7 also includes
the binder test results obtained for two crumb rubber binder samples that were sourced from California which
were tested for comparison purposes as well as comparisons between the test results obtained in
US-specified tests (i.e. viscosity at 175 °C/195 °C and resilience at 25 °C) and comparable
ATS 3110-specified tests (i.e. viscosity at 165 °C and torsional recovery at 25 °C, respectively).
The ATS 3110 test results obtained for the laboratory blends containing different levels of crumb rubber were
used in conjunction with those obtained for the compliant S45R binder to propose specification limits for
binders which contained C170 bitumen and various levels of crumb rubber in terms of ATS 3110-specified
test parameters (Section 8). Specification limits were proposed for binders which were representative of
those used in previous TMR/MRWA trials as well as a binder which contained 91% w/w C170 bitumen and
9% w/w crumb rubber.
Section 9 provides a summary and analysis of the results obtained in the asphalt performance tests
conducted during the study after crumb rubber binders containing C170 bitumen and either 9% w/w,
15% w/w and 18 w/w crumb rubber were incorporated into a single type of 14 mm GGA mix. This section
also includes the asphalt performance test results obtained when two control binders (i.e. C320 bitumen and
an A15E grade PMB) were incorporated into the same type of asphalt mix.
Section 10 provides a summary of the results of the research conducted in the project and includes the main
conclusions found during the work.
1.4 Methodology
The literature review component of the project involved reviewing and analysing relevant published journal
articles, Australian and international specification documents as well as technical reports and books and then
summarising the results in each of the relevant areas. The survey of Australian crumb rubber suppliers was
conducted by initially contacting 16 companies which were listed as tyre recyclers on the Tyre Stewardship
Australia website and asking them to provide information about the test properties of the crumb rubber they
produced as well as a copy of their manufacturing specification for crumb rubber. Responses received were
then collated and summarised.
The methodology used to prepare bitumen/crumb rubber blends in the laboratory is described in detail in
Section 7.2. This section also describes how binder tests (which include ATS 3110 and relevant US crumb
rubber binder tests) were performed. Section 9.2 describes how asphalt samples were prepared in the study
and provides information about how each asphalt performance test was conducted.
During the course of the project, it was found that different jurisdictions refer to the concentration of crumb
rubber in a binder in different ways. In Australia, the concentration of crumb rubber in a binder is either
expressed as a percentage by mass of the total binder (e.g. 91% w/w C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb
rubber) or in parts of the bitumen in the binder (e.g. 10 parts crumb rubber).
One tonne of a binder containing 91% w/w C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb rubber would contain 910 kg of
C170 bitumen and 90 kg of crumb rubber. The terminology ‘parts of crumb rubber’ has been used to make it
simpler to calculate the amounts of bitumen and crumb rubber required when crumb rubber binders are
produced in the field in a sprayer and used for sprayed sealing applications. For example, a 10 parts crumb
rubber binder produced in the field could be manufactured by blending 100 kg of crumb rubber with 1000 L
of C170 bitumen (after adjustment of the volume of the bitumen in the sprayer to 15 °C). Using a typical
C170 bitumen density at 15 °C result of 1040 kg/m3, this would yield a crumb rubber binder which contained
1140 kg of C170 bitumen and 100 kg of crumb rubber. This binder would have a crumb rubber concentration
of 8.77% w/w if the rubber concentration were expressed as a percentage by mass of the total binder.

A number of overseas jurisdictions refer to the crumb rubber concentration in a binder as a percentage by
mass of the bitumen in a binder. For example, a crumb rubber binder which contains 9% crumb rubber by
mass of the bitumen would be represented by a blend which contained 1000 kg of bitumen and 90 kg of
crumb rubber. This blend would contain 91.74% w/w bitumen and 8.26% w/w crumb rubber if the
concentrations of the components were expressed in terms of percentages by mass of the total binder.
Due to the variations in the way that the concentration of crumb rubber in a binder can be expressed, all
crumb rubber concentrations included in this report have been expressed in terms of the percentage by
mass of crumb rubber in the binder (i.e. a ‘9% w/w crumb rubber binder’ would contain 91% w/w bitumen and
9% w/w crumb rubber in the above example).

2. Benefits and Impediments of Using Crumb

Rubber in Road Construction
This section provides an overview of the environmental and performance benefits associated with using
crumb rubber in road construction that have been identified in the literature. It also summarises some of the
impediments which can restrict its use.
2.1 Benefits
2.1.1 Environmental Benefits
Repurposing of end-of-life tyres
The world-wide vehicle market is continually growing which results in an increased need for vehicle tyres.
Currently about 10 billion waste tyres are generated globally each year (Liang et al. 2020). A large proportion
of these end-of-use tyres are either sent to landfill, lost or burned as a fuel. Tyres sent to landfill take up
scarce landfill space, while lost tyres can litter landscapes and waterways (Denneman et al. 2015).
End-of-use tyres which are stockpiled can pose health and environmental concerns, as they can be a
breeding ground for pests and present a significant fire risk (Harrison et al. 2019).
Of the 448 000 tonne of end-of-life tyres produced in Australia during 2018–19, 52% of these tyres were
repurposed for environmentally sound uses (Tyre Stewardship Australia 2019). In terms of tyres re-purposed
for environmentally sound uses: 4% were recycled back into tyres, 75% were used as an energy source
(either as whole or shredded tyres or as a pyrolysis oil derived from tyres) and 21% were used to produce
tyre-derived products. Tyre-derived products include crumb rubber, shredded tyres for use as tyre-derived
aggregate, steel and char (i.e. carbon/charcoal).
One of the main environmental benefits of using crumb rubber as a component in road construction is that it
increases the amount of this material which can be effectively reused. If products derived from waste tyres
can be effectively sold by tyre recyclers this will result in more tyres being reused for environmentally sound
purposes, rather than being lost or sent to landfill.
Traffic noise reduction
A number of studies have indicated that there can be significant reduction in traffic noise from pavements if
asphalt is constructed using a combination of low noise asphalt type (e.g. open graded asphalt (OGA) or gap
graded asphalt (GGA)) and a crumb rubber binder (Losa, Leandri & Cerchiai 2012, Putman &
Amirkhanian 2005, Way, Kaloush & Biligiri 2011). Studies of the amount of noise generated from roads is
typically measured in dB(A) units which is a measure of the sound intensity emitted from a vehicle after
correction for the frequency response of a human ear (Austroads 2011). An increase of 10 dB(A) in noise
level is normally perceived as twice as loud.
Studies conducted by Way, Kaloush and Biligiri (2011) in Arizona in the 1990s found that the noise level
generated by traffic on a freeway could be reduced by up to 5.7 dB(A) if the original concrete pavement was
overlaid with an OGA wearing course which contained a crumb rubber binder. Similarly, Losa, Leandri and
Cerchiai (2012) compared the noise emissions from two GGA mixes which contained crumb rubber with a
conventional dense graded asphalt (DGA) mix which did not contain crumb rubber. One GGA mix was
produced by adding crumb rubber to the asphalt by the dry process while the other GGA mix contained a
crumb rubber binder produced by the wet process. The GGA mixes both showed a 5 dB(A) reduction in
noise compared to the DGA mix.

As the type of asphalt mix used in road construction would be expected to have a significant effect on the
amount of noise generated by traffic, several studies have compared the noise generated by asphalt which
contains crumb rubber with the same type of asphalt when it does not contain crumb rubber (Fornai et
al. 2016, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. et al. 2011, Paje et al. 2010, Paje et al. 2013). Crumb rubber has been
added to the asphalt mixes used in these studies by both the wet process and the dry process. These
studies have yielded variable results as some studies have found that addition of crumb rubber to asphalt
does not reduce the amount of noise generated by traffic on a pavement, whereas other studies have found
noise reductions up to about 2.5 dB(A). Overall, studies which have investigated the effect of adding crumb
rubber to the same type of asphalt mix, have yielded lower noise reductions than those which have
compared noise emission results from different types of asphalt mixes.
Paje and co-workers have conducted two studies which compared how the presence of crumb rubber in
asphalt affects the noise generated from the pavement. Paje et al. (2010) initially compared the noise
emissions from four trial sections which were constructed using the same 10 mm GGA mix. The sections
included a control section containing a conventional Spanish PMB and a section containing a 9% w/w crumb
rubber binder which was produced by the wet process. The other sections contained the 9% w/w crumb
rubber binder as well as either 1% or 2% w/w additional crumb rubber which was incorporated into the
aggregate component of the asphalt mixes by the dry process. The noise emissions from the sections
containing the PMB and the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder were quite similar, while the noise emissions from
the sections which contained 1% and 2% w/w additional crumb rubber were about 1.5 dB(A) lower than the
control section which contained a PMB. In a later study, Paje and co-workers compared the noise emissions
from two 12 mm GGA mixes which contained either unmodified bitumen or a 17% w/w crumb rubber binder
(Paje et al. 2013). The noise emissions from the GGA section which contained the crumb rubber binder were
about 2.5 dB(A) lower than the unmodified bitumen section.
Fornai et al. (2016) compared the noise emissions from three stone mastic asphalt (SMA) trial sections
which were constructed using the same type of PMB and source of aggregates. The control asphalt section
contained no crumb rubber while the other two sections contained either 0.75% or 1.2% w/w crumb rubber
which was added to the aggregate portion of the SMA mix by the dry process. The level of noise emitted
from the two sections which contained crumb rubber was about 0.7 dB(A) lower than the control section.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted an extensive study into the noise generated
by different types of pavements during the period between October 2002 and October 2010 (Illingworth &
Rodkin Inc. et al. 2011). The trial sections studied included a control DGA section containing unmodified
bitumen, an OGA section containing a crumb rubber binder, and two OGA sections containing an unmodified
binder which had thicknesses of either 30 mm or 75 mm. Two months after construction, all three OGA
sections (including the section containing the crumb rubber binder) showed similar levels of noise emission
which were about 4 dB(A) lower than the DGA section. After 8 years of service, the level of noise emitted from
the section containing the crumb rubber binder was still similar to that of the other OGA sections. The level of
noise generated from the OGA sections, however, had significantly increased over time and was now only
about 1 dB(A) lower than DGA section. Unlike the OGA sections, the level of noise emitted from the DGA
section did not show a significant change over the 8-year period the trial site was monitored.
Reduction in energy, greenhouse gas emissions or environmental burden
A number of studies have indicated that use of crumb rubber in asphalt can reduce the energy, greenhouse
gas emissions or overall environmental burden associated with the construction of asphalt pavements.
Sousa, Way and Carlson (2007) compared the energy requirements and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
associated with constructing a conventional DGA overlay with unmodified bitumen with those associated with
thinner GGA and OGA overlays containing crumb rubber modified binders. During these studies it was
assumed that a 51 mm thick GGA treatment containing a crumb rubber binder would perform similarly to a
102 mm thick DGA treatment, while a 25 mm thick OGA treatment containing a crumb rubber binder would
perform similarly to a 76 mm thick DGA treatment. The results obtained in these studies indicated that use of
a crumb rubber binder and a GGA mix would reduce energy requirements by 1.3 x 109 kJ/lane km and CO2
emissions by 100 tonne/lane km, whereas use of a crumb rubber binder and an OGA mix would reduce
energy requirements by 3.0 x 109 kJ/lane km and CO2 emissions by 223 tonne/lane km, compared to those
obtained for a traditional DGA mix.

The level of CO2 emissions associated with the manufacture/construction of a 10 mm OGA mix containing
either an A20E grade PMB or an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder was determined by van Aswegen and
Latter (2019) using a carbon savings estimation tool which was developed by MRWA. During these
calculations it was assumed that the CO2 emissions associated with producing asphalt with a crumb rubber
binder were 33% of that needed for an A20E grade binder. Incorporating a crumb rubber binder in the OGA
mix was found to reduce CO2 emissions associated with the manufacture and construction of each 1 tonne
of asphalt by 43 kg of CO2 equivalents, compared to when a conventional A20E binder was used.
Chiu, Hsu and Yang (2008) compared the environmental impacts associated with the manufacture,
construction and maintenance of a 50 mm thick conventional hot mix asphalt layer which contained
unmodified bitumen, with the same thickness asphalt layer which contained a crumb rubber binder.
Environmental effects were expressed in terms of an ‘eco-burden’ parameter which included contributions
associated with human health effects, environmental effects and the consumption of resources. The results
of their lifecycle analysis indicated that asphalt containing a crumb rubber binder would have an ‘eco-burden’
16% higher than conventional hot mix asphalt, 6 years after construction of the pavement. The ‘eco-burden’
associated with asphalt containing a crumb rubber binder, however, was found to be 23% lower than
conventional hot mix asphalt if a 40 year time period was considered. There was an improvement in the
‘eco-burden’ of asphalt containing a crumb rubber binder over time, as these researchers assumed that
conventional hot mix asphalt would have a service life of 6 years before maintenance was required, whereas
the service life of asphalt containing a crumb rubber binder was taken to be 9 years.
2.1.2 Performance Benefits in Sprayed Seals and Asphalt
In a similar way to other types of PMBs included in the Australian PMB specification (ATS 3110), crumb
rubber binders are used instead of unmodified bitumen to achieve better performance on heavily trafficked or
distressed pavement surfaces, often in adverse climatic conditions (Austroads 2018a, Roads and Traffic
Authority 1995). Crumb rubber binders have higher viscosities and softening point results, and also show
lower temperature susceptibility, increased elasticity and better adhesion to aggregate, than unmodified
bitumen. Performance benefits in road construction can include a lower risk of bleeding (sprayed seals),
improved crack resistance (sprayed seals and asphalt), better aggregate retention (sprayed seals) and better
resistance to deformation (asphalt) compared to when unmodified bitumen is used.
Performance benefits in sprayed seals
The three crumb rubber binder grades currently included in the Australian PMB specification (ATS 3110) for
sprayed sealing applications (i.e. S45R, S15RF and S18RF) are predominantly used instead of unmodified
bitumen to limit the amount of cracking that occurs in sprayed seals (Austroads 2017a). An S45R grade binder
is a ‘plant-manufactured’ product which is blended by a binder supplier prior to being used in road construction.
The S15RF and S18RF grades have been traditionally produced in the field by blending appropriate amounts
of C170 bitumen and crumb rubber in a sprayer immediately prior to their use in road construction.
The S45R and S15RF grades (which nominally contain 15% w/w crumb rubber) are used in strain alleviating
membrane (SAM) applications where there is a slow rate of environmental crack activity, or where there is a
rapid rate of traffic induced crack activity with low cracking severity. These grades are also used in extreme
stress seal (XSS) applications which are used to accommodate extreme stresses imposed by heavy traffic
volumes and high proportions of heavy vehicles, or difficult service conditions such as long climbing lanes or
tight radius curves.
The S18RF grade (which nominally contains 18% w/w crumb rubber) is used in strain alleviating membrane
interlayer (SAMI) and SAM applications where there is a rapid rate of traffic induced crack activity with high
cracking severity. Although not currently included in ATS 3110, some Australian jurisdictions use a
field-produced blend of C170 bitumen and a low percentage of crumb rubber (≤ 10% w/w) in high stress
seals (HSS) to aid aggregate retention on heavily trafficked roads.

Another benefit of using crumb rubber binders in sprayed seals is, as crumb rubber binders have a higher
softening point than unmodified bitumen, they can be sprayed using a higher application rate
(Austroads 2018a) without flushing. Hoffmann and Potgieter (2007) noted that the use of a binder with a
higher softening point can reduce the amount of aggregate embedment in a sprayed seal which helps
maintain skid resistance of a sprayed seal over time. These researchers also noted that sprayed seals
containing thicker binder films would be expected to be more resistant to water which would better protect
the underlying pavement. The thicker binder films that occur with crumb rubber addition would therefore be
expected to better protect the underlying pavement than unmodified bitumen.
A number of South African researchers (Hoffmann & Potgieter 2007, Marais et al. 2017) have indicated that
sprayed seals containing crumb rubber binders oxidise/harden at a slower rate in the field than unmodified
bitumen. These researchers believe that as crumb rubber binders harden at a slower rate, these types of
seals will have higher durability than those constructed with unmodified bitumen. Studies conducted in
Austroads (2019a) also found that crumb rubber binders harden at a slower rate than unmodified bitumen if
samples are aged in the laboratory using a pressure ageing vessel (PAV).
Performance benefits in asphalt
A large number of studies have investigated the benefits of adding crumb rubber to asphalt pavements
(Lo Presti 2013, Picado-Santos, Capitão & Neves 2020, Venudharan et al. 2017). These studies have
investigated the properties of asphalt when crumb rubber is incorporated as a modified binder using the wet
process as well as when crumb rubber is mixed with the aggregate at an asphalt plant using the dry process.
Crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process have been incorporated into DGA, GGA and OGA
mixes, either in structural layers or as surface treatments (Venudharan et al. 2017). Crumb rubber binders
produced by the wet process, however, have proved to be more appropriate for use in GGA and OGA mixes
as the aggregate gradings used in these types of mixes have sufficient voids in the aggregate skeleton to
accommodate the crumb rubber particles present in the binder. Crumb rubber is added to the same types of
asphalt mixes when the dry process is used, and it is most commonly used in GGA mixes (Picado-Santos,
Capitão & Neves 2020). The crumb rubber percentage used in the dry process is typically between 1% and
3% by weight of the aggregate in an asphalt mix (Hicks et al. 2012).
Several studies have also investigated the properties of crumb rubber binders which are referred to as
‘terminal blends’. Terminal blends are produced by blending bitumen and crumb rubber in a similar way to
the wet process but very high temperatures (typically between 200 and 300 °C) and high shear rates are
used during the blending process (Lo Presti 2013). The very high temperature and shear used in the
production of terminal blends effectively dissolves the crumb rubber particles in the bitumen so that they act
like an extender to the bitumen. This results in a product which is smooth and homogeneous which is also
stable during hot storage (as it no longer contains discrete rubber particles).
Terminal blends typically contain less than 15% w/w crumb rubber in the binder (Hunter, Self & Read 2015)
and are generally produced using fine crumb rubber particles which are smaller than 300 µm in size
(Lo Presti 2013). This is much finer than the Size 30 type crumb rubber included in ATS 3110 where all
crumb rubber particles are specified to be smaller than 1.18 mm. Terminal blends can be used in DGA, GGA
and OGA mixes and have been used in sprayed sealing, emulsion, slurry seal and tack coating applications.
Lo Presti (2013) indicated that the crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process have increased
viscosity, elasticity and resilience at high temperatures compared to unmodified bitumen. The increased
viscosity of these types of binders allows asphalt to be produced with higher binder film thicknesses without
excessive drain down or bleeding. Lo Presti (2013) indicated that the main benefits of using crumb rubber
binders produced by the wet process in asphalt instead of unmodified bitumen included:
• improved durability
• improved resistance to surface initiated and fatigue/reflective cracking due to higher binder contents and
elasticity
• improved ageing and oxidation resistance due to the presence of higher binder contents and thicker
binder films in asphalt, as well as the slower rate of hardening of crumb rubber binders when they age

• improved resistance to rutting due to the higher viscosity, softening points and resilience of crumb rubber
binders
• lower pavement maintenance costs associated with improved pavement durability and performance.
Studies conducted in California (Jones, Harvey & Monismith 2007) and Arizona (Sousa, Way &
Carlson 2007) have indicated that the enhanced performance of crumb rubber binders manufactured using
the wet process can allow GGA and OGA layers to be constructed with much thinner pavement thicknesses
than those used when conventional DGA is used with unmodified bitumen (see Section 2.1.1 for details). Not
all jurisdictions, however, construct thinner pavements when crumb rubber binders are used.
Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020) conducted an extensive review of the literature which compared the
performance of asphalt which contained crumb rubber with similar asphalt mixes which contained either
unmodified bitumen or PMBs. The review included papers which investigated asphalt produced using the dry
process, the wet process and the terminal blend process. Overall, asphalt produced using the dry process and
the wet process was found to yield similar performance improvements compared to unmodified bitumen. These
researchers and Lo Presti (2013) noted that terminal blends showed a much lower increase in asphalt
performance compared to when crumb rubber was added to asphalt using the dry process or the wet process.
Table 2.1 summarises the performance benefits of adding crumb rubber to asphalt by the dry process or wet
process which were developed by Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020). Performance benefits were
listed by these researchers in terms of rutting resistance, fatigue resistance, moisture sensitivity and thermal
cracking resistance. Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves compared the overall performance of DGA and GGA
mixes containing crumb rubber or unmodified bitumen. They also compared the performance of GGA mixes
containing crumb rubber with similar asphalt mixes containing an SBS-based PMB.
Picado-Santos and co-workers are based in Portugal. As SBS-based PMBs used in Europe typically contain
no more than about 4% w/w SBS, it is likely that these performance comparisons relate to a PMB similar to
an Australian A20E grade PMB (Austroads 2017a). Thermal cracking occurs in asphalt when it is subjected
to very low temperatures (typically below –30 °C) which do not occur to an appreciable extent in Australia
and New Zealand. Thermal cracking is caused by the differences in the thermal expansion coefficients of the
binder and the aggregate in the asphalt at very low temperatures (Hunter, Self & Read 2015).
Table 2.1: Effects of incorporating crumb rubber by the dry process or wet process on the performance of
asphalt
Rutting Fatigue Thermal cracking

Comparison Moisture sensitivity
performance resistance resistance
DGA containing crumb Adding crumb Adding crumb Adding crumb rubber Adding crumb rubber
rubber versus DGA rubber usually rubber usually may make the usually increases
containing unmodified increases rutting increases fatigue asphalt more thermal cracking
bitumen resistance resistance moisture sensitive resistance
GGA containing crumb Adding crumb Adding crumb Adding crumb rubber Adding crumb rubber
rubber versus GGA rubber usually rubber usually may make the usually increases
containing unmodified increases rutting increases fatigue asphalt less moisture thermal cracking
bitumen resistance performance sensitive resistance
GGA containing crumb Adding crumb Adding crumb Adding crumb rubber Adding crumb rubber
rubber versus similar rubber does not rubber may may make the does not generally
mixes containing an normally improve improve fatigue asphalt less moisture improve thermal
SBS-based PMB rutting performance resistance sensitive compared cracking resistance
compared with a compared with a with a PMB compared with a
PMB PMB PMB
Source: Adapted from Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020).

Based on the work of Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020), adding crumb rubber to DGA or GGA using
the wet process or dry process usually increases the resistance of the asphalt to permanent deformation,
fatigue at intermediate temperatures and thermal cracking (at very low temperatures) compared to when
unmodified bitumen is used. Adding crumb rubber to a DGA mix rather than unmodified bitumen, however, may
make the mix more sensitive to moisture. GGA containing crumb rubber which is added by the wet process or
dry process is expected to have similar rutting resistance and thermal cracking resistance as a GGA mix
containing an SBS-based PMB similar to A20E. A GGA mix containing crumb rubber may have higher fatigue
resistance, and more resistance to moisture, than a GGA mix containing a PMB similar to A20E.
2.2 Impediments
2.2.1 Crumb Rubber Supply
Although there are several environmental and performance benefits associated with using crumb rubber in
road construction, there are some impediments which can restrict its use. An initial requirement for the use of
crumb rubber in road construction is that a sufficient amount of good quality crumb rubber is available for use
(Hunter, Self & Read 2015, Wu, Herrington & Neaylon 2015). There are also significant costs associated with
constructing new facilities to process end-of-life vehicle tyres and some changes to asphalt production plants
or sprayed sealing operations would be required to incorporate crumb rubber into road construction if crumb
rubber has not been utilised in the past. The lack of suitable local supplies of crumb rubber have severely
limited its use to date in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and New Zealand as currently crumb rubber needs
to be imported from places where it is currently produced (e.g. Victoria, New South Wales or Queensland).
2.2.2 Emissions
As crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process generally need to be sprayed at higher temperatures
(Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2019) and asphalt produced and compacted at higher
temperatures (Hunter, Self & Read 2015) than other types of bituminous binders, concerns have been raised
about the emissions and odours which occur during road construction. Fume emission monitoring has been
used extensively in the USA since 1989 to investigate the emissions during the manufacture and laying of
asphalt which contains crumb rubber binders (Lo Presti 2013). The results of US research have indicated
that the emission exposures associated with the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt are similar to those
of conventional asphalt operations (Lo Presti 2013, Picado-Santos, Capitão & Neves 2020).
Lo Presti, however, noted that there is some uncertainty on the environmental performance
(i.e. emissions/odours) associated with the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt. Picado-Santos and
co-workers indicated that there were no definitive conclusions relating to the emissions from crumb rubber
binders and that the emissions would depend on both the binder source (associated with the additives added
to modify binder performance) and crumb rubber content.
Studies in Australia and overseas (Grobler, Beecroft & Choi 2017, Yang et al. 2019) have utilised warm mix
surfactant technologies to reduce the temperatures required to construct asphalt using crumb rubber binders.
The results of these studies have indicated that emissions are reduced when asphalt containing crumb
rubber is manufactured/compacted at lower temperatures. Jones et al. (2012) monitored the emissions
associated with a variety of warm mix technologies when different asphalt trial sections were constructed
using crumb rubber binders. Warm mix technologies investigated included adding water to the hot binder (to
produce a foam), adding three different types of surfactants to the binder, and adding an organic wax. These
researchers found that the level of emission reduction depended on type of warm mix technology used as
well as the temperature of the asphalt during paving.

2.2.3 Crumb Rubber Binder Segregation and Degradation
Crumb rubber binders manufactured using the wet process may be susceptible to segregation (where the
crumb rubber particles settle at the bottom of a tank or a truck) if they are stored hot for an extended period
(Hunter, Self & Read 2015, Lo Presti 2013). These types of binders can also degrade if they are stored at
high temperatures for an extended period (predominantly due to dissolution of the rubber particles in the
bitumen as well as devulcanisation of the crumb rubber).
Segregation issues with crumb rubber binders are normally addressed by equipping storage tanks or trucks
with augers or paddles so that the crumb rubber remains dispersed in the binder. A number of studies have
also investigated whether the addition of chemical stabilisers, use of finer crumb rubber, or the production of
hybrid crumb rubber/polymer blends (e.g. crumb rubber/SBS polymer blends) can be used to increase the
storage stability of crumb rubber binders (Sienkiewicz et al. 2017). Issues with degradation of crumb rubber
binders can be addressed by limiting the storage time between binder manufacture and use, and/or
storing/transporting the binder at the lowest practicable temperature (Lo Presti 2013).
2.2.4 Road Construction Costs
A number of international studies have indicated that the use of crumb rubber may increase the cost of road
construction compared with when unmodified bitumen is used which may limit its use (Lo Presti 2013,
Picado-Santos, Capitão & Neves 2020). Increased costs are associated with the general use of higher crumb
rubber binder contents in sprayed seals and asphalt, as well as the higher temperatures generally used
when roads are constructed with crumb rubber. Crumb rubber modified binders are also typically more
expensive than unmodified bitumen. Construction costs may be reduced by constructing thinner asphalt
pavements (as in California and Arizona). Studies which have not considered a reduction in pavement
thickness have generally assumed that the initial costs of constructing roads with crumb rubber are likely to
be offset by long-term reductions in maintenance costs associated with the better performance of roads
which contain crumb rubber.
Studies conducted at Arizona State University (Jung, Kaloush & Way 2002) compared the construction and
maintenance costs associated with a 280 mm thick DGA pavement containing unmodified bitumen with that
of a 140 mm thick pavement which included a crumb rubber binder. The pavements were constructed on
Interstate Highway I-40 in Arizona. The thinner 140 mm pavement consisted of three layers which included a
76 mm thick DGA layer which contained unmodified bitumen, as well as a 51 mm thick layer of GGA and a
13 mm thick layer of OGA which both contained a crumb rubber binder. These researchers noted that
asphalt containing crumb rubber was typically 1.5 to 2 times more expensive per tonne than asphalt
containing unmodified bitumen. The construction costs associated with the 280 mm thick DGA pavement
were found to be US$237 000/km while those associated with the thinner 140 mm pavement which included
a crumb rubber binder were US$136 000/km. The 10-year maintenance costs for the thick DGA pavement
were determined to be US$1850/km while those of the pavement which contained the crumb rubber binder
were US$742/km. These researchers concluded that incorporating crumb rubber into asphalt reduced both
construction and maintenance costs as it allowed thinner pavements to be constructed and that the
pavements required less maintenance.
Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020) compared the cost of constructing a DGA pavement with
unmodified bitumen in Portugal with the same thickness GGA pavement in which crumb rubber was
incorporated into the asphalt using the wet process, the dry process or the terminal blend process. The
results of the study indicated that the construction costs per tonne of asphalt were 26%, 20% and 32%
higher than the DGA pavement when the wet process, dry process and the terminal blend process,
respectively, were used. These researchers however noted that if the improved service life of asphalt
containing crumb rubber was considered, then these initial construction cost increases should not be
considered restrictive.
A South African study (Hoffmann & Potgieter 2007) indicated that crumb rubber binders are typically 30%
more expensive than unmodified bitumen which increases sprayed seal construction costs by about 10%.
Although sprayed seals are more expensive to construct when crumb rubber binders are used, these
researchers noted that the use of these types of binders can increase seal life by up to 50% which would be
expected to more than offset initial increased construction costs.

2.3 Summary
The main environmental benefit of using crumb rubber in road construction is that it allows a significant
number of end-of-use tyres to be repurposed in a way that can enhance road performance, rather than being
sent to landfill, lost or burned as fuel. A number of studies have found that the use of crumb rubber in
conjunction with a low noise asphalt type (e.g. GGA or OGA) can be used to significantly reduce the level of
traffic noise compared to a concrete or DGA pavement. Noise reductions of the order of 5 dB(A) have been
observed. Studies which have compared the effects of adding crumb rubber to the same type of asphalt mix,
however, have yielded lower traffic noise reductions which are typically in the range between 0 and
2.5 dB(A). Various research groups have indicated that incorporating crumb rubber into asphalt can reduce
the CO2 emissions or the environmental burden associated with the construction/maintenance of asphalt
pavements. These reductions in environmental impact have been a result of either constructing thinner
asphalt pavements using crumb rubber or are associated with the reduction of maintenance required when
asphalt contains crumb rubber rather than just unmodified bitumen.
Research conducted in Australia and overseas has indicated that crumb rubber binders show enhanced road
performance in sprayed seals and asphalt compared with unmodified bitumen. Performance benefits include
a lower risk of bleeding (sprayed seals), improved fatigue cracking resistance (sprayed seals and asphalt),
better aggregate retention (sprayed seals), better resistance to permanent deformation (asphalt) and
improved thermal cracking resistance at very low temperatures (asphalt). It has also been noted by several
researchers that crumb rubber binders appear to oxidise/harden at a slower rate than unmodified bitumen
which may enhance the durability of these binders as they age.
Crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process appear to be more suitable for use in GGA and OGA
mixes, rather than DGA mixes, as the aggregate gradings used in these types of mixes have sufficient voids to
accommodate the crumb rubber particles present in the binder. The dry process is most commonly used to
incorporate crumb rubber into GGA mixes. Crumb rubber modified asphalt produced using the dry process
generally shows similar performance improvements (compared to unmodified bitumen) as crumb rubber
modified asphalt produced using the wet process. A review by Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020)
indicated GGA containing crumb rubber typically has similar rutting resistance and thermal cracking resistance
as a GGA mix containing a PMB similar to A20E. Asphalt containing crumb rubber may have higher fatigue
resistance, or better resistance to moisture, than a GGA mix containing a PMB similar to A20E.
One initial impediment to the use of crumb rubber in road construction is that there needs to be a sufficient
amount of good quality crumb rubber available for use. The lack of suitable local supplies of crumb rubber
has currently limited its use in road construction in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and New Zealand as
local sources of crumb rubber are not available. Impediments associated with the use of crumb rubber
binders in road construction include emissions and odours which can occur during road construction as well
as segregation or degradation of these types of binders when they are stored at elevated temperatures for
extended periods. Although the results of US studies appear to indicate the emissions from crumb rubber
binders used in asphalt are similar to those used in conventional asphalt operations, Lo Presti (2013) and
Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020) have indicated that there are no definitive conclusions relating to
the emissions from crumb rubber binders when they are incorporated into asphalt.
A number of studies have indicated that the addition of warm mix additives can reduce the emissions/odours
associated with producing/compacting asphalt containing crumb rubber binders. Segregation issues can be
addressed by equipping storage tanks and trucks with augers or paddles, so the crumb rubber remains
dispersed in the binder. Degradation of crumb rubber binders can be addressed by limiting the time between
binder manufacture and use and/or storing/transporting the binder at the lowest temperature practicable.
A number of international studies have indicated that incorporation of crumb rubber into sprayed seals or
asphalt can increase road construction costs compared to when unmodified bitumen is used. Even though
this may be the case, it is generally believed that the initial increase in construction costs is offset by a longer
pavement life and reduced maintenance costs over time. Construction costs have been reduced in California
and Arizona by constructing thinner GGA or OGA pavements with crumb rubber binders than when
conventional DGA asphalt and unmodified bitumen is used.

3. Previous Australian Research/trials into the

Use of Crumb Rubber Binders in Asphalt
This section reviews the major research and trials which have been conducted by Australian state
jurisdictions and local government since 2014 into the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt. It includes a
summary of relevant National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE) projects which were conducted by
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) with input from the Australian Flexible
Pavement Association (AfPA). It also includes a review of relevant Western Australian Road Research and
Innovation Program (WARRIP) projects conducted by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA), as well as
trials conducted by the Department of Transport (Victoria) (DoT Vic) and local government in South Australia,
into the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt. The NACOE/WARRIP projects, as well as the trials
conducted by DoT (Vic), were conducted with input from the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB).
3.1 Review of National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE) Projects

on Crumb Rubber Binders
During 2009–10, 88 000 tonne (or 11 million equivalent passenger units (EPUs)) of end-of-life tyres were
produced in Queensland (Denneman et al. 2015). While there was some use of crumb rubber binders in
Queensland for sprayed sealing applications in the early 2010s, the use of these types of binders was much
less than other Australian jurisdictions. Denneman et al. (2015) noted that crumb rubber was only utilised in
asphalt to a limited extent by two Australian states (i.e. New South Wales and Victoria) and the crumb rubber
was added to the asphalt by the dry process. These jurisdictions predominantly used crumb rubber modified
asphalt for areas with very poor subgrade conditions as the crumb rubber modified asphalt could resist large
deflections without cracking. Crumb rubber modified asphalt was initially used in Victoria over concrete
pavements to delay reflection cracking from joints in the concrete pavement. It was noted that the situation in
Australia was very different to the USA and South Africa, where crumb rubber binders produced by the wet
process were extensively used in asphalt.
In order to increase the usage of crumb rubber in the road construction sector in Queensland when it was
used in both sprayed seals and asphalt, a number of research projects were conducted as part of the
NACOE program (Denneman et al. 2015, Grobler, Beecroft & Choi 2017, Grobler 2020). These projects
included reviews of Australian jurisdiction and overseas specifications/practices related to the use of crumb
rubber binders in road construction, development of Queensland specifications to promote crumb rubber
use, laboratory testing and demonstration trials.
3.1.1 Development of Queensland Specifications to Promote Crumb Rubber Use
Changes to the MRTS11 specification
Prior to 2017, sprayed seals were constructed in Queensland using sprayed seal treatment types and binder
grades selected by TMR. If a contractor wanted to use another type of binder to construct a sprayed seal,
they were required to submit an alternative tender to TMR. As a result of the NACOE projects related to
crumb rubber binders, TMR specification MRTS11 Sprayed Bituminous Treatments (Excluding Emulsion)
was updated in October 2017 (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2017) so that a
contractor could select from a range of equivalent alternative binder grades for a particular sprayed seal
treatment. Many of the alternative binder grades included the Austroads crumb rubber binder grades S15RF,
S18RF and S45R. This change to MRTS11 has allowed more widespread use of crumb rubber binders in
sprayed seals in Queensland.

Development of the PSTS112 specification
During the NACOE projects, a draft supplementary specification PSTS112 Crumb Rubber Modified Open
Graded Asphalt Surfacing was initially developed which was included in Grobler, Beecroft and Choi (2017).
The draft specification was prepared for an open graded asphalt (OGA) trial which was conducted in 2017.
The OGA trial included two trial sections which contained a crumb rubber binder that was produced by the
wet process (see Section 3.1.3 for details). Due to the lack of crumb rubber binder grades in the Australian
PMB specification (ATS 3110) which were suitable for use in asphalt, the specified properties of the crumb
rubber binders included in the PSTS112 specification were developed based on specification practices and
testing regimes used in Arizona and California where crumb rubber binders are widely used in asphalt.
These US jurisdictions use different tests and testing protocols to specify the properties of crumb rubber
binders than those included in the Australian national PMB specification (ATS 3110).
The 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification included two new crumb rubber binder grades CR1 and CR2.
CR1 grade binders were expected to contain higher levels of crumb rubber and were thought to be more
suited for use in asphalt in hotter climates such as northern Queensland. CR2 binders were anticipated to
contain lower levels of crumb rubber and were expected to be more suitable for use in south-east
Queensland. The specified properties for the CR2 grade binder were used as a basis for the binder property
requirements included in the AfPA pilot specification Crumb Rubber Modified Open Graded and Gap Graded
Asphalt (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2018). The CR1 grade binder is no longer included in the
most recent version of the PSTS112 specification (Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads 2019a). Further details about these specifications are included in Section 3.1.4.
3.1.2 NACOE Studies of Crumb Rubber Modified Binder Properties

Preliminary dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) studies
Initial NACOE research (Denneman et al. 2015) investigated the rheological properties of various crumb
rubber binders using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). A series of crumb rubber binders, containing 5%,
15%, 20% and 25% crumb rubber by weight of the total binder (i.e. 5% w/w, 15% w/w, 20% w/w and
25% w/w crumb rubber) were manufactured in the laboratory using locally-sourced crumb rubber and
C170 bitumen. Crumb rubber binders were produced by subjecting blends of crumb rubber and bitumen to
low shear mixing at 190 °C for 1 hour in a carbon dioxide saturated atmosphere. DSR tests measured the
complex modulus (G*) and phase angle (δ) of the binders at a range of temperatures (20–60 °C) and
oscillation frequencies (0.1–10 rad/s).
The results of DSR tests indicated that the crumb rubber binders became significantly stiffer (i.e. complex
modulus values increased) and more elastic (i.e. phase angle (δ) values decreased) with increasing rubber
content. These changes in G* and δ values were more marked when tests were performed at high
temperatures. Although it was possible to conduct DSR tests on the binder which contained 25% w/w crumb
rubber, the binder was not fluid when heated in an oven at 180 °C prior to testing when the Austroads PMB
sample handling protocol (AGPT/T102) was used. This behaviour suggested that a 25% w/w crumb rubber
binder would be too thick to be used in practical applications.
An investigation was also conducted into the effects of blending time on DSR results by blending the
20% w/w crumb rubber binder at 190 °C for either 1, 2, 3 or 4 hours. There was a slight reduction in the
value of G* obtained for the crumb rubber binder as the blending time was increased (i.e. the binder became
softer). There was no significant change in δ values with increased blending time. The reduction in G* values
was much less than that observed when the blends were prepared using different crumb rubber contents.
Testing of commercial crumb rubber binder samples and laboratory blending studies
During the second stage of NACOE research into the properties of crumb rubber binders (Grobler, Beecroft
& Choi 2017), two commercially manufactured crumb rubber binders were subjected to a range of Australian
PMB specification tests (ATS 3110) to determine how the properties of these binders compared with other
Australian PMB grades. Crumb rubber blends were also prepared by the ARRB laboratory, and two different
binder supplier laboratories, to ascertain whether it was feasible to produce crumb rubber binders that met
the requirements of the PSTS112 specification using locally sourced bitumen and crumb rubber.

Testing of commercially-produced crumb rubber binders involved subjecting a crumb rubber binder sample
sourced from California and an Australian manufactured crumb rubber binder to five key ATS 3110 tests
(i.e. viscosity at 165 °C, torsional recovery at 25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stiffness at
25 °C tests) and European storage stability tests (European Committee for Standardization EN 13399). The
Australian produced crumb rubber binder sample was manufactured to an obsolete binder grade known as
‘A40R’. This binder grade was included in the 2003 version of the Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW)
QA Specification D&C 3252 (Transport for NSW 2020b) as a means by which asphalt could be produced
using a crumb rubber binder by the wet process. Although the two commercial binders did not meet all tested
requirements of any ATS 3110 PMB grade, they both showed test properties which were most similar to an
A20E grade PMB.
An assessment of whether locally sourced bitumen and crumb rubber could be used to produce crumb
rubber binders which met the specified requirements for the CR1 and CR2 grades in the PSTS112
specification included the production and testing of blends at the ARRB laboratory which contained bitumen
and either 20% w/w or 22% w/w crumb rubber. The crumb rubber binder formulations and blending protocols
used by ARRB were based on the advice of two different binder suppliers. The crumb rubber and bitumen
used to produce the blends were obtained from each of the binder suppliers.
The 20% w/w crumb rubber binder was prepared by ARRB at a temperature between 165 and 185 °C and
was subjected to low shear mixing for up to 24 hours. Samples were tested for resilience at 25 °C and
softening point after blending times of 1, 4, 11 and 24 hours and the results were compared to the
requirements for the PSTS112 specification (see Table 3.5 in Section 3.1.4 for details). The 22% w/w crumb
rubber binder was prepared at a temperature between 180 to 190 °C and resilience at 25 °C and softening
point test results were obtained after 1, 4, 11 and 96 hours of blending. The results indicated that both the
20% and 22% w/w crumb rubber blends met the two tested requirements of the PSTS112 specification after
all blending times. Other tests in the PSTS112 specification, however, were not performed. Based on these
results Grobler, Beecroft and Choi (2017) concluded that it would be feasible to produce binders which met
PSTS112 requirements with locally sourced bitumen and crumb rubber.
In order to investigate the reproducibility of results when crumb rubber binders were manufactured by
different laboratories, each binder prepared by ARRB was also manufactured and tested by the binder
supplier who advised ARRB on the crumb rubber binder formulation/blending conditions to use. The binder
suppliers indicated that they prepared the blends using the same raw materials, manufacturing processes
and blending times that were used by ARRB. The binder suppliers subjected samples to a wider range of
tests than ARRB after each blending time as viscosity at 175 °C, penetration at 4 °C and torsional recovery
at 25 °C tests were also performed. The results obtained by the binder suppliers in resilience at 25 °C and
softening point tests were quite different from those obtained by ARRB even though the binder results
obtained by all laboratories in these tests met CR1 and CR2 requirements (Table 3.5) after 1 hour of
blending. All binder supplier test results for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder met CR1 and CR2
requirements except for one viscosity at 175 °C result obtained after 24 hours of blending. The binder
supplier results for the 22% w/w crumb rubber binder met CR1 and CR2 requirements, except for resilience
at 25 °C results obtained after 4, 11 and 96 hours of blending.
Grobler, Beecroft and Choi (2017) proposed several possible explanations for the variations in results
observed by different laboratories which included typographical errors in the ASTM method used to conduct
resilience at 25 °C tests (ASTM D5329), as well as possible variations in blending/testing conditions and the
amount of crumb rubber added by different laboratories (e.g. some laboratories could have used parts of
crumb rubber instead of % w/w). They suggested that further research work be conducted to better identify
the reasons for the differences which had been observed.

3.1.3 Construction of Asphalt Demonstration Sites Using Crumb Rubber Binders
Open graded asphalt (OGA) trial
On 23 February 2017, a 10 mm OGA trial site was established on Emu Mountain Road, Peregian Beach,
Queensland using crumb rubber binders (Grobler, Beecroft & Choi 2017). The trial site included a control
section which incorporated an A15E grade PMB, a section which incorporated a crumb rubber binder which
contained 82% w/w C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber, and another section which contained the
same crumb rubber binder where 0.5% w/w of a Cecabase warm mix additive had been added during
asphalt production. Each OGA section was 30 mm thick. The crumb rubber binder used in the trial was
manufactured to meet CR2 requirements in the PSTS112 specification shown in Table 3.5. The warm mix
additive was added to one of the trial sections in order to determine if asphalt production and compaction
temperatures could be lowered by incorporating a warm mix additive into the asphalt mix containing the
crumb rubber binder.
Monitoring during construction of the trial site included determining the temperature of the asphalt mix during
paving as well as measuring chemical emissions immediately after asphalt production and during paving. A
target asphalt production temperature of 165 °C was used to manufacture the mixes containing the A15E
binder and the crumb rubber binder. The mix containing the crumb rubber binder and the warm mix additive
was targeted to be produced at 145 °C. The discharge temperatures for asphalt containing the A15E binder,
crumb rubber binder, and crumb rubber binder with warm mix additive were 135–150 °C, 130–145 °C and
125–140 °C, respectively. The temperature of the asphalt containing the warm mix additive was between 5
to 10 °C lower during paving than when the other sections were paved.
The results of chemical emission tests found that the emissions from asphalt containing crumb rubber
binders were overall comparable to those observed when a conventional PMB (i.e. A15E) was used to
manufacture asphalt. Even though this was the case, slightly higher levels of benzene were detected from
asphalt which contained the crumb rubber binder. Overall, the levels of emissions were most strongly
influenced by the temperature of the asphalt, where the use of lower temperatures during asphalt
production/paving resulted in lower emissions being observed.
The pavement condition of the 10 mm OGA site was assessed by an ARRB network survey vehicle
appropriately 5 weeks after construction. There was no significant difference between the pavement
condition (i.e. roughness, rutting and texture depth) of all three trial sections. All pavement condition results
were also within the ranges expected for a newly-placed OGA wearing course. The trial site will continue to
be monitored as part of TMR’s long-term performance monitoring program. Key performance attributes that
will be monitored include signs of visual distress (i.e. ravelling, cracking and potholing), rutting performance,
ride quality/roughness and changes in texture depth.
Gap graded asphalt (GGA) trial
On 29 June 2018, a 14 mm gap graded asphalt (GGA) trial site was established on Pimpama-Jacobs Well
Road, Jacobs Well, Queensland by the City of Gold Coast (Grobler 2020). The trial site consisted of a control
section of nominally 50 mm thick dense graded asphalt (DGA) containing an A15E binder, and a nominally
50 mm thick GGA section which contained a crumb rubber binder. The crumb rubber binder was nominally a
blend of C170 bitumen and 17–18% w/w crumb rubber, which was manufactured to meet the property
requirements of the CR1 grade in the PSTS112 specification included in Table 3.5. A warm mix additive was
intentionally included in the GGA mix to reduce asphalt manufacturing and discharge temperatures so that
the level of emissions/odours would be reduced compared to when higher asphalt temperatures were used.
The crumb rubber binder sample when tested showed a viscosity at 175 °C result lower than specified
requirements. This low result appeared to be due to the incorporation of warm mix additive in the binder prior
to a sample being taken for testing.
The GGA section containing the crumb rubber binder was constructed using conventional construction
equipment and was compacted using steel wheel rollers, rather than pneumatic-tyred rollers, to reduce the
risk of binder pick-up occurring due to the high binder content of the GGA mix (7.8% w/w). The mix was
discharged from the asphalt plant at approximately 165 °C and delivered to the paver at a temperature in the
range 140–165 °C. The surface of the GGA was also gritted after compaction (to reduce the possibility of
binder pick-up by traffic).

During construction of the GGA section, personal chemical exposure samples were collected from four
construction workers (i.e. the truck spotter, level hand, shuttle buggy operator and paver operator). The
results of chemical emission tests indicated that all tested emissions were below applicable Queensland
standards (including the levels of benzene detected). This implied that there did not appear to be any
significant risk of worker exposure to harmful emissions during the construction of the GGA section
containing the crumb rubber binder.
After construction, the GGA mix containing the crumb rubber binder appeared homogenous, uniform and
well textured. TMR undertook texture depth (i.e. sand patch) and skid resistance tests to assess the surface
properties of the pavement. The results of texture depth measurements on the GGA section were in the
range of 0.6 to 0.8 mm about one week after construction. Skid resistance testing, conducted in accordance
with TMR Test Method Q704, produced mean wet skid resistance (SRV30) results in the range of 55 to 68.
After the trial site was constructed, a range of different asphalt performance tests were performed by the
ARRB laboratory using specimens prepared from materials supplied by the construction contractor. Tests
conducted on laboratory-prepared asphalt specimens included determining air void contents after different
levels of gyratory compaction, conducting resilient modulus tests at different temperatures (i.e. 25 °C, 29 °C
and 32 °C) and developing flexural modulus master curves for the GGA mix containing the crumb rubber
binder. The fatigue performance of the 14 mm GGA mix used in the trial was also evaluated at 10 °C, 20 °C
and 30 °C using Austroads Test Method AGPT/T274. The results obtained in fatigue tests were compared to
those previously obtained for a 14 mm DGA mix which contained a C320 bitumen binder, and another
14 mm DGA mix which contained an A15E grade PMB.
The GGA mix which included the crumb rubber binder showed significantly higher fatigue resistance than the
DGA mix containing C320 bitumen at all test temperatures. The fatigue resistance of the GGA mix which
included the crumb rubber binder was slightly lower than the DGA mix which incorporated an A15E grade
PMB at 10 °C. The GGA mix which included the crumb rubber binder showed significantly lower fatigue
performance at 20 °C and 30 °C than the DGA mix containing an A15E grade PMB.
3.1.4 Development of Queensland Crumb Rubber Modified Binder Specifications

for Use in Asphalt
As noted in Section 3.1.1, the crumb rubber binder properties included in the 2017 version of the PSTS112
specification were developed based on properties specified in Arizona (Arizona Department of
Transportation 2008) and California (California Department of Transportation 2018) where crumb rubber
binders are extensively used to produce asphalt by the wet process. The next sections summarise the crumb
rubber binder specification requirements in Arizona and California and compare them with ATS 3110 testing
requirements for PMBs.
Arizona specifications for crumb rubber binders used to produce asphalt
In Arizona, crumb rubber binders that are used to produce asphalt are required to contain a minimum of
20% crumb rubber by weight of the bitumen in the binder. A binder containing 20% crumb rubber by weight
of the bitumen would be represented by a blend which contained 1000 kg of bitumen and 200 kg crumb
rubber. This blend would contain 83.3% w/w bitumen and 16.7% w/w crumb rubber if the concentrations of
the components were expressed in terms of the percentages by mass of the total binder. Specification
requirements in Arizona therefore indicate that crumb rubber binders should contain at least 16.7% w/w
crumb rubber when the concentration of crumb rubber is expressed in terms of the percentage by mass of
the total binder. Low viscosity combining oils cannot be added to crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona.
Crumb rubber that is used in Arizona needs to be derived from the processing of whole scrap vehicle tyres or
shredded tyre materials which are sourced in the USA. Either car tyres or truck tyres can be used to produce
the crumb rubber. Other specification requirements for the crumb rubber that is added to binders in Arizona
are discussed in Section 4.2.

Crumb rubber binders must be produced in Arizona by blending bitumen and crumb rubber at a temperature
between 163 °C and 191 °C for a minimum of 1 hour. The Arizona specification for crumb rubber binders
also contains detailed guidelines on how crumb rubber binders should be stored/heated after manufacture.
These guidelines are broadly similar to those given for different PMB grades in AfPA Advisory Note 7
(Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2019).
The Arizona crumb rubber binder specification includes three different grades (CRA Types 1, 2 and 3) which
are produced using different grades of bitumen. Table 3.1 lists the specified requirements for each of the three
crumb rubber binder grades, and also the most similar Australian bitumen grades to the US PG bitumen grades
which are specified. The Arizona specification indicates that resilience at 25 °C, softening point and penetration
at 4 °C tests should be performed using published ASTM test methods. Penetration at 4 °C tests are performed
under different temperature, loading and time test conditions than Australian penetration at 25 °C tests (where
samples are loaded with a 100 g weight for 5 s) (AS 2341.12). The Arizona specification does not include a
specific test method to conduct viscosity at 177 °C tests but indicates that viscosity tests should be conducted
with a viscotester which is correlated with a Rion model VT-04 viscometer.
Table 3.1: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona
Requirements
Property Test method
CRA Type 1 CRA Type 2 CRA Type 3
Base bitumen used to produce crumb – PG 64-16 PG 58-22 PG 52-28
rubber binder
Most similar Australian bitumen grade – C320 bitumen C170 bitumen C50 bitumen
Viscosity at 177 °C (Pa s) – 1.5–4.0 1.5–4.0 1.5–4.0
Resilience at 25 °C (%) ASTM D5329 25 min. 20 min. 15 min.

Softening point (°C) ASTM D36/D36M 57 min. 54 min. 52 min.
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s (0.1 mm) ASTM D5/D5M 10 min. 15 min. 25 min.
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation (2008).
Crumb rubber binders used in Arizona are required to be tested at three stages during the asphalt mix
design, binder production and asphalt construction process. Contractors are required to provide the Arizona
Department of Transportation with ‘binder design profile’ results at least two weeks prior to production of the
batch which will be used to produce asphalt as part of the asphalt mix design process. These results include
test results for a crumb rubber binder that was prepared in the laboratory using samples of bitumen and
crumb rubber which are representative of those which will be used in production. The ‘binder design profile’
should also include information about the source, grade and percentage by weight of the bitumen, as well as
the source, particle size distribution and percentage by weight of the crumb rubber, used to produce the
Crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona are also required to be tested after they are manufactured. The
viscosity at 177 °C of the crumb rubber binder additionally needs to be tested immediately before the binder
is incorporated into asphalt. Table 3.2 summarises the tests that need to be performed during the various
stages of the asphalt mix design, binder production and asphalt construction process. At each stage, binders
need to meet the requirements of the relevant crumb rubber grade shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.2: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona
Binder design (with After batch production

Prior to mixing
Contractual stage representative materials and (with 1 hour minimum
with asphalt
1 hour minimum blending) blending time)
Viscosity at 177 °C X X X
Resilience at 25 °C X X –
Softening point X X –
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s X X –
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation (2008).
California specifications for crumb rubber binders used to produce asphalt
Crumb rubber binders used to produce asphalt in California are required to contain bitumen, a low viscosity
combining oil (referred to as an ‘asphalt modifier’) and crumb rubber. These types of binders must contain
between 18% and 22% crumb rubber by weight of the total binder (i.e. between 18% w/w and 22% w/w
crumb rubber). The amount of oil added to the blend needs to be between 2% w/w and 6% w/w of the total
mass of the bitumen-oil blend that the crumb rubber is added to in order to produce the binder. These
binders must also contain a blend of two different types of crumb rubber (i.e. 75 ± 2% w/w scrap tyre crumb
rubber and 25 ± 2% w/w high natural crumb rubber). Further information about the specified properties of the
crumb rubber included in binders in California is included in Section 4.2.
In terms of Californian terminology, a binder described as containing 20% crumb rubber and 6% oil would
contain 80% x 0.94 = 75.2% w/w bitumen, 80% x 0.06 = 4.8% w/w oil, 20% x 0.75 = 15% w/w scrap tyre
crumb rubber and 20% x 0.25 = 5% w/w high natural crumb rubber when component concentrations are
expressed as percentages by mass of the total binder. An analogous binder described as containing
20% crumb rubber and 2% oil using Californian terminology would contain 78.4% w/w bitumen, 1.6% w/w oil,
15% w/w scrap tyre crumb rubber and 5% w/w high natural crumb rubber if component concentrations are
expressed as percentages by mass of the total binder.
Crumb rubber binders produced in California need to be produced by blending the bitumen, oil and crumb
rubber for at least 45 minutes at a temperature between 191 °C and 218 °C. If the bitumen used in the crumb
rubber blend has a low flash point, then the highest temperature the crumb rubber binder should be blended
is 14 °C lower than the flash point of the bitumen. Californian specification requirements indicate that crumb
rubber binders should not be heated at 191–218 °C for more than 4 hours. If it is necessary to use the crumb
rubber binder after 4 hours of heating, then the binder should be allowed to cool and then heated to
191–218 °C immediately prior to use.
In California only one crumb rubber binder grade is specified for use in asphalt. The specified requirements
for this binder grade are summarised in Table 3.3. These requirements apply to the blend of bitumen, crumb
rubber and low viscosity combining oil.
Table 3.3: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in California
Property Test method Requirement

Viscosity at 190 °C (Pa s) ASTM D7741/D7741M 1.5–4.0
Resilience at 25 °C (%) ASTM D5329 18 min.
Softening point (°C) ASTM D36/D36M 52–74
Cone penetration at 25 °C (0.1 mm) ASTM D217 25–70
Source: California Department of Transportation (2018).

If the information in Table 3.1 and Table 3.3 is compared, both Arizona and California conduct resilience at
25 °C and softening point tests on crumb rubber binders using the same test methods. Even though this is the
case, the specified requirements for these two tests are different in each state. Arizona and California also
conduct viscosity tests on crumb rubber binders at different temperatures (i.e. 177 °C or 190 °C) and use
different test methods in order to conduct these tests. The ASTM D7741/D7741M test used in California
describes a method to measure the viscosity of crumb rubber binders using a handheld rotational viscometer.
The two states also use very different tests to characterise the low temperature properties of crumb rubber
binders. Arizona subjects crumb rubber binder samples to a test which is essentially a modified version of a
penetration test (AS 2341.12) which is conventionally used to measure low temperature properties of
bitumen in Australia and New Zealand. California, by contrast, uses a cone penetration at 25 °C test which is
typically used to measure the low temperature properties of materials such as lubricating grease.
Based on these observations it appears that Arizona and California specify crumb rubber binders in very
different ways. The lack of similarity in specified requirements for viscosity, resilience at 25 °C and softening
point tests indicate that each state is specifying the properties of quite different materials. It was also noted
above that Arizona specifies that a single type of crumb rubber needs to be added to binders and does not
allow the use of low viscosity combining oils. California, on the other hand, requires two types of crumb
rubber to be added to binders and specifies that a low viscosity combining oil must be added to crumb rubber
binders. An analysis of the specified requirements for the crumb rubber added to binders in Arizona and
California (which is described in Section 4.2) also indicated that the crumb rubber blend used in California is
specified to have a coarser particle size distribution than the single type of crumb rubber specified in Arizona.
Arizona therefore appears to use a different type and sized crumb rubber to produce crumb rubber binders
than the crumb rubber used to produce binders in California.
California, in a similar way to Arizona, requires contractors to submit a ‘binder design profile’ prior to a crumb
rubber binder being manufactured for use in asphalt. The ‘binder design profile’ must include type and
source of bitumen, low viscosity combining oil and the two types of crumb rubber (i.e. scrap tyre crumb
rubber and high natural crumb rubber) used to produce the crumb rubber binder, as well as the proportions
of each component in the blend.
The contractor also needs to produce a laboratory-manufactured crumb rubber blend as part of the ‘binder
design profile’ using components which are obtained from the same sources that will be used to manufacture
the binder which will be used in asphalt. This crumb rubber blend needs to be tested after various blending
times (in the range between 45 minutes and 24 hours) and the test results obtained for the blend compared
to the specified requirements listed in Table 3.3. The crumb rubber blend used for the ‘binder design profile’
needs to be initially heated in an oven for 6 hours at the temperature expected when the crumb rubber
binder will be produced. The oven temperature is then reduced to 135 °C for the period between 6 and
22 hours, and then increased back to the expected binder production temperature between 22 and 24 hours.
This process appears to investigate the effects of hot storage, cooling, and subsequent reheating on binder
test results.
California also requires that crumb rubber binders be tested against the requirements listed in Table 3.3 after a
crumb rubber batch is produced by a manufacturer to be used in an asphalt mix. Unlike Arizona, they do not
require viscosity tests to be performed immediately before the crumb rubber binder is incorporated into asphalt.
Viscosity at 190 °C tests are only required if additional crumb rubber was added to the binder after
manufacture, or if the binder was heated for 4 hours at 191–218 °C, allowed to cool, and reheated prior to use.
Although California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires contractors to submit ‘binder design
profile’ documents prior to using a crumb rubber binder to produce asphalt, they do not use the binder design
test results to determine whether a particular crumb rubber binder batch was suitable for use in asphalt. They
use the test results obtained from the manufactured batch of crumb rubber binder which was used in the
asphalt mix to determine whether the binder complied with the specification.
Table 3.4 summarises the Californian testing requirements for crumb rubber binders that are used in asphalt.
At each stage, binder test results need to be compared to the requirements listed in Table 3.3. Table 3.4 also
includes the oven heating times where a crumb rubber binder blend is required to be tested as part of a
‘binder design profile’ submission.

Table 3.4: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders produced in California
After batch production

Binder design (with materials obtained from the same
Contractual stage (45 minutes minimum
sources)
blending time)
Oven heating time (h)(1) 0.75 1 1.5 2 4 6 24 –
Viscosity at 190 °C X X X X X X X X
Resilience at 25 °C X – – – X – X X
Softening point X – – – X – X X
Cone penetration at 25 °C X – – – X – X X
1 During the binder design process crumb rubber blends are heated in an oven for 6 hours at the temperature at which
the final crumb rubber binder is expected to be produced. The temperature of the oven is then reduced to 135 °C
between 6 and 22 hours and increased back to the expected binder production temperature between 22 and
24 hours.
Source: California Department of Transportation (2018).
Comparison between Arizona/California requirements and ATS 3110 requirements for PMBs
The means by which Arizona and California specify the properties of crumb rubber binders to be used in
asphalt appear to be quite different from the current practices included in the Australian PMB specification
(ATS 3110). Arizona and California also utilise tests such as resilience at 25 °C, penetration at 4 °C and
cone penetration at 25 °C tests which are not included in ATS 3110. Although Arizona and California
measure the viscosity of crumb rubber binders, they measure binder viscosity at temperatures of 177 °C or
190 °C rather than a temperature of 165 °C which is utilised in ATS 3110. They also use different test
methods to measure binder viscosity than the Brookfield viscometer-based methods which are utilised in
Australia (i.e. AGPT/T111 or AS/NZS 2341.4).
PMBs are specified in ATS 3110 based on test properties obtained for samples after a batch of PMB is
manufactured (i.e. at the point of manufacture), unless otherwise specified by the customer. One of the main
procedural differences between crumb rubber binder specification requirements in Arizona/California and
those included in ATS 3110 is that the two US jurisdictions require ‘binder design profile’ documents to be
submitted prior to production of a crumb rubber binder batch that will be used to produce asphalt. These
documents involve contractors providing detailed information about the formulation, as well as the source
and type of materials, that will be used to produce a crumb rubber binder. These details are not required
when PMBs are produced in Australia.
The ‘binder design profile’ process used in Arizona and California also requires contractors to test
laboratory-produced crumb rubber binder blends which are produced using similar (but not the same) raw
materials using a blending process expected when a crumb rubber binder batch is actually produced for use
in asphalt. This process appears to determine if a supplier’s crumb rubber binder formulation will likely
produce a crumb rubber binder which will meet specification requirements. As the raw materials used to
produce the crumb rubber binder blend will likely not be exactly the same as when the final batch of crumb
rubber is produced (even though they may be the same grade of material and come from the same supplier)
the test results obtained for the blends may be different from those obtained for the final batch. This is
particularly the case in Australia at the current time as most suppliers source bitumen from a number of
different overseas refineries which change over time. Even though the bitumen obtained from a single
supplier may meet the requirements of a particular AS 2008 grade, the bitumen crude source and
manufacturing process will likely be dependent on the source refinery from which the bitumen was
purchased. Changes in bitumen crude and manufacturing route over time are likely to influence the test
properties of crumb rubber binders which are produced using the bitumen.
The Californian process of heating a binder sample in an oven for an extended period also may not exactly
replicate the storage of a crumb rubber binder in a storage tank. Although both Arizona and California
require ‘binder design profile’ documents to be submitted, both jurisdictions assess overall specification
compliance in terms of the test results obtained for a crumb rubber binder at the point of manufacture.

In terms of the crumb rubber binders currently included in ATS 3110 for sprayed sealing applications
(i.e. S45R, S15RF and S18RF), an S45R grade binder needs to be subjected to a range of different tests
after a batch of binder is manufactured. These tests, except for the compressive limit at 70 °C test, are the
same as those required for S10E, S15E and S35E grade PMBs. The field-produced crumb rubber grades
S15RF and S18RF are subjected to fewer tests after manufacture than a S45R grade binder as they are
generally produced in a sprayer according to a recipe (i.e. they are generally blends of C170 bitumen and
15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber, respectively). As S15RF and S18RF grade binders are generally
produced to a recipe, there is an ATS 3110 requirement that these types of binders be subjected to rubber
content tests (AGPT/T142) so the crumb rubber content in the binder can be determined.
The specification requirements for crumb rubber binders in Arizona and California indicate that the crumb
rubber binders produced in the two states are quite different materials. Crumb rubber binders are also
produced in California at a higher temperature than those manufactured in Arizona and contain two types of
crumb rubber (rather than one) as well as a polymer combining oil (which is not used in Arizona). The
differences between the crumb rubber binders are also reflected by the variation in viscosity, resilience at
25 °C and softening point specification limits in each of the two states.
If crumb rubber binders are held at high temperatures (e.g. > 200 °C) for extended periods (e.g. > 4 hours)
test properties such as viscosity and softening point will start to reduce over time (Hunter, Self & Read 2015,
Southern African Bitumen Association 2019). The requirement for crumb rubber blends to be subjected to
prolonged heating as part of the Californian ‘binder design profile’ may have been included in Californian
specification documents to account for the relatively high temperatures used in that state to blend and store
crumb rubber binders. Prolonged heating experiments are not required during the ‘binder design profile’
process for crumb rubber binders produced in Arizona.
2017 version of the Queensland PSTS112 specification

Table 3.5 lists the PSTS112 specified properties for the CR1 and CR2 grade crumb rubber binders which are
described in Grobler, Beecroft and Choi (2017). Binders need to meet these requirements at each testing
stage included in Table 3.6. The PSTS112 specified limits shown in Table 3.5 were developed based on the
specified properties of the CRA Type 1 and CRA Type 2 grade binders in the Arizona crumb rubber binder
specification (Table 3.1). The specified limits for the CR1 grade in Table 3.5 for viscosity at 175 °C, resilience
at 25 °C, softening point and penetration at 4 °C tests are the same as the Arizona CRA Type 1 grade. The
specified limits for the CR2 grade in terms of these four tests are also the same as the Arizona CRA Type 2
grade, except that the softening point requirement for the Type 2 grade was rounded from 54 °C minimum to
55 °C minimum for the CR2 grade.
The 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification also adopted the crumb rubber binder manufacturing
protocols included in the Arizona specification. It additionally specified that crumb rubber binders contain a
minimum of 17% w/w crumb rubber in the binder. This mirrored the minimum crumb rubber content of
16.7% w/w required in Arizona.
Although the specified requirements listed in Table 3.5, are based on the Arizona requirements for crumb
rubber binders, some small adaptions were made during the development of the specification. These
included the requirement to conduct viscosity tests at 175 °C, rather than 177 °C, as well as conducting
these tests by two different ASTM methods, rather than an unspecified method. ASTM D2196 describes a
method to measure the rheological properties of non-Newtonian materials using a rotational viscometer
when the sample is placed in a glass beaker.
The 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification also included Australian torsional recovery at 25 °C, flash
point and loss on heating tests. Torsional recovery at 25 °C tests were included as a ‘to be reported’
parameter as it was thought they could be used to replace US resilience at 25 °C tests in the future. Flash
point and loss on heating tests were included in the specification to assess the flammability, as well as the
propensity of crumb rubber binders to fume, when they were produced in Australia. Another modification that
was made to the Arizona specification was that the ASTM specified tests for softening point and penetration
at 4 °C were replaced by Australian tests which are used to measure the same properties of binders.

Table 3.5: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification
Requirements
Property Test method
CR1 CR2
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) ASTM D2196 Report Report
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) ASTM D7741/D7741M 1.5–4.0 1.5–4.0
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) AGPT/T122 Report Report
Resilience at 25 °C (%) ASTM D5329 25 min. 20 min.
Softening point (°C) AGPT/T131 57 min. 55 min.
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s (0.1 mm) AS 2341.12 10 min. 15 min.
Flash point (°C) AGPT/T112 250 min. 250 min.
Loss on heating (% mass) AGPT/T103 0.6 max. 0.6 max.
Source: Grobler, Beecroft and Choi (2017).
Table 3.6 summarises the testing requirements for CR1 and CR2 grade crumb rubber binders in the 2017
version of the PSTS112 specification which are overall similar to those included in the Californian crumb
rubber binder specification (Table 3.4). One main difference between the PSTS112 specification and the
Californian specification was that binders were required to be heated to a single temperature during the
binder design process, rather than being heated at a lower temperature after 6 hours of oven heating.
Table 3.6: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification
Prior to
After batch mixing
Contractual stage Binder design (for asphalt mix design submission)
production with
asphalt
Oven heating time (h) 1 1.5 2 4 6 11 TBN(1) – –
Viscosity at 175 °C by X X X X X X X – –
ASTM D2196
Viscosity at 175 °C by X X X X X X X – X
ASTM D7741/D7741M
Torsional recovery at 25 °C X – – X – X X X(2) –
Resilience at 25 °C X – – X – X X X(2) –
Softening point X – – X – X X X(2) –
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s X – – X – X X – –
Flash point X(3) – – – – – – X(4) –
Loss on heating X(3) – – – – – – X(4) –
1 TBN = ‘to be nominated’. The oven heating time will be nominated by the contractor if the crumb rubber binder is to
be stored for between 10 hours and 4 days after manufacture.
2 Test is required on each batch of crumb rubber binder produced.
3 Oven heating times do not apply to these properties.
4 Test is required on a frequency basis as nominated by the contractor.
Source: Grobler, Beecroft and Choi (2017).
The 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification, like the Californian specification, requires contractors to
submit binder design test results which have been obtained from a representative laboratory-prepared crumb
rubber blend after it has been heated in an oven for various periods of time. These test results are then
submitted to TMR as part of a contractor’s asphalt mix design submission for a contract of work. Crumb
rubber blends are heated in an oven at a temperature representative of that which will be used during
production of the crumb rubber binder and subsequent storage. This is somewhat different from Californian
requirements where the temperature of oven heating is reduced to 135 °C between 6 and 22 hours
(Table 3.4) to reflect Californian crumb rubber binder field practices.

The oven heating times in the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification were the same as those included
in the Californian specification, except that an 11 hour oven heating requirement was added, and the
Californian requirement for 24 hours of oven heating was replaced by an oven heating time nominated by the
contractor. A nominated oven heating time was only required if the crumb rubber binder was expected to be
stored for between 10 hours and 4 days after manufacture. The PSTS112 specification included in Table 3.5
and Table 3.6 also required viscosity at 175 °C tests to be performed using ASTM D2196 in addition to the
Californian requirement of using ASTM D7741/D7741M.
The 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification mirrored the crumb rubber binder specification requirements
in Arizona and California as tests needed to be conducted on a batch of crumb rubber binder after it was
manufactured. This version of the PSTS112 specification also required that viscosity at 175 °C tests be
performed immediately before the crumb rubber binder was incorporated into asphalt. This specification
requirement appears to align with crumb rubber binder specification requirements in Arizona (Table 3.2) but
not in California (Table 3.4).
AfPA pilot specification for crumb rubber binders
In June 2018, a pilot specification was produced by AfPA which specified the properties of crumb rubber
binders to be used in both OGA and GGA mixes (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2018). The pilot
specification was overall similar to the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification, but only included
requirements for the TMR CR2 crumb rubber binder grade. Table 3.7 lists the specified properties of the
crumb rubber binder grade included in the AfPA pilot specification, while Table 3.8 summarises the testing
requirements included in the AfPA specification. Binders are required to meet the specified properties listed
in Table 3.7 at all testing stages included in Table 3.8. The AfPA specification also specified that crumb
rubber binders shall contain between 18% w/w and 22% w/w crumb rubber (which appears to reflect the
requirements of the Californian crumb rubber binder specification). The bitumen used to produce the crumb
rubber binder also needs to comply with AS 2008.
Table 3.7: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the AfPA pilot specification

Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) AGPT/T111(1)
or 1.5–4.0
ASTM D7741/D7741M(2)
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) AGPT/T122 Report
Softening point (°C) AGPT/T131 55 min.
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s (0.1 mm) AS 2341.12 15 min.
Penetration at 25 °C (0.1 mm) AS 2341.12 Report
Flash point (°C) AGPT/T112 250 min.
Loss on heating (% mass) AGPT/T103 0.6 max.
1 Binder design tests shall be performed using AGPT/T111.
2 ASTM D7741/D7741M shall be performed using a Rion model VT-04 viscometer.
Source: Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (2018).

Table 3.8: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the AfPA pilot specification
Binder design (for asphalt mix design After batch Prior to mixing
Contractual stage
submission) production with asphalt
Oven heating time (h) 1 2 4 6 TBN(1) – –
Viscosity at 175 °C X(2) X(2) X(2) X(2) X(2) X(3) X
Torsional recovery at 25 °C X – X – X X(4) –
Resilience at 25 °C X – X – X X(3) –
Softening point X – X – X X(3) –
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s X – X – X X(4) –
Penetration at 25 °C X – X – X X(4) –
Flash point – – – – – X(4) –
Loss on heating – – – – – X(4) –
1 TBN = ‘to be nominated’. The oven heating time will be nominated by the contractor if the crumb rubber binder is to
be stored for between 10 hours and 4 days after manufacture.
2 Viscosity at 175 °C tests for binder design shall be performed using AGPT/T111.
4 Test is required for the first batch of crumb rubber binder supplied for each project.
Source: Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (2018).
The specified properties and property requirements of the crumb rubber binder included in the AfPA pilot
specification (Table 3.7) were the same as those included for CR2 binder in the 2017 version of the
PSTS112 specification, except that conventional Australian penetration at 25 °C tests (where samples are
loaded with a 100 g weight for 5 s) were also included as a ‘to be reported’ parameter. The pilot specification
included the use of an Australian test method (AGPT/T111) to measure the viscosity at 175 °C of crumb
rubber binders as well as the ASTM D7741/D7741M. Tests performed using ASTM D7741/D7741M were
required to be performed with a Rion model VT-04 viscometer (in a similar way to the Arizona specification).
Unlike the PSTS112 specification, the AfPA pilot specification did not allow viscosity at 175 °C tests to be
performed using ASTM D2196.
The testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the AfPA pilot specification (Table 3.8) were less
stringent in terms of the oven heating times a binder blend needed to be tested during the binder design
process than the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification as testing was not required after oven heating
times of 1.5 and 11 hours. Changes were also made to the frequency of tests conducted after a batch of
crumb rubber binder was produced, as the pilot specification only required viscosity at 175 °C, resilience at
25 °C and softening point tests to be performed on every batch of manufactured binder. Other tests included
in the specification only needed to be performed on the first batch of manufactured binder which was
produced for a particular asphalt project. The AfPA pilot specification also included the requirement to test
the viscosity at 175 °C of a crumb rubber binder immediately prior to its incorporation into asphalt in a similar
way to the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification.
2019 version of the Queensland PSTS112 specification
The PSTS112 specification was updated in February 2019 to reflect the results of NACOE research and field
trials into the use of crumb rubber binders in OGA and GGA (Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads 2019a). This version of the specification only included test properties for the CR2 crumb rubber binder
grade. Table 3.9 lists the specified properties for crumb rubber binders included in the 2019 version of the
PSTS112 specification. The 2019 version of the PSTS112 specification, like the 2017 version, indicated that
crumb rubber binders shall contain a minimum of 17% w/w crumb rubber in the binder.

Table 3.9: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2019 version of the PSTS112 specification

Viscosity at 175 °C or AGPT/T111(2)
or 1.5–4.0
Viscosity at nominated temperature when warm ASTM D7741/D7741M(3)
mix additive included in the binder (Pa s)(1)
Consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa s) AGPT/T121 Report
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s AS 2341.12 15 min.
1 If testing is to be performed on a blend of crumb rubber binder and warm mix additive, the nominated test
temperature shall be the temperature at which the blend containing the warm mix additive has the same viscosity as
the neat crumb rubber binder when its viscosity is measured at 175 °C.
2 Binder design tests shall be performed using AGPT/T111.
3 ASTM D7741/D7741M shall be performed using a Rion model VT-04 viscometer.
Source: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2019a).
If the 2017 and 2019 versions of the PSTS112 specification requirements are compared, the main change
was that the test methods used to conduct viscosity at 175 °C tests were aligned with those listed in the
AfPA specification. Australian consistency 6% at 60 °C tests were also included as part of the binder design
process to increase the number of ATS 3110 tests which were included in the specification. The
requirements for viscosity at 175 °C tests were also widened to allow crumb rubber binders to be tested for
viscosity if a warm mix additive had been added after batch manufacture.
The 2019 version of the PSTS112 specification indicates all tests, except viscosity tests, should be
performed on crumb rubber binder samples which do not contain a warm mix additive. The specification
indicates crumb rubber binder samples obtained after manufacture can be tested for viscosity with or without
a warm mix additive. If a warm mix additive has not been added to the binder after manufacture, then
viscosity at 175 °C tests should be performed. If a warm mix additive has been added after manufacture,
then viscosity tests should be performed at a ‘nominated temperature’ which is determined as part of the
binder design process. Samples of crumb rubber binder obtained at the asphalt plant (i.e. those taken prior
to mixing with asphalt) should be taken after a warm mix additive has been added to the binder. Viscosity
tests should be performed on these samples at the ‘nominated temperature’.
The ‘nominated temperature’ used to conduct viscosity tests on binder samples which contain a warm mix
additive is determined during the binder design process by initially preparing a laboratory-prepared crumb
rubber binder blend which is then split into two parts. The warm mix additive expected to be used during the
production of asphalt is then added to one of the samples at the level expected to be used during work. The
viscosity at 175 °C of the sample which does not contain a warm mix additive is then measured to confirm it
lies in the range between 1.5 and 4.0 Pa s. The viscosity of the sample containing the warm mix additive is
then measured at various temperatures to determine the temperature at which the blend containing the warm
mix additive has the same viscosity as the initial blend which did not contain a warm mix additive. The
temperature at which the viscosities of the two binder samples match is the nominated temperature which
can be used for later batch testing on samples which contain a warm mix additive.
Table 3.10 summarises the testing requirements included in the 2019 version of the PSTS112 specification.
Crumb rubber binder samples need to comply with the requirements listed in Table 3.9 at each testing stage,
except that viscosity at 175 °C tests conducted during the binder design process are not required to meet the
specified limits included in Table 3.9.

Table 3.10: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2019 version of the PSTS112 specification
Prior to
After
mixing
Contractual stage Binder design (for asphalt mix submission) batch
with
production
asphalt(1)
Oven heating time (h) 1 1.5 2 4 6 11 Max.(2) – –
Viscosity at 175 °C X X X X X X X –
Viscosity at nominated X(3,4)
temperature after warm mix – – – – – – – X(3,5)
additive addition
Torsional recovery at 25 °C X – X – X X – –
Resilience at 25 °C X – – X – X X X(4) –
Softening point X – – X – X X X(4) –
Consistency 6% at 60 °C X – – X – X X – –
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s X – – X – X X X(4) –
Flash point – – – – – – – X(6) –
Loss on heating – – – – – – – X(6) –
1 Tests should be conducted at the asphalt plant after a warm mix additive has been added to the binder.
2 Maximum storage time expected for the crumb rubber binder prior to use.
3 Viscosity tests should be performed at 175 °C on the crumb rubber binder if a warm mix additive has not been added
to the binder after manufacture. If a warm mix additive has been added to the binder, viscosity tests should be
performed at the nominated test temperature as determined during the binder design process.
5 Tests should be performed at the commencement of asphalt production of each asphalt work shift and then every
4 hours until completion of production. Four hour testing may be waived if approved by TMR.
6 Tests should be conducted on the first batch of crumb rubber binder used in the works.
Source: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2019a).
The main changes to the testing requirements that were included in the 2019 version of the PSTS112
specification were that consistency 6% at 60 °C tests were added, and flash point and loss on heating tests
were removed from the tests required during the binder design process. The definition of the longest oven
heating time in the binder design process was also changed to be the maximum storage time expected for
the crumb rubber binder prior to use. This is denoted by the word ‘Max.’ in Table 3.10. Changes were also
made to the viscosity tests performed on samples obtained after crumb rubber binder manufacture and prior
to the incorporation of the binder into asphalt. Torsional recovery at 25 °C tests were also no longer required
to be performed on crumb rubber binder samples after manufacture and the frequency of flash point and loss
on heating tests was changed to be the first batch of crumb rubber binder used in the works. The 2019
version of the PSTS112 specification also included more details about when viscosity tests should be
performed at the asphalt plant prior to the crumb rubber binder being incorporated into asphalt.
3.2 Review of Western Australian Road Research and Innovation

Program (WARRIP) Projects on Crumb Rubber Binders
Crumb rubber binders have been used in sprayed sealing applications in Western Australia (WA) for over
30 years, but prior to 2019 crumb rubber binders had not been used in WA as a component in asphalt. A
number of research projects were conducted as part of the Western Australian Road Research and
Innovation Program (WARRIP) to develop specification requirements and practices for the use of crumb
rubber binders in OGA and GGA (Grobler 2020, van Aswegen 2019, van Aswegen & Latter 2019). This
research initially included a review of the methods for incorporating crumb rubber into roads, a summary of
the benefits/impediments of using crumb rubber in road construction, and a review of Australian and
overseas specifications for crumb rubber binders and the crumb rubber used in road construction.

Initial WARRIP work focussed on incorporating crumb rubber binders into OGA and developing a local
specification for crumb rubber binders to be used in asphalt (van Aswegen & Latter 2019). Studies were then
conducted into incorporating crumb rubber binders into GGA (Grobler 2020, van Aswegen & Latter 2019).
Studies into each type of asphalt mix involved initial testing of laboratory-prepared blends containing crumb
rubber, development of local asphalt specification requirements for OGA and GGA containing crumb rubber
binders, and demonstration trials of asphalt production and placement. The MRWA OGA and GGA
demonstration trials intentionally included the use of warm mix additives to reduce asphalt manufacturing
and discharge temperatures so that the level of emissions/odours would be reduced compared to when
higher asphalt temperatures were used.
Initial laboratory studies
Initial WARRIP laboratory studies involved preparing four laboratory blends at the ARRB laboratory containing
C170 bitumen, between 14.4% w/w and 15.8% w/w crumb rubber and various amounts (0% w/w to 4.8% w/w)
of a polymer combining oil. Each of the crumb rubber binders were subjected to low shear mixing for 1 hour at
180 °C and then tested against the requirements of the 2017 version of the PSTS112 specification (Table 3.5).
Viscosity at 175 °C tests were conducted by ARRB using AGPT/T111 rather than ASTM D2196 or ASTM
D7741/D7741M as equipment to conduct the US tests was not available. Each of the four binders met the
specified limits for a CR2 grade binder in the PSTS112 specification after 1 hour of blending.
Three additional blends were then prepared by the ARRB laboratory and test results were monitored after 1,
1.5, 2, 4, 6 and 11 hours of blending at 180 °C according to the schedule for binder design testing included in
the PSTS112 specification (Table 3.6). Crumb rubber binders studied included blends which contained
C170 bitumen and either 15.2% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber, as well as a blend which contained
C170 bitumen, 15.8% w/w crumb rubber and 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil. All blends were found to meet
the specified limits listed in the PSTS112 specification for CR1 and CR2 grade binders at all blending times,
except each blend showed some viscosity at 175 °C results which were lower than the PSTS112 minimum
limit of 1.5 Pa s at some of the blending times between 1.5 and 4 hours. The lower viscosities were all in the
range between 1.06 and 1.47 Pa s.
A crumb rubber binder containing C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber was selected for future use in
OGA and GGA trials as this type of binder had a crumb rubber content which met the minimum requirement
of 18% w/w crumb rubber which is included in the AfPA pilot specification.
ARRB also conducted work to determine appropriate asphalt mix designs for use in trials associated with
incorporating crumb rubber into OGA. A standard MRWA 10 mm OGA mix (with 4.5% w/w binder content) was
originally developed using an A20E grade PMB and granite aggregates to meet the grading and Marshall mix
testing requirements (i.e. stability, flow and air voids) included in MRWA Specification 504 Asphalt Wearing
Course (Main Roads Western Australia 2017). A20E grade binders are used in OGA by MRWA.
After this asphalt mix was developed, the A20E binder was replaced with a binder containing 18% w/w crumb
rubber. It was found that an asphalt mix containing 5.0% w/w crumb rubber binder met the grading and
Marshall mix testing requirements of Specification 504. Work was also performed to develop a 10 mm OGA mix
with a slightly coarser grading containing a 5.0% w/w crumb rubber binder content. This coarser mix was found
to meet the Marshall mix testing requirements of Specification 504. Based on these results it was proposed that
a WA demonstration trial of crumb rubber use in OGA would include the following sections:
• 10 mm OGA mix, conforming to Specification 504 grading requirements with 4.5% w/w A20E binder
(control)
• 10 mm OGA mix, conforming to Specification 504 grading requirements with 5.0% w/w crumb rubber
binder (18% w/w crumb rubber binder)
• 10 mm OGA mix with slightly coarser grading than Specification 504 requirements with 5.0% w/w crumb
rubber binder (18% w/w crumb rubber binder).

Draft 2018 version of MRWA Specification 516
After the preliminary laboratory work was completed, a draft version of MRWA Specification 516 Crumb
Rubber Open Graded Asphalt was developed in 2018 for use in OGA demonstration trials (van Aswegen &
Latter 2019). The draft specification included requirements for crumb rubber binders to be used in OGA as
well as requirements for asphalt mix design. The asphalt mix design requirements included grading
requirements which were the same as those for a conventional 10 mm OGA mix specified in MRWA
Specification 504 as well as requirements for a slightly coarser 10 mm mix which had been developed during
studies by ARRB. The Marshall mix specification requirements for stability and flow were the same as
Specification 504, but the air voids requirements were slightly different.
Table 3.11 shows the specified requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the draft version of
Specification 516. The specification also required that crumb rubber binders contain a minimum of 18% w/w
crumb rubber. The bitumen used to produce the crumb rubber binder was also required to be C170 bitumen
which met the requirements of MRWA Specification 511 (Main Roads Western Australia 2020a).
Specification 516 also indicates that the crumb rubber binder needs to meet specified properties prior to the
addition of a warm mix additive.
Table 3.11: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the draft 2018 version of MRWA
Specification 516

Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) AGPT/T111 or 1.5–4.0
ASTM D7741/D7741M(1)

Penetration at 25 °C (0.1 mm) AS 2341.12 Report
1 ASTM D7741/D7741M shall be performed using a Rion model VT-04 or VT-06 viscometer using the No. 1 rotor.
Source: van Aswegen and Latter (2019).
The requirements for crumb rubber binders in the draft version of Specification 516 were the same as those
listed in the AfPA specification (Table 3.7) except for some of the details relating to viscosity at 175 °C tests.
The requirements listed in the MRWA specification were also similar to those listed in the 2017 version of the
PSTS112 specification for a CR2 grade crumb rubber binder (Table 3.5). Specification 516 differed from the
PSTS112 specification in terms of the requirement to conduct penetration at 25 °C tests. Specification 516
also required viscosity at 175 °C tests to be conducted using AGPT/T111 rather than ASTM D2196.
Table 3.12 summarises the testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the draft version of
Specification 516. The testing requirements in the MRWA specification were overall very similar to those
listed in the AfPA pilot specification (Table 3.8) in terms of the tests and blending times used during the
binder design process and the tests conducted after a crumb rubber batch was produced. The main
differences from the AfPA specification related to the frequencies of testing after a batch of crumb rubber
binder was produced. Specification 516 required torsional recovery at 25 °C and penetration at 4 °C/25 °C
tests to conducted on each batch of crumb rubber manufactured, rather than on the first batch produced at
the start of each project. The MRWA specification also included a slightly different frequency for flash point
and loss on heating tests than the AfPA specification.

Table 3.12: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the draft 2018 version of MRWA
Specification 516
Binder design (for asphalt mix design After batch Prior to mixing
Contractual stage
submission) production with asphalt
Oven heating time (h) 1 2 4 6 TBN(1) – –
Viscosity at 175 °C X X X X X X(2) X(5)
Torsional recovery at 25 °C X – X – X X(2) –
Resilience at 25 °C X – X – X X(2) –
Softening point X – X – X X(2) –
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s X – X – X X(2) –
Penetration at 25 °C X – X – X X(2) –
Flash point – – – – – X(3) –
Loss on heating – – – – – X(4) –
1 TBN = ‘to be nominated’. The asphalt manufacturer is to nominate the maximum period of time it intends to store the
crumb rubber modified binder beyond 10 hours. The properties of the binder shall comply after this period of time.
3 Test is required once per month.
4 Test is required once per 12 months.
5 Viscosity tests should be performed at 175 °C on the crumb rubber binder if a warm mix additive has not been added
to the binder after manufacture. If a warm mix additive has been added to the binder, viscosity tests should be
performed at the nominated test temperature as determined during the binder design process.
Source: van Aswegen and Latter (2019).

The draft 2018 version of Specification 516 included crumb rubber binder viscosity testing requirements prior to
mixing with asphalt which were very similar to those listed in the 2019 version of the PSTS112 specification in
terms of the addition of a warm mix additive to the crumb rubber binder. Both Specification 516 and the 2019
version of the PSTS112 specification indicated that viscosity tests were required to be performed at 175 °C
prior to mixing with asphalt if a warm mix additive was not added to the binder prior to it being incorporated into
asphalt. If a warm mix additive was added to the binder at this stage, then both specifications indicated that
viscosity tests should be performed at the nominated temperature which was determined during the binder
design process. The methods for determining the nominated temperature included in Specification 516 and the
2019 version of the PSTS112 appear to be effectively the same.
Open graded asphalt (OGA) trials
After the draft version of MRWA Specification 516 was developed, Fulton Hogan conducted research work to
develop a crumb rubber binder which could be used in OGA and GGA trials. They also conducted work to
develop asphalt mix designs for a 10 mm OGA mix meeting conventional MRWA Specification 504 grading
requirements and a slightly coarser 10 mm OGA mix based on the requirements included in the draft
specification. Fulton Hogan sourced aggregates from their conventional quarries for the mix design work
(i.e. they did not use the same aggregates as ARRB used in the initial laboratory studies).
Fulton Hogan research into the development of a crumb rubber binder to be used in asphalt initially involved
preparing four blends containing C170 bitumen and either 18% w/w or 20% w/w crumb rubber. One set of
18% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber blends was subjected to high shear mixing, while the other set of
18% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber blends was subject to low shear mixing. Each of the four blends were
tested against the requirements of draft MRWA Specification 516 after blending times of 1, 2 and 3 hours.
The results obtained by Fulton Hogan indicated that the method of blending had no significant effect on
binder test results at each blending time. The results obtained for blends containing 18% w/w crumb rubber
mostly complied with the requirements of Specification 516 but some of the results obtained in viscosity at
175 °C and resilience at 25 °C tests after 3 hours of blending did not meet requirements. Blends containing
20% w/w crumb rubber met Specification 516 requirements except that the viscosity at 175 °C results
obtained at each blending time were all higher than the requirement of 4.0 Pa s maximum.

Fulton Hogan also conducted some comparison work to compare the viscosity results obtained using a
Brookfield viscometer and the conventional Australian rotational viscosity method (AGPT/T111) with those
obtained using a Rion model VT-06 handheld viscometer and ASTM D7741/D7741M. A single sample of a
crumb rubber binder was subjected to viscosity tests using both methods at temperatures in the range
between 125 °C and 190 °C. Some differences were observed in the viscosity results obtained using the two
methods, but these were not particularly marked at temperatures of ≥ 165 °C.
After the binder and asphalt mix design work was completed by Fulton Hogan, a feasibility trial into the use of
an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder in OGA was conducted on 1 March 2019 at Fulton Hogan’s premises in
Hazelmere WA. The aim of the feasibility trial was to investigate the workability of the OGA in terms of its ability
to be compacted with conventional rolling equipment. A section of asphalt containing 5.0% w/w crumb rubber
binder and a conventional MRWA OGA grading was constructed in the yard of Fulton Hogan’s premises. A
warm mix additive was added to the crumb rubber binder prior to its use in asphalt. Samples of asphalt mix
obtained during the trial were subjected to aggregate grading, binder content and Marshall mix tests
(i.e. stability, flow and air voids). The results obtained in these tests met Specification 516 requirements. Cores
were also extracted from the section of constructed asphalt and subjected to field density tests. The field
density ratio results obtained in these tests indicated that the OGA could be suitably compacted.
A full-scale trial was then conducted between 17 and 25 March 2019 by Fulton Hogan on a section of the
Kwinana Freeway in Mandogalup WA. The trial site included a control section of 10 mm OGA with a
conventional MRWA OGA grading which contained 4.5% w/w A20E binder. The other four sections of the
trial site included two sections containing either 5.0% w/w or 5.5% w/w crumb rubber binder which had a
conventional MRWA 10 mm OGA grading, and two sections containing either 5.0% w/w or 5.5% w/w crumb
rubber which had a slightly coarser grading than conventional 10 mm OGA. The crumb rubber binder used in
the trial sections was a blend of C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber. A warm mix additive was added
to the crumb rubber binder prior to its use in asphalt.
During the full-scale trial the temperature of the asphalt when it left the production plant, and the temperature
when the asphalt was compacted, were monitored. Emissions testing was also conducted during
construction of one of the trial sections which contained crumb rubber. Samples of asphalt mix were also
obtained during the trial and subjected to aggregate grading, binder content and Marshall mix testing so that
the results could be compared to the requirements of Specification 516. Field cores were also removed from
each of the trial sections to investigate whether each of the sections had been suitably compacted.
The results obtained from testing of the samples of asphalt mix indicated each of the sections containing a
crumb rubber binder contained a similar binder content even though different binder contents were targeted
during construction. The sections of the trial site which used a conventional MRWA 10 mm grading and
targeted binder contents of 5.0% w/w and 5.5% w/w showed binder contents of 5.3% w/w and 5.2% w/w,
respectively, when tested. Similarly, the sections of the trial site which used a slightly coarser grading and
targeted binder contents of 5.0 w/w and 5.5% w/w showed binder contents of 5.5% w/w and 5.6% w/w,
respectively, when tested. Samples of asphalt mix from each of the sections which contained a crumb rubber
binder were found to meet Specification 516 requirements for Marshall mix properties (i.e. stability, flow and
air voids). The field density ratio results obtained from cores collected from the trial sections also met
Specification 516 requirements indicating that the sections containing crumb rubber binder could be suitably
compacted.
During the full-scale trial, personal chemical exposure samples were collected from three construction
workers (i.e. the truck controller, paver operator and leading hand). These samples were obtained during
construction of the section which contained a coarser OGA grading and a target crumb rubber binder content
of 5.0% w/w. During this time, the asphalt production temperature was between 162–165 °C and the paving
temperature was between 143–145 °C. The results of chemical emission tests indicated that the levels of
emissions during construction of this section were all below relevant Western Australian and national
(i.e. Australian) requirements.

2020 version of MRWA Specification 516
Based on the results of the OGA trials, and later experience with the use of crumb rubber in OGA, an
updated version of Specification 516 was published by MRWA in November 2020 (Main Roads Western
Australia 2020b). Table 3.13 lists the specified properties of crumb rubber binders included in the 2020
version of the specification. The 2020 version of Specification 516, like the draft 2008 version, required that
crumb rubber binders contain a minimum of 18% w/w crumb rubber. It also indicated that the crumb rubber
binder needed to be manufactured with C170 bitumen which met the requirements of MRWA
Specification 511.
Table 3.13: Specified requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2020 version of MRWA Specification 516

Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) AGPT/T111 Report
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) ASTM D7741/D7741M(1) 1.5–4.0
Viscosity at nominated temperature after warm AGPT/T111 Report
mix additive addition (Pa s)
Viscosity at nominated temperature after warm ASTM D7741/D7741M(1) 1.5–4.0
mix additive addition (Pa s)
Consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa s) AGPT/T121 Report

Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) AGPT/T132 0.2 min.
1 ASTM D7741/D7741M shall be performed using a Rion model VT-04 or VT-06 viscometer using the No. 1 rotor.
Source: Main Roads Western Australia (2020b).
If the 2018 and 2020 versions of Specification 516 are compared the most significant changes related to
viscosity tests. The 2018 version indicated that viscosity at 175 °C tests could be performed during the
binder design process and after a batch of crumb rubber binder was produced using either AGPT/T111 or
ASTM D7741/D7741M with a specification limit of 1.5–4.0 Pa s. The 2020 version, by contrast, indicated that
viscosity tests were required to be conducted using both AGPT/T111 and ASTM D7741/D7741M during
binder design and after batch production testing; and using ASTM D7741/D7741M when the binder was
tested for viscosity prior to incorporation into asphalt. The specification requirements for tests conducted
using AGPT/T111 were also changed from 1.5–4.0 Pa s to ‘report’.
Viscosity tests were also conducted at different temperatures during the binder design stage and after a batch
of crumb rubber binder was produced in the 2020 version of the specification. The 2020 version indicated that
viscosity at 175 °C tests were required during the binder design stage (in agreement with the 2018 version).
The 2020 version, however, indicated that viscosity tests needed to be performed at the nominated
temperature after batch production and prior to the binder being incorporated into asphalt. The means of
determining the nominated temperature were the same in the 2018 and 2020 versions. This change appears to
indicate that crumb rubber binders produced by suppliers in WA all contain a warm mix additive.
Other changes in Specification 516 were that penetration at 25 °C tests were removed and consistency 6%
at 60 °C tests were required during the binder design process. Flash point tests were also removed and
compressive limit at 70 °C tests were added for samples which were tested after a batch of crumb rubber
binder was produced.

Table 3.14 summarises the testing requirements for crumb rubber binders in the 2020 version of
Specification 516. In addition to the testing requirement changes associated with viscosity testing described
above, the main changes to testing requirements in the 2020 version related to the oven heating
times/frequency of testing during the binder design process. The 2020 version required binders to be tested
during the binder design process after oven heating times of 1, 4 and 11 hours (rather than oven heating
times of 1, 2, 4 and 6 hours). An increased number of tests were also required after each oven heating time
in the 2020 version. The frequency of tests to be conducted after a batch of crumb rubber binder was
produced was also changed when Specification 516 was updated in 2020.
Table 3.14: Testing requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the 2020 version of MRWA
Specification 516
Prior to
Binder design (for asphalt mix design After batch
Contractual stage mixing with
submission) production
asphalt
Oven heating time (h) 1 4 11 TBN(1) – –
Viscosity at 175 °C (AGPT/T111) X X X X – –
Viscosity at 175 °C X X X X – –
(ASTM D7741/D7741M)
Viscosity at nominated temperature after – – – – X(2) –
warm mix additive addition (AGPT/T111)
Viscosity at nominated temperature after – – – – X(2) X
warm mix additive addition
(ASTM D7741/D7741M)
Torsional recovery at 25 °C X X X X X(2) –
Resilience at 25 °C X X X X X(2) –
Softening point X X X X X(2) –
Consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa s) X X X X – –
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s X X X X X(3) –
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) – – – – X(3) –
Loss on heating – – – – X(3) –
1 TBN = ‘to be nominated’. The asphalt manufacturer is to nominate the maximum period of time it intends to store the
crumb rubber modified binder beyond 11 hours. The properties of the binder shall comply after this period of time.
3 Test is required once per 3 months.
Source: Main Roads Western Australia (2020b).
The asphalt mix design components of Specification 516 became more aligned with conventional 10 mm
OGA mix requirements included in MRWA Specification 504 in the 2020 version. The aggregate grading
requirements in the 2020 version were changed to be the same as those listed in Specification 504. The
Marshall mix testing specification limits for stability, flow and air voids were also set to the same values as
included in Specification 504 after 50 blows of Marshall compaction. The binder content for OGA mixes
containing crumb rubber binders was set to 5.0 ± 0.3% w/w in the 2020 version of Specification 516.

3.2.1 WARRIP Studies into the Use of Crumb Rubber Binders in Gap Graded
Asphalt (GGA)
MRWA developed draft Specification 517 Crumb Rubber Gap Graded Asphalt (Main Roads Western
Australia 2018a), which covered the requirements for the use of crumb rubber binders in GGA, at the same
time that the draft version of Specification 516 was developed. The requirements for the crumb rubber binder
in Specification 517 were the same as those in the draft 2018 version of Specification 516 which are
summarised in Table 3.11 and Table 3.12. The asphalt specification components included in draft
Specification 517 were similar to those listed for GGA in the AfPA pilot specification relating to the use of
crumb rubber binders in asphalt (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2018), however, more detailed
requirements for source materials were included in the MRWA specification and testing protocols were
aligned with standard practices in Western Australia.
Fulton Hogan was also involved in the development and trialling of GGA mixes containing an 18% w/w
crumb rubber binder in Western Australia. As the trials using GGA also utilised a binder containing
C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber work no further work was performed in terms of developing a
crumb rubber binder to be used in the trials. Fulton Hogan developed a 14 mm GGA mix design which
contained an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder based on the requirements of draft Specification 517. This
asphalt mix was initially used in a feasibility trial at Fulton Hogan’s premises. It was then later used in a
full-scale trial on Marmion Avenue, Karrinyup WA.
The feasibility trial into the use of an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder in GGA was conducted on the same day as
the OGA feasibility trial (i.e. 1 March 2019) at Fulton Hogan’s premises in Hazelmere WA. A section of 14 mm
GGA containing 8.0% w/w crumb rubber binder was constructed. A warm mix additive was added to the crumb
rubber binder prior to its use in asphalt. Different lanes of the asphalt were each subjected to different rolling
sequences to determine whether a specific type of rolling treatment would be better at compacting the asphalt.
Each lane of the trial asphalt section was then subjected to nuclear density tests and cores were extracted for
testing. The air voids results obtained in these two tests all met the requirements of draft Specification 517,
indicating that all rolling treatments were able to sufficiently compact the asphalt. It was noted that the mix was
more workable than expected during construction of the trial section.
A full-scale GGA trial was then conducted by Fulton Hogan on 15 December 2019 on Marmion Avenue,
Karrinyup WA. The trial site consisted of a single section of 14 mm GGA containing 8.0% w/w crumb rubber
binder. A warm mix additive was added to the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder prior to its use in asphalt. The
results of quality control tests (i.e. binder content, grading, and volumetrics after gyratory compaction) on
asphalt samples obtained during the trial met the requirements of draft Specification 517. After the trial section
was constructed, the GGA mix visually appeared to be homogeneous and no major concerns were noted
during construction. The finished surface after compaction also appeared to be uniform and well textured.
After the trial site was constructed, a range of different asphalt performance tests were performed by the
ARRB laboratory using specimens prepared from materials supplied by the construction contractor. Tests
conducted on laboratory-prepared specimens included determining air voids contents after different levels of
gyratory compaction, conducting resilient modulus tests at various temperatures, and determining the fatigue
performance of the asphalt mix. Tests were also performed to develop flexural modulus master curves for
the Western Australian 14 mm GGA mix which contained an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder.

3.3 Department of Transport Victoria (DoT Vic) Trials of Crumb Rubber

Asphalt
The Victorian Government introduced the ‘Recycled First’ policy in early 2020, which aims to optimise the
use of recycled and reused Victorian materials across all rail and road construction (Major Road Projects
Victoria 2021). As part of these efforts, DoT Vic initiated a demonstration trial to compare the performance of
asphalt containing various types of crumb rubber on an arterial road in the south-east metropolitan region of
Melbourne (Roads and Infrastructure Australia 2020a). The trial was organised so that the performance of
asphalts containing crumb rubber could be compared with more traditional types of asphalt used by DoT Vic
when they were subjected to real traffic and climatic conditions. Samples of the binders used in the trial, as
well as cores from the trial site and samples of the asphalt mixes, were tested in the laboratory after the trial
site was constructed.
The trial site was constructed in March 2020, on a 1.4 km section of East Boundary Road, Bentleigh,
Victoria. The site is a moderately trafficked arterial road (annual average daily traffic volume
(AADT) = 9000 vehicles/day with 6% commercial vehicles). The road consisted of two through lanes and one
parking/bicycle lane in each direction which were separated by a median. The trial site included all three
southbound lanes and was straight and flat throughout.
The trial site consisted of six 40 mm thick wearing course sections and included two control stone mastic
asphalt (SMA) sections (which contained SBS-based PMBs) and four asphalt sections containing crumb
rubber. The control sections included a section containing a DoT Vic normal duty Size 10 mm SMA mix
(SMA10N) and a section containing a DoT Vic heavy duty Size 10 mm SMA mix (SMA10H). SMAN mixes
are used by DoT Vic in light or medium duty wearing courses for moderately trafficked pavements and are
specified to contain either an A25E, A20E, A15E or A10E grade PMB. The SMA10N mix used in the trial
contained an A20E grade PMB. SMAH mixes are used by DoT Vic in heavy duty wearing courses for most
heavily trafficked pavements and are specified to contain an A10E grade PMB (VicRoads 2017, 2018).
The asphalt mixes which contained crumb rubber, as well as the crumb rubber binders used in the trial, were
developed by individual contractors. They included the use of DGA, SMA and GGA mix types. Three of the
trial sections contained crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process and one of the trial sections
contained crumb rubber which was added to the asphalt using the dry process. A description of each of the
trial sections is included in Table 3.15.
Table 3.15: Summary of DoT Vic crumb rubber trial sections
Section Crumb rubber incorporation

Section description
number method
1 10 mm SMA mix (SMAN) – control (A20E binder) –
2 10 mm SMA mix (SMAH) – control (A10E binder) –
3 14 mm GGA mix containing a crumb rubber binder Wet process
4 14 mm GGA mix containing a hybrid SBS/crumb rubber binder Wet process
5 10 mm DGA mix containing a crumb rubber binder Wet process
6 10 mm SMA mix containing crumb rubber Dry process
During the construction of the trial sections, personal chemical exposure samples were obtained from the
paver driver, spotter and level hand of the asphalt crew during placement of each asphalt section
(Department of Transport 2020). Qualitative feedback was also obtained from the asphalt crew about any
issues or irritation observed during asphalt placement. The control mixes were produced using mixing
temperatures of between 160–175 °C and were laid at temperatures of between 130–174 °C. Sections of the
trial site containing crumb rubber were mixed at temperatures of between 154–175 °C and laid at
temperatures of between 130–166 °C.

The results obtained from the chemical exposure samples indicated that personal exposure levels to
airborne contaminants were well below relevant Safe Work Australia requirements. Asphalt sections which
contained crumb rubber had lower or comparable levels of emissions as the control sections which did not
contain crumb rubber.
Three members of the asphalt crew were monitored over the six nights the trial sections were constructed.
Feedback from asphalt crew members included two responses relating to symptoms/irritations associated
with placement of the mixes which contained crumb rubber, and two responses relating to placement of the
control mixes. Symptoms/irritations were in the form of light headedness, sore throat and dry/stinging eyes.
After construction of the trial site, all sections appeared to be performing similarly (Arthur Apostolopoulos,
personal communication, February 2021). The performance of the trial sections will be periodically monitored
using the ARRB Network Survey Vehicle (NSV) and visual inspections will be conducted to investigate the
changes in rutting, cracking and roughness during service.
Samples collected during the trial included binder samples, asphalt plant mix samples, core samples from
each of the trial sections and samples of each of the components used to produce asphalt mixes. Binder
samples from the trial sections were subjected to a range of ATS 3110 tests to determine whether they met
specified test properties (in the case of the control sections) or to gain information about the test properties of
the binder used in the trial.
Asphalt plant samples obtained from each of the trial sections were subjected to volumetric tests (i.e. bulk
density, maximum density and air voids) to verify elements of the submitted mix designs. Core samples from
each of the trial sections were subjected to resilient modulus at 25 °C tests and interlayer shear bond
strength at 20 °C tests to investigate differences between the trial sections. Interlayer shear bond strength
tests were conducted to assess the bonding strength between the 40 mm thick trial asphalt layers and the
underlying pavement.
Asphalt specimens representative of the two control sections were also prepared in the laboratory using the
individual components used in the asphalt mixes and subjected to a range of asphalt performance tests.
Testing on the control mixes included volumetric tests (i.e. bulk density, maximum density and air voids) as well
as resilient modulus at 25 °C, Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C, moisture sensitivity and fatigue at 20 °C tests.
The results obtained in the binder and asphalt tests associated with the DoT Vic trial have not yet been
published.
3.4 Local Government Trials in South Australia

During December 2018, a trial site was constructed by the City of Mitcham on a residential street (Stanlake
Avenue, St Marys, SA) to compare the performance of DGA containing C320 bitumen and a crumb rubber
binder (King, Brown & Mc Arthur 2019). This part of Adelaide has highly reactive clay soils that have low
bearing strength capacity, which can lead to failure and excessive deformation in roads. The trial investigated
the feasibility of increasing asphalt wearing course life on local roads through the use of crumb rubber.
The crumb rubber binder used in the trial contained 15% w/w crumb rubber and was produced by the
terminal blend process (where the bitumen-crumb rubber blend is subjected to high temperature/shear so
that the crumb rubber dissolves in the bitumen). A series of asphalt performance tests were conducted on
14 mm DGA mixes containing either C320 bitumen or the crumb rubber binder during the asphalt mix design
stage. The results indicated that mixes which contained the crumb rubber binder had better deformation
(rutting) resistance and fatigue cracking resistance, and were less sensitive to moisture, than mixes
containing unmodified C320 bitumen.

The trial site consisted of four sections. Each section was constructed using a lower layer of 14 mm DGA
and an upper layer of 10 mm DGA. One section contained C320 bitumen in both layers, while another
contained the crumb rubber binder in both layers. The other two sections had one layer which contained the
crumb rubber binder while the other layer contained C320 bitumen. One of these sections contained the
crumb rubber binder in the upper layer while the other contained the crumb rubber binder in the lower layer.
It has been proposed that the trial site will be monitored quarterly in the first year and at six month intervals
beyond that. Monitoring is expected to include observations of changes in kerb and road levels (caused by
expansion of the clay base over time) as well as levels of rutting, roughness, cracking and binder oxidation in
the asphalt over time.
King, Brown and Mc Arthur (2019) compared the cost of the asphalt mixes used in the trial and found that the
mixes which contained crumb rubber were 4% to 8% more expensive per tonne of asphalt than those which
contained C320 bitumen. A comparable DGA mix containing an A15E grade PMB was 15% more expensive
per tonne of asphalt than a mix containing C320 bitumen.
After the trial by the City of Mitcham, crumb rubber trial sites were also established in five other local
government areas in the Adelaide region in the period up to July 2020 (Roads and Infrastructure
Australia 2020b). Information about these trial sites has not yet been published.
3.5 Discussion/Summary
Most of the research conducted in Australia since 2014 into the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt has
been performed as part of NACOE and WARRIP projects which have been conducted by TMR and MRWA
in collaboration with ARRB. The research conducted during these projects has included testing of
laboratory-prepared crumb rubber binders, work to develop appropriate asphalt mix designs, development of
specifications for the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt, and demonstration trials on the use of crumb
rubber binders in OGA and GGA.
The specified properties for crumb rubber binders included in the current TMR, MRWA and AfPA
specifications appear to be predominantly based on Arizona requirements for the CRA Type 2 crumb rubber
grade. Due to this, these specifications include requirements for a number of US tests (e.g. viscosity at
175 °C, resilience at 25 °C and penetration at 4 °C) which are not specified in ATS 3110 when crumb rubber
binders are used in sprayed sealing applications. The extended heating protocols included in the binder
design process associated with the latest versions of the TMR, MRWA and AfPA specifications, on the other
hand, appear to be predominantly based on processes specified in California. The binder design process
included in these specifications is not required when crumb rubber binders are used in sprayed sealing
applications in Australia. This process is also not required for the other types of PMBs included in ATS 3110
when they are incorporated into asphalt.
An analysis of the specified test properties/test property limits included in the two US specifications, as well
as the types and amounts of crumb rubber used by each state, indicated that these two documents specify
quite different crumb rubber materials. As these US states effectively specify different types of crumb rubber
binders it may be difficult to practically combine elements of the specifications from Arizona and California
into a single specification. Although the three Australian crumb rubber binder specifications are based on the
same US sources, there are several differences between the three specifications.
Although the TMR and MRWA crumb rubber binder specifications differ in some respects, demonstration
trials of crumb rubber binder use in OGA and GGA have used quite similar, if not the same, types of crumb
rubber binders. TMR demonstration trials of crumb rubber binder use in OGA, as well as MRWA trials in
OGA and GGA, have used a crumb rubber binder which is a blend of 82% w/w C170 bitumen and 18% w/w
crumb rubber. TMR trials of crumb rubber binders in GGA have also used a similar binder which contained
C170 bitumen and 17–18% w/w crumb rubber. These binder formulations are the same, or very similar to,
the nominal formulation for an S18RF grade crumb rubber binder which is used in Australia for sprayed
sealing applications. An S18RF grade binder typically contains 82% w/w C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb
rubber (Austroads 2017a).

The latest versions of the TMR specification PSTS112 and MRWA specification 516 include requirements
relating to adding a warm mix additive to a crumb rubber binder prior to its incorporation into asphalt. Warm
mix additives were intentionally added during the OGA and GGA trials conducted by TMR and MRWA to
reduce asphalt manufacturing and discharge temperatures so that the level of emissions/odours would be
reduced compared to when higher asphalt temperatures were used. Warm mix additives can also be added
to other grades of PMBs included in ATS 3110 (e.g. A20E, A15E and A10E grade PMBs) prior to their
incorporation into asphalt. ATS 3110, however, requires these types of PMBs to be tested and meet
specified requirements before the addition of a warm mix additive. If the properties of crumb rubber binders
to be used in asphalt were specified in ATS 3110 after a warm mix additive was added to the binder, then
crumb rubber binders would be specified in a different way to the other PMB grades included in ATS 3110
which are used for asphalt applications.
Demonstration trials conducted in Victoria and South Australia into the use of crumb rubber binders in
asphalt have used a different approach to assess the benefits of using crumb rubber binders from TMR and
MRWA. Trials conducted by DoT Vic in March 2020 did not involve the development of crumb rubber binder
specifications prior to trial sections being constructed. DoT Vic instead allowed the crumb rubber binders
used in the trial to be developed by individual contractors. The trial will allow the performance of these
different types of crumb rubber binders to be compared.
Local government trials conducted in South Australia also did not develop detailed specification documents
prior to trialling of a crumb rubber binder in asphalt. The crumb rubber binder in the South Australian trial
contained 15% w/w crumb rubber and was produced by the terminal blend process (where the bitumen-crumb
rubber blend is subjected to high temperature/shear so that the crumb rubber dissolves in the bitumen).
Emissions monitoring was conducted during the TMR OGA/GGA trials, MRWA OGA trials and the DoT Vic
trials into the use of crumb rubber binders in asphalt. The emissions monitoring results obtained in the TMR
OGA and DoT Vic trials indicated that the emissions from asphalt containing crumb rubber were overall
similar to the asphalt sections which did not contain crumb rubber. The results obtained in the TMR OGA trial
found that sections of the asphalt which contained a crumb rubber binder showed slightly higher levels of
benzene, but benzene emissions could be reduced by constructing the pavement using a lower temperature.
An increased level of benzene emissions was not observed during the TMR GGA trial. The emissions results
obtained in the TMR GGA, MRWA OGA and DoT Vic trials for sections of asphalt which contained crumb
rubber were all lower than relevant state and national emissions requirements.

4. Australian and International Specifications for

Crumb Rubber Used in Road Construction
This section reviews the Australian and relevant international specifications for crumb rubber when it is used
in road construction. It includes summaries of the various Australian national and jurisdictional specification
requirements for crumb rubber when it is used as a component in sprayed seals and asphalt and is
incorporated into roads using either the wet process or the dry process. It also includes the specifications
used in the USA, South Africa and Spain when crumb rubber is used for road construction. US specifications
investigated included the national US crumb rubber specification (i.e. ASTM D6114/D6114M) as well as state
specifications used in California, Arizona, Texas and Florida.
4.1 Australian Specification Requirements for Crumb Rubber

A number of national and jurisdictional documents were reviewed to collate information on the specification
requirements for crumb rubber used in Australia. Table 4.1 provides a list of the national and jurisdictional
documents that were reviewed in this study. Department of State Growth Tasmania (DSTG) documents were
not reviewed as Tasmania has adopted DoT Vic specifications. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and
Logistics (DIPL) documents were also not reviewed as it was known that crumb rubber is not currently used
in road construction in the Northern Territory.
Table 4.1: Australian documents reviewed
Jurisdiction/Organisation Documents reviewed

Austroads • Technical Specification ATS 3110 Supply of Polymer Modified Binders
Australian Flexible Pavement • Crumb Rubber Modified Open Graded and Gap Graded Asphalt (Australian
Association (AfPA) Asphalt Pavement Association 2018)
Department for Infrastructure • Master specification RD-BP-S1 Supply of Bituminous Materials (Department for
and Transport (DIT) South Infrastructure and Transport 2019)
Australia
Department of Transport • Section 408 Sprayed Bituminous Surfacings (VicRoads 2020b)
Victoria (DoT Vic) • Section 421 High Binder Crumb Rubber Asphalt (VicRoads 2020a)
• Section 422 Light Traffic Crumb Rubber Asphalt (VicRoads 2019)
Transport for New South • Scrap Rubber Bitumen Guide (Roads and Traffic Authority 1995)
Wales (TfNSW) • QA specification R118 Crumb Rubber Asphalt (Transport for NSW 2020a)
• QA specification D&C 3252 Polymer Modified Binder for Pavements (Transport
for NSW 2020b)
• QA specification D&C 3256 Crumb Rubber (Transport for NSW 2020c)
Main Roads Western Australia • Specification 503 Bituminous Surfacing (Main Roads Western Australia 2018b)
(MRWA) • Specification 511 Materials for Bituminous Treatments (Main Roads Western
Australia 2020a)
• Specification 516 Crumb Rubber Open Graded Asphalt (Main Roads Western
Australia 2020b)
• Transfer of Appropriate Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen Technology to WA.
Stage 2: Gap Graded Asphalt (van Aswegen 2019)
Queensland Department of • MRTS11 Sprayed Bituminous Treatments (Excluding Emulsion) (Queensland
Transport and Main Roads Department of Transport and Main Roads 2019b)
(TMR) • MRTS18 Polymer Modified Binder (Including Crumb Rubber) (Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2020)
• PSTS112 Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt (Queensland Department of Transport
and Main Roads 2019a)

4.1.1 Comparisons with the Austroads Crumb Rubber Specification (ATS 3110)
Based on a review of the documents included in Table 4.1, and discussions with jurisdictional
representatives, the following comments about differences between national (i.e. Austroads) and Australian
jurisdictional/organisation practices can be made. Comparisons between Austroads (i.e. ATS 3110) and
jurisdiction specifications for crumb rubber used in sprayed sealing applications are summarised in
Table 4.2. Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 summarise comparisons between Austroads and jurisdiction/organisation
specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications. These tables are located at the end of
Section 4.1.
Each of the specifications that were reviewed included a series of specified test requirements as well as
some textural descriptions which relate to the type/source of crumb rubber, the presence of other materials
and crumb rubber appearance. These descriptive requirements are included as ‘additional textural
requirements’ in Table 4.2 to Table 4.4 as they can be used to exclude some materials if they are not
conforming.
Austroads
ATS 3110 includes two grades of crumb rubber (i.e. Size 16 and Size 30). Size 16 has a coarser grading and
was originally used in NSW to modify binders used in sprayed sealing applications. Size 30 has a finer
grading and was traditionally used in NSW for crumb rubber added to asphalt using the dry process.
ATS 3110 indicates that either Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber can be used to produce S45R, S15RF and
S18RF grade binders by the wet process for sprayed sealing applications. Size 30 crumb rubber is normally
used when this material is added to asphalt by the dry process, but ATS 3110 allows either Size 16 or
Size 30 crumb rubber to be used.
ATS 3110 contains an ‘additional textural requirement’ that indicates that the crumb rubber must be
processed from waste tyres generated in Australia by a supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship Australia
or another organisation approved by the Principal. It also has a textural requirement that the crumb rubber
must be free of cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious material.
From a historical point of view, crumb rubber with a grading similar to Size 30 was used in Victoria in the
1990s for sprayed sealing applications and when crumb rubber was added to asphalt by the dry process. A
similar sized crumb rubber was also used during the 1990s in Western Australia for sprayed sealing
applications. Size 16 crumb rubber is no longer produced in Australia (Sai Yin & Robert Busuttil, personal
communication, February 2020). Even though this is the case, the specified properties of Size 16 crumb
rubber are still included in a number of national and jurisdiction specification documents.
ATS 3110 includes a ‘foreign materials other than iron’ test requirement of 0.1% maximum, as well as a
‘metallic iron content’ (referred to as ‘foreign materials – metallic iron) test requirement of 0.1% maximum, for
Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber. ATS 3110 indicates that these tests should be performed using
AGPT/T143. Although there is a test procedure included in AGPT/T143 to determine the metallic iron content
of a crumb rubber sample, there is no procedure in AGPT/T143 for determining the percentage of foreign
materials other than iron. The foreign materials other than iron test was included in the Australian PMB
specification (AGPT/T190) when it was updated in 2014 as a result of a request by TfNSW. This requirement
was not included in earlier versions of the Australian PMB specification and is not included in TfNSW, DIT or
MRWA specification documents.
DoT Vic
DoT Vic specifies that S45R, S15RF and S18RF grade binders used in sprayed sealing applications should
meet the requirements of ATS 3110 which indicates the crumb rubber used in these binders needs to comply
with Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. DoT Vic also allow the use of a blend 91% w/w
C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb rubber (i.e. 10 parts crumb rubber) to be used to construct high stress
seals (HSS) which is specified in terms of a recipe (i.e. amounts of C170 bitumen and crumb rubber).

The DoT Vic ‘Section 421 – high binder crumb rubber asphalt’ and ‘Section 422 – light traffic crumb rubber
asphalt’ specifications indicate that crumb rubber used to produce asphalt by the dry process needs to meet
the requirements of either Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber listed in AGPT/T190 (i.e. the version of the
Australian PMB specification which was current prior to ATS 3110 being published in 2020). The specified
properties of Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber are the same in ATS 3110 and AGPT/T190, except that
ATS 3110 includes ‘additional textural requirements’ relating to the source of the crumb rubber and the
presence of other materials which are not included in AGPT/T190. The Section 421 and Section 422
specifications contain textural requirements for crumb rubber type/source and appearance which differ
slightly from those listed in ATS 3110. DoT Vic also allows crumb rubber with alternative gradings to those
listed in ATS 3110 to be considered if it can be shown that they have no adverse impact on asphalt
performance.
The recently developed DoT Vic ‘Section 422 – light traffic crumb rubber asphalt’ specification indicates that
S45R and S15RF grade binders can be incorporated into asphalt using the wet process. These binders need
to meet the requirements of AGPT/T190 (which are the same as those listed in ATS 3110).
TfNSW
The TfNSW specification for crumb rubber defines Size 16 as Grade A with a nominal crumb rubber particle
size of 1 mm and Size 30 as Grade B with a nominal crumb rubber particle size of 0.5 mm. The TfNSW
specifications for Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber are the same as ATS 3110 except that there is a slightly
different requirement for percentage passing on the 0.30 mm (i.e. 300 µm) sieve for Size 16 crumb rubber,
there is no test requirement for foreign materials other than iron and the ‘additional textural requirements’ in
the TfNSW specifications differ from those listed in ATS 3110.
TfNSW specification documents indicate that both Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber can be used to produce
S45R, S15RF and S18RF grade binders for sprayed sealing applications. Although S15RF and S18RF
binder grades are referred to in TfNSW documents, TfNSW no longer uses field-produced crumb rubber
binders in sprayed sealing work (Sai Yin, personal communication, February 2020). TfNSW documents
indicate that either Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber can be used to incorporate crumb rubber into asphalt by
the dry process.
DIT
DIT uses crumb rubber to produce S15RF, S18RF and S45R grade binders for sprayed sealing applications
only. The DIT specifications for the crumb rubber used to produce these binders are similar to the
specifications listed in ATS 3110 for Size 30 crumb rubber but the grading requirements for the crumb rubber
are slightly different from ATS 3110, bulk density test results have a maximum limit of 350 kg/m3 (rather than
required to be reported), and there are no test requirements for metallic iron content or foreign materials
other than iron. The test methods used for crumb rubber grading and water/moisture content are also
different from ATS 3110. The ‘additional textural requirements’ are the same as ATS 3110 in terms of the
presence of other materials, but there is an additional appearance requirement and no requirement for crumb
rubber type/source.
AfPA
AfPA sets out requirements for the production of OGA and GGA mixes using crumb rubber binders which are
produced using the wet process. The grading for the crumb rubber specified by AfPA only requires that
100% w/w of the crumb rubber passes the 2.36 mm sieve, which is less stringent than specified for Size 16
and Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. The specific grading for the crumb rubber used to produce a crumb
rubber binder is to be nominated by the contractor. The test methods used to characterise crumb rubber in
the AfPA specification and ATS 3110 are the same. The requirements for test properties other than crumb
rubber grading in the AfPA specification are the same as those listed in ATS 3110 for Size 16 and Size 30
crumb rubber. The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the AfPA specification differ from those listed in
ATS 3110.

TMR
TMR specifies that S45R, S15RF and S18RF grade binders used in sprayed sealing applications should
meet the requirements of ATS 3110 prior to release from the manufacturer which indicates the crumb rubber
used in these binders needs to comply with Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. Crumb rubber
used in the manufacture of crumb rubber binders for use in OGA and GGA needs to meet the same test
requirements as those listed in the AfPA specification.
The TMR specification for crumb rubber to be used in asphalt includes one ‘additional textural requirement’
relating to crumb rubber type/source (i.e. crumb rubber must be processed from tyre waste obtained from a
Tyre Stewardship Australia accredited tyre recycler’) which is extremely similar to the ATS 3110 requirement.
The TMR ‘additional textural requirement’ stating that ‘uncured or devulcanized rubber is not permitted’ is the
same as the AfPA requirement. The TMR ‘additional textural requirements’ relating to the presence of other
materials and appearance are the same as those listed in the AfPA specification.
MRWA
MRWA specifies that S45R grade binders should be used in sprayed sealing applications. MRWA also
allows the use of a blend of 95% w/w C170 bitumen and 5% w/w crumb rubber to be used to construct
geotextile reinforced seals (GRS) which is specified in terms of a recipe. The MRWA crumb rubber
specifications used to produce these types of binders are similar to Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110
except that the grading requirements are slightly different, bulk density results must be < 350 kg/m3 (rather
than bulk density results only being required to be reported), there is a requirement for the maximum
percentage of elongated particles, and there is no test requirement for foreign materials other than iron.
MRWA also allows the use of some ‘in-house’ test methods as well as Austroads test methods to determine
the properties of crumb rubber. Some of the ‘additional textural requirements’ in MRWA documents differ
from those listed in ATS 3110.
MRWA Specification 516 and the draft specification included in van Aswegen (2019) provide information
about the specified properties of crumb rubber when it is added to OGA and GGA using the wet process.
The specified properties of crumb rubber when it is used in asphalt applications in WA are essentially the
same as those used when crumb rubber is used in sprayed sealing applications. These specifications appear
to be far more detailed than those used by AfPA or TMR when crumb rubber binders are added to OGA or
GGA using the wet process. WA specifications for the use of crumb rubber in asphalt include two ‘additional
textural requirements’ in addition to those specified for crumb rubber used in sprayed seals. These include
the statements ‘crumb rubber shall consist of either natural or synthetic rubber processed from tyres or other
suitable rubber products’ and ‘uncured or devulcanised rubber shall not be used’.
4.1.2 Comparison of Australian Test Property Requirements for Crumb Rubber
In addition to comparisons between jurisdictional/organisation practices and the Austroads specification

(ATS 3110), information about differences in practices can also be obtained by comparing crumb rubber test
property specification limits and ‘additional textural requirements’. These comparisons are summarised
below:
Crumb rubber grading

• For sprayed sealing applications (wet process):
– DoT Vic and TMR specify the same grading limits for Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber as
ATS 3110. The TfNSW grading requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber are the same as ATS 3110
while those for Size 16 crumb rubber are almost the same as ATS 3110. The DIT/MRWA grading
limits are quite similar to those listed for Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. As Size 16 crumb
rubber is no longer available, sprayed seals constructed in Victoria, Queensland and NSW are
effectively only produced using Size 30 crumb rubber which is of a similar size to that used in SA
and WA.
• For asphalt applications:

– DoT Vic uses the same grading limits for Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber as ATS 3110 when
crumb rubber is added to asphalt using the dry or wet processes but alternative gradings can be
considered if they have no adverse effect on asphalt performance. The TfNSW grading for Size 30
crumb rubber which is added to asphalt by the dry process is the same as ATS 3110 while that of
Size 16 crumb rubber is almost the same as ATS 3110. As Size 16 crumb rubber is no longer
available, asphalt in Victoria and NSW which contains crumb rubber is only produced using Size 30
crumb rubber.
– AfPA and TMR specify only the maximum size of the crumb rubber used to produce asphalt by the
wet process (i.e. 100% w/w passing the 2.36 mm sieve). The specific grading for the crumb rubber
is nominated by the contractor. Both Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 meet
AfPA/TMR requirements. The MRWA crumb rubber specification requirements used for asphalt
produced by the wet process are quite similar to the requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber
included in ATS 3110.
Bulk density
• DIT and MRWA require a nominally identical maximum limit (i.e. < or ≤ 350 kg/m3).
• All other specifications only require this parameter to be reported.
• A numerical maximum limit for bulk density (i.e. 350 kg/m3 maximum) was removed from the Australian
PMB specification (AGPT/T190) when it was updated in 2010 and the limit was replaced by a ‘report’
requirement.
Water content
• All specifications require a maximum of 1%.
Particle size
• All specifications require a maximum of 3 mm. MRWA additionally requires that the crumb rubber shall
not contain more than 20% elongated particles (i.e. particles with major axis twice longer than the minor
axis).
Metallic iron content

• All specifications, except for the DIT specification, require a maximum limit of 0.1%.
Foreign materials other than iron

• ATS 3110 and the DoT Vic, AfPA and TMR specifications require a maximum limit of 0.1%.
• This property is not included in the TfNSW, DIT nor MRWA specifications.
• As the AGPT/T143 test method does not include a procedure for determining this test property, this
requirement could be removed from a future version of ATS 3110 as the current ATS 3110 ‘additional
textural requirement’ of ‘must be free of cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious material’ relates to
contamination of the crumb rubber with these types of materials.
Crumb rubber type/source

• ATS 3110 and the DoT Vic, TMR and MRWA specifications indicate that crumb rubber should be sourced
from a supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship Australia. ATS 3110 and the MRWA specifications also
allow crumb rubber to be obtained from other sources if approved by the jurisdiction. Other specifications
do not refer to a supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship Australia.
• The TfNSW and MRWA specifications, and the DoT Vic specification relating to asphalt mixes, specify
that crumb rubber should be sourced from car or truck tyres which contain synthetic or natural rubber.
MRWA also allows crumb rubber to be derived from other suitable rubber products. The AfPA
specification indicates that crumb rubber must be produced from end-of-life tyres.

• The DoT Vic, TMR and AfPA specifications relating to the use of crumb rubber in asphalt indicate that
uncured or devulcanised rubber is not permitted. TfNSW specifications indicate that crumb rubber should
be derived from vulcanised rubber (i.e. not be uncured or devulcanised rubber).
Presence of other materials

• ATS 3110 and the DoT Vic specifications require that crumb rubber be free of cord, wire, fluff and other
deleterious materials. This requirement is also included in the TMR specification for crumb rubber used in
sprayed sealing applications and the TfNSW specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications.
MRWA specifies contamination slightly differently and indicates that crumb rubber should not contain any
foreign material such as sand, fibres or aggregate.
• The AfPA and TMR specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications indicate that crumb
rubber should not cause foaming when combined with the bituminous binder (i.e. the crumb rubber
should not contain water/moisture).
Appearance
• The AfPA, as well as the DoT Vic and TMR specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications,
specify that the crumb rubber should be a uniform material.
• The DIT and the AfPA specifications, and also the TMR specification for crumb rubber used in asphalt
applications, specify that crumb rubber must be dry, free-flowing particles that do not stick together (i.e. it
should be free of lumps).
4.1.3 Summary
Based on a review of Australian crumb rubber specifications, and considering that Size 16 crumb rubber is
no longer available, it appears that all Australian crumb rubber specifications effectively specify a material
which either meets the requirements of Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110, or has quite similar requirements
to Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110, when crumb rubber is used in sprayed sealing applications. The main
differences in Australian crumb rubber specifications relating to sprayed sealing applications include small
differences in grading requirements, variations in requirements for bulk density (in terms of reporting results
or meeting specification requirements) and variations in requirements for testing for foreign materials other
than iron. It was noted above that the AGPT/T143 test method does not include a procedure for determining
foreign materials other than iron. The Australian specifications for crumb rubber used in sprayed sealing
applications have some small differences in ‘additional textural requirements’ which appear to reflect local
conditions/sources of crumb rubber.
As in the case of crumb rubber used in sprayed sealing applications, the DoT Vic, TfNSW and MRWA
specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt appear to effectively specify a material which is the same or
quite similar to Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. The AfPA and TMR specifications for crumb rubber used
in asphalt applications have the same specified test property requirements as Size 16 and Size 30 crumb
rubber in ATS 3110, except that the grading requirements are quite different. The grading requirements in
the AfPA and TMR specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt are much less stringent than ATS 3110 as
they only require that 100% w/w of the crumb rubber passes the 2.36 mm sieve. This grading requirement
could in principle allow coarser materials than Size 16 crumb rubber, as well as finer materials than Size 30
crumb rubber, to be used in asphalt applications. There are also some small differences between the
‘additional textural requirements’ listed in the AfPA and TMR specifications, and those listed in ATS 3110.

Table 4.2: Comparisons of Australian crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, DoT Vic, TMR, TfNSW, DIT and MRWA for use in sprayed seals
Austroads (DoT Vic & TMR)(1) TfNSW DIT MRWA
Specification description ATS 3110 QA D&C 3256

Specification
and allowable crumb rubber Size 16 Size 30 RD-BP-S1
Size 16(2) Size 30(2) 511
sizes (if applicable) (Grade A) (Grade B)
Incorporation method Wet process Wet process Wet process Wet process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Requirement Test method Requirement Test method
Grading (mm) • Requirements for Size 16 crumb
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 rubber are the same as ATS 3110 100 100
except that 0% w/w should pass
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 the 0.30 mm sieve. 100 100 AGPT/T143
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. AGPT/T143 • Requirements for Size 30 crumb 70 min. TfNSW T730 60 min. or
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. rubber are the same as – 22 max. WA 236.1
ATS 3110.
0.15 (% w/w passing) – – 5 max. –
0.075 (% w/w passing) – – – 2 max.
AGPT/T144
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 350 max. AGPT/T144 < 350
or WA 235.1
AS 1289.2.1.1
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 1 max. or 1 max. AGPT/T143
AS 1289.2.1.4
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 3 max. Not specified 3 max.(3) AGPT/T143
AGPT/T143
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – 0.1 max.
or WA 237.1
Foreign materials other than
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – – –
iron(4) (%)

Austroads (DoT Vic & TMR)(1) TfNSW DIT MRWA

Additional textural requirements
Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed from Crumb rubber is derived from • Crumb rubber shall be
waste tyres generated in Australia by a retreader’s buffings and/or sourced from a Tyre
supplier accredited with Tyre mechanically comminuted Stewardship Australia
Stewardship Australia or another vulcanised rubber from either truck accredited tyre recycler or a
organisation approved by the Principal. or car tyres which may contain Main Roads approved
synthetic or natural rubber. – supplier.
• Crumb rubber shall consist
of either natural or synthetic
rubber processed from tyres
or other suitable rubber
products.
Presence of other materials Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and Must be free from cord, wire, Shall not contain any foreign
other deleterious material. – fluff and other deleterious material such as sand, fibres
material. or aggregate.
Appearance Must be free of lumps and

– – capable of being poured –
freely.
1 Section 408 of DoT Vic and MRTS18 of TMR require that crumb rubber binders used in sprayed seals comply with ATS 3110. The property requirements for the crumb rubber used
in sprayed seals in these jurisdictions are therefore the same as the ATS 3110 requirements.
2 ATS 3110 indicates that either grade can be used to produce S45R, S15RF or S18RF grade binders. In practice only Size 30 rubber has been used in recent times.
3 Additionally, crumb rubber shall not contain more than 20% of elongated particles (i.e. particles with major axis twice longer than the minor axis).
4 A procedure for determining this test property is not included in AGPT/T143.

Table 4.3: Comparisons of Australian crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, DoT Vic and TfNSW for use in asphalt
Austroads DoT Vic TfNSW

Section 421: High binder Section 422: Light traffic QA D&C 3256/R118
Specification description ATS 3110
crumb rubber asphalt crumb rubber asphalt
and allowable crumb
rubber sizes (if applicable) Size 16 Size 30
Size 16(1) Size 30(1) Size 16 Size 30 Size 16 Size 30
(Grade A) (Grade B)
Incorporation method Dry process Dry process Wet/dry process Dry process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Requirement
Grading (mm) • Must comply with the requirements of Size 16 or 30 • Requirements for Size 16 crumb rubber
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 crumb rubber listed in ATS 3110. are the same as ATS 3110 except that
• An alternative grading will be considered if evidence 0% w/w should pass the 0.30 mm sieve.
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 AGPT/T143
of no adverse impact on asphalt performance is • Requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. provided. are the same as ATS 3110.
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max.
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144

Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143
Foreign materials other
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 –
than iron(2) (%)
Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed from Crumb rubber must be: Crumb rubber is derived from retreader’s
waste tyres generated in Australia by a • processed by a Tyre Stewardship accredited supplier buffings and/or mechanically comminuted
supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship from waste tyres generated in Australia vulcanised rubber from either truck or car
Australia or another organisation approved tyres which may contain synthetic or natural
• consist of synthetic rubber or natural rubber from car
by the Principal. rubber.
or truck tyres or a mixture of both
• uncured or devulcanised rubber is not permitted.
Presence of other Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other Shall be free from cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other
materials deleterious material. material. deleterious material.
Appearance – Must be a uniform material. –
1 ATS 3110 indicates that Size 30 crumb rubber is normally used to produce asphalt by the dry process.

Table 4.4: Comparisons of Australian crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, AfPA, TMR and MRWA for use in asphalt
Austroads AfPA TMR MRWA
Specification description and Specification 516 and van

ATS 3110 AfPA specification PSTS112
allowable crumb rubber Aswegen (2019)
sizes (if applicable) Size 16(1) Size 30(1)
Incorporation method Dry process Wet process Wet process Wet process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Test method Requirement Requirement
Grading (mm) Same as Same as AfPA specification Crumb rubber shall meet the
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 100 Austroads test requirements. requirements of
methods for Specification 511 (refer to
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 TBN(2) respective Table 4.2).
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. AGPT/T143 TBN(2) properties.
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. TBN(2)
0.15 (% w/w passing) – – TBN(2)
0.075 (% w/w passing) – – TBN(2)

Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 Report
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 1 max.
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 3 max.
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.1 max.
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.1 max.
iron(3) (%)

Austroads AfPA TMR MRWA

Crumb rubber type/source • Crumb rubber must be processed • Crumb rubber must be produced • Crumb rubber must be • Crumb rubber shall be
from waste tyres generated in from end-of-life tyres. processed from tyre waste sourced from a Tyre
Australia by a supplier accredited • Uncured or devulcanised rubber is obtained from a Tyre Stewardship Australia
with Tyre Stewardship Australia or not permitted. Stewardship Australia accredited tyre recycler or a
another organisation approved by accredited tyre recycler. Main Roads approved
the Principal. • Uncured or devulcanised supplier.
rubber is not permitted. • Crumb rubber shall consist
of either natural or synthetic
rubber processed from
tyres or other suitable
rubber products.
• The sourced rubber
material shall be processed
by shredding and screening
for reuse.
• Uncured or devulcanised
rubber shall not be used.
Presence of other materials Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and Must not cause foaming when Same as AfPA specification Shall not contain any foreign
other deleterious material. combined with the bituminous binder. requirement. material such as sand, fibres
or aggregate.
Appearance Crumb rubber must be dry, free-flowing Same as AfPA specification
– particles that do not stick together and requirement. –
be an essentially uniform material.
1 ATS 3110 indicates that Size 30 crumb rubber is normally used to produce asphalt by the dry process.
2 TBN = To be nominated by the contractor as part of an asphalt mix design submission.

4.2 International Crumb Rubber Specifications

Using crumb rubber in pavement construction is internationally recognised as an effective method to improve
the long-term performance of roads compared to when unmodified bitumen is used. This section summarises
the specifications for crumb rubber in the main jurisdictions where it is used in road construction. New
Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) documents were not included in the review as it was known that New
Zealand does not currently use crumb rubber for road construction (Wu, Herrington & Neaylon 2015).
Table 4.5 provides a list of international specifications and guidelines which were reviewed in this study.
Table 4.5: International documents reviewed
Country Documents reviewed

USA • ASTM D6114/D6114M Standard Specification for Asphalt-rubber Binder
• Arizona: Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (Arizona Department of
Transportation 2008)
• California: Standard Specifications (California Department of Transportation 2018)
• Texas: Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges
(Texas Department of Transportation 2014)
• Florida: Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction – January 2021 (Florida
Department of Transportation 2021)
South • Technical Guideline TG1: The use of Modified Bituminous Binders in Road Construction (Southern
Africa African Bitumen Association 2020)
Spain • Circular Order 21/2007 on the use and Specifications to be Met by Binders and Bituminous Mixtures
Incorporating Rubber from End of Use Tyres (NFU) (Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban
Agenda 2007)
• General Technical Requirements for Road and Bridge Works (PG-3): Part 2A: Basic Materials
(Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda 2015)
• Guide for Manufacturing Bituminous Mixes with Crumb Rubber from Used Tyres (Muñoz, Medina &
Rodríguez 2014)
As in the case of the Australian crumb rubber specifications included in Section 4.1, each of the international
crumb rubber specifications investigated included a series of test requirements as well as a number of
textural requirements. These have been included as ‘additional textural requirements’ in Table 4.6 to
Table 4.11 in the same way as in the tables relating to Australian crumb rubber specifications (i.e. Table 4.2
to Table 4.4. in Section 4.1).
Comparisons between Austroads specifications and international specifications for crumb rubber used in
asphalt applications are included in Table 4.6 to Table 4.9. Table 4.10 and Table 4.11 show comparisons
between Austroads and international specifications for crumb rubber used in sprayed sealing applications.
Table 4.6 to Table 4.11 are located at the end of Section 4.2.
4.2.1 Comparisons with the Austroads Crumb Rubber Specification (ATS 3110)
This section provides a brief description of the type of crumb rubber binders used in each international
location and the main differences in specified requirements for crumb rubber from the Austroads
specification. All international specifications use different test methods than ATS 3110 to characterise the
properties of crumb rubber. Due to this, comparisons between test methods are not included in the
discussion below as they all differ from ATS 3110.
This section includes a review of the US national specification for crumb rubber and crumb rubber binders
(ASTM D6114/D6114M) and well as equivalent specifications used in California, Arizona, Texas and Florida.
Although there is a national American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM) specification relating to the
use of crumb rubber, most US states which utilise crumb rubber have their own local specifications. This
section also includes the specification requirements for crumb rubber used in South Africa and Spain.

National US American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification
The US national (i.e. ASTM) specification for crumb rubber binders includes requirements for the crumb
rubber to be used in binders produced by the wet process. The specification includes requirements for three
different crumb binder grades (i.e. Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3) which are used to construct roads in hot,
moderate and cold climates, respectively. The main difference between the binder grades is the stiffness of
the bitumen used to produce the crumb rubber binder. Stiffer bitumens are used to produce crumb rubber
binders in hotter climates. Crumb rubber binder grades are specified in terms of a series of test properties
(e.g. viscosity at 175 °C, resilience at 25 °C, softening point, penetration at 4 °C/25 °C, etc.). There is no
information in the specification about the amount of crumb rubber needed to be included in a binder.
The ASTM specification is applicable to crumb rubber binders used in both sprayed seals and asphalt. The
specification for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications is the same as that used in sprayed sealing
applications, except that the requirement for fibre/fabric content is 0.5% w/w maximum when crumb rubber is
used in asphalt and 0.1% w/w maximum when crumb rubber is used in sprayed seals. A comparison
between Austroads and ASTM requirements for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications is included in
Table 4.6. The analogous information for crumb rubber used in sprayed sealing applications is included in
Table 4.10.
The ASTM specification for crumb rubber includes some of the properties included in ATS 3110 (i.e. grading,
water/moisture content, metallic iron content and foreign materials other than iron), but specific gravity tests
are specified instead of bulk density tests, and there is maximum fibre/fabric content requirement. No test
methods appear to be referenced in the ASTM specification for specific gravity and foreign materials other
than iron tests. The grading requirements in the ASTM specification only indicate that 100% w/w should pass
the 2.36 mm sieve (rather than specifying % w/w passing for various sieve sizes). Other grading
requirements are to be agreed between the purchaser and the supplier of the crumb rubber binder. Both
Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 would meet the broad grading requirements in the ASTM
specification. The ASTM requirements for water/moisture content and metallic iron content are lower than
ATS 3110 requirements, while the requirements for foreign materials other than iron are higher.
The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the ASTM specification are all different from those listed in
ATS 3110. The ASTM specification includes a reasonably vague requirement that crumb rubber needs to
meet one of the crumb rubber classification classes in ASTM D5603. The classification classes in
ASTM D5603 cover crumb rubber which is produced from car, truck and agricultural tyres as well as non-tyre
rubber. The ASTM specification also allows 4% w/w mineral powder (talc) to be added to the crumb rubber to
prevent sticking and caking of the rubber particles which is not included in ATS 3110. The addition of
materials such as mineral powder, talc or calcium carbonate is allowed in a number of other US crumb
rubber specifications to prevent the crumb rubber particles sticking together during storage and handling.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans has standard specifications for the use of crumb rubber binders in GGA, OGA and sprayed seals
which are produced by the wet process. Crumb rubber binders used in GGA and OGA need to contain
between 18% and 22% w/w crumb rubber, while those used in sprayed seals need to contain between 20%
and 22% w/w crumb rubber.
Unlike any of the other specifications reviewed, the Caltrans specification requires that the crumb rubber
used to produce a binder needs to be a blend of 75 ± 2% w/w scrap tyre crumb rubber and 25 ± 2% w/w high
natural crumb rubber, rather than a single type of crumb rubber. Scrap tyre crumb rubber is normally
obtained in California from a mixture of car and truck tyres, whereas high natural rubber is normally obtained
from truck tyres (Jack van Kirk, personal communication, September 2020). The two types of crumb rubber
are specified differently in terms of grading (with the high natural crumb rubber specified to be finer than the
scrap tyre rubber) as well as a number of other test properties. The Caltrans specification requirements for
crumb rubber used in sprayed sealing applications appear to be far more stringent than those applicable to
asphalt applications in terms of grading. Crumb rubber used in sprayed seals is also specified in terms of a
range of chemical tests (i.e. acetone extract, rubber hydrocarbon, carbon black content and ash content)
which are not applicable when crumb rubber is used in California in asphalt applications. The Caltrans
specification requirements for crumb rubber used in asphalt and sprayed sealing applications are compared
with ATS 3110 requirements in Table 4.7 and Table 4.10, respectively.

Table 4.7 and Table 4.10 include the Caltrans specified requirements for grading for scrap tyre crumb rubber
and high natural crumb rubber as well as calculated combined grading requirements for a blend of 75% w/w
scrap tyre crumb rubber and 25% w/w high natural crumb rubber. Combined grading requirements were
calculated for blends of the two types of crumb rubber so Caltrans specified requirements could be more
easily compared with other jurisdictional requirements. The Californian combined grading requirements for
crumb rubber used in asphalt only specify requirements for the 2.36 mm and 2.00 mm sieves (i.e. 100% w/w
passing and 25% w/w minimum passing, respectively). Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110
would meet these requirements.
During the course of the project, crumb rubber grading test results were obtained from two different
Californian crumb rubber binder suppliers which produced binders for use in asphalt (Jack van Kirk, personal
communication, September 2020; David Jones, personal communication, November 2020). The combined
grading results obtained from the two suppliers (which correspond to blends of 75% w/w scrap tyre crumb
rubber and 25% w/w high natural crumb rubber) are included in Table 4.7. The supplier combined grading
results shown in Table 4.7 correspond to significantly coarser crumb rubber than either Size 16 or Size 30
crumb rubber in ATS 3110. Although crumb rubber for use in asphalt is only specified in California in terms
of % w/w passing the 2.36 mm and 2.00 mm sieves, it appears that much coarser crumb rubber than
specified in ATS 3110 is used in practice. The Californian combined grading requirements for crumb rubber
used in sprayed sealing applications (Table 4.10) specifies a significantly coarser crumb rubber than either
Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber included in ATS 3110.
The Caltrans specifications for crumb rubber, in the same way as ATS 3110, include requirements for particle
length and metallic iron content. Caltrans requirements for particle length are higher than ATS 3110 while
requirements for metallic iron content are lower. As in the case of the ASTM specification, specific gravity tests
are performed instead of bulk density tests. The Caltrans specifications also include requirements for
fibre/fabric content and a number of different chemical properties (i.e. natural rubber content, acetone extract,
rubber hydrocarbon, carbon black content, ash content) which are not included in ATS 3110.
The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the Caltrans specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt and
sprayed seals are the same. These requirements differ from those listed in ATS 3110, except that the crumb
rubber needs to be sourced/produced in the same country that road construction is occurring in both
ATS 3110 and Californian documents. The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the Caltrans specification
include requirements that the crumb rubber must be ground or granulated at ambient temperature, dry and
free-flowing, and not cause foaming when combined with the bituminous binder (i.e. not contain moisture).
Up to 3% w/w calcium carbonate or talc can be added to the crumb rubber to prevent crumb rubber particles
sticking together.
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
ADOT uses crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process in OGA and GGA. Crumb rubber binders are
not used in sprayed sealing applications as only cationic rapid setting (CRS) emulsions are specified for use
in sprayed seals. ADOT also uses crumb rubber as part of crack sealants to repair concrete pavements and
uses crumb rubber binders to construct stress absorbing membranes (SAMs) between different asphalt
layers in a pavement. SAMs are constructed using a coarser type of crumb rubber (Type A) than the crumb
rubber used in asphalt (Type B). Type A crumb rubber has grading requirements of 100% w/w passing the
2.36 mm sieve, 95–100% w/w passing the 2.00 mm sieve and 0–10% w/w passing the 1.18 mm sieve. It also
has a fabric/fibre content specification limit of 0.1% w/w maximum. A comparison between ADOT
requirements for crumb rubber used in asphalt and Austroads requirements is included in Table 4.8.
The ADOT specification includes three crumb rubber binder grades (CRA Types 1,2 and 3) for use in asphalt
which are manufactured using different stiffness bitumens. The binder specification requirements for the
ADOT CRA Type 1, 2 and 3 grades are quite similar to those listed for the Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 crumb
rubber grades, respectively, in the ASTM specification. Further information about the ADOT crumb rubber
binder grades is included in Section 3.1.4 and Table 3.1. Crumb rubber binders used in Arizona need to
contain a minimum of 20% crumb rubber by weight of the bitumen in the binder. This corresponds to a
minimum crumb rubber content of 16.7% w/w when the concentration of crumb rubber is expressed as a
percentage by weight of the total binder.

The ADOT specification for crumb rubber used in asphalt has grading requirements like ATS 3110, but there
are no requirements for water moisture/content, particle length, metallic iron content or foreign materials
other than iron. As in the case of other US specifications, specific gravity tests are performed instead of bulk
density tests. The ADOT specification has a maximum fibre/fabric content requirement which is not included
in ATS 3110. The ADOT fibre content requirement of 0.5% maximum is the same as the ASTM requirement.
No test methods appear to be included in the ADOT specification for specific gravity and fibre/fabric content
tests. The ADOT grading requirements included in Table 4.8 indicate that crumb rubber used to produce
asphalt in Arizona is slightly coarser than Size 16 crumb rubber, and significantly coarser than Size 30 crumb
rubber, which are included in ATS 3110.
The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the ADOT specification are not the same as ATS 3110 but they do
require that crumb rubber be sourced/produced in the same country that road construction is occurring in a
similar way to ATS 3110. The ADOT specification also states that crumb rubber shall be free of wire or other
contaminating materials which is similar to the presence of other materials requirement in ATS 3110. In a
similar way to other US specifications, ADOT allows up to 4% w/w calcium carbonate to be added to the
crumb rubber to prevent sticking of the rubber particles, which is not included in ATS 3110.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
TxDOT uses crumb rubber binders produced using the wet process in OGA, GGA, thin bonded porous
asphalt friction courses and sprayed seals. TxDOT also uses binders containing crumb rubber as crack
sealants for road maintenance. Texas specifies three different types of crumb rubber (Grade A, Grade B and
Grade C) which can be incorporated into binders. These crumb rubber types are specified in terms of crumb
rubber grading with Grade A being the most coarse, Grade B being of medium size, and Grade C being the
finest crumb rubber.
Coarser Grade A and Grade B crumb rubbers are added to binders used as crack sealants. Grade B crumb
rubber is added to binders used in sprayed sealing applications while either Grade B or Grade C crumb
rubber can be added to binders used in asphalt. Grade A crumb rubber, which is only used for the production
of binders for crack sealing applications, has grading requirements of 100% w/w passing the 2.36 mm sieve,
95–100% w/w passing the 2.00 mm sieve and 0–10% w/w passing the 0.30 mm sieve.
Table 4.8 includes comparisons between ATS 3110 and TxDOT requirements for crumb rubber used in asphalt
applications (i.e. it includes comparisons with TxDOT Grade B and Grade C crumb rubber requirements).
Table 4.11 includes comparisons between ATS 3110 and TxDOT requirements for crumb rubber used in
sprayed sealing applications (i.e. it includes a comparison with TxDOT Grade B crumb rubber requirements).
The TxDOT specification includes three crumb rubber binder grades to be used in asphalt and sprayed
sealing applications (i.e. Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3). These binder grades are identical to those listed in the
ASTM specification except that TxDOT requires that some tests be conducted using local TxDOT test
methods rather than national ASTM test methods. The TxDOT specification indicates that harder Type 1 and
Type 2 crumb rubber binder grades should be used to produce asphalt. Sprayed seals should be
constructed using either Type 2 or the softest Type 3 binder grades. TxDOT also specifies that crumb rubber
binders used in asphalt and sprayed sealing applications need to contain at least 15% w/w crumb rubber.
The TxDOT specifications for Grade B and Grade C crumb rubber appear to be the least stringent in terms of
specified test properties of all the crumb rubber specifications included in this study as there are only
requirements for the grading of the crumb rubber. None of the other test requirements included in ATS 3110
are specified by TxDOT. The specified grading for Grade B crumb rubber (used in sprayed sealing and
asphalt applications) is overall similar to Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. The specified grading for
Grade C crumb rubber (which is used in asphalt applications) requires a crumb rubber which is finer than
Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110.

The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the TxDOT specification for crumb rubber used in asphalt and
sprayed sealing applications are the same. The TxDOT requirements that the crumb rubber be free-flowing,
consist of tyres from automobiles and truck tyres processed at ambient temperature, and non-foaming when
added to a bituminous binder are not the same as the ‘additional textural requirements’ in ATS 3110. The
requirement that the crumb rubber be non-foaming is effectively indicating that the water/moisture content
should be kept to a minimum. The TxDOT presence of other materials requirement which indicates that
crumb rubber must be free from contaminants including fabric, metal, mineral and other non-rubber
substances is similar to the ATS 3110 requirement indicating crumb rubber must be free from cord, wire, fluff
and other deleterious material.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) uses crumb rubber binders produced using the wet process in
OGA. FDOT does not construct sprayed seals. Crumb rubber binders manufactured in Florida (referred to as
PG 76-22 (ARB) grade binders) need to meet the same requirements as PG 76-22 grade PMBs which are
produced using either an SBS or styrene-butadiene (SB) polymer. FDOT allows PG 76-22 (ARB) grade
binders to contain SBS or SB polymer in addition to crumb rubber. Crumb rubber binders used in OGA in
Florida need to contain at least 7% w/w crumb rubber. A comparison between ATS 3110-specified
requirements for crumb rubber and FDOT requirements is included in Table 4.8.
The crumb rubber grading requirements in the FDOT specification only specify that 98% w/w minimum pass
the 0.60 mm sieve. This grading requirement specifies a type of crumb rubber which is finer than Size 16 and
Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110, as well as Grade C crumb rubber in the TxDOT specification. The FDOT
specification includes water/moisture content and metallic iron content tests in an analogous way to
ATS 3110 but does not include requirements for particle length or foreign materials other than iron. The
FDOT requirements for water/moisture content and metallic iron content are both lower than ATS 3110.
Crumb rubber used to produce binders in Florida also needs to meet the requirements of the same series of
chemical tests which are included in the Caltrans specification for scrap tyre rubber used in sprayed sealing
applications (i.e. natural rubber content, acetone extract, rubber hydrocarbon, carbon black content, ash
content). These chemical tests are not included in ATS 3110.
The ‘additional textural requirements’ in the FDOT specification differ from those listed in ATS 3110 except
that the FDOT requirement ‘shall be substantially free from contaminants including fabric, metal and other
non-rubber substances’ is similar to the ATS 3110 requirement ‘must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other
deleterious material’. The other ‘additional textural requirements’ in the FDOT specification are similar to
those listed in the TxDOT specification except that FDOT allows up to 4% w/w talc (or other dusting agent) to
be added to the crumb rubber to prevent sticking of the rubber particles.
South Africa
South Africa uses crumb rubber binders produced by the wet process predominantly in sprayed seals, DGA
and GGA. Crumb rubber binders are also used to a limited extent to produce OGA. Crumb rubber is only added
to asphalt using the dry process for small emergency repairs. Technical Guideline 1 (TG1), which is published
by the Southern African Bitumen Association (SABITA), indicates that there are two crumb rubber binder
grades for use in asphalt (i.e. A-R1 and A-R2 grades) and two grades to be used in sprayed sealing
applications (i.e. S-R1 and S-R2). These binder grades are specified in terms of more widely used viscosity at
170 °C/190 °C, resilience at 25 °C and softening point tests, as well as South African compression recovery
and flow at 60 °C tests. Crumb rubber binders produced in South Africa typically contain between 18 to
24% w/w crumb rubber, but the amount of crumb rubber required to be added to a binder is not specified.
TG1 indicates that there are no specified requirements for the crumb rubber added to binders as
specification compliance relies on the test results obtained for the blended crumb rubber binder. Although
specified crumb rubber properties are not included in TG1, the document lists the typical properties of the
crumb rubber added to binders in South Africa in terms of grading, bulk density and particle length tests.
These typical properties are compared with ATS 3110 requirements for crumb rubber used in asphalt and
sprayed sealing applications in Table 4.9 and Table 4.11, respectively. The South African bulk density test is
similar to the bulk density test included in ATS 3110.

The typical crumb rubber grading included in TG1 is overall similar to that of Size 30 crumb rubber in
ATS 3110. The typical particle length of crumb rubber used in South Africa (6 mm maximum) is higher than
the ATS 3110 requirement of 3 mm maximum.
Spain
The Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda (MTMUA) in Spain allows three different categories of
crumb rubber binders to be produced by the wet process for use in asphalt. It also allows crumb rubber to be
incorporated into asphalt using the dry process. The MTMUA specification requirements for crumb rubber
are the same when it is incorporated into asphalt using both the dry and the wet processes. A comparison
between ATS 3110 requirements and Spanish specification requirements for crumb rubber is included in
Table 4.9.
The three crumb rubber binder categories listed in the Spanish specification are referred to as enhanced
rubber bitumen, rubber modified bitumen and high viscosity rubber modified bitumen. Each of these crumb
rubber binder categories is specified in terms of two or more binder grades.
Enhanced rubber bitumen (with 2 binder grades) typically contains about 9% w/w crumb rubber and is used
in the same applications as unmodified bitumen. Rubber modified bitumen (with 2 binder grades) needs to
meet the same test requirements as those listed for two of the six SBS-based PMB grades included in the
Spanish PMB specification. This category of binder typically contains about 4% w/w crumb rubber and
between 2.5 and 3% w/w SBS polymer.
High viscosity rubber modified bitumen (with 3 binder grades) contains the highest level of crumb rubber.
Binders which meet the requirements of this category are either blends of about 18% w/w crumb rubber and
bitumen or are blends which contain about 4% w/w crumb rubber and 4% w/w SBS polymer.
Spanish crumb rubber binders are produced using various grades of bitumen depending on the crumb
rubber binder grade. In Australian terms, these range from bitumen similar to Class 50 bitumen
(110/120 penetration grade bitumen) to bitumen similar to Class 320 bitumen (35/50 penetration grade
bitumen).
The crumb rubber grading requirements in Spain only specify the percentage passing the 1.00 mm (100%)
and 0.063 mm (15% w/w minimum) sieves. These requirements appear to specify a type of crumb rubber
which has a similar grading to Type 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. The MTMUA specification for crumb
rubber, in the same way as ATS 3110, includes requirements for metallic iron content and foreign materials
other than iron. Spanish requirements for metallic iron content are lower than ATS 3110 while requirements
for foreign materials other than iron are higher. The Spanish specification also includes a requirement for
maximum fibre/fabric content which is not included in ATS 3110. Although the Spanish specification includes
a number of tests to characterise the properties of crumb rubber, no specific test methods appear to be
referenced. The Spanish specification includes one ‘additional textural requirement’ indicating that crumb
rubber must be derived from end-of-life tyres. This is somewhat similar to the ATS 3110 requirement that
crumb rubber must be processed from waste tyres.
4.2.2 Comparison of International Test Property Requirements for Crumb Rubber
This section compares the specified property limits for crumb rubber in terms of the different tests performed
in each overseas jurisdiction. It also compares the ‘additional textural requirements’ specified in each
jurisdiction.
Crumb rubber grading/type

• Caltrans is the only jurisdiction which specifies that crumb rubber be a blend of 75 ± 2% w/w scrap tyre
crumb rubber and 25 ± 2% w/w high natural crumb rubber. No other jurisdictions require the use of blends
of crumb rubber from different sources.
• There appears to be a large variation in grading requirements between different jurisdictions. ASTM
grading requirements are so broad that either Size 16 or Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 would meet
these requirements.

• If it assumed that the grading results obtained from Californian binder suppliers are representative of the
type of crumb rubber utilised in California, then the size of the crumb rubber used in asphalt applications
in different international jurisdictions appears to follow the order:
– Caltrans > ADOT > ATS 3110 Size 16/TxDOT Grade B > ATS 3110 Size 30/SABITA/MTMUA >
TXDOT Grade C > FDOT.
• The size of the crumb rubber used by different international jurisdictions in sprayed sealing applications
appears to follow the order:
– Caltrans > ATS 3110 Size 16/TxDOT Grade B > ATS 3110 Size 30/SABITA.
Bulk density/specific gravity

• SABITA is the only international jurisdiction to characterise the bulk density of crumb rubber in a similar
way to ATS 3110.
• The ASTM, Caltrans, ADOT and FDOT specifications include requirements for specific gravity rather than
bulk density.
• The TxDOT and MTMUA specifications do not include requirements for either bulk density or specific
gravity.
Water/moisture content
• Only ATS 3110 and the ASTM/FDOT specifications include a requirement for maximum water/moisture
content. The ASTM and FDOT water/moisture content requirements (i.e. < 0.75% and 0.75% maximum)
are slightly lower than the ATS 3110 requirement (1% maximum).
• The Caltrans and TxDOT specifications indirectly specify a maximum water content in their ‘additional
textural requirements’ by indicating that the crumb rubber should not foam when crumb rubber is added to
a binder.
• There are no requirements for water/moisture content in the ADOT and MTMUA specifications.
Particle length
• A maximum crumb rubber particle length is only specified in ATS 3110 and the Caltrans specification.
The Caltrans particle length requirement (4.7 mm maximum) is higher than the ATS 3110 requirement
(3 mm maximum) which may reflect the coarser crumb rubber used to produce binders in California.
Crumb rubber used in South Africa typically has a particle length of 6 mm maximum.
Metallic iron content

• The ASTM, Caltrans, FDOT and MTMUA specifications require a metallic iron content of 0.01% maximum
which is significantly lower than the ATS 3110 requirement of 0.1% maximum. The ADOT and TxDOT
specifications indirectly specify a maximum metallic iron content by indicating in their ‘additional textural
requirements’ that the crumb rubber should not contain metal/wire.
Foreign materials other than iron

• The ASTM and MTMUA specifications include a requirement for foreign materials other than iron of
0.25% maximum. This is higher than the ATS 3110 requirement of 0.1% maximum. Although the ASTM
and MTMUA specifications include requirements for this test parameter, no test methods are referenced
so that this test property can be determined.
• The ADOT, TxDOT and FDOT specifications indirectly specify a maximum level of foreign materials
through their ‘additional textural requirements’ associated with crumb rubber contamination.

Fibre/fabric content
• All US specifications and the MTMUA specification refer to a maximum level of fibre/fabric in crumb
rubber. This test parameter is not included in ATS 3110. International requirements for fibre/fabric in
crumb rubber may reflect a greater percentage use of car tyres for crumb rubber production overseas.
Crumb rubber is produced in Australia predominantly from truck tyres. The ASTM, Caltrans, ADOT and
MTMUA specifications have maximum limits for fibre/fabric content which range between 0.05%
maximum and 0.5% maximum. Fibre/fabric content is indirectly specified by TxDOT and FDOT in their
‘additional textural requirements’ which indicate that crumb rubber should be free of fabric.
Chemical properties
• The Caltrans and FDOT specifications include requirements for various crumb rubber chemical properties
(i.e. natural rubber content, acetone extract, rubber hydrocarbon content, carbon black content or ash
content). These chemical requirements are not included in ATS 3110 or other international crumb rubber
specifications.
Crumb rubber type/source

• The ‘additional textural requirements’ for crumb rubber type/source differ between international
jurisdictions. Even though this is the case, nearly all jurisdictions and ATS 3110 indicate that crumb
rubber should be produced from waste or end-of-life tyres.
• ATS 3110 as well as the Caltrans and ADOT specifications indicate that crumb rubber should be
produced from waste tyres sourced from the country in which road construction is occurring. This
requirement is not included in other international specifications.
• The Caltrans and TxDOT specifications require that crumb rubber be ground/produced at ambient
temperature. This requirement is not included in ATS 3110 or other international crumb rubber
specifications.
Presence of other materials

• The ASTM, ADOT, TxDOT and FODT specifications, in a similar way to ATS 3110, indicate that crumb
rubber should be free from other contaminants such as wire, metal, fabric and other non-rubber
substances.
• The ASTM, Caltrans, ADOT and FDOT specifications allow materials such as mineral powder, talc or
calcium carbonate to be added to crumb rubber to prevent sticking of the rubber particles. This allowance
is not included in other crumb rubber specifications.
Appearance
• The ASTM, Caltrans, TxDOT and FDOT specifications indicate that crumb rubber should be free flowing.
This is not included in ATS 3110 or other international specifications.
4.2.3 Summary
Based on the review of international specifications for crumb rubber it appears that crumb rubber is specified
somewhat differently in each jurisdiction. These differences most likely reflect the types of crumb rubber
which are available in each jurisdiction and experiences with crumb rubber in the past. Except for South
Africa where the properties of crumb rubber are not specified, all international jurisdictions specify a grading
for the crumb rubber used in road construction. Overseas jurisdictions use crumb rubber of various sizes in
road construction. These range from significantly coarser materials than Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110,
to finer materials than Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110.

Most international specifications for crumb rubber, like ATS 3110, include either direct or textural requirements
for properties such as water/moisture content, metallic iron content and the presence of foreign materials other
than iron. The range of specified values for these test parameters varies between jurisdictions. Only ATS 3110
and the Caltrans specification include requirements for particle length. Particle length tests are also conducted
in South Africa to characterise the properties of crumb rubber used in road construction.
A number of US specifications and the MTMUA specification include direct or textural requirements for
fibre/fabric content which are not included in ATS 3110. This most likely reflects the greater percentage use
of car tyres in crumb rubber production overseas. In contrast to ATS 3110, four of the five US specifications
included in the literature review allow materials such as mineral powder, talc or calcium carbonate to be
added to the crumb rubber to prevent sticking of the rubber particles during storage and processing.

Table 4.6: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads and ASTM for use in asphalt
Austroads ASTM
ATS 3110
Specification description and
allowable crumb rubber sizes ASTM D6114/D6114M
(if applicable) Size 16 Size 30
Incorporation method Dry process Wet process

Property Requirement Test method Requirement Test method
Grading (mm)
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 100
2.00 (% w/w passing) – – TBA(1)
AGPT/T143 ASTM D5644
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 TBA(1)
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. TBA(1)

0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. TBA(1)
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 – –
Specific gravity – – – 1.1–1.2 None specified
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 < 0.75 ASTM D1864/D1864M(2)
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 – –
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.01 max. ASTM D5603
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.25 max. None specified
iron (%)
Fibre/fabric content (%) – – – 0.5 max ASTM D5603
Natural rubber content (%) – – – – –

Austroads ASTM
Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed: Crumb rubber needs to meet the requirements of one of the classification
• from waste tyres generated in Australia. classes in ASTM D5603 (which includes crumb rubber of various sizes
sourced from car, truck, bus and agricultural tyres and non-tyre rubber).
• by a supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship Australia or
another organisation approved by the Principal.
Presence of other materials Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious material. • No visible nonferrous metal particles.
• May contain up to 4% w/w mineral powder (talc) to prevent sticking and
caking of the rubber particles.
Appearance – Shall be free flowing.
1 TBA = Grading to be agreed (TBA) between the purchaser and the crumb rubber binder supplier.
2 The oven temperature for performing ASTM D1864/D1864M tests shall be 105 ± 5 °C.

Table 4.7: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads and Caltrans for use in asphalt
Austroads Caltrans
ATS 3110 Standard Specifications
75 ± 2% w/w scrap tyre crumb rubber and 25 ± 2% w/w high natural crumb rubber
Specification description
blend
and allowable crumb
rubber sizes (if applicable) Size 16 Size 30 Scrap tyre High natural Supplier A Supplier B
Combined
crumb crumb combined combined
grading limits(1)
rubber rubber grading(2) grading(2)
Incorporation method Dry process Wet process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Test method
Grading (mm)
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 100 – 100 100 100
2.00 (% w/w passing) – – – 100 25 min. 100 99
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 – – – 61 75 California Test

AGPT/T143
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. – – – 26 51 385
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. – – – 8 14
0.15 (% w/w passing) – – – – – 2 3
0.075 (% w/w passing) – – – – – 0.3 0.0
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 – – –
California Test
Specific gravity – – – 1.1–1.2 1.1–1.2
208
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 – – –
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 4.7 max. 4.7 max. None specified
– California Test
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.01 max. 0.01 max.
385
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – –
than iron (%)
California Test
Fibre/fabric content (%) – – – 0.05 max. 0.05 max.
385
Natural rubber content (%) – – – – 40–48 ASTM D297

Austroads Caltrans
Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed: Crumb rubber must be:
• from waste tyres generated in Australia • produced in the United States
• by a supplier accredited with Tyre • derived from waste tyres taken from vehicles owned and operated in the United States
Stewardship Australia or another • ground or granulated at ambient temperature.
organisation approved by the Principal.
Presence of other Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other • Must not cause foaming when combined with the bituminous binder.
materials deleterious material. • May contain up to 3% w/w calcium carbonate or talc to prevent sticking of rubber particles.
Appearance – Must be dry, free-flowing particles that do not stick together.
1 Combined grading limits were obtained considering a blend of 75% w/w scrap tyre crumb rubber and 25% w/w high natural crumb rubber.
2 Combined grading results for crumb rubber used by two different Californian crumb rubber binder suppliers for use in asphalt.

Table 4.8: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, ADOT, TxDOT and FDOT for use in asphalt
Austroads ADOT TxDOT FDOT
Specification description and Standard Standard

ATS 3110 Standard
allowable crumb rubber specifications specifications
specifications
sizes (if applicable) Size 16 Size 30 Type B Grade B Grade C
Incorporation method Dry process Wet process Wet process Wet process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Test method Requirement Test method Requirement Test method
Grading (mm)
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 – – – –
2.00 (% w/w passing) – – 100 100 – –
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 65 min. 70 min. 100 Tex-200-F, –
AGPT/T143 ARIZ 714c FM 5-559
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. 20 min. 25–60 90 min. Part 1 98 min.
0.42 (% w/w passing) – – – – 45 min. –
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. 45 max. – – –

0.075 (% w/w passing) – – 5 max. 5 max. – –
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 – – – – – – –
None
Specific gravity – – – 1.1–1.2 – – – 1.02–1.20 FM 5-559
specified
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – – – 0.75 max. FM 5-559
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 – – – – – – –
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – – – 0.01 max. FM 5-559
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – – – – –
iron (%)
None
Fibre/fabric content (%) – – – 0.5 max. – – – – –
specified
Natural rubber content (%) – – – – – – – – 16–45
Acetone extract (%) – – – – – – – – 25 max.
Rubber hydrocarbon (%) – – – – – – – – 40–60 ASTM D297
Carbon black content (%) – – – – – – – – 20–40
Ash content (%) – – – – – – – – 8 max.

Austroads ADOT TxDOT FDOT

Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed: Crumb rubber is derived from Crumb rubber consists of Crumb rubber shall be
• from waste tyres generated in tyres from automobiles, trucks automobile and truck tyres produced from tyres.
Australia or other equipment owned and processed at ambient temperature.
operated in the USA.
• by a supplier accredited with Tyre
Stewardship Australia or another
Presence of other materials Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and • shall be free of wire or other • free from contaminants including • shall be substantially free
other deleterious material. contaminating materials fabric, metal, mineral and other from contaminants
• may contain up to 4% w/w non-rubber substances including fabric, metal,
calcium carbonate to • non-foaming when added to a mineral and other
prevent sticking of rubber hot bituminous binder. non-rubber substances
particles. • shall be sufficiently dry to
prevent foaming when
mixed with the bituminous

binder
• may contain up to 4% w/w
talc (or other dusting agent)
to prevent sticking of the
rubber particles.
Appearance – – Must be free flowing. Shall be free flowing.

Table 4.9: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, SABITA and MTMUA for use in asphalt
Austroads SABITA MTMUA

Specification description and ATS 3110
Circular Order
allowable crumb rubber sizes (if TG1
Size 16 Size 30 21/2007
applicable)
Incorporation method Dry process Wet process Wet/dry process
Property Requirement Test method Typical value Test method Requirement Test method
Grading (mm)
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 – –
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 – –
1.00 (% w/w passing) – – 100 100
AGPT/T143 MB-14 None specified
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. 40–70 –
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. – –
0.075 (% w/w passing) – – 5 max. –

0.063 (% w/w passing) – – – 15 max.
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 300–400 MB-16 – –
Specific gravity – – – – – – –
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – –
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 6 max. None specified – –
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – 0.01 max. None specified
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – 0.25 max. None specified
iron (%)
Fibre/fabric content (%) – – – – – 0.5 max. None specified
Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed: Crumb rubber must be derived from
• from waste tyres generated in Australia end-of-life tyres.
• by a supplier accredited with Tyre Stewardship –
Australia or another organisation approved by the
Principal.
Presence of other materials Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious
– –
material.
Appearance – – –

Table 4.10: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, ASTM and Caltrans for use in sprayed seals
Austroads ASTM Caltrans

ATS 3110 Standard specifications
75 ± 2% w/w scrap tyre crumb rubber and
Specification description
ASTM 25 ± 2% w/w high natural crumb rubber blend
and allowable crumb
Size 16 Size 30 D6114/D6114M
rubber sizes (if applicable) High natural Combined
Scrap tyre
crumb grading
crumb rubber
rubber limits(1)
Incorporation method Wet process Wet process Wet process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Test method Requirement Test method
Grading (mm)
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 100 100(2) – 100
2.00 (% w/w passing) – – TBA(3) 95 min.(2) 100(2) 96 min.
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 TBA(3) 35–85(2) 92 min.(2) 49–89 California Test
AGPT/T143 ASTM D5644
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. TBA(3) 2–25(2) 25–95(2) 8–42 385
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. TBA(3) 10 max.(2) 6–35(2) 1–16
0.15 (% w/w passing) – – TBA(3) 5 max.(2) 7 max.(2) 6 max.
0.075 (% w/w passing) – – TBA(3) 2 max.(2) 3 max.(2) 3 max.
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 – – – – –
1.1–1.2 1.1–1.2 California Test
Specific gravity – – – 1.1–1.2 None specified
208
ASTM
Moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 < 0.75 – – –
D1864/D1864M(4)
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 – – 4.7 max. 4.7 max. None specified
California Test
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.01 max. ASTM D5603 0.01 max. 0.01 max.
– 385
0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 0.25 max. None specified – – –
than iron (%)
– – – California Test
Fibre/fabric content (%) 0.1 max. ASTM D5603 0.05 max. 0.05 max.
385
Natural rubber content (%) – – – – – 22–39 40–48 ASTM D297
Acetone extract (%) – – – – – 6–16 4–16 ASTM D297
Rubber hydrocarbon (%) – – – – – 42–65 50 min. ASTM D297

Austroads ASTM Caltrans

Carbon black content (%) – – – – – 28–38 – ASTM D297
Ash content (%) – – – – – 8 max. – ASTM D297
Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed: Crumb rubber needs to meet the Crumb rubber must be:
• from waste tyres generated in requirements of one of the • produced in the United States
Australia classification classes in ASTM D5603
• derived from waste tyres taken from vehicles owned and
(which includes crumb rubber of
• by a supplier accredited with Tyre operated in the United States
various sizes sourced from car, truck,
Stewardship Australia or another • ground or granulated at ambient temperature.
bus and agricultural tyres and
organisation approved by the
non-tyre rubber).
Principal.
Presence of other Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and • No visible nonferrous metal • Must not cause foaming when combined with the bituminous
materials other deleterious material. particles. binder.
• May contain up to 4% w/w mineral • May contain up to 3% w/w calcium carbonate or talc to prevent
powder (talc) to prevent sticking sticking of rubber particles.
and caking of the rubber particles.

Appearance – Shall be free flowing. Must be dry, free-flowing particles that do not stick together.
1 Combined grading limits were obtained considering a blend of 75% w/w scrap tyre crumb rubber and 25% w/w high natural crumb rubber.
2 The Californian specification lists several different grading limit requirements which are referred to as ‘graduation limit’, ‘operating range’ and ‘contract compliance’ requirements.
Operating range requirements have been shown in the table as the contractor does not incur a monetary penalty if the crumb rubber complies with these requirements.
3 TBA = Grading to be agreed (TBA) between the purchaser and the crumb rubber binder supplier.
4 The oven temperature for performing ASTM D1864/D1864M tests shall be 105 ± 5 °C.

Table 4.11: Comparisons of international crumb rubber material specifications between Austroads, TxDOT and SABITA for use in sprayed seals
Austroads TxDOT SABITA
Specification description and Standard

ATS 3110
allowable crumb rubber sizes (if specifications TG1
applicable) Size 16 Size 30 Grade B
Incorporation method Wet process Wet process Wet process
Property Requirement Test method Requirement Test method Typical value Test method
Grading (mm)
2.36 (% w/w passing) 100 100 – –
2.00 (% w/w passing) – – 100 –
1.18 (% w/w passing) 80 min. 100 70 min. –
AGPT/T143 Tex-200-F, Part 1 MB-14
1.00 (% w/w passing) – – – 100
0.60 (% w/w passing) 10 max. 60 min. 25–60 40–70
0.30 (% w/w passing) – 20 max. – –

0.075 (% w/w passing) – – 5 max. 5 max.
Bulk density (kg/m3) Report Report AGPT/T144 – – 300–400 MB-16
Specific gravity – – – – – – –
Water/moisture content (%) 1 max. 1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – –
Particle length (mm) 3 max. 3 max. AGPT/T143 – – 6 max. None specified
Metallic iron content (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – –
Foreign materials other than iron (%) 0.1 max. 0.1 max. AGPT/T143 – – – –
Fibre/fabric content (%) – – – – – – –
Natural rubber content (%) – – – – – – –
Acetone extract (%) – – – – – – –
Rubber hydrocarbon (%) – – – – – – –
Carbon black content (%) – – – – – – –
Ash content (%) – – – – – – –

Austroads TxDOT SABITA

Crumb rubber type/source Crumb rubber must be processed: Crumb rubber consists of automobile and
• from waste tyres generated in Australia truck tyres processed at ambient
temperature. –
• by a supplier accredited with Tyre
Stewardship Australia or another
Presence of other materials Must be free from cord, wire, fluff and other • free from contaminants including fabric,
deleterious material. metal, mineral and other non-rubber
substances –
• non-foaming when added to a hot
bituminous binder.
Appearance – Must be free flowing. –

5. Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on

Binder and Asphalt Mix Properties
The Austroads PMB specification (ATS 3110) includes various specified properties for the crumb rubber
added to binders (see Table 4.2 for details). The research literature was reviewed to find studies which
investigated how the properties of the crumb rubber used in road construction affected binder properties and
asphalt mix performance. The papers that were selected for the review only included those where
differences in binder/asphalt results were solely due to the type of crumb rubber used in the experiments
(i.e. other parameters like the bitumen sample used to produce the blends, blending temperature, crumb
rubber concentration and asphalt mix type were kept constant). These studies were selected to remove the
effects of other contributing factors on binder test properties or asphalt mix performance.
Most of the studies identified were investigations into the effects of crumb rubber particle size/grading on
binder/asphalt mix properties. This most likely reflects the importance of particle size in Australian and
international specifications. Some studies also investigated the effects of crumb rubber processing conditions
(i.e. ambient versus cryogenic grinding).
5.1 Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on Binder Properties

5.1.1 Oliver (1981)
Oliver (1981) investigated the effect of crumb rubber properties on binder properties in Australia. A large
number of crumb rubber binders with varying crumb rubber contents (i.e. between 10% w/w and 25% w/w of
the total blends) were produced using different types of crumb rubber (e.g. natural or synthetic crumb rubber,
ambient or cryogenic ground crumb rubber) under different blending conditions (i.e. temperature and
blending time). The properties of the binders were investigated by conducting elastic recovery at 60 °C tests
using a purpose-built creep/recovery device. This creep/recovery device was an early version of the ARRB
Elastometer which is used in AGPT/T121. Oliver used the results obtained in elastic recovery at 60 °C tests
to gain information about how much the crumb rubber had modified the bitumen used to produce the crumb
rubber binder. Binders which displayed higher elastic recovery at 60 °C results were taken to have higher
levels of modification than those which showed lower elastic recovery at 60 °C results.
The study included investigations of a series of 15% w/w crumb rubber binders that were produced using
different sized crumb rubber. Each of the binders was manufactured using Australian 85/100 penetration
grade bitumen (which later became Australian C170 bitumen) using a blending temperature of 200 °C and
blending time of one hour. Four different sized crumb rubbers were used in the experiments. These were
obtained by sieving a single sample of ambient-ground crumb rubber and obtaining the individual fractions
retained on various sieves.
Crumb rubber samples studied by Oliver included those with maximum particle sizes of 1.18 mm (the fraction
passing a 1.18 mm sieve and retained on 0.60 mm sieve), 0.60 mm (the fraction passing a 0.60 mm sieve
and retained on a 0.42 mm sieve), 0.42 mm (the fraction passing a 0.42 mm sieve and retained on a
0.30 mm sieve) and 0.30 mm (the fraction passing a 0.30 mm sieve). The fraction with a particle size range
between 0.60 mm and 1.18 mm (maximum particle size = 1.18 mm) would best correspond to the largest
crumb rubber particles present in Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. Figure 5.1 shows that the elastic
recovery at 60 °C results obtained in this study gradually decreased with increasing crumb rubber size.
Oliver concluded from these results that crumb rubber with smaller particle sizes was slightly more effective
at modifying bitumen.

Figure 5.1: Effect of crumb rubber size on the elastic recovery at 60 °C of 15% w/w crumb rubber binders made
with Australian 85/100 penetration grade bitumen
Source: Oliver (1981).
Another crumb rubber factor that was investigated as part of this study was the effect of the rubber grinding
method on the elastic recovery at 60 °C of crumb rubber binders. It was found that crumb rubber binders
produced using cryogenically-ground crumb rubber yielded very low elastic recovery at 60 °C results
(typically about 5%) compared to binders produced using ambient-ground crumb rubber. Electron
micrograph images obtained during the study indicated that ambient grinding produced crumb rubber
particles with ‘sponge-like’ porous surfaces while cryogenic grinding produced crumb rubber particles with
relatively flat surfaces. It was thought that the increased surface area of the ambient-ground crumb rubber
improved the interaction between the crumb rubber and the bitumen during blending and so increased
elastic recovery at 60 °C results.
Oliver found the results of bulk density tests (which are included as a ‘to be reported’ parameter for Size 16
and Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110) could be used to differentiate between ambient and
cryogenically-ground crumb rubber. Crumb rubbers which were produced by cryogenic grinding typically had
very high bulk density results above 350 kg/m3, while crumb rubber produced by ambient grinding had bulk
density results less than 350 kg/m3. This is the likely reason why bulk density tests are included in ATS 3110
and some Australian jurisdiction crumb rubber specifications (Section 4.1).
5.1.2 Khalili, Jadidi and Amirkhanian (2019)
Studies by Khalili and co-workers (Khalili, Jadidi & Amirkhanian 2019) investigated the effects of different
crumb rubber sizes/types on the test properties of binders. These researchers initially prepared a series of
crumb rubber binders with different crumb rubber contents (i.e. 10% w/w, 15% w/w and 20% w/w crumb
rubber) using three different types of bitumen. The types of bitumen used in these studies included US
PG 64-16 and PG 58-28 bitumen (which are similar to C320 and C170 bitumens, respectively) and a US
viscosity-graded AC-20 bitumen (which is similar to C170 bitumen). Each of the crumb rubber binders were
produced by blending bitumen and crumb rubber for 30 minutes at 177 °C. Binder tests conducted on the
crumb rubber binders included viscosity at 135 °C, DSR G*/sinδ, flash point and ductility at 4 °C tests.

The types of crumb rubber included in the study included two samples of ambient-ground crumb rubber and
two samples of cryogenic-ground rubber which differed slightly in grading. The crumb rubber samples
produced by the ambient process both showed grading results of 100% w/w passing the 0.85 mm sieve. The
coarser sample of ambient-ground crumb rubber showed a lower percentage passing the 0.60 mm sieve
(62% w/w) than the finer sample of ambient-ground crumb rubber (87% w/w). The crumb rubber samples
produced by the cryogenic process showed the same percentage passing the 0.85 mm sieve (97% w/w).
The coarser sample of cryogenic-ground rubber showed a percentage passing result of 32% w/w for the
0.60 mm sieve while the finer sample of cryogenic-ground rubber showed a percentage passing result of
97% w/w on this sieve.
The results of tests on the crumb rubber binders indicated that the crumb rubber content was the most
significant factor which influenced the test properties of the binders. Although some variations were observed
in terms of viscosity at 135 °C and G*/sinδ test results, these did not change in a consistent way with the size
of the crumb rubber in the blend when results obtained at each crumb rubber concentration were compared.
G*/sinδ tests were conducted at 58 °C, 64 °C, 70 °C, 76 °C and 82 °C. The changes in viscosity at 135 °C
and G*/sinδ test results also did not vary in a consistent way when different types of bitumen were used to
produce the crumb rubber binders. The lack of any consistent trends in this study most likely reflects the
similarity of the particle size distributions of the samples of ambient-ground and cryogenic-ground crumb
rubber that were used. Khalili and co-workers also found that the viscosity at 135 °C and G*/sinδ results
obtained for binders which contained ambient-ground crumb rubber were higher than those which contained
cryogenically-ground crumb rubber indicating that ambient-ground crumb rubber was more effective at
modifying bitumen.
5.1.3 Putman and Amirkhanian (2006)

Putman and Amirkhanian (2006) investigated the effect of different crumb rubber sizes on the viscosity at
135 °C and complex shear modulus (G*) of crumb rubber binders. A total of 18 different crumb rubber
binders were prepared using three different bitumen samples which met the requirements of the same US
bitumen grade (i.e. a PG 64-22 grade, similar to C320 bitumen) and rubber contents of 10% w/w and
15% w/w. All blends were prepared by blending bitumen and crumb rubber at 177 °C for 30 minutes. As in
the case of the experiments by Oliver (1981), crumb rubber samples representing various sizes were
obtained by initially passing a single sample of ambient-ground crumb rubber through a series of sieves.
Blends were then prepared using crumb rubber samples with maximum particle sizes of 1.18 mm (the
fraction passing a 1.18 mm sieve and retained on a 0.85 mm sieve), 0.60 mm (the fraction passing a
0.60 mm sieve and retained on a 0.43 mm sieve) and 0.30 mm (the fraction passing a 0.30 mm sieve and
retained on a 0.18 mm sieve).
The viscosity at 135 °C results that were obtained for binders containing 15% w/w crumb rubber showed a
gradual reduction with crumb rubber size for each of the three samples of bitumen investigated. These
results are compared in Figure 5.2. No marked changes in viscosity at 135 °C results with crumb rubber size
were observed with samples containing 10% w/w crumb rubber. This is likely due to the reduced amount of
crumb rubber present in these blends. The results of DSR complex shear modulus (G*) tests at 64 °C did not
show a marked change in G* values with crumb rubber size for each of the three samples of bitumen
investigated.

Figure 5.2: Effect of crumb rubber size on the viscosity at 135 °C of 15% w/w crumb rubber binders made with
three different samples of US PG 64-22 grade bitumen
Source: Putman and Amirkhanian (2006).
5.1.4 Wang et al. (2012)
A similar study utilising cryogenic-ground crumb rubber was conducted by Wang et al. (2012). Binders
containing various crumb rubber contents (ranging from 9 to 20% w/w) were initially produced by blending a
US PG 64-22 grade bitumen (similar to C320 bitumen) with cryogenic-ground crumb rubber at 177 °C for
45 minutes. The study included two types of crumb rubber (a finer and a coarser grade) which both
contained a range of crumb rubber sizes. The coarser crumb rubber showed a grading result of 100%
passing the 1.18 mm sieve (i.e. all crumb rubber particles were smaller than 1.18 mm) while the finer crumb
rubber showed a grading result of 100% passing the 0.60 mm sieve (i.e. all crumb rubber particles were
smaller than 0.60 mm). Each of the binders were subjected to viscosity tests at various temperatures (in the
range between 135 °C and 190 °C) and low temperature bending beam rheometer (BBR) tests.
The results obtained by Wang et al. indicated that the viscosity of the crumb rubber binders at each
temperature increased as the concentration of crumb rubber in the binder was increased. The viscosity of
binders containing the same size and concentration of crumb rubber also decreased with increasing
temperature. The viscosity results obtained for the 9% w/w crumb rubber binders at each temperature were
similar when both finer crumb rubber (i.e. < 0.60 mm) and coarser crumb rubber (i.e. < 1.18 mm) were used.
The viscosity results obtained for crumb rubber binders which contained the finer crumb rubber and
13% w/w, 17% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber, however, were all higher than those obtained for
comparable blends which contained the coarser crumb rubber. Figure 5.3 shows an illustrative example of
the results obtained by Wang et al. where viscosity at 177 °C results obtained for blends containing different
levels of crumb rubber are compared for blends containing samples of coarse and fine crumb rubber.

Figure 5.3: Effects of crumb rubber size on the viscosity at 177 °C of crumb rubber binders made with US
PG 64-22 grade bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber
Source: Wang et al. (2012).
Wang et al. also subjected the crumb rubber binders produced in the study to BBR tests to evaluate their
creep stiffness at –12 and –18 °C. The results of BBR tests indicated that blends containing the finer crumb
rubber had slightly lower creep stiffness values for all crumb rubber levels tested (i.e. they were softer at low
temperatures so may be more crack resistant). These researchers suggested that the lower creep stiffness
values that were obtained may reflect a more efficient reaction between the finer crumb rubber and bitumen
than the coarser crumb rubber and bitumen.
5.1.5 Singh, Ashish and Jagadeesh (2018)
Singh, Ashish and Jagadeesh (2018) conducted studies into the effect of crumb rubber size on a variety of
different test properties which are included in the US American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications (i.e. AASHTO M320 and AASHTO M332). These
researchers initially prepared 13% w/w crumb rubber binders by blending AC-10 grade bitumen (with a
viscosity at 60 °C of 80 Pa s) with two sizes of crumb rubber which were obtained by passing a single
sample of crumb rubber through a variety of different sieves. There is no information in the paper as to
whether the crumb rubber was produced by ambient or cryogenic grinding. Crumb rubber binders were
blended at 175–180 °C for 30 minutes. Samples of crumb rubber investigated included a coarse sample with
a maximum particle size of 0.60 mm (the fraction passing a 0.60 mm sieve and retained on a 0.42 mm sieve)
and a fine sample with a maximum particle size of 0.25 mm (the fraction passing a 0.25 mm sieve and
retained on a 0.18 mm sieve).

The crumb rubber binders and a sample of the AC-10 grade bitumen used to produce the crumb rubber
blends were subjected to viscosity tests (at various temperatures between 120 °C and 180 °C) as well as
DSR G*/sinδ, multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) and linear amplitude sweep (LAS) tests. MSCR and
LAS tests are included in the AASHTO specifications as parameters which are believed to relate to the
rutting performance and the cracking performance of binders in asphalt, respectively. The results obtained in
these tests are discussed below:
• Figure 5.4 shows the results of viscosity tests obtained at temperatures between 120 °C and 180 °C for
the two crumb rubber blends and the sample of bitumen used to produce the blends (referred to as ‘Neat
AC-10’). In general, the viscosity results obtained at each temperature were slightly higher for crumb
rubber binders containing the coarser crumb rubber (maximum particle size = 0.60 mm) than the finer
crumb rubber (maximum particle size = 0.25 mm). Although this trend occurred, the viscosity results did
not differ by more than 0.3 Pa s at each test temperature. Singh, Ashish and Jagadeesh noted that this
result was somewhat unexpected as crumb rubber binders containing smaller particles generally have
higher viscosities than those which contain larger particles.
• Figure 5.5 shows the results of DSR G*/sinδ tests at different high road temperatures (i.e. 58 °C to 76 °C)
for the two crumb rubber blends and the AC-10 grade bitumen. The crumb rubber binders all showed
higher G*/sinδ results, indicating that the addition of crumb rubber resulted in an increase in stiffness
and/or elasticity compared to the base bitumen. This may potentially lead to an improvement in rut
resistance. The crumb rubber binder containing coarser crumb rubber (maximum particle size = 0.60 mm)
showed slightly higher G*/sinδ results than the binder containing finer crumb rubber at each test
temperature, indicating that the coarser crumb rubber appeared to be slightly better at modifying bitumen.
• Figure 5.6 shows the results of DSR MSCR tests at 64 °C which were conducted on each of the binders
to evaluate Jnr3.2 values. Jnr3.2 values are the current binder rutting parameter in the US AASHTO M332
specification where binders with lower Jnr3.2 results are expected to be less susceptible to rutting in
asphalt. Both crumb rubber binders showed significantly lower Jnr3.2 results than the sample of
AC-10 grade bitumen implying that the crumb rubber binders would be significantly more rut resistant in
asphalt. The sample containing coarser crumb rubber had a slightly lower Jnr3.2 result than the sample
containing finer crumb rubber. Figure 5.6 also shows the elastic recovery at 64 °C results obtained for
each of the binders which were derived from MSCR tests. These results indicate that the crumb rubber
binders were significantly more elastic than AC-10 grade bitumen, with the binder containing coarser
crumb rubber being more elastic than the binder containing finer crumb rubber.
• DSR LAS tests were conducted at 25 °C to evaluate the potential fatigue resistance of the different
binders in asphalt. The test provides information on the amount of damage that has accumulated in a
binder sample after repeated loading using a viscoelastic continuum damage theory (Austroads 2016a).
The results of LAS tests are used to estimate the fatigue life of the binder (i.e. number of loading cycles to
failure) at various strain amplitudes. Figure 5.7 shows the fatigue life results at various strain amplitudes
which were calculated from the LAS tests. Adding crumb rubber markedly improved the fatigue resistance
of the AC-10 grade bitumen. The LAS fatigue results for the crumb rubber binders containing coarse
crumb rubber (maximum particle size = 0.60 mm) were slightly higher than those containing fine crumb
rubber (maximum particle size = 0.25 mm). Even though this was the case, the results obtained for the
two crumb rubber binders were extremely similar.
The above binder test results overall indicated that the coarser crumb rubber (maximum particle
size = 0.60 mm) was a slightly more effective modifier than the finer crumb rubber (maximum particle
size = 0.18 mm) in terms of the results obtained in viscosity, G*/sinδ and MSCR tests. These results appear
to be somewhat inconsistent with the results of Oliver and other researchers which have generally found that
use of finer crumb rubber either more effectively modifies the binder or does not significantly affect binder
test results. Singh and co-workers noted in their paper that the fine crumb rubber that was used in their study
was extremely fine (i.e. it is much finer than Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110). They indicated that the
reductions in binder test results could be due to degradation/dissolution of the very fine crumb rubber during
the blending process as this type of crumb rubber would have a large surface area in contact with the
bitumen.

Singh and co-workers also conducted US storage stability tests on samples which contained fine and coarse
crumb rubber. These tests were conducted by storing samples in metal tubes (which were 25 mm in
diameter and 140 mm high) for 2 days at 163 °C and then measuring the softening points of the top and
bottom thirds of each sample. They found that the blend containing fine crumb rubber had better storage
stability than the blend which contained coarser crumb rubber.
Figure 5.4: Effect of crumb rubber size on the viscosity of crumb rubber binders at temperatures between
120 °C and 180 °C
Source: Singh, Ashish and Jagadeesh (2018).

Figure 5.5: Effect of crumb rubber size on G*/sinδ results for crumb rubber binders at temperatures between
120 °C and 180 °C
Figure 5.6: Effect of crumb rubber size on MSCR results at 64 °C for different crumb rubber binders

Figure 5.7: Effect of crumb rubber size on LAS results at 25 °C for different crumb rubber binders
5.1.6 Dantas-Neto et al. (2006)

Dantas-Neto et al. (2006) prepared 17% w/w crumb rubber blends using three sizes of ambient-ground
crumb rubber and 50/70 penetration grade bitumen (similar to C320 bitumen) using a blending temperature
of 170 °C. These blends were subjected to viscosity at 175 °C, resilience at 25 °C, softening point and
penetration at 25 °C tests after different periods of blending.
Table 5.1 shows the grading test results for each of the three types of crumb rubber used to produce the
blends (i.e. CR1, CR2 and CR3). The finest crumb rubber used in the study (CR1) showed a grading result
of 100% w/w passing the 2.36 mm sieve. The other two samples (CR2 and CR3) showed grading results of
100% w/w passing the 4.75 mm sieve with the CR3 sample being slightly coarser than the CR2 sample. The
samples of crumb rubber used by Dantas-Neto et al. were significantly coarser than those used in the other
studies included in Section 5.1 which investigated the effect of crumb rubber size on binder test properties.
These other studies all used crumb rubber samples which would show grading results of 100% w/w passing
the 1.18 mm sieve.
Table 5.1: Particle size distributions of the different sized crumb rubber used by Dantas-Neto et al. (2006)
CR1 CR2 CR3

(100% w/w passing the (77% w/w passing the (67% w/w passing the
Sieve size (mm) 2.36 mm sieve) 2.36 mm sieve) 2.36 mm sieve)
% crumb rubber passing (%w/w)

4.75 100 100 100
2.36 100 77 67
2.00 97 60 44
1.18 48 31 31
0.60 19 16 16
0.30 8 6 6
0.075 0 0 0
Source: Dantas-Neto et al. (2006).

The three crumb rubber samples used by Dantas-Neto and co-workers were all significantly coarser than
Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. The CR1 sample was significantly coarser than the crumb rubber
specified in Arizona for use in asphalt applications (Table 4.8). The CR2 and CR3 samples were both
significantly coarser than the combined crumb rubber grading which is specified in California for use in
sprayed sealing applications (Table 4.10).
Table 5.2 shows the results obtained by these researchers after blends containing each of the three types of
crumb rubber were mixed for 1 hour and 2 hours at 170 °C. The size of the crumb rubber appeared to have
the most effect on viscosity at 175 °C results as there was a significant reduction in viscosity at 175 °C (up to
50%) with crumb rubber size at each blending time. Softening point results appeared to be slightly influenced
by crumb rubber size, as the softening point results obtained from blends containing finer crumb rubber were
generally higher than blends containing coarser crumb rubber at each blending time. The size of the crumb
rubber in the blends did not appear to markedly affect the results obtained in resilience at 25 °C or
penetration at 25 °C tests at either blending time.
Table 5.2: Test results obtained by Dantas-Neto et al. for 17% w/w crumb rubber binders blended for different
times at 170 °C
Test 1 hour blending 2 hours blending

Crumb rubber type in blend CR1 CR2 CR3 CR1 CR2 CR3
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) 9.29 6.41 4.97 13.77 11.68 6.63
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 62 62 53 62 62 61
Softening point (°C) 77.4 71.0 73.6 83.4 77.8 73.8
Penetration at 25 °C (0.1 mm) 31 30 33 32 33 33
Source: Dantas-Neto et al. (2006).
5.2 Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on Asphalt Properties
5.2.1 Wong and Wong (2007)
Wong and Wong (2007) investigated the effect of crumb rubber size on binder test properties and rutting
performance in asphalt. A series of 10% w/w crumb rubber binders were initially prepared by blending crumb
rubber of three different sizes with 60/70 penetration grade bitumen (similar to C170 bitumen) for 45 minutes
at 180 °C. The crumb rubber binders and the sample of 60/70 grade bitumen were then subjected to
softening point tests and the wheel tracking performance of each of the binders was assessed in two DGA
and two OGA mixes. Wong and Wong referred to the different samples of crumb rubber used in the study as
0.15 mm, 0.30 mm and 0.60 mm sized crumb rubber but did not provide any further information about
grading in their paper. They also did not indicate whether the crumb rubber used in the study was produced
by ambient or cryogenic grinding.
The softening point results obtained for three different crumb rubber binders were all in the range between
61.0 to 61.2 °C which indicated that crumb rubber size did not affect softening point results. The softening
point results obtained for the crumb rubber binders were all higher than the softening point result obtained for
unmodified 60/70 grade bitumen (54.6 °C) indicating that all three crumb rubber samples had modified the
base bitumen.
The wheel tracking performance at 60 °C of each of the crumb rubber binders and the 60/70 grade bitumen
was then assessed in 10 mm DGA and 20 mm DGA mixes and a 10 mm OGA mix. The binder contents in
the two DGA mixes were 4.5% w/w and 5.4% w/w, respectively. Two sets of wheel tracking tests were
performed in the 10 mm OGA mix using binder contents of 5.1% w/w and 5.7% w/w. Wheel tracking tests
were performed using BS 598-110. The wheel tracking results obtained by Wong and Wong for each of the
different asphalt mixes are summarised in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Effect of crumb rubber size on the deformation resistance of different asphalt mixes
Binder content
Asphalt mix
of asphalt mix Wheel tracking results (mm)
type
(%w/w/)
Binder Neat 60/70 10% w/w crumb 10% w/w crumb 10% w/w crumb
description bitumen rubber binder rubber binder rubber binder
–
with 0.15 mm with 0.30 mm with 0.60 mm
crumb rubber crumb rubber crumb rubber
10 mm DGA 4.5 4.9 1.4 2.8 2.1
20 mm DGA 5.4 6.1 2.1 3.0 3.4
10 mm OGA 5.1 6.2 2.5 2.6 1.8
10 mm OGA 5.7 7.1 4.5 4.7 3.9
Source: Wong and Wong (2007).
For each of the four asphalt mixes studied, the wheel tracking results obtained for specimens containing
60/70 bitumen were all significantly higher than those which contained crumb rubber binders. This indicated
that incorporation of a crumb rubber binder improved the rutting performance of each asphalt mix.
The wheel tracking results obtained in the two DGA mixes showed some degree of variation with crumb
rubber particle size however the trends were not the same in both DGA mixes and the wheel tracking results
obtained using different crumb rubber sizes did not vary by more than 1.4 mm for the 10 mm DGA mix and
1.3 mm for the 20 mm DGA mix. The wheel tracking results obtained in the two 10 mm OGA mixes which
contained crumb rubber did not appear to be markedly affected by crumb rubber size as the wheel tracking
results obtained in each mix did not vary by more than 0.8 mm.
The lack of consistent changes in wheel tracking results with crumb rubber size for all asphalt mixes, and the
small differences in wheel tracking results observed for each asphalt mix, imply that the size of the crumb
rubber did not have a significant effect on the wheel tracking results obtained by Wong and Wong.
5.2.2 Xiao et al. (2009)
Xiao et al. (2009) investigated the effect of crumb rubber size on asphalt performance using a single type of
9.5 mm DGA mix which contained 25% w/w recycled asphalt pavement (RAP). Six crumb rubber binders
were initially prepared using samples of ambient-ground and cryogenic-ground crumb rubber with three
different sizes. The grading results obtained for each of the crumb rubber samples are summarised in
Table 5.4. Crumb rubber binders were prepared by blending 9% w/w crumb rubber with a sample of US
PG 64-22 grade bitumen (similar to C320 bitumen) for 30 minutes at a temperature of 177 °C (Xiao 2006).
The two finest samples of ambient-ground crumb rubber used in the study (‘Ambient CR1’ and
‘Ambient CR2’) both showed a grading result of 100% w/w passing the 0.60 mm sieve. The ‘Ambient CR1’
crumb rubber sample was slightly finer (91% w/w passing the 0.42 mm sieve) than the ‘Ambient CR2’ crumb
rubber sample (61% w/w passing the 0.42 mm sieve). The coarsest sample of ambient-ground crumb rubber
‘Ambient CR3’ showed a grading result of 100% w/w passing the 1.41 mm sieve.
The two finest samples of cryogenic-ground crumb rubber also showed a grading result of 100% w/w
passing the 0.60 mm sieve. The finest sample of cryogenic-ground crumb rubber (‘Cryogenic CR1’) showed
a higher percentage passing result on the 0.42 mm sieve (92% w/w) than the ‘Cryogenic CR2’ sample
(34% w/w). The coarsest sample of cryogenic-ground crumb rubber showed a grading result of 100% w/w
passing the 1.18 mm sieve indicating it was slightly finer than the ‘Ambient CR3’ sample.

Table 5.4: Particle size distributions of the crumb rubber samples used by Xiao et al.
Cryogenic Cryogenic Cryogenic

Ambient CR1 Ambient CR2 Ambient CR3
CR1 CR2 CR3
(91% w/w (61% w/w (100% w/w
(92% w/w (34% w/w (100% w/w
Sieve size passing the passing the passing the
passing the passing the passing the
(mm) 0.42 mm 0.42 mm 1.41 mm
0.42 mm 0.42 mm 1.18 mm
sieve) sieve) sieve)
sieve) sieve) sieve)
% crumb rubber passing (%w/w)

1.41 100 100 100 100 100 100
1.18 100 100 97 100 100 100
0.84 100 100 70 100 100 64
0.60 100 100 44 100 100 27
0.42 91 61 27 92 34 4
0.30 59 19 17 46 4 3
0.18 26 13 9 12 4 3
0.15 19 11 8 7 4 3
Source: Xiao et al. (2009).
Table 5.5 shows the test results obtained by Xiao and co-workers when crumb rubber binder samples
containing ambient-ground crumb rubber were incorporated into the 9.5 mm DGA mix containing 25% w/w
RAP. The analogous results obtained for samples containing cryogenic-ground crumb rubber are included in
Table 5.6.
Table 5.5: Effect of size of ambient-ground crumb rubber on asphalt test properties
Test 9% w/w ambient CR1 9% w/w ambient CR2 9% w/w ambient CR3
Moisture sensitivity – tensile stress 107 93 96
ratio (%)
Modulus at 5 °C (GPa) 37.9 34.5 26.8
Modulus at 25 °C (GPa) 20.1 15.5 17.7
Modulus at 40 °C (GPa) 8.1 6.7 7.3
Wheel tracking depth at 64 °C (mm) 1.0 0.8 1.4
Fatigue life at 20 °C (cycles) 31 800 35 500 37 400
Table 5.6: Effect of size of cryogenically-ground crumb rubber on asphalt test properties
Test 9% w/w cryogenic CR1 9% w/w cryogenic CR2 9% w/w cryogenic CR3
Moisture sensitivity – tensile stress 99 113 96
ratio (%)
Modulus at 5 °C (GPa) 33.2 33.4 22.7
Modulus at 25 °C (GPa) 13.3 13.3 12.3
Modulus at 40 °C (GPa) 4.1 4.0 2.8
Wheel tracking depth at 64 °C (mm) 2.0 0.9 2.1
Fatigue life at 20 °C (cycles) 20 100 31 900 35 700

Moisture sensitivity, modulus tests at various temperatures and asphalt fatigue tests at 20 °C were
conducted in the study using AASHTO T283, AASHTO TP31 and AASHTO T321, respectively. Moisture
sensitivity tests were conducted without a freeze/thaw cycle. Wheel tracking tests were conducted at 64 °C
using an Asphalt Pavement Analyser (APA). Each asphalt specimen was subjected to 8 000 loading cycles
during wheel tracking tests. Fatigue tests were conducted at a single peak strain level using four asphalt
beams containing each crumb rubber binder type.
The results obtained by Xiao and co-workers indicated that neither crumb rubber particle size nor type of
crumb rubber (i.e. ambient or cryogenically-ground) had a significant effect on moisture sensitivity results.
The modulus results obtained at each temperature, overall, showed a slight reduction as the size of the
crumb rubber in the binder was increased, with the samples containing ambient-ground crumb rubber
showing somewhat higher results than analogous samples which contained cryogenically-ground crumb
rubber. The wheel tracking at 64 °C results obtained for asphalt samples containing both types of crumb
rubber were all quite similar as the final wheel tracking depths obtained for the six binder samples did not
vary by more than 1.3 mm. The fatigue life at 20 °C results obtained for five of the crumb rubber binders
were very similar as they were all in the range between 31 800 and 37 400 cycles. Asphalt specimens
containing the 9% w/w cryogenic CR1 binder showed a slightly lower fatigue life of 20 100 cycles. Based on
the results obtained by Xiao and co-workers it appears that neither crumb rubber size nor type had a
significant effect on the rutting or fatigue cracking performance of the crumb rubber binders in asphalt.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 Binder Properties

Table 5.7 provides a summary of the results obtained in the studies included in Section 5.1 where the effects
of crumb rubber size on crumb rubber binder properties were investigated. The table includes information
about whether the crumb rubber was produced by ambient or cryogenic grinding and the crumb rubber sizes
that were investigated. The results obtained from various binder tests have been grouped into production
temperature properties (i.e. properties measured above 120 °C), high road temperature properties
(i.e. properties measured between 55 °C and 85 °C) and ambient/low temperature properties (i.e. properties
measured at 25 °C and below). Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 are located at the end of Section 5.3
It was found that different researchers described the size of the crumb rubber used in each study in different
ways. The size information included in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 refers to a range of particle sizes if the crumb
rubber used in the study was initially separated by using various fractions retained on different sieves. It
includes information about the smallest sieve which showed 100% w/w passing in the cases where the
crumb rubber samples used in a particular study showed 100% w/w passing results on different sized sieves.
Studies conducted by Khalili, Jadidi and Amirkhanian (2019), Dantas-Neto et al. (2006) and Xiao et
al. (2009) involved the use of some crumb rubber samples which showed 100% w/w passing results on the
same series of sieves (e.g. studies of Khalili, Jadidi and Amirkhanian involved the use of two samples of
ambient-ground crumb rubber which both showed 100% w/w passing the 0.85 mm sieve, but showed
different grading results on the 0.60 mm sieve). In these cases, the size of the crumb rubber particles has
been described in Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 in terms of the percentage passing the coarsest sieve where less
than 100% w/w passing results were observed.
The specified properties of Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 indicate that 90% w/w of the crumb rubber
should be between 0.60 mm and 2.36 mm in size. The specified properties of Size 30 crumb rubber in
ATS 3110 indicate that 80% w/w of the crumb rubber should be between 0.30 mm and 1.18 mm in size. Most
of the studies included in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 appear to have investigated the effect on crumb rubber size in
a size range similar to Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. Studies by Dantas-Neto and
co-workers involved the use of crumb rubber samples which were coarser than Size 16 and Size 30 crumb
rubber in ATS 3110.
Based on the results included in Section 5.1 and Table 5.7 the following observations can be made about the
relationship between crumb rubber properties and binder test properties:

Viscosity at production temperatures (> 120 °C)
Several studies which investigated lower crumb rubber content binders (≤ 10% w/w) found no effect of
particle size on crumb rubber binder viscosity. Binders with higher crumb rubber contents (13–20% w/w)
showed some changes in viscosity with particle size with three studies showing a reduction in viscosity with
increased particle size, one showing no consistent trends and another showing a slight increase in viscosity
with increased particle size. The largest reduction in binder viscosity with crumb rubber particle size was
observed for crumb rubber binders which contained coarser crumb rubber than Size 16 crumb rubber in
ATS 3110.
High road temperature properties (55–85 °C)
No consistent trends between crumb rubber particle size and high road temperature binder properties
(i.e. elastic recovery, softening point, G*/sinδ, G*, MSCR results) were observed across all studies. Overall,
crumb rubber particle size had no or only a small effect on high road temperature binder properties.
Ambient/low road temperature properties (< 25 °C)
Studies which investigated binder test properties at temperatures relevant to typical pavement temperatures
in Australia and New Zealand (i.e. penetration at 25 °C, resilience at 25 °C and LAS fatigue test results at
25 °C) did not find any effect of crumb rubber size on binder test properties. One study which investigated
binder properties at very low temperatures (i.e. –12 °C and –18 °C) implied that the use of finer crumb rubber
may slightly improve the thermal cracking resistance of the binder at very low temperatures.
Crumb rubber production method

Two of the studies which investigated the relationship between crumb rubber size and binder test properties
(Oliver 1981; Khalil, Jadidi & Amirkhanian 2019) also conducted investigations into the effects of crumb
rubber binder grinding method on binder test properties. Both studies indicated that ambient-ground crumb
rubber was more effective at modifying bitumen than cryogenic-ground crumb rubber.
5.3.2 Asphalt Properties
Table 5.8 summarises the results from Section 5.2 where the effects of crumb rubber size on asphalt
performance were reviewed. The table includes information about whether the crumb rubber was produced
by ambient or cryogenic grinding and the crumb rubber sizes that were investigated. The results of testing of
asphalt samples have been grouped into high road temperature properties (above 60 °C) and ambient/low
temperature properties (between 5 °C and 40 °C).
The results obtained in the two asphalt performance studies indicated that crumb rubber size had little effect
on the rutting and fatigue cracking performance, as well as the moisture sensitivity, of asphalt mixes. Studies
by Xiao and co-workers indicated that there was a slight reduction in resilient modulus results with increasing
crumb rubber size. Asphalt samples which contained ambient-ground crumb rubber also appeared to have
somewhat higher resilient modulus results than comparable samples which contained cryogenically-ground
crumb rubber.

Table 5.7: Overview of studies into the effects of crumb rubber size on binder properties
Crumb rubber Ambient/low road

Crumb rubber sizes investigated Production temperature High road temperature
Reference grinding temperature
(mm) properties properties
method properties
Oliver (1981) Ambient < 0.30 Elastic recovery at 60 °C:
0.30–0.42 Slight reduction with
– increasing size –
0.42–0.60
0.60–1.18
Khalili, Jadidi and Amirkhanian Ambient 87% w/w passing the 0.60 mm sieve Viscosity at 135 °C: G*/sinδ at temperatures
(2019) 62% w/w passing the 0.60 mm sieve 10% w/w, 15% w/w and between 58 °C and 82 °C:
20% w/w blends: no No consistent trends –
Cryogenic 97% w/w passing the 0.60 mm sieve
consistent trends
32% w/w passing the 0.60 mm sieve
Putman and Amirkhanian Ambient 0.18–0.30 Viscosity at 135 °C: G* at 64 °C:
(2006) 0.43–0.60 10% w/w blends: no change No marked change with

0.85–1.18 with increasing size increasing size
–
15% w/w blends: gradual
reduction with increasing
size
Wang et al. (2012) Cryogenic < 0.60 Viscosity at temperatures BBR creep stiffness at
< 1.18 between 135 °C and 190 °C: –12 °C and –18 °C:
9% w/w blends: no change Slight increase with
with increasing size – larger size (potential
13% w/w to 20% w/w blends: improvement of fatigue
reduction with increasing resistance when
size smaller crumb rubber is
used)
Singh, Ashish and Jagadeesh Not known 0.18–0.25 Viscosity at temperatures G*/sinδ at temperatures LAS fatigue results at
(2018) 0.42–0.60 between 120 °C and 180 °C: between 58 °C and 76 °C: 25 °C:
13% w/w blends: very slight Slight increase with larger No significant change
increase with increasing size size with increasing size
Storage stability at 163 °C: MSCR at 64 °C:

Improved with decreasing Slightly more elastic with
size larger size

Crumb rubber Ambient/low road

Crumb rubber sizes investigated Production temperature High road temperature
Reference grinding temperature
(mm) properties properties
method properties
Dantas-Neto et al. (2006) Ambient 100% w/w passing the 2.36 mm sieve Viscosity at 175 °C: Softening point: Penetration and
77% w/w passing the 2.36 mm sieve 17% w/w blends: significant Slight reduction with resilience at 25 °C:
67% w/w passing the 2.36 mm sieve reduction with increasing increasing size No significant change
size with increasing size
Wong and Wong (2007) Not known 0.15 mm(1) Softening point:
0.30 mm(1) – No change with increasing –
0.60 mm(1) size
1 Nominal crumb rubber size. Crumb rubber grading information was not included in the paper by Wong and Wong (2007).
Table 5.8: Overview of studies into the effect of crumb rubber size on asphalt mix properties
Crumb rubber High road temperature

Reference Crumb rubber sizes investigated (mm) Ambient/low temperature properties
grinding method properties
Wong and Wong Not known 0.15 mm(1) Rutting at 60 °C: –
(2007) 0.30 mm(1) No significant effects
0.60 mm(1)
Xiao et al. (2009) Ambient 91% w/w passing the 0.42 mm sieve Resilient modulus between 5 °C and 40 °C:
61% w/w passing the 0.42 mm sieve Slight reduction with increasing size
100% w/w passing the 1.41 mm sieve Rutting at 64 °C:
Cryogenic 92% w/w passing the 0.42 mm sieve No significant effects Moisture sensitivity and fatigue cracking performance
at 20 °C:
No significant effects
1 Nominal crumb rubber size. Crumb rubber grading information was not included in the paper by Wong and Wong (2007).

5.4 Summary
A review of the literature into the relationships between crumb rubber characteristics and binder/asphalt mix
properties indicated that most studies have focussed on the effects of crumb rubber particle size on binder
and asphalt properties. Some studies have also investigated the effects of rubber grinding methods on
binder/asphalt properties. These studies have indicated that ambient-ground crumb rubber is more effective
at modifying bitumen that cryogenic-ground rubber.
Studies of the effects of crumb rubber size on binder test properties appear to indicate that the viscosity of
binders at high temperatures is most affected by the size of the crumb rubber included in the binder. Other
binder test properties appear to be only slightly affected by crumb rubber size or no consistent trends were
observed. Although the results obtained in different studies showed variable trends, the majority of studies
indicated that there was a reduction in high temperature viscosity results with increasing crumb rubber size
for binders which contained relatively high concentrations of crumb rubber (13–20% w/w). Most studies
included in the literature review also found that high temperature viscosity results were not markedly affected
by crumb rubber size if the binders contained low concentrations of crumb rubber (≤ 10% w/w).
The results of the two asphalt performance studies which were included in the literature review appeared to
indicate that crumb rubber size had little effect on the moisture sensitivity, rutting performance and fatigue
cracking performance of asphalt.

6. Survey of Crumb Rubber Properties Targeted

by Australian Suppliers
Tyre Stewardship Australia (TSA) accredited tyre recyclers were contacted to gather an understanding of the
current specifications and test methods used across industry relating to the manufacture of crumb rubber for
road construction. Sixteen companies which were listed as tyre recyclers on the TSA website were
contacted. These companies were located in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western
Australia. In terms of the 16 companies contacted, 7 could not be contacted by phone (or did not respond to
repeated messages) and 4 indicated that they did not currently produce crumb rubber for road construction.
Five companies provided some information about the properties of the crumb rubber they produced. One
supplier indicated that they did not test their products themselves, and some recyclers indicated their
products were tested by clients prior to use.
Each of the companies that responded were requested to provide a copy of their crumb rubber
manufacturing specification as well as copies of test reports for different crumb rubber batches. Table 6.1
summarises the information obtained for each supplier as well as the results obtained in terms of particle
length, bulk density, water content and foreign materials-related tests. The states where each of the
manufacturers are located are also included in the table. Table 6.1 also compares the information provided
by each supplier with the specified requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. No comparisons
were made with the specified requirements for Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 as this material is no
longer produced in Australia.
Suppliers A, B and C all conducted tests using in-house test methods rather than using Austroads test
methods AGPT/T143 or AGPT/T144. Supplier B did not provide any test reports for individual crumb rubber
batches but provided information about the typical values observed for their crumb rubber. Supplier D did not
provide any information, except for a test report which determined the level of lead in their crumb rubber.
Supplier E provided the most information and is the largest Australian manufacturer for crumb rubber used in
road construction. Supplier E characterises the properties of the crumb rubber they produce using the
Austroads test methods listed in ATS 3110. The manufacturing specification limits for ’30 mesh’ (Size 30)
crumb rubber that were provided by Supplier E are included in Table 6.1.
None of the suppliers provided test results for foreign materials other than iron. As noted in Section 4.1.1,
this test requirement was included in the Australian PMB specification when it was updated in 2014. While
Austroads Test Method AGPT/T143 includes a procedure for determining the metallic iron content of crumb
rubber, it does not include a procedure for determining the amount of other types of foreign materials. This is
the likely reason why none of the suppliers provided test results for foreign materials other than iron.
The information obtained from Supplier B indicated that their crumb rubber typically met ATS 3110
specification limits for bulk density and water content, but the typical metallic iron content was higher than the
ATS 3110 maximum specification limit. The results shown in Table 6.1 for Supplier C met ATS 3110
specification limit requirements. The manufacturing specification limits provided by Supplier E appeared to
be closely aligned with those listed in ATS 3110. Supplier E also has an additional manufacturing
requirement of 350 kg/m3 maximum for bulk density which is more stringent than the ATS 3110 requirement
of ‘report’. This most likely reflects the bulk density requirements for crumb rubber included in DIT and
MRWA specification documents (see Table 4.2 and Table 4.4 for details).
Supplier A, Supplier B, and Supplier C provided grading test results for their crumb rubber products. The
single grading curve obtained from Supplier A failed ATS 3110 specification limit requirements for the
percentage passing on the 1.18 mm (99.1% w/w), 0.60 mm (48.1% w/w) and 0.30 mm (20.2% w/w) sieves.
The typical grading results obtained from Supplier B met ATS 3110 specification limits for Size 30 crumb
rubber. It was not possible to compare the grading results obtained from two crumb rubber batches produced
by Supplier C with ATS 3110 specification limits as a different series of sieves (i.e. 0.71 mm, 0.43 mm and
0.25 mm) were used to perform the grading analysis.

Table 6.1: Comparison of ATS 3110-specified properties for Size 30 crumb rubber with products manufactured
by different suppliers
Austroads
Size 30 crumb Supplier A Supplier B Supplier C Supplier D Supplier E
rubber (QLD) (VIC) (QLD) (NSW) (VIC)
specification(1)
Information – A single Typical values Test reports A test report Crumb rubber
obtained test report for their for two measuring the manufacturing
containing crumb rubber production lead content specification
a crumb batches of crumb and test
rubber rubber reports for
grading 36 batches
Test methods AGPT/T143 In-house In-house In-house – AGPT/T143
used AGPT/T144 AGPT/T144
Particle length 3 max. – – < 3(2) – 3 max.(3)
(mm)
Bulk density Report – 325 (typical 460(2) – 350 max.(3)
(kg/m3) value)
Water content 1 max. – 0.5 (typical 0 – 1 max.(3)
(%) value)
Foreign 0.1 max. – – – – –
materials –
other than iron
(%)
Foreign 0.1 max. – < 1 (typical 0(2) – 0.1 max.(3)
materials – value)
metallic iron
(%)
1 Source: ATS 3110.
2 Results quoted on test reports for two production batches.
3 Supplier E manufacturing specification limits.
Supplier E provided test reports for 36 ‘30-mesh’ crumb rubber batches which were produced between
August 2019 and September 2020. These test reports included results associated with bulk density, water
content, metallic iron content and crumb rubber grading tests. All results obtained from Supplier E met
ATS 3110 requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber except that only six of the 36 batches met the ATS 3110
requirement of 20% w/w maximum for percentage passing the 0.30 mm sieve.
As Supplier E is the largest Australian manufacturer of crumb rubber for road construction and has difficulties
meeting ATS 3110 requirements for the 0.30 mm sieve, the results obtained for this parameter were
analysed to determine the variability in this test parameter due to Supplier E’s production process. Figure 6.1
shows a histogram of the number of Supplier E batches against percentage passing results obtained for the
0.30 mm sieve. The current ATS 3110 requirement of 20% w/w maximum is also shown in the figure. Most
Supplier E batch results are higher than the current ATS 3110 limit. The spread of results appears to follow a
type of normal distribution which would be expected for a typical manufacturing process. The most frequent
Supplier E result in this test was between 22.1 and 23.0% w/w.
A statistical analysis of the data obtained from Supplier E (Braverman 1979) indicated that the average
percentage passing result for the 0.30 mm sieve was 23.2% w/w and the standard deviation of results was
2.7% w/w. The 99% confidence interval associated with a maximum specification limit was calculated to be
29.5% w/w. This confidence interval is equivalent to 1% of batches failing an upper specification limit. Based
on this confidence interval result, and considering the typical variation in particle size distribution results, an
ATS 3110 specification limit of 30% maximum would account for the typical variations in Supplier E’s crumb
rubber manufacturing process.

Figure 6.1: Analysis of 0.30 mm sieve test results for 36 production batches of Supplier E Size 30 crumb rubber
6.1 Discussion/Summary
Sixteen companies which were listed as tyre recyclers on the TSA website were contacted to gather
information about the current specifications and methods used by producers to characterise their crumb
rubber. Of the 16 companies contacted only 5 provided information on their crumb rubber products. Three of
these companies used in-house methods, rather than Austroads test methods, to characterise the properties
of the crumb rubber they produced while one of the companies was unable to provide any ATS 3110-related
test results. Supplier E provided the most comprehensive set of results which included a copy of their
manufacturing specification as well as test results for 36 different crumb rubber batches.
None of the companies which responded could provide test results for foreign materials other than iron. This
is likely due to the lack of a procedure for this test in AGPT/T143. As there is no current test procedure to
determine this crumb rubber property, and the ATS 3110 ‘additional textural requirement’ of ‘must be free of
cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious material’ relates to contamination of crumb rubber with these types of
materials (Section 4.1.2), it may be beneficial to remove the foreign materials other than iron test
requirement from a future version of ATS 3110. It was also noted in Section 4.1.2 that TfNSW, DIT and
MRWA do not currently require crumb rubber to be subjected to this test.
During the course of the project, it was noted by a number of Austroads jurisdiction members that Size 16
crumb rubber is no longer available (see Section 4.1 for details). Therefore it may be beneficial to remove the
specified properties of Size 16 crumb rubber from a future version of ATS 3110. Discussions at the Austroads
Pavements Task Force meeting held in March 2021, however, indicated that some Austroads jurisdictions may
want to use Size 16 crumb rubber in crumb rubber binders in the future if it can be manufactured locally again.
Due to this, Size 16 crumb rubber should not be removed from ATS 3110 at the current time.
Information obtained from Supplier E indicated that their ’30 mesh’ product would be expected to meet all
ATS 3110 requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber except for the percentage passing the 0.30 mm sieve. If the
ATS 3110 specified requirement for percentage passing the 0.30 mm sieve was increased from 20% maximum
to 30% maximum, then the largest manufacturer of crumb rubber in Australia would be able to produce crumb
rubber which would meet the requirements of the Australian national PMB specification (ATS 3110).

7. Binder Test Results
7.1 Introduction
A major aim of the binder research work during the project was to determine whether the specified properties
of crumb rubber binders which have been used/trialed by TMR and MRWA in asphalt could be made to be
consistent with the current ATS 3110-specified properties for crumb rubber binders which are used in
sprayed seals (i.e. S45R, S15RF and S18RF grades). It was noted in Section 3.5, that even though the
crumb rubber binder specifications developed by TMR and MRWA were based on the crumb rubber binder
specifications used in Arizona and California, most demonstration trials used very similar, if not the same,
formulations for the crumb rubber binder. TMR trials of crumb rubber use in OGA, and MRWA trials of crumb
rubber use in OGA/GGA, utilised crumb rubber binders which contained 82% w/w C170 bitumen and
18% w/w crumb rubber. TMR trials of crumb rubber use in GGA utilised a very similar binder which nominally
contained C170 bitumen and 17–18% w/w crumb rubber.
Based on the similarity of the binder formulations used by TMR and MRWA in their trials, binder research
work focussed on developing a set of ATS 3110 specification limits for a crumb rubber binder containing
82% w/w C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber. The test properties included in the proposed
specification for this binder were chosen to mimic the current series of tests specified to be conducted on
S45R grade binders prior to their use in sprayed sealing applications. This series of tests was chosen as it
would enable factory-produced crumb rubber binders used in both sprayed sealing and asphalt applications
to be subjected to the same series of tests in the future. The series of tests currently specified for S45R
grade binders are overall extremely similar to those used to characterise the other types of PMBs included in
ATS 3110.
The other main aim of the binder research work was to determine whether a crumb rubber binder containing
91% w/w C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb rubber could be specified in terms of ATS 3110 test properties
so that it could be used on a national basis to construct sprayed seals. A 9% w/w (or 10 parts) crumb rubber
binder is currently used in Victoria to construct high stress seals and is specified by DoT Vic in terms of a
recipe. The use of a 9% w/w crumb rubber binder has been restricted in other Australian states due to the
lack of specified test properties for this type of crumb rubber binder in ATS 3110.
The binder research work also initially developed ATS 3110-specified properties for crumb rubber binders
which were blends of C170 bitumen with 15% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber as it was originally thought
that this would allow Austroads jurisdictions to specify crumb rubber binders with a variety of different crumb
rubber contents in the future. The results obtained were presented to members of the Austroads Bituminous
Surfacing Technical Research Group (BSTG) at a meeting held on 28 October 2020. Based on the results
obtained in the project, BSTG members indicated that ATS 3110-specified properties for 15% w/w and
20% w/w crumb rubber binders were not required at the current time. The work towards developing
ATS 3110-specified properties for 15% w/w and 20 w/w crumb rubber binders, however, has been included
in Section 7 and Section 8 for completeness.
Experimental work to develop ATS 3110 specification requirements for blends of C170 bitumen and different
levels of crumb rubber initially involved preparing a series of blends in the laboratory which contained a
single sample of C170 bitumen and between 5% w/w and 20% w/w of a single sample of crumb rubber. Each
of these blends was then subjected to a range of ATS 3110 tests as well as US-specified viscosity at 175 °C,
viscosity at 190 °C and resilience at 25 °C tests. As it was known that test results obtained from laboratory
blends may not exactly reflect the results obtained when a binder is produced on a large scale in a
production plant, the results obtained from laboratory blends in viscosity at 165 °C, torsional recovery at
25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C tests were not used directly to set
ATS 3110 specification limits for binders which contained different levels of crumb rubber.

In order to account for the difference between laboratory-scale production and plant-scale production, as well
as the various sources of C170 bitumen used in plant-scale production, binder formulation work was
conducted in the project to produce a crumb rubber blend which met ATS 3110 requirements for an S45R
grade binder. The S45R binder was produced using the same samples of C170 bitumen and crumb rubber
as the other crumb rubber binder samples tested. The results obtained in torsional recovery at 25 °C,
softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C tests for each binder to be specified were
then compared with those obtained for the S45R binder by expressing each crumb rubber binder result as a
fraction (i.e. ratio) of the S45R binder test result (e.g. if a crumb rubber binder showed a torsional recovery at
25 °C result of 60%, and the S45R binder showed a result of 40% in the same test, the ratio result calculated
was 60%/40% = 1.5). ATS 3110 specification limits for the crumb rubber binder to be specified were then
determined by multiplying the ratio results obtained in each relevant test by the ATS 3110 minimum and
maximum limits for an S45R grade binder in the same test.
This process was followed in order to determine ATS 3110-specified limits for blends of C170 bitumen and
different levels of crumb rubber as the ratio results provided a numerical means by which the changes in test
properties due to binder composition (e.g. varying crumb rubber content) could be determined with other
experimental factors held constant. The ATS 3110-specified limits for S45R were included in the
determination of crumb rubber binder specification limits as these limits were originally determined by testing
a range of S45R samples from different suppliers which would have been manufactured with different
sources of bitumen and production processes. The specification ranges included in ATS 3110 for S45R
grade binders would therefore be expected to include contributions due to the variations in test properties
caused by the use of various manufacturing/storage processes and the use of bitumen from different supply
sources.
Specification limits for compressive limit at 70 °C and segregation tests were developed for binders
containing different levels of crumb rubber by comparing the results obtained for laboratory blends and the
S45R binder with the ATS 3110-specified limits for an S45R grade binder. This approach was used for these
tests as all laboratory-produced blends met relevant ATS 3110 requirements for an S45R grade binder.
This section includes the test results obtained for the initial series of crumb rubber blends which were
manufactured using C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber (i.e. 5% w/w, 9% w/w, 15% w/w,
18% w/w and 20% w/w). It also includes the results of binder formulation work to produce a binder which met
ATS 3110-specified properties for an S45R grade binder as well as additional binder research work into the
properties of 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which was requested by Austroads BSTG members during the
course of the project.
This section also includes the results obtained from two US crumb rubber binder samples which were
subjected to a range of ATS 3110-specified tests for comparison purposes as well as comparisons between
the results obtained in US-specified tests (i.e. viscosity at 175 °C/195 °C and resilience at 25 °C) and those
obtained in similar ATS 3110 tests (i.e. viscosity at 165 °C and torsional recovery at 25 °C, respectively). The
work conducted to propose specification limits for binders which contained different levels of crumb rubber,
which was based on the test results obtained for different laboratory-prepared crumb rubber blends, is
included in Section 8.
7.2 Experimental Design
7.2.1 Binder Materials
The sample of C170 bitumen which was used to produce the crumb rubber binder blends in the study and
the sample of C320 bitumen used in the asphalt work described in Section 9 were obtained from the same
commercial supplier. The C170 bitumen sample was sourced from a site located in Victoria while the
C320 bitumen sample was sourced from a site located in Queensland.
Table 7.1 shows a comparison between the bitumen-related test results obtained for the two bitumen
samples and the specified requirements for C170 and C320 bitumen in AS 2008. Both bitumen samples met
the requirements of AS 2008 in terms of the properties tested.

Table 7.1: Binder test results for the C170 and C320 bitumen samples used in the study
AS 2008 AS 2008
specification specification
Property C170 bitumen C320 bitumen
limits for C170 limits for C320
bitumen(1) bitumen(1)
Sampling date 26/6/2019 – 27/3/2020 –
Viscosity at 60 °C (Pa s) 188 140–200 341 260–380
Viscosity at 135 °C (Pa s) 0.39 0.25–0.45 0.49 0.40–0.65
Penetration at 25 °C (0.1 mm) 64 62 min. 53 40 min.
Viscosity at 60 °C after rolling thin film 365 – 733 –
oven (RTFO) treatment (Pa s)
Percentage increase in viscosity at 60 °C 194 300 max. 215 300 max.
after RTFO treatment (%)
1 Source: AS 2008.
The sample of ‘30-mesh’ crumb rubber which was used to produce the crumb rubber blends in the study was
obtained from Supplier E and was manufactured at their plant in Somerton Victoria. Supplier E provided a
quality control test report for the sample supplied to ARRB, and ARRB performed a grading test on the
supplied sample.
Table 7.2 shows the test results obtained by ARRB and Supplier E for the crumb rubber sample and
compares the results to the specified requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. Grading, water
content and foreign materials – metallic iron tests were performed using AGPT/T143 while bulk density tests
were performed using AGPT/T144.
Table 7.2: Test results for the sample of crumb rubber
ATS 3110
requirements for
Property ARRB results Supplier E results
Size 30 crumb
rubber(1)
Grading (mm)
2.36 mm (% w/w passing) 100 100 100
1.18 mm (% w/w passing) 100 100 100
0.60 mm (% w/w passing) 82 77 60 min.
0.30 mm (% w/w passing) 23 27 20 max.
0.15 mm (% w/w passing) 6 – –
Bulk density (kg/m3) – 288 Report
Water content (%) – 0.4 1 max.
Foreign materials – metallic iron (%) – 0 0.1 max.
1 Source: ATS 3110.
The results obtained by ARRB and Supplier E in the grading tests shown in Table 7.2 were quite similar.
Both sets of test results indicated that the crumb rubber sample passed all ATS 3110 grading requirements
for Size 30 crumb rubber except for the percentage passing the 0.30 mm sieve. This result appears
consistent with those obtained during an analysis of Supplier E grading test results included in Section 6
where it was found that Supplier E’s manufacturing process was not able to meet this requirement for 30 of
the 36 crumb rubber batches that were analysed. The results obtained by Supplier E in bulk density, water
content and foreign materials – metallic iron tests all met the requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber in
ATS 3110.

The sample of polymer combining oil (Nytex 4700) which was used to produce an ATS 3110 compliant
S45R binder and various 20% w/w crumb rubber blends was obtained from Nynas Australia. The polymer
combining oil had a viscosity at 60 °C of 0.16 Pa s when tested using AS/NZS 2341.4.
7.2.2 Crumb Rubber Binder Sample Manufacture
Crumb rubber binders were manufactured at the ARRB laboratory using a specially-designed heating block
which controlled the temperature of the binder during mixing. The heating block allowed 3.1 kg crumb rubber
binder samples to be produced in a 4 litre metal tin. All crumb rubber binders which were produced in the
study were prepared in the ARRB laboratory at 190 ± 10 °C (unless otherwise noted) using a low shear
mixer under an inert carbon dioxide atmosphere. Blending was performed under an inert atmosphere to
ensure that the bitumen used in the blends did not oxidise during the blending process.
Crumb rubber binders were manufactured by initially adding an appropriate mass of heated bitumen to a
4 litre metal tin to yield a final crumb rubber binder mass of 3100 g. If a polymer combining oil was included
in the crumb rubber binder, an appropriate amount of oil (at room temperature) was mixed with the heated
bitumen at this stage. The metal tin containing the bitumen was then transferred to the heating block and the
binder was heated to the temperature of blending (i.e. 190 °C except for when crumb rubber binders were
produced at 210 °C). Once the binder had been heated to the desired temperature, the appropriate amount
of crumb rubber was added. All crumb rubber blends were then subjected to low shear mixing for
60 minutes.
Figure 7.1 shows a photograph of the process used to add crumb rubber to a binder when it was present in
the heating block. The temperature sensor (which was used to monitor temperature during blending), low
shear mixer motor and carbon dioxide gas inlet pipe are labelled in the figure. A temperature of 190 °C and
blending time of 1 hour was used in the study based on recommendations included in Roads and Traffic
Authority (1995).
Figure 7.1: Photograph of crumb rubber addition during preparation of a crumb rubber blend

Crumb rubber binder samples were immediately sub-sampled after manufacture into sample sizes
appropriate for testing. Once the crumb rubber binder samples were prepared, they were allowed to cool and
then stored at ambient temperature until required for use. Laboratory-manufactured crumb rubber binder
samples were reheated immediately prior to testing using AGPT/T102 and an oven temperature of 180 °C.
7.2.3 Binder Test Procedures
The bitumen samples utilised in the study were sub-sampled into appropriate sizes for testing, crumb rubber
binder blend preparation and asphalt work using the oven method described in AS/NZS 2341.21 and an
oven temperature of 150 °C. After the materials were sub-sampled they were stored at ambient temperature
until required for use. Bitumen samples were reheated immediately prior to testing using the oven method
described in AS/NZS 2341.21 and the same oven temperature.
US crumb rubber binder samples, and the sample of an A15E grade binder used in the asphalt work
described in Section 9, were sub-sampled into appropriate sizes for testing or incorporation into asphalt
using AGPT/T102 and an oven temperature of 180 °C. These samples were treated in the same way as the
laboratory-prepared crumb rubber binders in terms how they were stored after sub-sampling and re-heated
prior to testing.
Conventional bitumen tests were conducted on the samples of C170 and C320 bitumen utilised in the study
using the test methods listed in AS 2008. Viscosity at 135 °C tests and rolling thin film oven (RTFO)
treatment of the bitumen samples were conducted using AS/NZS 2341.4 and AS/NZS 2341.10, respectively.
Australian PMB tests were conducted on the crumb rubber binders, as well as samples of bitumen and the
A15E grade PMB, using the test methods listed in ATS 3110. Australian viscosity at 165 °C tests, as well as
US-specified viscosity at 175 °C and viscosity at 190 °C tests, were performed using a Brookfield L-series
viscometer according to AS/NZS 2341.4. Viscosity tests on crumb rubber binder samples were performed
using Brookfield spindle SC4-29 while other types of binders were tested using Brookfield spindle SC4-31
(as recommended in ATS 3110). Resilience at 25 °C tests were conducted on binder samples using
ASTM D5329. A detailed test protocol was developed prior to conducting resilience at 25 °C tests (based on
the penetration test equipment available at ARRB) to ensure that all resilience at 25 °C tests were conducted
in the same way. Errors in the ASTM D5329 method were also addressed in the testing protocol. The
resilience test protocol was strictly adhered to during the study.
7.3 Binders Containing C170 Bitumen and Different Levels of Crumb

Rubber
Table 7.3 lists the binder test results obtained from laboratory-prepared blends which contained a single
sample of C170 bitumen and either 5% w/w, 9% w/w, 15% w/w, 18% w/w or 20% w/w crumb rubber. The
sample of C170 bitumen that was used to produce the crumb rubber blends was subjected to the same
series of tests as the crumb rubber binders, except for segregation tests, as it represented a binder which
contained 0% w/w crumb rubber. The results obtained for the C170 bitumen sample are included in the table.
The C170 bitumen sample was not subjected to segregation tests as the sample was not expected to
separate during hot storage.
The crumb rubber binder samples included in Table 7.3 were subjected to all tests listed in ATS 3110 for
PMBs used in sprayed sealing and asphalt applications except for stiffness at 15 °C, flash point and loss on
heating tests. The sample of C170 bitumen and the crumb rubber binders were also subjected to viscosity at
175 °C, viscosity at 190 °C and resilience at 25 °C tests so that comparisons could be made between
ATS 3110 and US test results.

Table 7.3: Binder test results for laboratory-prepared blends containing C170 bitumen and different levels of
crumb rubber
Property 0% CR 5% CR 9% CR 15% CR 18% CR 20% CR

% w/w C170 bitumen 100 95 91 85 82 80
% w/w crumb rubber 0 5 9 15 18 20
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 1 17 34 49 61 –(1)
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 227 485 916 3 191 5 757 9 007
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 217 427 742 1 951 2 998 3 958
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) 16 26 34 51 64 74
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.02 1.13 1.26 1.73 1.51 1.77
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 113 900 161 900 206 300 286 400 306 900 336 400
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
Segregation (%) – –4.5 –4.5 2.0 5.0 5.5
Segregation – top softening point result (°C) – 51.6 56.0 65.8 72.6 78.6
Segregation – bottom softening point result (°C) – 54.0 58.6 64.4 69.0 74.4
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 2 11 18 39 47 56
1 The 20% w/w crumb rubber binder was not able to be effectively subjected to torsional recovery at 25 °C tests as the
spider assembly became markedly tilted (i.e. it was no longer horizontal) after the sample had recovered.
Stiffness at 15 °C tests were not performed on the binders included in Table 7.3 as previous research
(Austroads 2019b) has indicated that bitumen samples which show stiffness at 25 °C results above 16 kPa
will have stiffness at 15 °C results which are higher than the maximum limit which can be measured with the
elastometer (i.e. > 187 kPa). The stiffness at 25 °C results obtained for the crumb rubber binders containing
between 5% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber were all significantly higher than the C170 bitumen sample
(16 kPa). This indicated that the crumb rubber binder samples were all harder than the sample of
C170 bitumen at low temperatures and would be expected to have higher stiffness at 15 °C results than the
C170 bitumen sample (i.e. the crumb rubber binders would all have stiffness at 15 °C results > 187 kPa).
Maximum specified limits for stiffness at 15 °C/25 °C were originally included in the Australian PMB
specification as it was thought that PMBs which were softer at low temperatures would be more resistant to
fatigue cracking on the road. Two Australian studies which compared the stiffness results obtained for PMBs
with their fatigue cracking performance (Austroads 2015, Wilson et al. 2009) in asphalt, however, found no
correlation between binder stiffness results and asphalt fatigue life results. The lack of the ability of stiffness
tests to rank the fatigue cracking resistance of binders led to the development of the stress ratio at 10 °C test
(AGPT/T125) as a replacement for stiffness tests on PMBs in ATS 3110. The results of two Austroads
studies (Austroads 2016b, 2017b) have indicated that stress ratio at 10 °C tests can be effectively used to
rank the fatigue cracking resistance of bitumen and PMB samples at 10 °C.
As stress ratio at 10 °C tests are anticipated to replace stiffness at 15 °C/25 °C tests in ATS 3110 in the
future, stiffness tests were predominantly conducted in this study for informational purposes. Proposed
stress ratio at 10 °C test result limits have been incorporated into the crumb rubber binder specification limits
included in Section 8, rather than stiffness at 15 °C/25 °C limits.

Flash point and loss on heating tests were not conducted on the binder samples tested during the study as
all current PMB grades included in ATS 3110, except for field-produced S15RF and S18RF binder grades,
have the same specified limits for these two test properties (i.e. 250 °C minimum and 0.6% mass maximum,
respectively). ATS 3110 indicates that these two tests do not need to be performed on S15RF and S18RF
grade binders. Flash point tests provide information about the flammability of a binder, while loss on heating
(or mass change) tests are used to indicate volatile materials within the binder that may release fumes on
heating (Austroads 2017a). As the requirements for these tests are the same for all PMB grades included in
ATS 3110, except for the field produced grades, the proposed specification limits for crumb rubber binders in
these two tests have been aligned with those listed for other ATS 3110 PMB grades in Section 8.
Crumb rubber binders containing 5% w/w to 18% w/w crumb rubber were able to be easily manufactured in
the laboratory and were sufficiently fluid to pour into test equipment after they were re-heated in an oven at
180 °C using AGPT/T102. The binder containing 20% w/w crumb rubber, however, was extremely thick after
manufacture and could not be poured after being re-heated using the same process as the other crumb
rubber binder samples. The 20% w/w crumb rubber binder appeared to consist predominantly of swollen
crumb rubber particles after re-heating. It appeared that the crumb rubber particles had absorbed most of the
bitumen in the binder. As the 20% w/w binder was so thick it is unlikely that this type of binder could be
effectively used in asphalt.
As it was not possible to pour the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder into test equipment after re-heating, this
sample was placed into test equipment using a spatula after re-heating. The sample was pushed into the test
equipment with the spatula (if required) to remove any air gaps. The process of adding binder with a spatula
and then pushing it into test equipment was repeated until the test equipment was sufficiently filled.
The results shown in Table 7.3 indicate that there was a very regular increase in most test properties as the
concentration of crumb rubber in the binder was increased. The 20% w/w crumb rubber showed extremely
high viscosity results (i.e. between about 28 and 32 Pa s) at temperatures in the range between 165 °C and
190 °C which appeared to reflect the thickness of this binder observed on re-heating. It was also not possible
to effectively conduct torsional recovery at 25 °C tests on the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder as the high
viscosity/crumb rubber content of the binder caused the spider assembly of the torsional recovery test
apparatus to become markedly tilted (rather than staying horizontal) after samples of the binder had
recovered in the test. Due to this, a torsional recovery at 25 °C result for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder
has not been included in Table 7.3 or Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.2 shows a plot of viscosity results at various temperatures versus crumb rubber content for binders
containing between 0% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber as well as the second-order polynomial fits to the
experimental data obtained at each temperature when viscosity results were expressed in terms of the
logarithm to the base 10. The correlation co-efficients (i.e. R2 values) obtained from each of the three fits are
also shown in the figure.
A number of different fits were initially applied to the experimental viscosity data (including linear, exponential
and power fits and the type of fit shown in Figure 7.2) but none of these fits yielded a good value of R2 if the
viscosity data for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder was included in the dataset. As the 20% w/w crumb
rubber binder appeared to represent a material which was not fluid and predominantly consisted of swollen
crumb rubber particles, and the viscosity results for this binder were much higher than the maximum
viscosity limit (i.e. 4 Pa s) included in the crumb rubber binder specifications from California and Arizona
(Section 3.1.4), the viscosity results for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder were not included in the fits to the
experimental data in Figure 7.2.
The marked change in viscosity observed between the 18% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber binders likely
represents a phase change occurring at high temperatures where the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder consists
of crumb rubber particles present in a continuous phase of bitumen while the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder
consists of crumb rubber particles containing absorbed bitumen. These types of phase changes are typically
not described by simple mathematical functions as often there are step changes in properties when a phase
transition occurs (Hunter, Self & Read 2015).

Figure 7.2: Plot of log10(viscosity) at various temperatures versus crumb rubber content for blends containing
C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber
Once the data for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder was removed from the viscosity dataset, the results
obtained for binders containing between 0 and 18% w/w crumb rubber were fitted to a variety of simple
mathematical functions (i.e. linear, exponential and power fits). These functions, however, still did not yield
good fits to the experimental data at each temperature. Excellent fits to the experimental data (with
R2 values = 1.0) were found when log10(viscosity results) were plotted against % w/w crumb rubber in the
binder and the data was fitted to a second-order polynominal (as shown in Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4 show plots of other key ATS 3110-specified properties (i.e. torsional recovery at
25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C) against crumb rubber content for
the binders included in Table 7.3. These figures also include the equations for either linear or exponential fits
to the experimental data and the R2 values obtained from the fits. All R2 values were found to be 0.87 or
higher indicating that the equations provided very good to excellent fits to the experimental data. The fitted
equations included in Figure 7.2, Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4 were used in calculations which determined
proposed specifications for binders which contained different levels of crumb rubber. These calculations are
described in Section 8.
Plots of the changes in other binder properties (i.e. stiffness at 25 °C, stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at
10 °C test and resilience at 25 °C) are included in Appendix A.1. These plots include the equations obtained
from linear fits to each set of experimental data and the values of R2 obtained from the fits.
In terms of the test properties included in Table 7.3, the results obtained in compressive limit at 70 °C and
segregation tests varied with crumb rubber content in a slightly less regular way than the other binder tests.
The compressive limit at 70 °C test result for the C170 bitumen sample was 0.0 mm which was consistent
with a binder which did not contain crumb rubber particles. The compressive limit at 70 °C results obtained
for binders which contained crumb rubber were all very similar (i.e. either 0.2 or 0.3 mm) which was
consistent with the binders being produced using a single crumb rubber sample with the same particle size
distribution. All of the binders included in Table 7.3 which contained crumb rubber met the ATS 3110
compressive limit at 70 °C requirement for an S45R grade binder (i.e. 0.2 mm minimum).

The results obtained for the crumb rubber binders in segregation tests showed an overall increase as the
concentration of crumb rubber in the binder was increased. Binders containing 5% w/w and 9% w/w crumb
rubber showed negative results in segregation tests indicating some of the crumb rubber had settled to the
bottom of the samples after storage at 180 °C for 2 days. Binders containing 15% w/w, 18% w/w and
20% w/w crumb rubber, on the other hand, showed positive results in segregation tests (which indicated that
there was an excess of crumb rubber on the top of the samples after hot storage). Each of the crumb rubber
samples produced in the study were visually inspected when they are removed from the oven after hot
storage. A layer of crumb rubber rich material was found to be floating on the top on all samples which
showed positive results in segregation tests. This layer was absent for the samples which showed negative
results in segregation tests. All five crumb rubber binders included in Table 7.3 met the segregation
requirement of 8% maximum which is specified for S45R grade binders, as well as other grades of PMBs
used in sprayed sealing and asphalt applications, in ATS 3110.
Figure 7.3: Torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point versus crumb rubber content for blends containing
C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber
Figure 7.4: Consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C versus crumb rubber content for blends
containing C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber

7.4 Formulation of a Binder which Meets ATS 3110-specified

Properties for S45R
Formulation work conducted to produce a binder which met ATS 3110-specified properties for an
S45R grade binder focused on producing laboratory blends which contained 15% w/w crumb rubber as
S45R binders nominally contain this level of crumb rubber (Austroads 2017a). The 15% w/w crumb rubber
binder included in Table 7.3 was initially subjected to a stiffness at 15 °C test to determine if this binder
would meet specified requirements for this test. The ATS 3110 specification requirement for an S45R grade
binder in ATS 3110 is 180 kPa maximum. The 15% w/w crumb rubber binder yielded a stiffness at 15 °C
result of > 187 kPa (as shown in Table 7.4) which was higher than specified requirements. The softening
point result obtained for this binder (65.2 °C) was also slightly higher than the maximum ATS 3110
requirement of 65.0 °C specified for an S45R grade binder.
Previous Austroads research into formulating SBS PMBs has found that the stiffness at 15 °C/25 °C of a
PMB can be reduced by adding a low viscosity polymer combining oil to the binder (Austroads 2013, 2018b).
Crumb rubber binder blends were therefore produced in the laboratory with polymer combining oil contents
of 4% w/w and 6% w/w to ascertain whether a compliant S45R grade binder could be produced. These
blends were manufactured using the same samples of bitumen and crumb rubber and the same blending
process as the binders included in Section 7.3. The test results obtained for binders containing 15% w/w
crumb rubber and either 0% w/w, 4% w/w or 6% w/w polymer combining oil are summarised in Table 7.4.
The table also lists the specified properties for an S45R grade binder in ATS 3110.
Table 7.4: Binder test results obtained during formulation work to produce an ATS 3110-compliant S45R grade
binder
15% CR 15% CR 15% CR ATS 3110

Property requirements
0% oil 4% oil 6% oil for S45R(1)
% w/w C170 bitumen 85 81 79 –
% w/w crumb rubber 15 15 15 –
% w/w polymer combining oil 0 4 6 –
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 1.66 1.43 1.29 4.5 max.
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 49 49 48 25–55
Softening point (°C) 65.2(2) 61.6 60.8 55–65
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 3 191 1 959 1 685 –
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 1 951 1 254 1 088 800 min.
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) 51 30 24 –
Stiffness at 15 °C (kPa) > 187(2) 144 119 180 max.
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.73 1.37 1.34 Report
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 286 400 171 500 134 200 –
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) 0.2 0.3 – 0.2 min.
Segregation (%) 2.0 –2.0 – 8 max.
Segregation – top softening point result (°C) 65.8 60.8 – –
Segregation – bottom softening point result (°C) 64.4 62.0 – –
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) 1.21 1.09 0.96 –
Viscosity at 190 °C (Pa s) 0.84 0.77 0.70 –
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 39 38 31 –
1 Source: ATS 3110.
2 Test results fail requirements for an S45R grade binder in ATS 3110.

The two blends containing polymer combining oil were initially subjected to all tests included in Table 7.3
(except for compressive limit at 70 °C and segregation tests) and stiffness at 15 °C tests. These test
properties were then compared to specified properties for an S45R grade binder. Once a suitable S45R
grade binder formulation was identified, this binder sample was subjected to compressive limit at 70 °C and
segregation tests.
The results obtained in all tests, except for torsional recovery at 25 °C and compressive limit at 70 °C tests,
showed a reduction as the concentration of polymer combining oil in the binder was increased. There was no
significant change in torsional recovery at 25 °C or compressive limit at 70 °C results when the concentration
of polymer combining oil in the binder was varied.
Both binders containing polymer combining oil met the requirements for an S45R grade binder in terms of
the series of tests that were initially performed. A binder formulation containing 4% w/w polymer combining
oil was selected as being representative of an S45R grade binder as it contained a lower concentration of
polymer combining oil and still met ATS 3110 requirements. Polymer combining oil can be more expensive
than bitumen, so lower concentrations are likely to be preferred in commercial S45R binder formulations. The
results obtained for the binder containing 15% w/w crumb rubber and 4% w/w polymer combining oil in
compressive limit at 70 °C and segregation tests, which were conducted after the initial series of tests, met
ATS 3110 requirements for an S45R grade binder.
Figure 7.5 to Figure 7.7 show plots of key ATS 3110 specified properties (i.e. viscosity, torsional recovery at
25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio) against polymer combining oil content for
the binders included in Table 7.4. Each set of data, except for viscosity results at 165 °C/175 °C/190 °C, was
fitted to the same type of function as had been used to fit the binder results for the blends which contained
different levels of crumb rubber in Section 7.3. Each set of log10(viscosity) versus polymer combining oil
content data was fitted to a linear, rather than a second-order polynomial, function as linear fits were
sufficient to fit the experimental data. The fitted equations included in Figure 7.5 to Figure 7.7 were used to
calculate the properties of a ‘fitted’ S45R grade binder in Section 8. The test results obtained for the fitted
S45R grade binder took into account small variations in test results from the fitted curves due to the inherent
error in each binder test.
Figure 7.5: Plot of log10(viscosity) at various temperatures versus polymer combining oil content for blends
containing C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber

Figure 7.6: Torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point versus polymer combining oil content for blends
Figure 7.7: Consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C versus polymer combining oil content for blends
Figure 7.5 to Figure 7.7 show the equations for the fits to each binder test parameter as well as the R2 values
obtained from each of the fits. All fits to the experimental results, except the results obtained in torsional
recovery at 25 °C tests (Figure 7.6) yielded R2 results above 0.92 (i.e. each of the equations provided very
good to excellent fits to the experimental data). The low R2 value obtained from the fit to torsional recovery at
25 °C results (0.70) is due to this binder property being essentially unaffected by the polymer combining oil
level in the binder. The linear fit to the torsional recovery results in Figure 7.6 visually appears to be a very
good fit to the three experimental data points.

Plots of the changes in other binder properties (i.e. stiffness at 25 °C, stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at
10 °C test and resilience at 25 °C) with polymer combining oil content for binders containing 15% w/w crumb
rubber are included in Appendix A.2. These plots include the equations obtained from linear fits to each set
of experimental data and the values of R2 obtained from the fits.
7.5 Further Work Investigating the Properties of 20% w/w Crumb

Rubber Binders
The results included in Section 7.3 and Section 7.4 were presented to an Austroads BSTG meeting on
27 May 2020. It was noted during the meeting that the extremely high viscosity observed for 20% w/w crumb
rubber binder was unexpected as Californian specifications indicate that crumb rubber binders used in
asphalt should contain between 18% w/w and 22% w/w crumb rubber. It was noted in Section 3.1.4 that
Californian specification documents indicate that 20% w/w crumb rubber binders should contain bitumen,
crumb rubber and between 1.6% w/w and 4.8% w/w of a low viscosity combining oil. Californian crumb
rubber binders are also specified to be blended at 191–218 °C for at least 45 minutes.
As the 20% crumb rubber binder produced in the project did not contain a combining oil and was blended at
a temperature of 190 ± 10 °C, four additional 20% w/w crumb rubber blends were produced in the laboratory
to determine whether the viscosity of the binder could be reduced by better mimicking the Californian crumb
rubber binder manufacturing process. These blends were produced using the same samples of
C170 bitumen and crumb rubber as the other laboratory-produced blends. Each of the 20% w/w crumb
rubber blends were also subjected to low shear mixing for 60 minutes.
An initial blend was prepared at 190 ± 10 °C which contained 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil (i.e. the
maximum amount included in the Californian specification) to investigate the effect of adding a polymer
combining oil to the binder formulation. Three other blends were prepared at 210 ± 10 °C which contained
0% w/w, 1.6% w/w and 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil to investigate the effects of using a higher blending
temperature and different amounts of a polymer combining oil. Polymer combining oil concentrations of
1.6% w/w and 4.8% w/w were selected for the blends prepared at 210 °C to represent the minimum and
maximum concentrations of oil included in the Californian specification.
The additional 20% w/w crumb rubber blends were prepared using the same polymer combining oil
(Nytex 4700) as was used in the formulation work to produce a compliant S45R grade binder (Section 7.4).
The product data sheet for Nytex 4700 (Nynas 2014) indicated that the oil had a typical kinematic viscosity at
100 °C of 29 mm2/s when determined using ASTM D445. This result met the Californian kinematic viscosity
at 100 °C requirement of 19 to 36 mm2/s for the low viscosity combining oil used in crumb rubber binders
(California Department of Transportation 2018).
Table 7.5 compares the results obtained for a binder containing 20% w/w crumb rubber and 4.8% w/w
polymer combining oil with the original results obtained for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which
contained no polymer combining oil (from Table 7.3). Both binders were prepared at temperature of 190 °C.
Although the binder which contained 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil was not as thick as the original
20% w/w crumb rubber binder when it was re-heated for testing, it still could not be poured into test
equipment. As in the case of the original 20% w/w crumb rubber binder, the binder was placed into test
equipment using a spatula.
The test results for the binder containing 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil were all lower than those obtained
for the binder which did not contain polymer combining oil, except for the results obtained in compressive
limit at 70 °C tests which were the same. The results for this binder in compressive limit at 70 °C and
segregation tests met ATS 3110 requirements for an S45R grade binder. The results shown in Table 7.5
indicate that the addition of polymer combining oil caused a reduction in viscosity results at the three test
temperatures which were monitored. Even though this was the case, the binder was still very thick and its
viscosity at 190 °C (8.83 Pa s) was still more than twice the maximum viscosity at 190 °C limit (i.e. 4 Pa s)
included in the Californian crumb rubber binder specification.

Table 7.5: Effects of polymer combining oil addition on the properties of a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder
20% CR 20% CR
Property 4.8% oil 0% oil
190 °C 190 °C
% w/w C170 bitumen 75.2 80
% w/w crumb rubber 20 20
% w/w polymer combining oil 4.8 0
Blending temperature (°C) 190 190
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 17.41 32.49
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 54 –
Softening point (°C) 72.4 76.0
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 5 275 9 007
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 2 362 3 958
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) 34 74
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.58 1.77
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 166 000 336 400
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) 0.2 0.2
Segregation (%) 5.0 5.5
Segregation – top softening point result (°C) 74.2 78.6
Segregation – bottom softening point result (°C) 70.6 74.4

Resilience at 25 °C (%) 50 56
Table 7.6 summarises the results obtained from 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which were blended at
210 °C and contained between 0% w/w and 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil. The results for an 18% w/w
crumb rubber binder which was blended at 190 °C (from Table 7.3), as well as the relevant Californian
specification requirements for a crumb rubber binder used in asphalt applications, have also been included in
the table for comparison. The 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which were produced at 210 °C were all
considerably less viscous than the two 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which were produced at 190 °C. All
binders produced at 210 °C could be poured into test equipment after they were re-heated prior to testing.
The results obtained for the two 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which did not contain polymer combining oil
indicated that binder viscosity could be significantly decreased by blending the binder at a higher
temperature. The 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at 210 °C had a viscosity at 165 °C of
6.34 Pa s (Table 7.6) compared to the analogous binder produced at 190 °C which had a viscosity at 165 °C
of 32.49 Pa s (Table 7.5). The binder produced at 210 °C also met Californian specification requirements for
viscosity at 190 °C, softening point and resilience at 25 °C.
Although producing a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder using a higher blending temperature appeared to
reduce the viscosity of the binder into the Californian crumb rubber binder specification range, a significant
decrease in other test properties (i.e. torsional recovery at 25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C,
stress ratio at 10 °C and resilience at 25 °C) was also observed when the results obtained from binders
produced at 210 °C (Table 7.6) and 190 °C (Table 7.5) were compared. This concurrent reduction in various
test properties implied that the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder produced at 210 °C represented a binder that
was less modified than the binder produced at 190 °C. The most likely explanation for the observed
reduction in test properties is that some of the crumb rubber in the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder degraded
and/or dissolved in the bitumen when the blend was produced at 210 °C. This degradation/dissolution of the
crumb rubber allowed a binder with lower viscosity to be produced but it also reduced other test properties.

Table 7.6: Effects of an increased blending temperature and polymer combining oil addition on the properties
of a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder
20% CR 20% CR 20% CR 18% CR Californian

Property 0% oil 1.6% oil 4.8% oil 0% oil specification
210 °C 210 °C 210 °C 190 °C requirements(1)
% w/w C170 bitumen 80 78.4 75.2 82 –

% w/w crumb rubber 20 20 20 18 –
% w/w polymer combining oil 0 1.6 4.8 0 –
Blending temperature (°C) 210 210 210 190 –
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 6.34 5.76 5.97 5.02 –
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 63 56 57 61 –
Softening point (°C) 70.0 70.0 71.6 69.2 52–74
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 5 351 4 257 4 854 5 757 –
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 2 045 1 699 1 902 2 998 –
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) 45 38 31 64 –
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.47 1.44 1.77 1.51 –
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 196 600 165 100 121 300 306 900 –
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 –
Segregation (%) 5.0 1.5 4.5 5.0 –
Segregation – top softening point result (°C) 71.6 70.0 72.8 72.6 –
Segregation – bottom softening point result (°C) 68.0 69.0 69.6 69.0 –
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) 3.95 3.83 3.40 3.55 –
Viscosity at 190 °C (Pa s) 2.34 2.41 1.75 2.57 1.5–4.0
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 32 39 44 47 18 min.
1 Source: California Department of Transportation (2018).
The information included in Table 7.6 allows the results obtained for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which
was produced at 210 °C and those obtained for the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at
190 °C to be easily compared. The 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at 210 °C and did not
contain polymer combining oil showed similar results to the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder that was produced
at 190 °C in torsional recovery at 25 °C, softening point and stress ratio at 10 °C tests. The results for this
binder in consistency 6% at 60 °C, stiffness at 25 °C, and resilience at 25 °C tests were all significantly lower
than the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at 190 °C. In terms of these test properties, it
appears that the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder produced at 210 °C has a similar or lower level of effective
crumb rubber modification as an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder produced at 190 °C.
The results shown in Table 7.6 indicate that all three binders that were produced at 210 °C showed results in
viscosity at 190 °C, resilience at 25 °C and softening point tests which met Californian specification
requirements for crumb rubber binders used in asphalt. All three binders also showed results in compressive
limit at 70 °C and segregation tests which met ATS 3110 requirements for an S45R grade binder.
In the case of the three binders produced at 210 °C, increasing the level of polymer combining oil in the
binder overall appeared to cause a slight reduction in viscosity at 165 °C/175 °C/190 °C and torsional
recovery at 25 °C results, a larger reduction in stiffness at 25 °C results, and a slight increase in stress ratio
at 10 °C and resilience at 25 °C results. The softening point and consistency 6% at 60 °C results obtained for
the 20% w/w crumb rubber binders did not appear to be significantly affected by polymer combining oil level.
The changes to binder test properties associated with the addition of 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil to a
20% w/w crumb rubber binder produced at 210 °C, overall appeared be far less marked than when 4.8% w/w
polymer combining oil was added to a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder produced at 190 °C.

Figure 7.8 to Figure 7.10 show plots of key ATS 3110 specified properties (i.e. viscosity, torsional recovery at
25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C) against polymer combining oil
content for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binders produced at 210 °C. Each set of data was fitted to the same
type of function as had been used to fit the binder results for the blends produced during formulation work to
produce a compliant S45R grade binder (Section 7.4).
Figure 7.8: Plot of log10(viscosity) at various temperatures versus polymer combining oil content for blends
containing C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured at 210 °C
Figure 7.9: Torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point versus polymer combining oil content for blends

Figure 7.10: Consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C versus polymer combining oil content for blends
The R2 values obtained for fits to the viscosity at 175 °C/190 °C, softening point and stress ratio at 10 °C results
were all greater than 0.8 indicating good fits to the experimental data. The R2 values obtained from fits to the
viscosity at 165 °C, torsional recovery at 25 °C and consistency 6% at 60 °C data were all lower than 0.8. The
lower values of R2 obtained for these test parameters appear to reflect the relatively small changes in these test
parameters with polymer combining oil level (which are similar to the experimental variations associated with
each test). Although fits to these test properties showed lower R2 values, the fits shown in Figure 7.8 to
Figure 7.10 appear to be good representations of the relationships between the average changes in binder test
properties and polymer combining oil level for the three data points that were obtained.
A comparison of the results obtained for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which were produced at 210 °C
and contained either 1.6% w/w or 4.8% w/w polymer combining oil with the results obtained for an 18% w/w
binder which was produced at 190 °C (Table 7.6) showed similar trends as those observed for the 20% w/w
crumb rubber binder which was produced at 210 °C without oil. The 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which
contained polymer combining oil, like the binder which did not contain oil, showed similar results in torsional
recovery at 25 °C and softening point tests, and lower results in consistency 6% at 60 °C, stiffness at 25 °C and
resilience at 25 °C tests compared with the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at 190 °C.
During the course of the project, the binder test results included in Section 7.3 and the grading results
obtained for crumb rubber used to make the laboratory blends (Table 7.2) were sent to Jack van Kirk in
California (who has many decades of experience in using crumb rubber binders) to determine why the
20% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at 190 °C was so viscous. Jack van Kirk indicated that
the high viscosity of the binder was due to the use of a finer grade of crumb rubber in this study than that
which is typically used in California. This advice appears to be consistent with the results of the literature
review in Section 5 where it was found that the majority of studies which had investigated the effects of
crumb rubber size on binder properties found that there was a reduction in high temperature viscosity with
increasing crumb rubber size for binders which contained ≥ 13% w/w crumb rubber.
The sample of crumb rubber which was used in this study represents a material which is available in
Australia. It was noted in Section 4.1.1 that a coarser grade of crumb rubber (i.e. Size 16) was originally used
in NSW to produce crumb rubber binders used in sprayed sealing applications, but this grade of crumb
rubber is no longer produced in Australia.

Table 7.7 compares the grading results obtained for the crumb rubber binder used in this study (from
Table 7.2) with the combined grading results for blends containing 75% w/w scrap tyre rubber and 25% w/w
high natural crumb rubber which were obtained from two Californian suppliers during the project (from
Table 4.7). The combined crumb rubber grading results obtained for the Californian suppliers indicate that a
significantly coarser crumb rubber is used in California than is available in Australia. The Californian grading
results show a significant percentage of material retained on the 1.18 mm sieve while the crumb rubber
sample used in the project showed a grading result of 100% passing the 1.18 mm sieve.
Table 7.7: Comparison of grading results for the crumb rubber used in this study and the combined grading
results for crumb rubber obtained from two Californian suppliers
Crumb rubber used in

Californian supplier A Californian supplier B
Property this study (ARRB
combined grading combined grading
results)
Grading (mm)
2.36 mm (% w/w passing) 100 100 100
2.00 mm (% w/w passing) – 100 99
1.18 mm (% w/w passing) 100 61 75
0.60 mm (% w/w passing) 82 26 51
0.30 mm (% w/w passing) 23 8 14
0.15 mm (% w/w passing) 6 2 3
0.075 mm (% w/w passing) – 0.3 0.0
Although the size of the crumb rubber used in this study is the likely reason why the 20% w/w crumb rubber
binder which was produced at 190 °C was so viscous, differences in the types of crumb rubber used in
Australia and California (i.e. one type versus two types of crumb rubber) as well as differences in the crude
oil and processing route used to make the bitumen in the two locations may also be contributing to the
observed trends.
Based on the results obtained in Section 7.5, and feedback from Austroads BSTG members following the
meeting on 27 May 2020, proposed ATS 3110 specification limits were determined for an 80% w/w
C170 bitumen, 20% w/w crumb rubber binder as well as a 76.8% w/w C170 bitumen, 20% w/w crumb
rubber, 3.2% w/w polymer combining oil binder using the binder results obtained for blends prepared at
210 °C. Work conducted to determine proposed ATS 3110 specification limits for these two binders is
included in Section 8. Specification limits were developed for a binder containing 3.2% w/w combining oil as
this amount of oil was midway between the minimum and maximum oil content requirements included in the
Californian specification.
Proposed ATS 3110 specification limits for the two 20% w/w crumb rubber binders, as well as binders
containing C170 bitumen and either 9% w/w, 15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber (which were based on
binder results obtained for blends manufactured at 190 °C) were presented to an Austroads BSTG meeting
on 28 October 2020.
7.6 Test Results for US Crumb Rubber Binder Samples

Two Californian crumb rubber binder samples were obtained from different suppliers during the project and
subjected to a range of ATS 3110-specified tests for comparison purposes. The results are summarised in
Table 7.8. These binder samples were subjected to all tests included in Table 7.3 as well as rubber content
and stiffness at 15 °C tests. Rubber content tests were conducted using TfNSW test method T737 Rubber
Content of a Scrap Rubber Mix. Both Californian binder samples could be poured into test equipment after
they were re-heated using AGPT/T102. Relevant Californian crumb rubber binder specification limits have
also been included in Table 7.8 for reference.

Table 7.8: Test results obtained for two Californian crumb rubber binder samples
Californian
Californian sample 1 Californian sample 2
Property specification
(binder supplier A) (binder supplier B)
requirements(1)
Sampling date 12/8/2020 9/8/2020 –
Crumb rubber content (%w/w)(2) 20.1 21.7
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 1.36 1.74 –
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) –(3) 41 –
Softening point (°C) 72.0 67.8 52–74
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 6 238 5 216 –
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 3 369 3 119 –
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) 73 76 –
Stiffness at 15 °C (kPa) > 187 > 187
Stress ratio at 10 °C 0.76 0.74 –
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 301 100 372 100 –
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) 0.89 0.38 –
Segregation (%) –9.5 –11.5 –
Segregation – top softening point result (°C) 69.2 65.0 –
Segregation – bottom softening point result (°C) 76.2 72.8 –
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) 1.00 1.24 –
Viscosity at 190 °C (Pa s) 0.69 0.80 1.5–4.0
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 57 46 18 min.

1 Source: California Department of Transportation (2018).
2 Crumb rubber content results were calculated using the default value for the rubber recovery factor (i.e. 0.8).
3 Californian sample 1 was not able to be effectively subjected to torsional recovery at 25 °C tests as the spider
assembly became markedly tilted (i.e. it was no longer horizontal) after the sample had recovered.
Copies of the Californian binder design documents associated with each binder supplier were obtained with
each sample. Rubber content tests were performed on each of the samples as the crumb rubber binder
formulations included in the binder design documents did not match up with the binder formulations written
on the sample tins. Stiffness at 15 °C tests were conducted on the Californian samples as it was not known
whether the samples would be soft enough at 15 °C to allow stiffness at 15 °C tests to be effectively
performed.
The results obtained for the two Californian samples in viscosity at 165 °C/175 °C/190 °C, softening point,
consistency 6% at 60 °C, stiffness at 25 °C, stress ratio at 10 °C and segregation tests were quite similar.
Both binders showed results in stiffness at 15 °C tests which were above the maximum limit which can be
measured with the elastometer. As in the case of the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at
190 °C (Section 7.3), the crumb rubber binder from supplier A could not be effectively subjected to torsional
recovery at 25 °C tests as the spider assembly became markedly tilted after samples had recovered during
the test. The results of crumb rubber content tests indicated that the two Californian binder samples
contained between 20% w/w and 22% w/w crumb rubber.
The results obtained for the Californian samples in torsional recovery at 25 °C. softening point, consistency
6% at 60 °C and stiffness at 25 °C tests were nearly all within the ranges of results observed for
laboratory-produced blends which contained C170 bitumen and between 9% w/w and 20% w/w crumb
rubber (Table 7.3). The Californian samples, however, showed lower stress ratio at 10 °C results (i.e. 0.76
and 0.74), significantly lower negative segregation results (i.e. –9.5% and –11.5%) and higher compressive
limit results (i.e. 0.89 mm and 0.38 mm) than any of the laboratory-prepared binders included in the study.

Binders which show stress ratio at 10 °C results appreciably less than 1 have been classified as brittle
binders as they show minor/partial fracture during stress ratio tests (Austroads 2019a). Crumb rubber
binders which show negative results with large magnitudes in segregation tests are also expected to be
prone to segregation during storage (with the crumb rubber sinking to the bottom of a tank during hot
storage). Based on the results obtained for the Californian crumb rubber binder samples, it appears that they
are more brittle and less stable during storage than the laboratory-prepared blends produced in this study.
These results most likely reflect the larger size of the crumb rubber particles in the Californian samples. The
higher results obtained for the Californian crumb rubber samples in compressive limit at 70 °C tests also
appear to reflect the larger size of the crumb rubber particles in the Californian samples.
The two Californian binder samples passed Californian specification requirements for resilience at 25 °C and
softening point but their viscosity at 190 °C results (i.e. 0.69 Pa s and 0.80 Pa s) were both much lower than
the Californian requirement of 1.5–4.0 Pa s.
7.7 Comparisons Between ATS 3110 and US Test Results

Figure 7.11 shows plots of US-specified viscosity at 175 °C and viscosity at 190 °C results against
ATS 3110-specified viscosity at 165 °C results for the bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders included
in the study. The figure includes the results obtained for the samples of C170 and C320 bitumen used in
study as well as all laboratory-produced crumb rubber blends (except for the two 20% w/w crumb rubber
blends which were produced at 190 °C) and the US crumb rubber binder samples. The viscosity and
torsional recovery at 25 °C results obtained for the C320 bitumen sample are included in Table 9.2.
The figure also includes the viscosity results which were obtained from a trial laboratory blend which
contained C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which was blended for 3 hours at 210 °C. This trial
20% w/w crumb rubber blend was produced as part of preliminary work to determine the blending time
required to produce a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which showed viscosity at 190 °C results that met
Californian crumb rubber binder specification requirements. This blend had viscosity results at 165 °C,
175 °C and 190 °C of 2.78 Pa s, 2.05 Pa s and 1.24 Pa s, respectively.
Figure 7.11: Relationships between viscosity at 175 °C/190 °C results and viscosity at 165 °C results for the
bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders included in the study

Initial fitting of the experimental viscosity data included the results obtained for the two 20% w/w crumb
rubber binders which were produced by blending binder samples for 1 hour at 190 °C (Table 7.5). These two
binders had extremely high viscosity at 165 °C results of 17.41 and 32.49 Pa s. Although linear fits to the
experimental data yielded excellent fits (with R2 values of 0.99 and 0.94) when the results obtained for these
two binder samples were included in the datasets, the linear fits did not match up well with the experimental
results obtained for binders which had viscosity at 165 °C results between about 5 and 7 Pa s.
The viscosity results obtained for the 20% w/w crumb rubber binders produced at 190 °C were not included
in the analysis associated with Figure 7.11 as inclusion of these results appeared to bias the fitted curves
towards the results obtained for the very high viscosity binders. As the viscosity results obtained for these
binders at 190 °C (i.e. 8.83 and 28.14 Pa s) were much higher than Californian crumb rubber binder
specification requirements, and these binders could not be poured into test equipment when they were
reheated for testing using AGPT/T102, it is unlikely that crumb rubber binders with such high viscosities
would be used in practice in sprayed seals and asphalt.
The linear fits and R2 values shown in Figure 7.11 indicate that excellent correlations were found between
ATS 3110-specified viscosity at 165 °C results and US-specified viscosity at 175 °C results, as well as
ATS 3110-specified viscosity at 165 °C results and US-specified viscosity at 190 °C results, when binders
were tested using AS/NZS 2341.4 and Brookfield spindle SC4-29. Based on the fits shown in the figure,
viscosity at 175 °C results were on average 65% of viscosity at 165 °C results, and viscosity at 190 °C
results were on average 40% of viscosity at 165 °C results, for the series of bitumen samples and crumb
rubber binders included in the dataset.
Figure 7.12 shows a plot of US-specified resilience at 25 °C results against ATS 3110-specified torsional
recovery at 25 °C results for the C170 and C320 bitumen samples included in the study as well as all crumb
rubber binders included in Section 7.3 to Section 7.6 which could be effectively subjected to torsional
recovery at 25 °C tests. Although there appeared to be a reasonable degree of scatter in the experimental
data points, a linear fit to the experimental data yielded an R2 value of 0.96 which indicated an excellent fit to
the experimental data.
Figure 7.12: Relationship between resilience at 25 °C results and torsional recovery at 25 °C results for the
bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders included in the study
The relationship between resilience at 25 °C and torsional recovery at 25 °C results shown in Figure 7.12
was used to estimate an equivalent torsional recovery at 25 °C test limit corresponding to the resilience at
25 °C test limit of 20% minimum included in the latest versions of the TMR, MRWA and AfPA specifications
(see Table 3.9, Table 3.13 and Table 3.7 for details). Use of this relationship indicated that a resilience test
at 25 °C specification limit of 20% minimum was equivalent to a torsional recovery at 25 °C specification limit
of 27% minimum.

Although an extremely good correlation was found between the results of resilience at 25 °C and torsional
recovery at 25 °C tests in Figure 7.12, two of the binders tested (i.e. the 20% w/w crumb rubber binder
produced at 190 °C (Table 7.3) and the Californian crumb rubber sample from supplier A (Table 7.8)) could
not be effectively subjected to torsional recovery at 25 °C tests as the spider assembly became markedly
tilted after the samples had recovered during testing. These binders showed higher resilience at 25 °C
results (i.e. 56% and 57%, respectively) than any of the other binders tested.
Based on the results obtained in this study, there appears to be a correlation between resilience at 25 °C
and torsional recovery at 25 °C results for binders with resilience at 25 °C results between 0% and 50%.
Highly modified crumb rubber binders, with resilience results of > 50%, however, may not be able to be
effectively characterised using torsional recovery at 25 °C tests.
7.8 Summary
rubber, and a crumb rubber binder meeting ATS 3110-specified requirements for S45R, were produced in
the laboratory and tested so that the results could be used to determine ATS 3110 specification limits for
binders which contained different levels of crumb rubber. Each of the binders was produced by blending
component materials at 190 °C for 1 hour. Most ATS 3110-specified test properties were found to change in
a very regular way as the concentration of crumb rubber in the binder was increased. The binder containing
20% w/w crumb rubber, however, was extremely viscous and could not be poured into test equipment when
it was reheated for testing using AGPT/T102.
A series of additional crumb rubber blends containing 20% w/w crumb rubber were produced in the
laboratory using conditions which better mimicked the Californian crumb rubber binder manufacturing
process to ascertain whether lower viscosity binders could be produced with this concentration of crumb
rubber. 20% w/w crumb rubber binders with viscosity at 190 °C results that met Californian specified
requirements could be produced by blending binders at a higher temperature (i.e. 210 °C) for 1 hour.
Although the use of a higher temperature was able to reduce the viscosity of a 20% w/w crumb rubber
binder, reductions in several other ATS 3110-specified test properties were also observed. The three
20% w/w crumb rubber binders which were produced at 210 °C all showed results in torsional recovery at
25 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C, stiffness at 25 °C and resilience at 25 °C tests which were
similar or lower than an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder which was produced at 190 °C. This reduction in
ATS 3110-specified test properties is most likely due to an increased amount of degradation/dissolution of
the crumb rubber in the binder when binders are produced at 210 °C.
Two Californian crumb rubber binder samples were subjected to a range of ATS 3110-specified tests and their
crumb rubber contents were determined. Both binders contained similar levels of crumb rubber (i.e. between
about 20 and 22% w/w) and showed similar results in many ATS 3110 tests. The two Californian binder
samples passed Californian crumb rubber binder specification requirements for resilience at 25 °C and
softening point but their viscosity at 190 °C results were much lower than Californian requirements.
The Californian binder samples showed stress ratio at 10 °C results which were appreciably less than 1.0, as
well as segregation results which were both lower than –9.5%. These results appeared to indicate that the
Californian crumb rubber binders were more brittle and more prone to segregation during hot storage than
the laboratory-produced crumb rubber binders included in the study. The results obtained for the Californian
crumb rubber binders in compressive limit at 70 °C tests were consistent with the binders containing
significantly coarser crumb rubber than Size 30 crumb rubber which is used in Australia.
Excellent correlations were found between the results of US-specified viscosity at 175 °C/195 °C tests and
the results of ATS 3110-specified viscosity at 165 °C tests, for a series of bitumen samples and crumb
rubber binders which had viscosity at 165 °C results less than 7 Pa s. Extremely good correlations were also
found between US-specified resilience at 25 °C results and ATS 3110-specified torsional recovery at 25 °C
results for bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders which had resilience at 25 °C results of 50% or lower.
Crumb rubber binders which had resilience at results of > 50% could not be effectively subjected to torsional
recovery at 25 °C tests.

8. Determination of ATS 3110-specified

Properties for Different Crumb Rubber Binders
8.1 Introduction
This section describes the calculations which were performed to determine proposed ATS 3110 specification
limits for binders which contained C170 bitumen and either 9% w/w, 15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber. It
also includes the calculations performed to determine proposed ATS 3110 specification limits for 20% w/w
crumb rubber binders which contained either 0% w/w or 3.2% w/w polymer combining oil which were based
on the results obtained for blends produced at 210 °C.
The first step in the process to determine proposed specification limits involved using the fitted curves shown
in Figure 7.2 to Figure 7.10 to determine fitted viscosity at 165 °C, torsional recovery at 25 °C, softening
point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress ratio at 10 °C results for each of the binders to be specified and
the laboratory-prepared S45R grade binder. This process was followed as the experimental data in
Figure 7.2 to Figure 7.10 showed slight deviations from the fitted curves due to the inherent variation/error
associated with each test. In order to remove the effects of test variation/error associated with testing of
individual crumb rubber binder blends on proposed specification limits, proposed specification limits were
calculated using fitted binder results instead of actual binder results.
The second step in the process mostly involved comparing the fitted test results obtained for the crumb
rubber binders to be specified with the fitted results obtained for the laboratory-prepared S45R binder so that
specified properties could be inferred using the current ATS 3110-specified properties for an S45R grade
binder. The process used to propose specified properties varied between tests. Section 8.3 describes the
methods used to determine specification limits for each test.
After proposed specification limits were determined, the results were presented to the Austroads BSTG
meeting on 28 October 2020. The specification limits presented to BSTG are included in Section 8.4.
Revised specification limits were then determined based on feedback from BSTG. Revised specification
limits for crumb rubber binders to be used in sprayed sealing and asphalt applications that could be included
in an updated version of ATS 3110 are summarised in Section 8.5.
8.2 Fitted Test Results for Laboratory Blends

As noted in Section 8.1, the process of determining proposed specification limits for crumb rubber binders
containing either 9% w/w, 15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber, and binders containing 20% w/w crumb
rubber and either 0% w/w or 3.2% w/w polymer combining oil, initially involved determining fitted results for
each of the binders to be specified in viscosity at 165 °C, softening point, consistency 6% at 60 °C and stress
ratio at 10 °C tests. Table 8.1 summarises the fitted test results which were obtained for each of the binders
to be specified and the laboratory-prepared S45R binder. The fitted test results, in all cases, were not
markedly different from the results which had been obtained during testing.
Fitted test results for binders containing 9% w/w, 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber were determined by
using the equations shown in Figure 7.2 to Figure 7.4 which related the changes in binder properties to the
concentration of crumb rubber for binders produced at 190 °C. Fitted results for binders containing 20% w/w
crumb rubber were determined using the equations shown in Figure 7.8 to Figure 7.10 which related the
changes in binder test properties for 20% w/w crumb rubber binders prepared at 210 °C to the amount of oil in
the binder. Fitted results for the laboratory-produced S45R grade binder were determined by substituting an oil
level of 4% w/w into the fitted equations shown in Figure 7.5 to Figure 7.7 which related changes in binder test
properties for 15% w/w crumb rubber binders produced at 190 °C to the amount of oil in the binder.

Table 8.1: Fitted test results for laboratory blends
20% CR 20% CR
Property 9% CR 15% CR 18% CR 0% oil 3.2% oil S45R
210 °C 210 °C
% w/w C170 bitumen 91 85 82 80 76.8 81
% w/w crumb rubber 9 15 18 20 20 15
% w/w polymer combining oil 0 0 0 0 3.2 4
Blending temperature (°C) 190 190 190 210 210 190
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 31.1 50.8 60.7 60.3 57.1 48.8
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 785 1 900 2 955 1 908 1 860 1 297
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.32 1.55 1.66 1.41 1.64 1.44
8.3 Specification Limit Determinations for Different Test Parameters
8.3.1 Viscosity at 165 °C
Proposed viscosity at 165 °C specification limits for a binder containing C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb
rubber were determined using a different approach than the other crumb rubber binders to be specified as
this grade of binder is proposed to be used in sprayed sealing applications and not asphalt applications.
Maximum viscosity at 165 °C limits are included in ATS 3110 for most PMB grades to ensure that the
binders are fluid enough at high temperatures to be pumped, mixed or sprayed (Austroads 2017a). The
current ATS 3110 requirement for S45R grade binders in viscosity at 165 °C tests is 4.5 Pa s maximum.
The 2000 version of the Australian PMB specification (AP-T04/00 Austroads Specification Framework for
Polymer Modified Binders) included specified properties for four different crumb rubber binder grades
(i.e. S40R, S45R, S50R and S55R) which could be used in sprayed sealing applications. These crumb
rubber binder grades nominally contained 5% w/w, 15% w/w, 17% w/w or 20% w/w crumb rubber,
respectively (Austroads 2017a). The specified viscosity at 165 °C limit for each of these grades in the 2000
version of the Australian PMB specification was 4.5 Pa s maximum.
Based on the viscosity at 165 °C specification limits included in the 2000 version of the Australian PMB
specification, it appears that crumb rubber binders which have viscosity at 165 °C results greater than
4.5 Pa s are too viscous at high temperatures to be used in sprayed sealing applications. The proposed
viscosity at 165 °C specification limit for a 9% w/w crumb rubber binder was therefore set to 4.5 Pa s to
mirror the requirements for the crumb rubber binder grades included in the 2000 version of the Australian
PMB specification.
From a historical point of view the S40R and S50R grades were removed from the Australian PMB
specification when it was updated in 2006 in a document titled AP-T41/06 Specification Framework for
Polymer Modified Binders and Multigrade Bitumens. The S55R grade binder was then removed from the
Australian PMB specification when it was updated in 2010 in a document titled AGPT/T190:2010
Specification Framework for Polymer Modified Binders and Multigrade Bitumens. The viscosity at 165 °C
requirement for S45R grade binders in the Australian PMB specification (i.e. 4.5 Pa s maximum) has not
changed since the 2000 version of the Australian PMB specification was published.
References to the 2000, 2006 and 2010 versions of the Australian PMB specification have been included in
the report for historical reasons only. As these documents have been superseded, copies of these
documents cannot be obtained from Austroads.

Proposed viscosity at 165 °C specification limits for 15% w/w, 18% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber binders for
use in asphalt were determined by initially adopting the viscosity at 175 °C requirements included in the TMR,
MRWA and AfPA specifications (i.e. 1.5–4.0 Pa s) for a binder which contained 18% w/w crumb rubber. The
latest versions of these specifications are included in Table 3.9, Table 3.13 and Table 3.7, respectively.
As the PMB grades included in ATS 3110 are specified in terms of viscosity at 165 °C test results rather than
viscosity at 175 °C test results, viscosity at 175 °C specification limits were converted into viscosity at 165 °C
limits using the relationship between viscosity at 175 °C results and viscosity at 165 °C results included in
Figure 7.11 (i.e. viscosity at 165 °C = 1.545 x viscosity at 175 °C). This relationship was determined based
on a dataset which included two bitumen samples and 12 crumb rubber binder samples which contained
various levels of crumb rubber. Use of this relationship yielded a viscosity at 165 °C specification range of
2.3–6.2 Pa s for an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder (after results were rounded to the nearest 0.1 Pa s).
Viscosity at 165 °C specification limits for a binder containing 15% w/w crumb rubber, and 20% w/w crumb
rubber binders containing either 0% w/w or 3.2% w/w polymer combining oil, were initially determined by
dividing the fitted viscosity at 165 °C results shown for each binder in Table 8.1 by the fitted viscosity at
165 °C result obtained for the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder so that ratio results could be obtained for each
binder to be specified. These ratio results represented the fractional variation in test results obtained for each
laboratory-produced blend compared to the 18% w/w crumb rubber blend.
The ratio results were then multiplied by the minimum and maximum viscosity at 165 °C limits which had
been determined for the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder to determine minimum and maximum viscosity at
165 °C limits for the three binders to be specified. The minimum specification limits that were calculated were
then rounded down to the nearest 0.1 Pa s, while the maximum specification limits were rounded up to the
nearest 0.1 Pa s.
Table 8.2 lists the ratio results obtained for binders containing 15% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber as well as
the calculated and rounded minimum and maximum viscosity at 165 °C limits that were determined. The
proposed viscosity limits for 9% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders have also been included in the table.
Table 8.2: Calculated viscosity at 165 °C limits for binders which contain different levels of crumb rubber
Calculated Calculated Rounded Rounded

Ratio result for
minimum maximum minimum maximum
Binder viscosity at
specification specification specification specification
165 °C tests
limit (Pa s)(1) limit (Pa s)(2) limit (Pa s) limit (Pa s)
15% w/w crumb rubber 0.340 0.782 2.108 0.7 2.2
20% w/w crumb rubber 1.229 2.827 7.620 2.8 7.7
0% w/w polymer
combining oil, 210 °C
20% w/w crumb rubber 1.194 2.746 7.403 2.7 7.5
3.2% w/w polymer
9% w/w crumb rubber – – – – 4.5(3)
18% w/w crumb rubber – – – 2.3(4) 6.2(4)
1 Calculated by multiplying ratio results by 2.3 Pa s.
2 Calculated by multiplying ratio results by 6.2 Pa s.
3 Determined using crumb rubber binder specification limits included in the 2000 version of the Australian PMB
specification.
4 Determined based on viscosity at 175 °C requirements for crumb rubber binders included in the TMR, MRWA and
AfPA specifications.

8.3.2 Torsional Recovery at 25 °C, Softening Point and Consistency 6% at 60 °C
As discussed in Section 7.1, specification limits for binders containing different levels of crumb rubber in
torsional recovery at 25 °C, softening point and consistency 6% at 60 °C tests were initially determined by
dividing the fitted results obtained for each binder to be specified by the fitted result obtained for the
laboratory-prepared S45R binder in the same test. This process generated a series of ratio results which
covered the three tests for each of the binders to be specified. ATS 3110 specification limits for each binder
to be specified were then determined by multiplying the ratio results obtained in each test by the ATS 3110
minimum and maximum limits for an S45R grade binder in the same test.
It was noted in Section 7.1 that this process was followed as it was known that test results obtained from
laboratory blends may not exactly reflect the results obtained when a binder is produced on a large scale in a
production plant. Ratio results were initially calculated for each of the crumb rubber binders to be specified as
they would be expected to account for the percentage test result differences caused by variations in binder
composition (e.g. crumb rubber content) when other experimental factors were held constant. The
ATS 3110-specified limits for an S45R binder were included in the determination of crumb rubber binder
specification limits as these limits were originally determined by testing a range of S45R samples from different
suppliers and so would be expected to include contributions from the different manufacturing/storage
processes used by different suppliers and the use of bitumen from different supply sources.
Table 8.3 summarises the calculated torsional recovery at 25 °C specification limits for binders containing
between 9% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber. The table includes the ratio results obtained for each binder to
be specified in torsional recovery at 25 °C tests as well as the calculated minimum and maximum
specification limits which were determined by multiplying the ratio result obtained for each binder by the
minimum (25%) and maximum (55%) torsional recovery at 25 °C limits for an S45R grade binder in
ATS 3110. Calculated minimum specification limits were rounded down to the nearest 1%, while calculated
maximum specification limits were rounded up to the nearest 1%.
Table 8.3: Calculated torsional recovery at 25 °C limits for binders which contain different levels of crumb
rubber
Ratio result for Calculated Calculated Rounded Rounded

torsional minimum maximum minimum maximum
Binder
recovery at specification specification specification specification
25 °C tests limit (%) limit (%) limit (%) limit (%)
9% w/w crumb rubber 0.637 15.9 35.0 15 35
15% w/w crumb rubber 1.043 26.1 57.3 26 58
18% w/w crumb rubber 1.246 31.1 68.5 31 69
20% w/w crumb rubber 1.238 30.9 68.1 30 69
0% w/w polymer
20% w/w crumb rubber 1.172 29.3 64.5 29 65
3.2% w/w polymer
Table 8.4 and Table 8.5 show the analogous specification limit results to Table 8.3 for softening point and
consistency 6% at 60 °C tests, respectively. Calculated minimum specification limits for softening point and
consistency 6% at 60 °C tests were obtained by multiplying the ratio results obtained for each binder by the
minimum and maximum limits listed in ATS 3110 for an S45R grade binder (i.e. 55–65 °C and 800 Pa s
minimum, respectively). Minimum softening point limits were rounded down to the nearest 1 °C while
maximum softening point limits were rounded up to the nearest 1 °C. Minimum consistency 6% at 60 °C
limits were rounded down to the nearest 100 Pa s as all PMB grades included in ATS 3110, except for the
S35E grade have minimum consistency 6% at 60 °C limits which are rounded to the nearest 100 Pa s.

Table 8.4: Calculated softening point limits for binders which contain different levels of crumb rubber
Calculated Calculated Rounded Rounded

Ratio result for
minimum maximum minimum maximum
Binder softening
specification specification specification specification
point tests
limit (%) limit (%) limit (%) limit (%)
9% w/w crumb rubber 0.933 51.3 60.6 51 61
15% w/w crumb rubber 1.061 58.4 69.0 58 69
18% w/w crumb rubber 1.132 62.3 73.6 62 74
20% w/w crumb rubber 1.125 61.9 73.2 61 74
0% w/w polymer
20% w/w crumb rubber 1.142 62.8 74.2 62 75
3.2% w/w polymer
Table 8.5: Calculated consistency 6% at 60 °C limits for binders which contain different levels of crumb rubber
Ratio result for Calculated Rounded

consistency minimum minimum
Binder
6% at 60 °C specificatio specification
tests n limit (%) limit (%)
9% w/w crumb rubber 0.605 484 400
15% w/w crumb rubber 1.464 1171 1100
18% w/w crumb rubber 2.278 1822 1800

20% w/w crumb rubber 0% w/w polymer combining oil, 210 °C 1.471 1177 1100
20% w/w crumb rubber 3.2% w/w polymer combining oil, 210 °C 1.434 1147 1100
The method used in this study to determine specification limits for binders which contained different levels of
crumb rubber was checked by comparing the specified limits determined for binders containing 15% w/w and
18% w/w crumb rubber in torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point tests with the minimum specified
limits listed for S15RF and S18RF grade binders in ATS 3110. S15RF and S18RF binders are only specified
in ATS 3110 in terms of minimum requirements in rubber content, torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening
point tests.
S15RF grade binders are nominally blends of C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber while S18RF grade
binders are nominally blends of C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber (Austroads 2017a). The nominal
binder formulations for S15RF and S18RF grade binders are therefore the same as the formulations which
were used to produce laboratory blends which contained 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber in the project.
Table 8.6 shows a comparison between the minimum specification limits determined for 15% w/w and
18% w/w crumb rubber binders in this study in torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point tests (from
Table 8.3 and Table 8.4) with the minimum limits for these tests which are included in ATS 3110 for S15RF
and S18RF grade binders.

Table 8.6: Comparison of calculated minimum specification limits for 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber
binders with ATS 3110-specification requirements for S15RF and S18RF grade binders
Calculated Calculated
minimum minimum
ATS 3110 limit ATS 3110 limit
specification specification
Test for an S15RF for an S18RF
limit for a limit for a
grade binder(1) grade binder(1)
15% w/w crumb 18% w/w crumb
rubber binder rubber binder
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 26 25 min. 31 30 min
Softening point 58 55 min. 62 62 min.
1 Source: ATS 3110.
The results shown in Table 8.6 indicated that the calculated minimum specification limits determined for a
15% w/w crumb rubber binder in torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point tests were very similar to the
current ATS 3110-specified requirements for an S15RF grade binder in these two tests. The calculated
minimum specification requirements for an 18% w/w crumb rubber in Table 8.6 were almost the same as
those currently listed for an S18RF grade binder in ATS 3110.
As there appears to be very good agreement between the minimum specified properties determined for
crumb rubber binders containing 15% w/w and 18 % w/w crumb rubber and those specified for S15RF and
S18RF grade binders (which have the same nominal binder formulations), it appears that the process used
to develop specification limits yields specification limits which are representative of crumb rubber binders
which were manufactured on a large scale.
8.3.3 Stress Ratio at 10 °C
Difficulties were initially encountered with calculating stress ratio at 10 °C limits for binders which contained
different levels of crumb rubber using the approach used in Section 8.3.2 as stress ratio at 10 °C results are
currently only required to be reported for all PMB grades included in ATS 3110.
Stress ratio at 10 °C tests were included in the Australian PMB specification (AGPT/T190) in 2019 based on
Austroads research which showed that these tests can be effectively used to rank the fatigue cracking
resistance of bitumen and PMB samples at 10 °C (Austroads 2016b, 2017b). These studies found that
binders with higher stress ratio at 10 °C results were more resistant to cracking. Stress ratio at 10 °C tests
were included in the 2019 version of AGPT/T190 and ATS 3110 as a ‘to be reported’ parameter so that a
dataset of results could be obtained which could be used to determine minimum specification requirements
for different PMB grades.
As there was no specified stress ratio at 10 °C limit for S45R binders in ATS 3110 that could be used to
calculate limits for binders which contained different levels of crumb rubber, manufacturers of S45R grade
binders were requested to provide the stress ratio at 10 °C results they had obtained for S45R binders during
quality control testing. Four binder suppliers provided stress ratio at 10 °C results which yielded a dataset of
results from 41 different S45R grade binder production batches. These results were then analysed to
determine a minimum stress ratio at 10 °C limit for S45R grade binders which could be included in a future
version of ATS 3110. Once a minimum specification limit for S45R grade binders was determined, the
approach used in Section 8.3.2 was used to calculate proposed stress ratio at 10 °C specification limits for
binders which contained different levels of crumb rubber.
Figure 8.1 shows a histogram of the number of S45R batches versus stress ratio at 10 °C results for the
41 batches which were analysed. The results obtained from different suppliers have been colour-coded in
the figure. Figure 8.1 also includes information about the percentage of batches which showed stress ratio at
10 °C results in different ranges. The majority of S45R binder batches (29%) had stress ratio at 10 °C results
between 1.20 and 1.29. Twelve per cent of batches had stress ratio at 10 °C results between 1.10 and 1.19
and one batch showed a stress ratio at 10 °C of > 2. As a reasonably large percentage of batches had stress
ratio at 10 °C results of between 1.10 and 1.19, the minimum stress ratio at 10 °C limit for an S45R binder
was taken to be 1.1 minimum. This proposed specification limit has been included in Figure 8.1.

Figure 8.1: Distribution of stress ratio at 10 °C test results for S45R grade binders produced by different
suppliers
Table 8.7 summarises the calculated minimum stress ratio at 10 °C limits for binders containing between
9% w/w and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were calculated using a minimum stress ratio at 10 °C limit of 1.1
for an S45R grade binder. The table includes the ratio results obtained for each binder to be specified (which
were obtained by dividing the fitted stress ratio at 10 °C results shown in Table 8.1 for each of the relevant
binders by the fitted stress ratio at 10 °C result for a laboratory-produced S45R grade binder) as well as
calculated minimum specification limits (which were calculated by multiplying the ratio results by the
minimum specification limit which was determined for an S45R grade binder). Minimum stress ratio at 10 °C
limits were all rounded down to the nearest 0.1.
Table 8.7: Calculated stress ratio at 10 °C limits for binders which contain different levels of crumb rubber
Ratio result Calculated Rounded

for stress minimum minimum
Binder
ratio at 10 °C specification specification
tests limit (%) limit (%)
9% w/w crumb rubber 0.922 1.01 1.0
15% w/w crumb rubber 1.079 1.19 1.1
18% w/w crumb rubber 1.157 1.27 1.2
20% w/w crumb rubber 0% w/w polymer combining oil, 210 °C 0.986 1.08 1.0
20% w/w crumb rubber 3.2% w/w polymer combining oil, 210 °C 1.139 1.25 1.2
S45R – – 1.1

8.3.4 Compressive Limit at 70 °C and Segregation
Specification limits for compressive limit at 70 °C and segregation tests were developed for binders containing
different levels of crumb rubber by comparing the results obtained for relevant laboratory blends with the
ATS 3110-specified limits for an S45R grade binder. Binders containing 9% w/w, 15% w/w 18% w/w crumb
rubber (Table 7.3), the laboratory-prepared S45R binder (Table 7.4), and the 20% w/w crumb rubber binders
which were produced at 210 °C (Table 7.6), all showed compressive limit at 70 °C results in the range between
0.2 mm and 0.3 mm, and segregation results in the range between –4.5% to 5.5%. As all these results met the
ATS 3110 compression limit at 70 °C test requirement of 0.2 mm minimum, and the ATS 3110 segregation test
requirement of 8% maximum, the proposed specification limits for the five binders to be specified in these tests
were all set to the same values as those listed for an S45R grade binder in ATS 3110.
The segregation test limit for all PMB grades listed in ATS 3110 is currently 8% maximum and there is no
minimum requirement for segregation test results. The maximum segregation limit of 8% maximum was
predominantly developed based on the properties of PMBs containing SBS and polybutadiene (PBD)
polymers where the density of these types of polymers is lower than bitumen. If PMBs containing these types
of polymers segregate during hot storage, the polymer will float to the top of a sample/batch over time. This
behaviour will yield a positive result of high magnitude (e.g. +20%) in a segregation test.
As crumb rubber is denser than bitumen, it can sink to the bottom of a sample/batch if the binder segregates
during hot storage. This behaviour will yield a negative result of high magnitude (e.g. –15%) in a segregation
test. Even though this segregation test result indicates that a binder will segregate during storage, technically
a binder with a large negative test result still meets the ATS 3110 segregation test requirement of
+8% maximum.
In order to address this issue with the segregation test when binders are modified with materials which are
denser than bitumen, the proposed segregation specification limits included in Section 8.4 and Section 8.5
have been listed as –8% to +8% to account for binders where the modifier can sink to the bottom of the binder
during hot storage. The segregation test results obtained for the laboratory-produced binders containing
9% w/w, 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber, the laboratory-prepared S45R binder, and all of the 20% w/w
crumb rubber binders which were produced at 210 °C, were all in the range between –8% to +8%.
It may also be beneficial to change the segregation limits for other PMB grades included in ATS 3110 to –8%
to +8% in the future as a number of hybrid PMBs have been recently produced. These include mixtures of
crumb rubber and SBS polymer, and blends of waste plastic and crumb rubber.
8.3.5 Flash Point and Loss on Heating/Mass Change
It was noted in Section 7.3 that flash point and loss on heating tests were not conducted on the crumb rubber
binder samples produced in this study, as all current PMB grades included in ATS 3110, apart from the
S15RF and S18RF grades (where these binder test properties are not specified), have the same specified
limits for these two test properties. Due to this, the proposed flash point specification limits included in
Section 8.4 and Section 8.5 have been listed as 250 °C maximum to align with the other PMB grades listed
in ATS 3110. Flash point tests provide information about the flammability of a binder (Austroads 2017a).
In terms of loss on heating tests, however, changes were made to Austroads Test Method AGPT/T103 Mass
Change or Loss on Heating of Polymer Modified Binders after Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO) Treatment in
2020 so that loss on heating tests could be replaced by mass change tests in ATS 3110. The new version of
AGPT/T103 describes a procedure for determining mass change test results on PMBs. These results can
then be converted into loss on heating results by multiplying the mass change results by –1 (i.e. negative
one). Both mass change and loss on heating tests provide information about the presence of volatile
materials in a binder that may release fumes on heating (Austroads 2017a).

Changes were made to AGPT/T103 in 2020 so that the tests to assess fuming of binders at high
temperatures and relevant specification limits could be made to be the same in the Australian bitumen
(AS 2008) and PMB specifications (ATS 3110). Limits of –0.6% to +0.6% for mass change tests have been
included in the proposed specification limits included in Section 8.4 and Section 8.5, rather than loss on
heating specified limits of 0.6% maximum, to reflect proposed future changes to ATS 3110. AS 2008
currently lists mass change specified limits of –0.6% to +0.6% for C450, M500 and M1000 grade binders.
8.4 Crumb Rubber Binder Properties Presented to Austroads BSTG

Based on the specification work described in Section 8.3, proposed specification limits for each of the crumb
rubber binders included in Table 8.1 were presented at a BSTG meeting on 28 October 2020. Table 8.8
summarises the proposed specification limits which were presented.
Table 8.8: Proposed specification limits for binders containing different levels of crumb rubber
20% CR 20% CR
Test 9% CR S45R 15% CR 18% CR 0% oil 3.2% oil
210 °C 210 °C
Binder application Sprayed seals Asphalt
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 4.5 max. 4.5 max. 0.7–2.2 2.3–6.2 2.8–7.7 2.7–7.5
Torsional recovery at 25 °C 15–35 25–55 26–58 31–69 30–69 29–65
Softening point (°C) 51–61 55–65 58–69 62–74 61–74 62–75
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – 400 min. 800 min. 1100 min 1800 min. 1100 min 1100 min.
mould A (Pa s)
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.0 min. 1.1 min. 1.1 min. 1.2 min. 1.0 min. 1.2 min.
Compressive limit at 70 °C, 0.2 min.
2 kg (mm)
Segregation (%) –8 to +8
Flash point (°C) 250 min.
Mass change (% mass) –0.6 to +0.6
Specification limits were proposed for a crumb rubber binder which contained C170 bitumen and 9% w/w
crumb rubber for use in sprayed sealing applications as well as blends of C170 bitumen and either 15% w/w
or 18% w/w crumb rubber which could be used in asphalt applications. These specification limits were
derived from crumb rubber binders which were blended at 190 °C (which represented a typical temperature
for crumb rubber binder manufacture in Australia). Table 8.8 also lists the specification requirements for
20% w/w crumb rubber binders which contained C170 bitumen and either 0 or 3.2% w/w polymer combining
oil which were blended at a higher temperature than typically used in Australia (i.e. 210 °C).
Proposed specification limits for an S45R grade binder have been included in Table 8.8 as the results of this
study proposed a minimum stress ratio at 10 °C limit for this binder (rather than a maximum stiffness at
15 °C limit). Changes have also been proposed to the specification limits associated with segregation and
mass change/loss on heating tests. These changes with allow a current issue with the segregation test to be
resolved and reflect a recent update to the test method used to conduct mass change/loss on heating tests.

The specification requirements for the 15% w/w and 18 w/w crumb rubber binders were discussed at the
Austroads BSTG meeting on 28 October 2020 and it was noted that the proposed specification requirements
for these two binders in torsional recovery at 25 °C, softening point and stress ratio at 10 °C tests were quite
similar. In order to limit the number of new crumb rubber binder grades in a future version of ATS 3110,
BSTG members indicated that specified properties for a 15 w/w crumb rubber were not required to be
included in ATS 3110 at this stage. BSTG members noted that inclusion of an 18 w/w crumb rubber binder in
ATS 3110 was preferred as this binder had a higher minimum limit in consistency 6% at 60 °C tests and so
would be expected to be more resistant to rutting in asphalt. It was also noted in Section 7.1 that TMR trials
of crumb rubber use in OGA, and MRWA trials of crumb rubber use in OGA/GGA, utilised crumb rubber
binders which contained 82% w/w C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber.
Specifications for 20% w/w crumb rubber binders containing either 0% w/w or 3.2% w/w polymer combining
oil were developed in the study to ascertain what the specified properties of these types of binders would be
if a supplier produced them at high temperatures (~210 °C) so that the viscosity of a 20% w/w crumb rubber
binder could be reduced. Temperatures in excess of 200 °C are higher than the recommended maximum
spraying temperature range of 185–195 °C recommended in AfPA Advisory Note 7 (Australian Asphalt
Pavement Association 2019) for S45R grade binders. AfPA Advisory Note 7 also indicates that S45R grade
binders should not be stored at 185–195 °C for periods longer than one day.
A comparison of the proposed specification requirements for the two binders containing 20% w/w crumb
rubber with the proposed specification requirements for an 18% w/w crumb rubber which was produced at a
lower temperature indicated that the proposed torsional recovery at 25 °C and softening point requirements
for all three binders were quite similar. The proposed consistency 6% at 60 °C requirements for the 20% w/w
crumb rubber binders were both lower than the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder indicating that a 20% w/w
crumb rubber binder produced at a high temperature could have lower resistance to rutting than an 18% w/w
crumb rubber binder which was produced at a lower temperature. The calculated stress ratio at 10 °C
specification limit for a 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which contained 0% w/w polymer combining oil
(i.e. 1.0 minimum) was also less than that calculated for the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder (1.2 minimum).
Based on a comparison between the proposed specification limits included in Table 8.8, Austroads BSTG
members agreed during the meeting on 28 October 2020 that specifications for 20% w/w crumb rubber
binders were not required in ATS 3110. The main reason for this was that the specifications developed for
20% w/w crumb rubber binders in the study appeared to specify materials that would have similar/lower test
properties than an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder which was manufactured at a lower temperature. Concerns
were also raised about the high temperatures which would be required to produce these types of binders
which were higher than those currently recommended for S45R grade binders in AfPA Advisory Note 7.
8.5 Proposed ATS 3110 Specified Properties for Crumb Rubber

Binders
This section includes proposed changes to ATS 3110 in terms of crumb rubber binder grades which could be
included in a future update to the specification. These proposed revisions reflect the specification limits
included in Table 8.8. Based on feedback from Austroads BSTG members, ATS 3110 specification limits
have been proposed for binders which nominally are either blends of C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb
rubber (for sprayed sealing applications) or C170 bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber (for asphalt
applications). These binder grades have been referred to as S9R and A18R in this section where the S, A
and R designations follow the naming conventions used for other types of PMBs in ATS 3110 (see
Austroads 2017a for details). The numerical parts of these grade names correspond to the nominal
percentages by weight of crumb rubber in each binder grade.

Proposed modified specification limits for S45R grade binders have also been included in this section based
on the results obtained in this study. It may also be possible to change the grade name of S45R to S15R in
ATS 3110 in the future so that it better represents the nominal concentration of crumb rubber in this type of
binder. If the grade names S9R, A18R and S15R were adopted, the numerical parts in all crumb rubber
binder grade names in ATS 3110 (including S15RF and S18RF) would correspond to the nominal crumb
rubber concentration in each binder. The grade name for S45R, however, has not been changed in the
proposed specification limits included in this section.
ATS 3110 currently includes two tables (Table 8.1 and Table 8.2) which list the specified properties of PMBs
used in sprayed sealing and asphalt applications, respectively. It also includes a table listing the specified
properties of field-produced crumb rubber binders (Table 8.3) and a table listing the specified properties of
crumb rubber (Table 8.4). Section 9 of ATS 3110 includes two tables (i.e. Table 9.1 and Table 9.2) which list
the minimum testing frequencies for the PMB grades included in the specification.
Table 8.9 lists the proposed specification limits for S9R and S45R grade binders used for sprayed sealing
applications which could be included in a revised version of Table 8.1 in ATS 3110. Table 8.9 also includes
the list of relevant test methods included in Table 8.1 of ATS 3110 as well as the notes contained in
Table 8.1 which are relevant to crumb rubber binders. The notes to Table 8.9 have the same wording as
those listed in ATS 3110 except that they refer to both S9R and S45R grade binders, rather than just S45R
grade binders.
Table 8.9: Proposed changes to Table 8.1 in ATS 3110 relating to crumb rubber binders for sprayed sealing
applications
Class
Test method S9R(1) S45R(1)
Binder property
AS/NZS 2341.4 Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) max(2) 4.5(2) 4.5(2)
or AGPT/T111(2)
AGPT/T122 Torsional recovery at 25 °C, 30 s (%) 15–35 25–55
AGPT/T131 Softening point (°C) 51–61 55–65
AGPT/T125 Stress ratio at 10 °C min. 1.0 1.1
AGPT/T121 Consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa s) min.(3) 400 800
AGPT/T121 Stiffness at 15 °C (kPa) max. NA(4) NA
AGPT/T121 Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) max. NA NA
AGPT/T132 Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) min. 0.2 0.2
AGPT/T108 Segregation (%) max. –8 to +8 –8 to +8
AGPT/T112 Flash point (°C) min. 250 250
AGPT/T103 Mass change (% mass) –0.6 to +0.6 –0.6 to +0.6
1 Class S9R and S45R binders must be manufactured by the incorporation of crumb rubber derived from used vehicle
tyres.
2 L series Brookfield is recommended together with spindle SC4-31, except in the case of S9R and S45R classes
where spindle SC4-29 is recommended. The shear rate involved in determining viscosity by AS/NZS 2341.4 and
AGPT/T111 must be calculated and recorded. AGPT/T111 has been retained in Table 8.1 to allow laboratories
sufficient time to adopt AS/NZS 2341.4.
3 Consistency 6% at 60 °C of S10E and S35E must be determined using mould B (breakpoint of 5 mm and test speed
of 1.5 mm/s). Other grades must be tested using mould A (breakpoint of 10 mm and test speed of 1 mm/s).
4 ‘NA’ throughout indicates that the property is considered not applicable for that PMB class.
Table 8.10 lists the proposed specification limits for an A18R grade binder used in asphalt applications which
could be included in a revised version of Table 8.2 in ATS 3110. The notes relevant to crumb rubber binders
have also been included in Table 8.10. These notes have been based on those included for S9R and S45R
grade binders in Table 8.9.

The proposed specification shown in Table 8.10 has been developed for the case where the A18R grade
binder is tested prior to the incorporation of a warm mix additive (if the warm mix additive is included in the
asphalt mix). It was noted in Section 3.5, that warm mix additives can also be added to other grades of PMBs
included in ATS 3110 (e.g. A20E, A15E and A10E grade PMBs) prior to their incorporation into asphalt and
ATS 3110 requires these binders to be tested prior to the incorporation of a warm mix additive. The proposed
specification limits for a crumb rubber binder have been developed so that crumb rubber binders used in
asphalt are specified similarly to other asphalt grade PMBs included in ATS 3110.
Table 8.10: Proposed changes to Table 8.2 in ATS 3110 relating to crumb rubber binders for asphalt
applications
Class
Test method A18R(1)
Binder property
AS/NZS 2341.4 or Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s)(2) 2.3–6.2(2)
AGPT/T111(2)
AGPT/T122 Torsional recovery at 25 °C, 30 s (%) 31–69
AGPT/T131 Softening point (°C) 62–74
AGPT/T125 Stress ratio at 10 °C min. 1.2
AGPT/T121 Consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa s) min.(3) 1 800
AGPT/T121 Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) max. NA(4)
AGPT/T132 Compressive limit at 70 °C, 2 kg (mm) min. 0.2
AGPT/T108 Segregation (%) max. –8 to +8
AGPT/T112 Flash point (°C) min. 250
AGPT/T103 Mass change (% mass) –0.6 to +0.6

1 Class A18R binders must be manufactured by the incorporation of crumb rubber derived from used vehicle tyres.
2 L series Brookfield is recommended together with spindle SC4-31, except in the case of the A18R class where
spindle SC4-29 is recommended. The shear rate involved in determining viscosity by AS/NZS 2341.4 and
AGPT/T111 must be calculated and recorded. AGPT/T111 has been retained in Table 8.2 to allow laboratories
sufficient time to adopt AS/NZS 2341.4.
3 Consistency 6% at 60 °C of A25E must be determined using mould B (breakpoint of 5 mm and test speed of
1.5 mm/s). Other grades must be tested using mould A (breakpoint of 10 mm and test speed of 1 mm/s).
4 ‘NA’ throughout indicates that the property is considered not applicable for that PMB class.
Table 8.3 in ATS 3110 lists the specified properties of field-produced crumb rubber binders. No changes are
required to Table 8.3 based on the results obtained in this study. Note 3 to Table 8.3 ‘A Soxhlet extraction
using toluene may also be used’, however, could be removed from a future version of ATS 3110 as
Austroads test method AGPT/T142 Rubber Content of Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen was updated in
2020 to describe a method of determining the crumb rubber content in a binder by Soxhlet extraction. Earlier
versions of AGPT/T142 described a method of determining the crumb rubber content of a binder using a
bath containing a solvent such as trichloroethylene.
The outcomes of a survey of Australian crumb rubber suppliers (Section 6) indicated that the largest
manufacturer of crumb rubber in Australia (Supplier E) could not consistently meet ATS 3110 grading
requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber in terms of the percentage passing the 0.30 mm (300 µm) sieve. It
was noted in Section 6 that Supplier E would be able to meet ATS 3110 requirements if the specified
requirement for this sieve was increased from 20% maximum to 30% maximum. Supplier E was the only
company in the survey who indicated that they used Austroads test methods to characterise the properties of
the crumb rubber they produced.

It was also noted in Section 4.1 and Section 6 that although ATS 3110 currently includes requirements for a
foreign materials other than iron test property for Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber, there is no method to
determine this property in AGPT/T143. The current version of ATS 3110, however, has a textural requirement
in Section 8.2 (i.e. ‘Crumb rubber must be free for cord, wire, fluff and other deleterious material’) which limits
the amount of foreign materials which are included in the crumb rubber. It was noted in Section 6 that it would
be beneficial to remove the foreign materials other than iron test property from a future version of ATS 3110 as
there is no current test procedure to determine this crumb rubber property and contamination of crumb rubber
with materials other than iron is already covered by a textural requirement in ATS 3110.
Table 8.11 shows a proposed updated version of Table 8.4 in ATS 3110 which lists the specified properties
for Size 16 and Size 30 crumb rubber. The only differences from the current version of Table 8.4 are that the
requirement for the percentage passing the 300 µm sieve has been increased from 20% maximum to
30% maximum and the ‘foreign materials – other than iron’ test has been removed.
Table 8.11: Proposed updated version of Table 8.4 in ATS 3110
Test Test method Size 16 Size 30

Grading – –
passing 2.36 mm 100 100
passing 1.18 mm AGPT/T143 80 min. 100
passing 600 µm 10 max. 60 min.
passing 300 µm – 30 max.
Particle length (mm) max. AGPT/T143 3 3
Bulk density (kg/m3) AGPT/T144 Report Report
Water content (%) max. AGPT/T143 1 1

Foreign materials – metallic iron (%) max. AGPT/T143 0.1 0.1
Table 9.1 in ATS 3110 lists the minimum frequency of testing for PMBs used in sprayed sealing and asphalt
applications while Table 9.2 lists the minimum frequency of testing for field-produced crumb rubber binders.
In order to align with the other PMB grades listed in ATS 3110, it would be simplest for S9R and S45R grade
binders to comply with the minimum testing frequencies listed in ATS 3110 for PMBs used in sprayed seal
applications, and for A18R grade binders to comply with the minimum testing frequencies listed for PMBs
used in asphalt applications.
If these testing frequencies were adopted, the only change to Table 9.1 of ATS 3110 that would be required
would be that crumb rubber binders used in asphalt applications would need to be subjected to compressive
limit at 70 °C tests at least once per 3 months. This aligns with the current ATS 3110 minimum test
frequency requirement for crumb rubber binders used in sprayed sealing applications. No changes would be
required to the minimum test frequencies listed in Table 9.2 if these testing frequencies were adopted.

9. Asphalt Test Results
9.1 Introduction
The main aim of the asphalt testing work that was conducted in the project was to compare the laboratory
asphalt performance of crumb rubber binders which contained C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb
rubber to determine how the level of crumb rubber in a binder affected asphalt mix performance. The asphalt
performance of crumb rubber binders containing C170 bitumen and either 9% w/w, 15% w/w or 18% w/w
crumb rubber was compared after each of the binders were incorporated into a single type of 14 mm GGA
mix. Asphalt specimens containing C320 bitumen and a commercially-produced A15E grade PMB were also
tested in the study so that mixes which contained crumb rubber could be compared with control mixes which
were manufactured using unmodified bitumen and an SBS-based PMB. Asphalt performance tests were
conducted in this project by the ARRB laboratory in Port Melbourne, Victoria.
Asphalt specimens containing each type of binder were produced in the project using the same 14 mm GGA
mix as was used in NACOE project P75 ‘Transferring Crumb Modified Asphalt Technology to Queensland’.
This asphalt mix was originally used at a 14 mm GGA trial site which was constructed on Pimpama-Jacobs
Well Road, Jacobs Well, Queensland on 29 June 2018 (see Section 3.1.3 for details). The asphalt mix used
in NACOE studies was used in this project so that the results obtained in this study could be compared with
those obtained for a series of commercially-produced crumb rubber binders which were studied in the
NACOE project. Asphalt performance tests were conducted during the NACOE project by the TMR Materials
Services Laboratory in Pinkenba, Queensland.
It was noted in Section 7.2.2 that the blending equipment used to produce crumb rubber binders in the
ARRB laboratory could only manufacture blends that had masses up to 3100 g. In order to have a sufficient
amount of crumb rubber binder for use in asphalt tests, four additional 3.1 kg blends containing each level of
crumb rubber (i.e. 9% w/w, 15% w/w and 18% w/w) were produced in the laboratory for use in asphalt work.
These blends were produced using the same raw materials and manufacturing processes as the 9% w/w,
15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders which are included in Table 7.3.
This section includes the results of volumetric, resilient modulus at 25 °C, Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C
and fatigue at 20 °C tests which were conducted on laboratory-manufactured asphalt specimens containing
the three crumb rubber binders and the two control binders (i.e. C320 bitumen and an A15E grade PMB).
Each of these tests were performed using the same methods as used in NACOE studies so the results
obtained in the two studies could be compared. The results obtained in NACOE project P75 have not yet
been published. Due to this, the results obtained in the NACOE project have been included in this section for
informational purposes. The asphalt test results obtained in the NACOE project have been predominantly
used to assess whether there are correlations between the results of ATS 3110-specified tests on binders
and the results of asphalt performance tests.
9.2 Experimental Design
9.2.1 Asphalt Mix Design
The 14 mm GGA mix which was used in the study contained four different aggregate components which
were sourced from different quarries in south-east QLD. The aggregate component in each mix included
1% w/w hydrated lime and 0.3% w/w fibre. The binder content of all mixes was 7.8% w/w. The same binder
content was used in all mixes so that the effects of binder type on the performance of the asphalt mixes
could be directly compared. Asphalt work conducted during the NACOE project also used a binder content of
7.8 w/w.

Table 9.1 shows the combined grading of the aggregate components in the 14 mm GGA mix which was
determined using AS 1141.11.1.
Table 9.1: Asphalt mix aggregate grading
Sieve size % aggregate passing (%w/w)

19.0 mm 100
13.2 mm 99
9.5 mm 86
6.7 mm 62
4.75 mm 36
2.36 mm 22
1.18 mm 15
600 µm 10
300 µm 7
150 µm 4.5
75 µm 3.0
9.2.2 Asphalt Specimen Preparation and Testing
All asphalt specimens produced in the study were prepared in the laboratory using AS/NZS 2891.2.1 and
conditioned at 145 ± 3 °C prior to compaction. A temperature of 145 °C was used in this study for
conditioning and compaction of asphalt to match the temperature used in the NACOE studies. All mixes were
conditioned/compacted at the same temperature so the performance of asphalt containing each of the
different binders could be directly compared.
The volumetric properties (i.e. bulk density, maximum density and air voids) of the asphalt mixes were
determined to compare the relative ease of compaction of asphalt containing each type of binder. Duplicate
100 mm diameter asphalt specimens containing each type of binder were produced according to
AS/NZS 2891.5 using conditioning and compaction temperatures of 145 ± 3 °C. Each asphalt specimen was
subjected to 75 blows of Marshall compaction. Air voids results were calculated for each of the compacted
specimens using AS/NZS 2891.8. These results were calculated using bulk density and maximum density
results which were determined using AS/NZS 2981.9.2 and AS/NZS 2891.7.1, respectively.
Resilient modulus tests were conducted at 25 °C on triplicate asphalt specimens to investigate the effect of
binder type on the stiffness of the asphalt mixes at intermediate road temperatures. Asphalt specimens for
resilience modulus tests were produced according to AS/NZS 2891.2.2 using a Servopac gyratory device
and a conditioning/compaction temperature of 145 ± 3 °C. The Servopac gyratory device was set to a
compaction pressure of 600 kPa, compaction angle of 2° and a compaction speed of 30 gyrations/minute to
match the conditions used in the NACOE studies. All compacted specimens had a diameter of 100 ± 2 mm,
height of 65 ± 5 mm and air voids content of 5.0 ± 0.5%. Resilient modulus tests were conducted at
25.0 ± 0.5 °C using AS/NZS 2891.13.1 and standard reference conditions.
Hamburg wheel tracking tests were performed at 50 °C to compare the deformation (rutting) resistance and
moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixes containing the different binders. Asphalt pat specimens were
manufactured for wheel tracking tests according to AS/NZS 2891.2.2 using a Servopac gyratory device and
a conditioning/compaction temperature of 145 ± 3 °C. The Servopac gyratory device was set to a
compaction pressure of 825 kPa, compaction angle of 1.16° and a compaction speed of 30 gyrations/minute
to match the conditions used in the NACOE studies. All compacted asphalt pat specimens had a diameter of
150 ± 2 mm, height of 60 ± 1 mm and an air void content of 7.0 ± 1.0%.

Hamburg wheel tracking tests were conducted in duplicate at 50 ± 1 °C using TMR test method Q325. Each
individual test involved subjecting two joined circular asphalt pat specimens containing the same type of
binder to repeated cycles of a solid metal wheel (with a total load of 700 kN) while the specimens were
immersed in water at 50 ± 1 °C.
Each set of pat specimens was prepared by taking two circular pat specimens which were produced by the
Servopac gyratory device and cutting them with a saw on one edge so that they could be placed next to
each other in the Hamburg specimen mould assembly. The Hamburg test specimen mould containing the
two pat specimens was then placed into the Hamburg wheel tracking apparatus and conditioned in water at
50 ± 1 °C for a minimum of 2 hours prior to testing. Each set of two pat specimens was also subjected to
5 pre-conditioning cycles of the metal wheel prior to conducting wheel tracking tests to mirror the testing
process used in the NACOE studies. The Hamburg wheel tracking device was set to terminate testing at a
maximum rut depth of 30 mm as it was thought that some of the asphalt mixes could show high levels of
rutting. Each set of two pat specimens was subjected to 20 000 cycles of wheel tracking.
Asphalt fatigue tests were conducted at 20 °C to investigate the effect of binder type on the fatigue cracking
resistance of the asphalt mixes. Asphalt slabs were prepared for use in fatigue tests according to
AGPT/T220 using a segmented wheel compactor and a conditioning/compaction temperature of 145 ± 3 °C.
Asphalt beams were cut from the slabs using the beam preparation requirements listed in AGPT/T274
except that beams were cut from the slabs in the same direction as compaction, rather than transverse to the
direction of compaction. Beams were cut in this way to match the process used in the NACOE studies. All
tested asphalt beams had a height of 63.5 ± 5 mm, width of 50 ± 5 mm, length of 390 ± 5 mm and an air
voids content of 5.0 ± 0.5%.
Asphalt fatigue tests were conducted at 20.0 ± 0.5 °C according to AGPT/T274 except that a minimum of
6 asphalt beams containing each type of binder were tested at a variety of different strain levels. All tested
beams were subjected to continuous sinusoidal loading with a frequency of 10 Hz.
9.3 PMB-related Test Results Obtained for the C320 Bitumen and A15E
Binder Samples and NACOE Project Binders
Table 9.2 shows the ATS 3110-related test results which were obtained for the C320 bitumen sample and
the A15E grade binder which were used as control binders during asphalt testing as well as the relevant
specified properties for an A15E grade binder in ATS 3110. The results obtained for the C320 bitumen
sample in US-specified viscosity at 175 °C/190 °C and resilience at 25 °C tests (which were used in
comparisons between ATS 3110 and US-specified test results in Section 7.7) are also included in the table.
The AS 2008-related test results obtained for the sample of C320 bitumen are included in Table 7.1. The
sample of C320 bitumen was subjected to a range of ATS 3110-specified tests to determine if correlations
existed between ATS 3110-specified binder properties and the results of asphalt performance tests for the
database of binders included in the study. The C320 bitumen sample was not subjected to segregation tests
as this sample was not expected to separate during hot storage.
The results obtained for the A15E grade binder sample which was used in asphalt testing met the
requirements for an A15E grade PMB in ATS 3110 in terms of the tests that were performed. The A15E
binder sample showed a very low result in the segregation test (i.e. 0.0%) which indicated that it would be
unlikely to segregate during hot storage. The stress ratio at 10 °C result obtained for the A15E binder sample
(i.e. 2.56) was much higher than the stress ratio at 10 °C results obtained for the other binders which were
tested during the study (which had stress ratio at 10 °C results of between 0.74 and 1.77). This result
suggested that the A15E binder would be more resistant to fatigue cracking in asphalt at low temperatures.
Crumb rubber binders studied in the NACOE project included three binders which were commercially
produced in Australia and a binder which was commercially produced in California. The samples of the
crumb rubber binders produced in Australia were obtained from different binder suppliers and contained
different levels of crumb rubber. All of the samples that were produced in Australia contained a warm mix
additive. The same Californian crumb rubber binder sample was tested in this project and the NACOE
project. This sample corresponded to Californian sample 1 which is included in Section 7.6.

Table 9.2: PMB-related test results for the C320 bitumen and A15E samples
ATS 3110
Property C320 bitumen A15E requirements for
A15E(1)
Sampling date 27/3/2020 27/3/2020 –
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 0.14 0.65 0.9 max.
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 1 72 55–80
Softening point (°C) 52.0 87.0 82–105
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 472 8 231 –
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 452 1 197 900 min.
Stiffness at 25 °C (kPa) 32 15 30 max.
Stress ratio at 10 °C 0.96 2.56 Report
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 167 000 52 820 –
Segregation (%) – 0.0 8 max.
Segregation – top softening point result (°C) – 91.0 –
Segregation – bottom softening point result (°C) – 90.8 –
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) 0.11 – –
Viscosity at 190 °C (Pa s) 0.07 – –
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 1 – –
1 Source: ATS 3110.
Table 9.3 summarises the binder test results which were obtained for the crumb rubber binder samples in the
NACOE project. The results obtained in this project for the Californian crumb rubber binder sample
(i.e. Californian sample 1 in Table 7.8) have been included in the table for ease of reference. As the crumb
rubber content in the commercial binder samples was not known, all crumb rubber binder samples utilised in
the NACOE project were subjected to rubber content tests using TfNSW test method T737. Penetration at
4 °C tests were also conducted on all NACOE project binders using AS 2341.12. The other binder tests
included in Table 9.3 were conducted using the same test methods as those used in this study. Binders used
in the NACOE project will be referred to either in terms of their measured crumb rubber contents
(i.e. 12% w/w, 17% w/w or 21%w/w), or as the Californian crumb rubber binder sample, in the remainder of
this section for ease of reference.
It is worthy of note that the 21% w/w crumb rubber binder tested in the NACOE project meets the proposed
requirements for an A18R binder included in Table 8.10 in terms of the tests that were performed.
The 12% w/w crumb rubber binder used in the NACOE project showed crumb rubber content results lower
than the minimum ATS 3110-specified requirements for an S15RF grade binder in crumb rubber content and
softening point tests (i.e. 13% and 55 °C minimum, respectively). It also showed lower results than the
minimum ATS 3110-specified requirements for an S45R grade binder in softening point and consistency
6% at 60 °C tests (i.e. 55 °C and 800 Pa s minimum, respectively). Even though this binder contained a
warm mix additive, these results suggest that the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder is less modified than an
S15RF and S45R grade binder which nominally contains 15% w/w crumb rubber.
The result obtained for the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder in consistency 6% at 60 °C tests (419 Pa s) was
unexpectedly lower than the results obtained for the C320 bitumen sample (452 Pa s, Table 9.2) and the
laboratory blend containing 5% w/w crumb rubber (427 Pa s, Table 7.3) which were tested during this study.

Table 9.3: Test results obtained for the crumb rubber binders used in NACOE asphalt testing
Californian
Property ‘12% CR’(1) ‘17% CR’(1) ‘21% CR’(1) CR binder
sample
Sampling date 23/1/2020 6/12/2019 11/5/2020 12/8/2020
Crumb rubber content (%w/w) 12.0 16.8 21.1 20.1
Viscosity at 165 °C (Pa s) 0.51 0.64 2.46 1.36
Torsional recovery at 25 °C (%) 29 30 38 –(2)
Softening point (°C) 54.4 62.0 72.0 72.0
Consistency at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 561 1 750 6 504 6 238
Consistency 6% at 60 °C – mould A (Pa s) 419 1 269 3 812 3 369
Stress ratio at 10 °C 1.39 1.06 1.23 0.76
Stress at 3 strain in stress ratio test (Pa) 90 180 327 600 467 400 301 100
Viscosity at 175 °C (Pa s) 0.43 0.46 1.56 1.00
Resilience at 25 °C (%) 13 30 44 57
Penetration at 4 °C, 200 g, 60 s (0.1 mm) 25 23 23 23(1)
1 Source: NACOE project P75.
2 The Californian crumb rubber binder sample was not able to be effectively subjected to torsional recovery at 25 °C
tests as the spider assembly became markedly tilted (i.e. it was no longer horizontal) after the sample had recovered.
9.4 Asphalt Test Results

9.4.1 Volumetric Tests
Table 9.4 and Table 9.5 show the results of volumetric tests on asphalt specimens which were obtained in
this study and the NACOE study, respectively. The volumetric properties of the asphalt mixes were
determined to compare the relative ease of compaction of asphalt containing each type of binder. All asphalt
specimens were subjected to 75 blows of Marshall compaction at 145 °C.
Table 9.4: Volumetric results obtained for asphalt containing the control binders and crumb rubber binders
C320
Property A15E 9% CR 15% CR 18% CR
bitumen
Air voids (%) 2.6 2.4 3.9 4.8 6.0
Bulk density (tonne/m3) 2.465 2.457 2.437 2.411 2.377
Maximum density (tonne/m3) 2.532 2.518 2.535 2.533 2.529
Table 9.5: Volumetric results obtained in the NACOE project
Californian CR
Property ‘12% CR’ ‘17% CR’ ‘21% CR’
binder sample
Air voids (%) 3.3 4.8 6.6 9.1
Bulk density (tonne/m3) 2.526 2.522 2.527 2.545
Maximum density (tonne/m3) 2.442 2.400 2.361 2.314
Source: NACOE project P75.

The results shown in Table 9.4 indicated that the two control binders (i.e. C320 bitumen and the
A15E binder) showed similar air void results which were lower than those obtained for asphalt specimens
which contained the crumb rubber binders. These results indicated that the asphalt specimens containing the
control binders were easier to compact than specimens which contained crumb rubber. The air void results
obtained for asphalt specimens containing crumb rubber increased as the crumb rubber content in the binder
increased. This indicated that the asphalt specimens were becoming progressively harder to compact as the
level of crumb rubber in the binder was increased. The ease of compaction of the asphalt specimens
containing the various binders appeared to follow the order C320 bitumen ~ A15E > 9% w/w crumb rubber
binder > 15% w/w crumb rubber binder > 18% w/w crumb rubber binder.
The air voids results obtained in the NACOE project for asphalt specimens containing the crumb rubber binder
samples manufactured in Australia (Table 9.5) also showed an increase as the measured crumb rubber content
in the binders increased, indicating that it was harder to compact asphalt samples which contained binders with
higher crumb rubber contents. The air voids result obtained for asphalt containing the Californian crumb rubber
binder sample, however, was much higher than those obtained for the other asphalt specimens.
After asphalt specimens containing the Californian crumb rubber binder sample were compacted it was
noticed that the specimens increased in height during cooling (which subsequently affected air voids results).
It was noted in Section 7.6 that the results of compressive limit at 70 °C tests indicated that the Californian
crumb rubber binder contained significantly coarser crumb rubber particles than those used in Australia. The
increase in specimen height during sample cooling likely indicates that there are insufficient voids in the
aggregate skeleton of the 14 mm GGA mix to accommodate the larger crumb rubber particles which are
present in the Californian crumb rubber binder.
The air voids results included in Table 9.4 and Table 9.5 were compared with the viscosity at 165 °C results
obtained for the binders that were incorporated into asphalt to ascertain if there was a correlation between
binder test results and asphalt test results when different types of binders were incorporated into the same
14 mm GGA mix. Ideally it would be best to compare binder viscosity at 145 °C results with air voids results
as the asphalt specimens were compacted at 145 °C. As viscosity at 145 °C results were not available,
viscosity at 165 °C results (rather than viscosity at 175 °C or viscosity at 190 °C results) were used in the
comparison as these tests were performed at the temperature closest to 145 °C.
Figure 9.1 shows plots of asphalt air void results versus binder viscosity at 165 °C results for the binders tested
in this project and the NACOE project. The results obtained for the Californian crumb rubber binder, which
showed anomalous results in air voids tests, have also been included in the figure for reference. The figure also
shows logarithmic fit to all data (except for the data associated with the Californian binder) as well as the R2
value obtained from the fit. Although there is a fairly wide degree of scatter in the experimental data and the R2
value obtained for the fit is reasonably low (i.e. 0.68), there appears to be a general trend where binders which
have higher viscosity at 165 °C results appear to be more difficult to compact in asphalt.

Figure 9.1: Asphalt air void results versus binder viscosity at 165 °C results for binders included in the
Austroads and NACOE projects
9.4.2 Resilient Modulus Tests
Table 9.6 shows the results obtained in this study and the NACOE study in resilient modulus at 25 °C tests.
These tests were conducted to investigate the effect of binder type on the stiffness of the asphalt mixes at
intermediate road temperatures. The resilience modulus at 25 °C results obtained in this study varied
between 531 MPa and 2 839 MPa. Asphalt specimens containing the A15E binder showed the lowest
resilient modulus at 25 °C result (531 MPa). Asphalt specimens containing the crumb rubber binders had
higher resilient modulus at 25 °C results than specimens which contained the control binders. The resilient
modulus at 25 °C results obtained for asphalt specimens containing the various binders appeared to follow
the order A15E < C320 bitumen < 9% w/w crumb rubber binder < 15% w/w crumb rubber binder ~ 18% w/w
Table 9.6: Resilience modulus at 25 °C results obtained in Austroads and NACOE studies
Project Binder description Resilient modulus at 25 °C (MPa)

Austroads C320 bitumen 1880
A15E 531
9% w/w crumb rubber 2196
NACOE P75 ‘12% w/w crumb rubber’ 1185(1)
‘17% w/w crumb rubber’ 1668(1)
‘21% w/w crumb rubber’ 3060(1)
Californian crumb rubber binder sample 2573(1)
1 Source: NACOE project P75.
The resilient modulus at 25 °C results obtained in the NACOE study were in a similar range to those
obtained in this study and varied between 1 185 MPa and 3 060 MPa. The resilient modulus at 25 °C results
obtained in the NACOE study appeared to increase as the measured crumb rubber content in the binder
increased.

The results obtained in resilient modulus at 25 °C tests were compared with two low temperature binder test
properties included in ATS 3110 to determine whether there were correlations between binder test results
and asphalt test results for the database of binders included in the Austroads and NACOE studies. Binder
test properties investigated included stiffness at 25 °C results and stress at 3 strain results obtained in stress
ratio at 10 °C tests. These two test parameters were selected as they provide information about the
hardness of binders at low/ambient temperatures. The resilient modulus at 25 °C results obtained for the
12% w/w, 17% w/w and 21% w/w crumb rubber binders in the NACOE project could not be compared with
stiffness at 25 °C results because stiffness at 25 °C tests were not conducted in the NACOE study.
Figure 9.2 shows a plot of asphalt resilient modulus at 25 °C results versus binder stiffness at 25 °C results
for binders tested in this project and the Californian crumb rubber binder sample. The figure also includes a
logarithmic fit to the experimental data as well as the equation and R2 value obtained from the fit. The R2
value obtained (0.88) appears to indicate that there is quite a good correlation between binder stiffness at
25 °C results and the resilient modulus at 25 °C results obtained after each of the binders were incorporated
into a single type of 14 mm GGA mix.
Figure 9.2: Asphalt resilient modulus at 25 °C results versus binder stiffness at 25 °C results for Austroads
project binders and the Californian crumb rubber binder
Figure 9.3 shows plots of asphalt resilient modulus at 25 °C results versus binder stress at 3 strain results for
the binders tested in this project and the NACOE project. The figure includes an exponential fit to the data
obtained in both studies and the equation and R2 value from the fit. Based on the R2 value obtained (0.84)
there appears to be a good correlation between stress at 3 strain results obtained in stress ratio at 10 °C
tests and the resilient modulus at 25 °C results obtained after each of the binders were incorporated into a
single type of 14 mm GGA mix.

Figure 9.3: Asphalt resilient modulus at 25 °C results versus binder stress at 3 strain results for binders
included in the Austroads and NACOE projects
9.4.3 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Tests

Hamburg wheel tracking tests were conducted in the study to compare the deformation (rutting) resistance
and moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixes containing the different binders. Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C
tests were performed, rather than conventional Austroads AGPT/T231 wheel tracking at 60 °C tests, as the
TMR and MRWA specifications relating to the use of crumb rubber binders in GGA include specified limits for
Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C tests during the asphalt mix design process (Main Roads Western
Australia 2018a, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2019a).
The TMR Q325 test method, which was used in this study and the NACOE study, requires that asphalt
specimens be subjected to wheel tracking while they are immersed in water. Stripping of asphalt specimens
due to water damage is indicated by the presence of an inflection point in the plot of rut depth versus number
of loading cycles which is obtained during testing. The TMR and MRWA specifications require that asphalt
specimens used in GGA have a rut depth of ≤ 12 mm after 10 000 loading cycles. These specifications also
indicate that there should be no inflection point in a plot of rut depth versus number of loading cycles for the
first 5 000 cycles of trafficking.
Table 9.7 shows the Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C results which were obtained in this study for asphalt
specimens containing the two control binders and the three crumb rubber binders. The table includes the
average rut depth at 50 °C results obtained after 20 000, 10 000 and 4 000 loading cycles for the duplicate
specimens that were tested. Table 9.7 also includes the individual rut depth results obtained for each asphalt
specimen during wheel tracking tests as well as the individual specimen stripping inflection points which
were evident in some of the plots of rut depth versus the number of wheel tracking cycles. Stripping inflection
point results were calculated using the equation which is included in the TMR Q325 test method.
Appendix B includes plots of rut depth versus number of wheel tracking cycles for each asphalt specimen
that was tested. These plots also include an indication of the stripping inflection points which were observed.

Table 9.7: Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C results for asphalt containing the control binders and the crumb
rubber binders included in the study
Property C320 A15E 9% CR 15% CR 18% CR

Average rut depth at 50 °C after 14.3 8.4 22.6 14.6 7.5
20 000 cycles (mm)
10 000 cycles (mm)
4 000 cycles (mm)
Individual rut depths at 50 °C after 13.6 8.6 24.0 11.6 7.1
20 000 cycles (mm)(1) 14.9 8.2 21.3 17.7 7.9
10 000 cycles (mm)(1) 7.3 4.4 8.2 5.7 5.2
4 000 cycles (mm)(1) 4.1 2.6 4.4 2.8 3.7
Individual stripping inflection point 15 292 (w) > 20 000 14 055 (s) > 20 000 > 20 000
results (cycles)(1,2) 17 515 (w) > 20 000 14 059 (s) 11 711 (s) > 20 000
1 Individual specimen test results are listed in the order specimens were tested.
2 (w) = weak inflection point, (s) = strong inflection point, > 20 000 = no inflection point was observed during
20 000 cycles of wheel tracking.
The results obtained in Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C tests indicated that specimens containing
C320 bitumen, as well as crumb rubber binders containing 9% w/w and 15% w/w crumb rubber, showed
some degree of stripping during testing. Both specimens containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder showed
a strong stripping inflection point during wheel tracking tests. One of the specimens containing the 15% w/w
crumb rubber binder showed a strong stripping infection point while the other specimen showed no stripping
inflection point.
Both specimens containing C320 bitumen showed a weak stripping inflection point during testing. No
inflection points were observed for asphalt specimens containing the A15E binder or the 18% w/w crumb
rubber binder. Asphalt specimens which showed stripping inflection points yielded higher rut depths after
20 000 passes than specimens which did not show stripping inflection points. All of the stripping inflection
points observed in the study occurred after 5 000 cycles (which was higher than the TMR and MRWA
specification requirement for crumb rubber binders used in GGA).
Figure 9.4 compares photographs of duplicate asphalt specimens containing the 9% w/w and 18% w/w
crumb rubber binders after 20 000 cycles of wheel tracking. The upper photograph, which is associated with
specimens containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder, shows that the binder has stripped from some of the
aggregate particles in the wheel path during testing. No stripping of the binder is evident in the lower
photograph which is associated with specimens containing the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder.
The results of Hamburg wheel tracking tests which were obtained after 20 000 cycles of wheel tracking
indicated that the average rut depth at 50 °C results followed the order 9% w/w crumb rubber binder
> 15% w/w crumb rubber binder ~ C320 bitumen > A15E binder > 18% w/w crumb rubber binder. The high
average rut depth at 50 °C results observed for the asphalt specimens containing the 9% w/w and 15% w/w
crumb rubber binders and C320 bitumen, however, appeared to be influenced by the stripping which
occurred after 11 000 loading cycles.

Figure 9.4: Photographs of asphalt specimens containing 9% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders after
Hamburg wheel tracking tests
If the results of Hamburg wheel tracking tests are compared after 10 000 cycles (as specified in the TMR and
MRWA specifications) then asphalt specimens containing the sample of C320 bitumen showed the highest
average rut depth at 50 °C result. Asphalt specimens containing the crumb rubber binders showed lower
average rut depth at 50 °C results than specimens containing C320 bitumen. The average rut depth at 50 °C
results obtained for specimens containing the crumb rubber binders decreased as the concentration of
crumb rubber in the binder was increased. Specimens containing the A15E binder and the 18% w/w crumb
rubber binder showed similar average rut depth at 50 °C results after 10 000 loading cycles. The rut depth at
50 °C results obtained after 10 000 loading cycles appeared to follow the order C320 bitumen > 9% w/w
crumb rubber binder > 15% w/w crumb rubber binder > 18% w/w crumb rubber binder ~ A15E.
Table 9.8 shows the analogous results to Table 9.7 for binders that were included in the NACOE study. None
of these asphalt specimens showed the presence of a stripping inflection point in plots of rut depth versus
the number of wheel tracking cycles (i.e. no stripping of the asphalt specimens was observed). The Hamburg
wheel tracking device was set to terminate testing in the NACOE study at a maximum rut depth of 20 mm
(rather than 30 mm which was used in this study). Both of the duplicate specimens containing the 12% w/w
crumb rubber binder exceeded this limit before 10 000 loading cycles. Due to this, rut depth at 50 °C results
of > 20 mm have been included in Table 9.8 where appropriate.

Table 9.8: Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C results obtained in the NACOE project
Californian CR
Property ‘12% CR’ ‘17% CR’ ‘21% CR’
binder sample
Average rut depth at 50 °C after > 20 8.1 4.1 5.4
20 000 cycles (mm)
Average rut depth at 50 °C after > 20 4.7 2.8 3.8
10 000 cycles (mm)
Average rut depth at 50 °C after 14.7 3.5 2.2 2.8
4 000 cycles (mm)
Individual rut depths at 50 °C after > 20 8.8 3.8 5.4
20 000 cycles (mm)(1) > 20 7.4 4.5 5.5
Individual rut depths at 50 °C after > 20 5.2 2.7 3.1
10 000 cycles (mm)(1) > 20 4.2 3.0 4.4
Individual rut depths at 50 °C after 19.0 3.5 2.1 2.1
4 000 cycles (mm)(1) 10.5 3.4 2.2 3.5
Individual stripping inflection point > 20 000 > 20 000 > 20 000 > 20 000
results (cycles)(1,2) > 20 000 > 20 000 > 20 000 > 20 000
1 Individual specimen test results are listed in the order specimens were tested.
2 > 20 000 = no inflection point was observed during 20 000 cycles of wheel tracking.
In a similar way to the binders included in this study, the average rut depth at 50 °C results obtained after
10 000 loading cycles in the NACOE study appeared to decrease as the measured crumb rubber content in
the binder increased. This trend was also observed when the NACOE average rut depth at 50 °C results
were compared after 20 000 loading cycles. All asphalt specimens tested in the two studies, except for those
which contained the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder, showed average rut depth at 50 °C results after
10 000 loading cycles which were lower than the TMR/MRWA GGA requirement of ≤ 12 mm.
As the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder which was assessed in the NACOE project showed such a high level of
rutting, it was not possible to compare wheel tracking results with binder test results for all of the binders
included in both studies if rut depth results after 10 000 or 20 000 loading cycles were used in the analysis.
As both specimens containing the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder yielded rut depth at 50 °C results of
< 20 mm after 4 000 loading cycles, comparisons between wheel tracking results and binder test results
were conducted by comparing average rut depth at 50 °C results obtained after 4 000 loading cycles with
binder consistency 6% at 60 °C results.
Rut depth at 50 °C results obtained after 4 000 cycles are included in Table 9.7 and Table 9.8. Consistency
6% at 60 °C test results were compared with the results of Hamburg wheel tracking tests as previous studies
have indicated that these binder tests can be used to rank the rutting performance of binders in a single type
of asphalt mix (Austroads 2016a, Choi & Urquhart 2019).

Figure 9.5 shows plots of average rut depth at 50 °C results after 4 000 loading cycles versus binder
consistency 6% at 60 °C results for the binders tested in this project and the NACOE project. The figure also
includes a fit to the data obtained in both studies to an equation which has been used previously to
investigate the relationship between asphalt wheel tracking results and consistency 6% at 60 °C results
(Choi & Urquhart 2019). This equation has been successfully used in the past to find correlations between
wheel tracking at 60 °C results (obtained using AGPT/T231) and consistency 6% at 60 °C results for binders
after they have been incorporated into six different DGA mixes. The results included in Figure 9.5 were fitted
to Equation 1:
R = A × C −𝑛𝑛 + B 1
where
R = average rut depth at 50 °C observed in wheel tracking tests (mm)
C = binder consistency 6% at 60 °C (Pa s)
A, B, n = model constants which are dependent on the asphalt mix used in the experiments
Figure 9.5: Average rut depth at 50 °C results after 4 000 loading cycles versus consistency 6% at 60 °C results
for binders included in the Austroads and NACOE projects
The R2 value (i.e. 0.80) obtained from fitting the experimental data included in Figure 9.5 to Equation 1
indicated that there was a good correlation between binder consistency 6% at 60 °C results and rut depth at
50 °C results obtained in Hamburg wheel tracking tests after each of the binders were incorporated into a
single type of 14 mm GGA mix.

9.4.4 Asphalt Fatigue Tests
Asphalt fatigue tests were conducted at 20 °C in this study and the NACOE study to investigate the effect of
binder type on the fatigue cracking resistance of the asphalt mixes. Tests were conducted by subjecting at
least six asphalt beams containing each type of binder to sinusoidal loading using different peak strain
levels. Between six and nine asphalt beams containing each binder type were tested in this study. The peak
strain levels used in fatigue tests were selected so that at least two beams containing each type of binder
yielded fatigue life results of more than 1 000 000 cycles. Fatigue life results were taken to be the number of
cycles required for the stiffness of the beams to be 50% of the initial stiffness value. Appendix C lists the
initial stiffness and fatigue life at 20 °C results obtained for every asphalt beam that was tested in the study.
Figure 9.6 shows a plot of fatigue life at 20 °C results versus the peak strain level used in the experiments for
asphalt beams containing the control C320 bitumen and A15E grade binders when both parameters are
plotted on a logarithmic scale. The figure also includes linear fits to each set of experimental data and the
values of R2 obtained from each fit. Asphalt beams containing C320 bitumen were subjected to peak strain
levels of between 150 and 350 µε during testing while beams containing the A15E binder were subjected to
peak strain levels of between 750 and 900 µε.
Figure 9.6: Fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing C320 bitumen and the A15E binder
The R2 value determined for asphalt beams containing C320 bitumen (0.95) indicated that the fitted equation
provided a very good fit to the experimental data. The R2 value determined for asphalt beams containing the
A15E binder (0.81) indicated a good fit to the experimental data. The increased level of scatter in the data
obtained for beams containing the A15E binder likely reflects the very high peak strain levels which were
required during testing. The results shown in Figure 9.6 indicate that asphalt beams containing the
A15E grade binder were far more resistant to fatigue cracking than those which contained C320 bitumen.

The fatigue results obtained for each binder type in the study were fitted in this way so that intercept (A) and
slope (B) values could be obtained so that they could be substituted into Equation 2:
log10 (Nf ) = A + (B log10 ε) 2
where
Nf = fatigue life (or number of cycles to failure) of the asphalt sample
A = intercept of the fit
B = gradient of the fit
ε = peak strain level used in the experiments (µε)
Once the values of A (intercept) and B (slope) were obtained, the peak strain level corresponding to a fatigue
life of 106 cycles (ε6) was then calculated for each set of experimental data by substituting a fatigue life result
(Nf) of 106 into Equation 2. The ε6 values which were determined in the study are summarised in Table 9.9.
Figure 9.7 shows the analogous results to those shown in Figure 9.6 for asphalt beams containing crumb
rubber binders which contained either 9% w/w, 15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber. Beams containing crumb
rubber binders were subjected to peak strain levels in the range between 140 and 350 µε. The values of R2
associated with the three linear fits were all greater than 0.93 which indicated they were very good fits to the
experimental data.
Figure 9.7: Fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing the crumb rubber binders and C320 bitumen
The fitted fatigue curves shown in Figure 9.7 indicated that beams containing all three crumb rubber binders
showed very similar fatigue lives at a peak strain level of 350 µε. This peak strain level corresponds to an
x-axis value of 2.54 in Figure 9.7. The fitted curve for beams containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder was
consistently lower than the fits for beams which contained the 15% w/w or 18% w/w crumb rubber binders at
strain levels lower than 350 µε. The fitted curve for beams containing the 18% w/w crumb rubber binder was
slightly higher than the fit for beams containing the 15% w/w crumb rubber for peak strain levels lower than
about 280 µε. This peak strain level corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.45 in Figure 9.7.

Figure 9.7 also includes the experimental data points and fitted curve which were obtained for asphalt beams
containing C320 bitumen in fatigue tests. The fitted curve for beams containing C320 bitumen was higher
than the curves for beams which contained the crumb rubber binders at strain levels lower than 350 µε. This
result appeared to suggest that asphalt containing the crumb rubber binders was less resistant to fatigue
cracking at peak strain levels less than 350 µε. This result was unexpected as the outcomes of the literature
review into the benefits of using crumb rubber in road construction (Section 2.1) indicated that the addition of
crumb rubber to bitumen is a means by which the fatigue cracking resistance of binders can be improved.
Previous Austroads studies (Austroads 2013, 2015) have indicated that the fatigue performance of SBS-based
PMBs and crumb rubber binders can be influenced by the crude source and manufacturing route that is used to
produce the bitumen which is included in a binder. To investigate whether the bitumen used to produce the
crumb rubber binders was the cause of the relatively low fatigue life at 20 °C results (compared with beams
containing C320 bitumen), a series of additional fatigue tests were conducted using asphalt beams containing
7.8% w/w of the C170 bitumen sample which was used to produce the crumb rubber blends.
It was noted in Section 7.2.1 that the C170 bitumen sample which was used to produce the crumb rubber
binders was sourced from a binder supplier site in Victoria in June 2019 whereas the C320 bitumen sample
was sourced from a binder supplier site in Queensland in March 2020. As the two bitumen samples were
sourced at varying times from both Victoria and Queensland, it is very likely that they would have been
produced by different refineries (which would be expected to use different crude oils and manufacturing
routes to produce bitumen).
Figure 9.8 shows a comparison between the fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt beams which contained
the sample of C170 bitumen used to produce the crumb rubber binders in this study and beams which
contained the sample of C320 bitumen. Beams containing C170 bitumen were subjected to peak strain
levels between 125 and 300 µε. The figure also includes linear fits to each set of experimental data and the
values of R2 obtained from each fit. The R2 value determined for asphalt beams containing C170 bitumen
(0.94) indicated that the fitted equation provided a very good fit to the experimental data.
Figure 9.8: Comparison of the fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing the C170 bitumen sample used
to produce the crumb rubber binders and asphalt containing the C320 bitumen sample used in
asphalt work

The fitted curve obtained for beams that contained C170 bitumen was consistently lower than the curve for
beams which contained C320 bitumen for peak strain levels less than 300 µε. A peak strain level of 300 µε
corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.48 in Figure 9.8. This result appeared to imply that the C170 bitumen
sample used to produce the crumb rubber binders was more prone to fatigue cracking at lower peak strain
levels than the C320 bitumen sample used in the asphalt work. This suggested that the relatively low fatigue
life at 20 °C results obtained for the crumb rubber binders at lower strain levels could be due in part to the
low cracking resistance of the C170 bitumen which was used to produce the blends.
Figure 9.9 shows a comparison between the fatigue life at 20 °C results obtained for beams that contained
the crumb rubber binders and beams which contained the C170 bitumen sample which was used to produce
the blends. The figure includes linear fits to each set of experimental data. The fitted curves for beams which
contained the 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders were slightly higher than the curve for beams
which contained C170 bitumen for peak strain levels lower than about 200 µε. This peak strain level
corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.30 in Figure 9.9. Even though there were differences between the fitted
curves for these three binder types, the differences between the curves were not particularly marked. The
fitted curve for beams which contained the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder was lower than the curve for beams
which contained C170 bitumen for all peak strain levels investigated.
Figure 9.9: Comparison of the fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt containing the crumb rubber binders and
asphalt containing the C170 bitumen sample used to produce the binders
As there were only small differences between the fitted fatigue curves for several of the binder types included
in the study, the fatigue results were subjected to a statistical analysis to ascertain whether there were
differences in fatigue performance of the different binder types at lower strain levels. This analysis was
performed by determining the 95% confidence limits of the fitted fatigue life results which were obtained at a
peak strain level of 150 µε. This strain level corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.18 in Figure 9.6 to
Figure 9.9. Confidence limits were determined using the method included in Austroads (2016c).

Figure 9.10 shows the 95% confidence limits for the true mean of fatigue life results at a peak strain level of
150 µε for asphalt beams containing C170 and C320 bitumen as well as the crumb rubber binders. These
results have been plotted on a linear (rather than log10 scale) so the differences between confidence limits
can be more easily observed. The grey lines in the figure correspond to the range of statistically possible true
mean fatigue life results between the minimum and maximum 95% confidence limits for each binder type at a
peak strain level of 150 µε. The red data points in Figure 9.10 correspond to the fitted fatigue life results at
150 µε that were obtained from the fits to the experimental data. The 95% confidence limits for asphalt
containing the A15E grade binder were between 1.69 x 109 and 2.98 x 1029 cycles at a peak strain level of
150 µε. These results clearly indicated that asphalt containing the A15E binder showed superior fatigue
cracking resistance compared with the other binders included in the study. The 95% confidence limits
associated with the A15E grade binder have not been included in Figure 9.10 as they are in a completely
different range to the results shown in the figure.
The 95% confidence limits for the true mean of fatigue life results at 150 µε were in the range between
1 585 100 and 12 309 500 cycles for asphalt containing C320 bitumen and in the range between 658 100
and 2 282 500 cycles for asphalt containing C170 bitumen. Although there is a degree of overlap between
the 95% confidence limits for specimens containing C170 bitumen and C320 bitumen (see Figure 9.10), this
degree of overlap appears to be relatively small. Based on this small amount of overlap it is very likely that
the true mean fatigue result for beams containing C320 bitumen at a peak strain level of 150 µε is higher
than beams containing C170 bitumen.
The 95% confidence limits for the true mean of the fatigue life result obtained for specimens which contained
the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder (226 300 to 725 900 cycles) were lower than those obtained for the other
binders included in the study at a peak strain level of 150 µε. Based on this statistical analysis it appeared
the beams containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder showed the lowest fatigue performance at a peak
strain level of 150 µε.
Figure 9.10: Statistical analysis of fitted fatigue life results at a peak strain level of 150 µε
14 000 000
Fatigue life 95% confidence limits
12 000 000 Fitted fatigue life at 150 microstrain

Fatigue life at 150 µε (cycles)
10 000 000
8 000 000
6 000 000
4 000 000
2 000 000
0
0 C320 1bitumen C1702bitumen 9%3w/w 15%4w/w 18%5w/w 6
crumb rubber crumb rubber crumb rubber
The 95% confidence limits for beams which contained C170 bitumen as well as the 15% w/w and 18% w/w
crumb rubber binders showed a significant degree of overlap (see Figure 9.10). This indicated that the
differences in fitted fatigue results at a peak strain level of 150 µε were not statistically significant at a 95%
confidence level. Based on these results, it appears that the fatigue performance of beams containing each
of these three binder types is similar at a peak strain level of 150 µε.

There was some degree of overlap between the 95% confidence limits of asphalt containing the 15% w/w
and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders and asphalt containing C320 bitumen (Figure 9.10) but the overlap was
relatively small. Based on the results of the statistical analysis the overall ranking of fatigue performance at a
peak strain level of 150 µε follows the order 9% crumb rubber binder < C170 bitumen ~ 15% w/w crumb
rubber binder ~ 18% w/w crumb rubber binder < C320 bitumen < A15E binder. The fatigue performance of
all binders, except for the A15E binder, was similar at a peak strain level of 350 µε.
Table 9.9 summarises the fitted fatigue test results for asphalt beams containing each of the binders included
in the study. The table includes the values of A, B and R2 which were obtained by fitting the experimental
data to Equation 2 as well as the values of ε6 which were determined. The table also includes the average
initial stiffness at 20 °C results obtained for beams which contained each type of binder.
Table 9.9: Fitted fatigue test results for the asphalt specimens characterised in the study
Average Fitted equation parameters

specimen A (intercept) B (slope) R2 Peak strain level for a
Binder description
initial stiffness fatigue life of 106
at 20 °C (MPa) cycles, ε6 (µε)
C320 bitumen 2518 18.655 –5.519 0.95 196
A15E 755 58.940 –18.193 0.81 813
C170 bitumen 2276 14.141 –3.701 0.94 158
9% w/w crumb rubber 2958 11.698 –2.799 0.93 109
15% w/w crumb rubber 3596 15.637 –4.347 0.95 165
18% w/w crumb rubber 3228 16.944 –4.876 0.95 176
The values of ε6 obtained for beams containing each of the binders appeared to mirror the fitted fatigue life
results at lower peak strain levels (e.g. 150 µε). Asphalt containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber had the lowest
ε6 value (109 µε) while asphalt containing C170 bitumen and the 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber
binders showed reasonably similar ε6 values which were in the range between 158 and 176 µε. Asphalt
containing C320 bitumen had a slightly higher ε6 value of 196 µε. Asphalt containing the A15E binder had a
significantly higher ε6 value (813 µε) than specimens containing any of the other binders.
The B value determined for asphalt beams which contained the A15E binder (–18.193) implied that the
fatigue life at 20 °C of asphalt containing this binder was very sensitive to the peak strain level used in the
experiments. As an example, the Austroads pavement design method uses a B value of –5 for unmodified
bitumen to relate the fatigue life of asphalt to the peak strain level at the base of an asphalt layer
(Austroads 2017c). The B value determined for asphalt containing C320 bitumen (–5.519) was close to the
B value included in the Austroads pavement design method. The B values associated with beams containing
the crumb rubber binders showed a general decrease as the crumb rubber content in the binder increased.
This suggested that fatigue life at 20 °C results became more sensitive to peak strain level as the crumb
rubber content in the binder was increased from 9% w/w to 15% w/w.
Figure 9.11 shows the analogous results to those shown in Figure 9.6 for asphalt beams tested in the
NACOE project. Asphalt fatigue tests were conducted in the NACOE project using peak strain levels in the
range between 165 and 500 µε. Between 9 and 18 beams containing each binder type were subjected to
fatigue tests in the NACOE project. The values of R2 associated with the 4 linear fits shown in Figure 9.11
were all greater than 0.95 which indicated they were very good to excellent fits to the experimental data. The
binders included in the NACOE project all appeared to show better fatigue performance in the 14 mm GGA
mix than the laboratory-prepared crumb rubber binders which were studied in this project. A detailed
statistical analysis was not performed on the NACOE project fatigue life results as the differences between
the fitted fatigue curves were much greater than those observed for the crumb rubber binders included in this
study. It was also noted in Section 9.1 that the results obtained in the NACOE project have not yet been
published and have been included in Section 9 for information purposes.

Figure 9.11: Fatigue life at 20 °C results for asphalt specimens tested in the NACOE project
The results in the NACOE project did not show any specific trends between fatigue life at 20 °C results and the
measured crumb rubber content of the binder that was incorporated into asphalt. The fitted curve determined
for the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder (which had the lowest measured level of crumb rubber) was higher than
those determined for asphalt containing the other NACOE binders for peak strain levels greater than about
320 µε. This peak strain level corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.51 in Figure 9.11. The fitted curve for the
21% w/w crumb rubber binder (which had the highest measured crumb level) was lower than the fitted curves
obtained for binders which contained 12% w/w and 17% w/w crumb rubber for peak strain levels greater than
about 240 µε. This peak strain level corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.38 in Figure 9.11.
The fitted curve for samples of the Californian crumb rubber binder which was tested in the NACOE project
(which had a measured crumb rubber content of 20% w/w) was overall significantly lower than the fitted
curves for the 12% w/w and 17% w/w crumb rubber binders for peak strain levels of 190 µε and above. This
peak strain level corresponds to an x-axis value of 2.28 in Figure 9.11. As the 12% w/w and 17% w/w crumb
rubber binders that were utilised in the NACOE project were commercially-produced, it appears that some
commercial crumb rubber binders that are available in Australia may yield better fatigue performance in GGA
than binders produced in California.
Table 9.10 summarises the fitted fatigue test results for asphalt beams that were tested in the NACOE project.
The table includes the average initial stiffness at 20 °C results for beams which contained each type of binder
as well as the values of A, B, R2 and ε6 which were derived from fits to each set of experimental data.
Table 9.10: Fitted fatigue test results for the asphalt specimens characterised in the NACOE study
Average Fitted equation parameters

specimen Peak strain level for a
Binder description
initial stiffness A (intercept) B (slope) R2 fatigue life of 106
at 20 °C (MPa) cycles, ε6 (µε)
‘12% w/w crumb rubber’ 1797 13.598 –3.307 0.95 198
‘17% w/w crumb rubber’ 2672 17.675 –4.933 0.96 233
‘21% w/w crumb rubber’ 3954 22.508 –7.053 0.97 219
Californian crumb rubber 3632 17.125 –4.860 0.98 195
binder sample

The values of ε6 determined for the asphalt beams containing the 12% w/w crumb rubber binder and the
Californian crumb rubber binder in the NACOE project (i.e. 198 and 195 µε, respectively) were similar to the
value of ε6 obtained for beams containing C320 bitumen in this project (196 µε). The ε6 values determined for
beams which contained the 17% w/w and 21% w/w crumb rubber binders in the NACOE project (i.e. 233 and
219 µε, respectively) were both significantly lower than the value of ε6 obtained for beams containing an
A15E grade binder in this project (813 µε). The NACOE project ε6 values appeared to follow the order
Californian crumb rubber binder (with 20% w/w crumb rubber) ~ 12% w/w crumb rubber binder < 21% w/w
crumb rubber binder < 17% w/w crumb rubber binder.
One possible reason for the lack of a specific trend between the measured crumb rubber binder content of
the binder and fatigue at 20 °C results in the NACOE study is that the source of bitumen used to make the
crumb rubber binders affected the fatigue test results. The use of a different source of bitumen may also
have contributed to the differences in fatigue test results observed in the NACOE study and this study.
Although other factors may be affecting the fatigue results (such as the type of crumb rubber used to make
the blends, the presence of polymer combining oils, effects of blending/storage time, etc.) previous
Austroads studies have found marked differences in fatigue life at 10 °C results for 15% w/w crumb rubber
binders which were prepared using different sources of C170 bitumen.
Previous Austroads studies initially involved preparing 15% w/w crumb rubber binders in the laboratory using
the same method as in this study using two sources of C170 bitumen (referred to as compatible and
incompatible C170 bitumen) and the same sample of ’30-mesh’ crumb rubber (Austroads 2016b). The crumb
rubber binders and samples of C170 bitumen were then each incorporated into a VicRoads Type 10H DGA
mix using a binder content of 5.5% w/w. Fatigue tests were then conducted on beams containing each
binder type using the same method as used in this study except that testing was conducted at 10 °C (rather
than 20 °C) using haversine loading with a peak strain level of 400 µε (rather than sinusoidal loading).
Previous studies have shown that this level of haversine loading is equivalent to sinusoidal loading with a
peak strain level of 200 µε (Austroads 2015, 2016b). Table 9.11 summarises the fatigue at 10 °C test results
for the bitumen samples and crumb rubber binders in Austroads (2016b).
Table 9.11: Fatigue test results for C170 bitumen samples and 15% w/w crumb rubber binders in
Austroads (2016b)
Average specimen Average specimen

Binder Peak strain level initial stiffness at fatigue life at 10 °C
10 °C (MPa) (cycles)
100% w/w compatible C170 bitumen 10 965 26 200
85% w/w compatible C170 bitumen, 11 620 29 000
15% w/w crumb rubber
400 µε haversine(1)
100% incompatible C170 bitumen 8 600 82 800
85% w/w incompatible C170 bitumen, 8 450 184 500
1 Equivalent to sinusoidal loading with a peak strain level of 200 µε.
Source: Austroads (2016b).
The results shown in Table 9.11 indicate that the addition of 15% w/w crumb rubber to the sample of
compatible C170 bitumen did not result in a significant change in fatigue life at 10 °C results. This result is
similar to that observed in this study when the fatigue life at 20 °C results obtained for asphalt beams
containing C170 bitumen and the 15% w/w crumb rubber binder were compared at a peak strain level of
150 µε. The addition of 15% w/w crumb rubber to the sample of incompatible C170 bitumen, by contrast,
increased the fatigue life at 10 °C of the asphalt by more than 100 000 cycles. These results imply that
source of bitumen used to produce a crumb rubber binder can affect its fatigue performance in asphalt due to
the inherent fatigue performance of the bitumen used to make the blend. The fatigue performance
enhancement associated with adding crumb rubber to a binder also appears to be dependent on the source
of bitumen which is used to manufacture the crumb rubber binder.

The B values which were determined for the crumb rubber binders included in the NACOE project
(Table 9.10) appeared to show an overall decrease as the measured crumb rubber content in the binder
increased. This trend mirrored the trend observed in this study as the B values obtained for the
laboratory-produced crumb rubber binders also showed a general decrease as the crumb rubber content in
the binder was increased (Table 9.9).
9.5 Summary
A series of asphalt performance tests were conducted after binders containing various levels of crumb rubber
(i.e. 9% w/w, 15% w/w and 18% w/w) and two control binders (i.e. C320 bitumen and an A15E grade PMB)
were incorporated into a single type of 14 mm GGA mix. These tests were performed to determine how the
level of crumb rubber in a binder affected asphalt mix performance.
The results of volumetric tests indicated that asphalt specimens containing C320 bitumen and the
A15E binder were the easiest to compact at 145 °C. Compaction became progressively harder at 145 °C as
the crumb rubber content in the binder was increased.
The results of resilience modulus at 25 °C tests and Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C tests after
10 000 loading cycles also appeared to indicate that asphalt containing crumb rubber binders became stiffer
at intermediate road temperatures and more resistant to rutting at high road temperatures as the crumb
rubber content in the binder was increased. The results of resilience modulus at 25 °C tests followed the
order A15E < C320 bitumen < 9% w/w rubber < 15% w/w crumb rubber binder ~ 18% w/w crumb rubber
binder. The rutting results obtained in Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C tests after 10 000 loading cycles
followed the order C320 bitumen > 9% w/w crumb rubber binder > 15% w/w crumb rubber binder > 18% w/w
crumb rubber binder ~ A15E.
Some stripping of asphalt specimens was observed after 11 000 loading cycles in Hamburg wheel tracking at
50 °C tests for specimens which contained C320 bitumen as well as the 9% w/w and 15% w/w crumb rubber
binders. Specimens containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder showed the highest level of stripping. This
was followed by specimens containing the 15% w/w crumb rubber binder and then specimens containing
C320 bitumen.
Comparisons between binder test results and asphalt performance test results were conducted based on the
results in this study and the NACOE study. Except for the case of the Californian rubber binder which
contained coarser crumb rubber particles, binders with higher viscosity at 165 °C results appeared to be
harder to compact at 145 °C than binders with lower viscosity at 165 °C results. A good correlation was
found between binder stress at 3 strain results in stress ratio at 10 °C tests and resilient modulus at 25 °C
results for the nine binders included in both studies. A very good correlation was also found between binder
stiffness at 25 °C results and resilient modulus at 25 °C results for the six binders included in the two studies
which were subjected to stiffness at 25 °C tests. Correlations were also found between binder consistency
6% at 60 °C results and rut depth results obtained in Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C tests after
4 000 loading cycles.
The results of asphalt fatigue at 20 °C tests indicated that beams containing C320 bitumen and the crumb
rubber binders showed similar fatigue performance at a peak strain level of 350 µε. There, however, was
some differences in the fatigue performance of asphalt containing these types of binders at lower peak strain
levels. Beams containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder showed the lowest fatigue performance at a peak
strain level of 150 µε. Beams containing the 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders showed similar
fatigue performance at a peak strain level of 150 µε which was higher than the fatigue performance of
asphalt containing the 9% w/w crumb rubber binder. Asphalt containing C320 bitumen appeared to show
slightly higher fatigue performance than specimens which contained the crumb rubber binders at a peak
strain level of 150 µε. The fatigue performance of asphalt containing C320 bitumen and the crumb rubber
binders was significantly lower at all peak strain levels than asphalt containing the A15E grade binder.

Additional fatigue tests, which utilised the sample of C170 bitumen which was used to produce the crumb
rubber blends, indicated that the fatigue performance of the crumb rubber binders was likely to have been
influenced by the relatively low fatigue cracking resistance of the C170 bitumen. The fatigue performance of
asphalt containing the C170 bitumen sample at a peak strain level of 150 µε was similar to that observed for
asphalt containing the 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber binders.
The fatigue performance of the crumb rubber binders studied in the NACOE project did not vary in a regular
way with the measured crumb rubber content in the binder. The slope of plots of log10(fatigue life) versus
log10(peak strain level), however, did appear to generally decrease with actual/measured crumb rubber
content in both this study and the NACOE study. Based on the results obtained in this study, and previous
Austroads studies, it appears that crude source and manufacturing route used to produce the bitumen that is
included in a crumb rubber binder may affect the fatigue performance of the blended crumb rubber binder in
asphalt.

10. Summary and Conclusions

The Australian national PMB specification (ATS 3110) currently includes three crumb rubber binder grades
(S45R, S15RF and S18RF) which are specified for use in sprayed sealing applications. As a result of the
lack of crumb rubber binder grades in ATS 3110 which are specified for use in asphalt applications, research
and road trials have been conducted by TMR, MRWA and AfPA in recent years to develop specification
requirements for a crumb rubber binder which is suitable for use in asphalt.
As TMR/MRWA/AfPA studies have focused on adopting crumb rubber binder specification requirements
used in California and Arizona, crumb rubber binders used in asphalt are currently specified in Queensland
and Western Australia using different tests and testing protocols than when crumb rubber binders are utilised
in sprayed seals. DoT Vic also uses a blend of 91% w/w C170 bitumen and 9% w/w crumb rubber in sprayed
sealing applications which is specified in terms of a recipe. As ATS 3110 does not currently include a binder
grade which nominally contains 9% w/w crumb rubber, this has limited the use of this type of binder by other
Austroads jurisdictions in sprayed sealing applications.
The main aim of the study was to ascertain whether ATS 3110-specified limits could be proposed for a
binder which was representative of the crumb rubber binders which were used in previous TMR/MRWA
trials, as well as a 9% w/w crumb rubber binder, so that the specified properties of the two new binder grades
could be made consistent with the crumb rubber binder grades currently included in ATS 3110. A series of
laboratory asphalt performance tests were also conducted to investigate how the level of crumb rubber in a
binder affected asphalt mix performance.
During the study four literature reviews were conducted into various crumb rubber related areas and
Australian crumb rubber suppliers were surveyed to determine which crumb rubber properties are targeted
during production. The main findings from these activities included:
• The main benefit of using crumb rubber in road construction is that it allows end-of-life tyres to be
repurposed in a way that enhances road performance and service life compared to when unmodified
bitumen is used. Impediments associated with the use of crumb rubber include supply of suitable quality
crumb rubber, emissions and odours which can occur during road construction, segregation/degradation
of the crumb rubber binders during storage, and increased initial road construction costs.
• The current TMR, MRWA, AfPA crumb rubber binder specifications for binders used in OGA and GGA
appear to be predominantly based on a combination of the test requirements/limits included in the
Arizona Type 2 crumb rubber binder specification and the extended heating protocols included in the
Californian crumb rubber binder specification. Even though the TMR, MRWA and AfPA specifications are
based on a combination of different US requirements, nearly all Australian asphalt demonstration trials
conducted to date in OGA and GGA have used crumb rubber binders which are blends of 82% w/w C170
bitumen and 18% w/w crumb rubber (which is the nominal formulation for an S18RF grade binder used in
sprayed sealing applications). Victorian and South Australian demonstration trials of the use of crumb
rubber binders in asphalt have used different types of binders than those specified by TMR/MRWA/AfPA.
• Most Australian jurisdiction crumb rubber specifications appear to specify a material which is the same or
very similar to Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 for use in sprayed sealing applications. Although some
specifications refer to Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110 this material is no longer available in Australia.
The DoT Vic, TfNSW and MRWA specifications for crumb rubber used in asphalt applications are the
same or quite similar to Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110. The grading requirements for crumb rubber
used in asphalt applications in the TMR and AfPA specifications are less stringent than the requirements
included in ATS 3110. International specifications for crumb rubber used in road construction vary
significantly between jurisdictions. The size of the crumb rubber used by different international
jurisdictions ranges from significantly coarser materials than Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110, to finer
materials than Size 30 crumb rubber in ATS 3110.

• A review of the literature into the relationships between crumb rubber characteristics and binder/asphalt mix
properties indicated that most studies have focused on the effects of crumb rubber size on binder and
asphalt test properties. Overall, crumb rubber size was found to have little effect on binder test results,
except for viscosity results at temperatures of 120 °C and above. Most studies found that high temperature
viscosity results reduced with increasing crumb rubber particle size for binders which contained ≥ 13% w/w
crumb rubber. Studies which investigated the effect of rubber grinding method on binder test properties
found that ambient-ground crumb rubber was more effective at modifying bitumen than cryogenic-ground
crumb rubber. Investigations into asphalt mix properties found that crumb rubber size had little effect on the
moisture sensitivity, rutting performance and fatigue cracking performance of asphalt.
• Five Australian crumb rubber suppliers (out of 16 companies that were contacted) provided information
about the properties targeted during crumb rubber manufacture. The largest manufacturer of crumb
rubber in Australia (denoted as Supplier E) uses Austroads test methods to characterise the crumb
rubber they produce, whereas the other suppliers indicated they either used in-house test methods or did
not test their products. An analysis of Supplier E quality control results for ‘30-mesh’ crumb rubber
indicated that they could not consistently meet one of the grading requirements for Size 30 crumb rubber
in ATS 3110. The ATS 3110 Size 30 crumb rubber requirement for percentage passing the 0.30 mm
sieve has been proposed to be changed from 20% maximum to 30% maximum in a future version of
ATS 3110 so that the largest manufacturer of crumb rubber in Australia can produce a compliant Size 30
crumb rubber product. It has also been proposed to remove the ‘foreign materials other than iron’ test
requirement for Size 30 and Size 16 crumb rubber in ATS 3110, due to the lack of a test procedure to
determine this test property. ATS 3110 already includes a textural requirement which limits the amount of
these types of materials in crumb rubber.
rubber, and a crumb rubber binder meeting ATS 3110 requirements for S45R, were produced in the
laboratory and subjected to a range of ATS 3110-specified tests so that the results could be used to propose
specified limits for crumb rubber binders which contained 9% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber. Each of the
binders were produced by blending component materials at 190 °C for 1 hour. Specification limits for an
18% w/w crumb rubber binder were proposed to reflect the type of binder used in TMR/MRWA trials. Based
on the results obtained in this study, specification limits for two new crumb rubber binder grades (i.e. S9R
and A18R) have been proposed which could be included in future version of ATS 3110. These binder grades
nominally contain 9% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber, respectively. The new binder grades have been
specified in terms of the same series of tests and testing protocols as are currently used to characterise the
properties of S45R grade binders in ATS 3110.
The 20% w/w crumb rubber binder which was blended in the laboratory at 190 °C in this study was found to
be extremely viscous after it was manufactured. Less viscous binders containing 20% w/w crumb rubber
could be produced in the laboratory by blending C170 bitumen and crumb rubber at 210 °C for one hour. The
test results obtained for 20% w/w crumb rubber binders which were blended at a higher temperature,
however, were similar or lower than an 18% w/w crumb rubber binder which was blended at 190 °C. The two
Californian crumb rubber binder samples that were tested during the study showed similar results in the
ATS 3110-specified tests that were conducted and contained similar levels of crumb rubber. Both Californian
crumb rubber binder samples passed Californian crumb rubber binder specifications for resilience at 25 °C
and softening point but their viscosity at 190 °C results were lower than Californian requirements.
The results obtained for the binders included in this study in US-specified viscosity at 175 °C/190 °C and
resilience at 25 °C tests were compared to those obtained in similar ATS 3110 tests to ascertain whether
there were relationships between US and Australian specified tests. There appeared to be an excellent
correlation between the results of either viscosity at 175 °C or viscosity at 190 °C tests and Australian
viscosity at 165 °C tests for binders which had viscosity at 165 °C results less than 7 Pa s. An extremely
good correlation was also found between the results obtained in resilience at 25 °C and torsional recovery at
25 °C tests for binders which had resilience at 25 °C results of 50% or lower.

Investigations into the effects of crumb rubber level in a binder on asphalt mix performance were conducted
by incorporating binders which contained 9% w/w, 15% w/w and 18% w/w crumb rubber into a single type of
14 mm GGA mix. Overall, increasing the level of crumb rubber in a binder made the asphalt harder to
compact at 145 °C, increased its stiffness at intermediate road temperatures (25 °C) and made it more
resistant to rutting at high road temperatures (50 °C). The results of asphalt fatigue at 20 °C tests indicated
that the fatigue performance of asphalt containing all three crumb rubber binders was similar at a peak strain
level of 350 µε. The fatigue performance of asphalt containing the crumb rubber binders varied at lower peak
strain levels. The fatigue performance of asphalt containing the three crumb rubber binders appeared to
follow the order 9% w/w crumb rubber binder < 15% w/w crumb rubber binder ~ 18% w/w crumb rubber
binder at a peak strain level of 150 µε. Based on the results of this study, and previous Austroads studies, it
appears the fatigue performance of crumb rubber binders in asphalt is affected by the crude source and
manufacturing route used to produce the bitumen which is included in a crumb rubber binder.
The results obtained in this project and NACOE project P75 were utilised to determine whether there were
correlations between ATS 3110-specified binder test properties and asphalt test properties in the 14 mm
GGA mix which was used in this study. A very good correlation was found between binder stress at 3 strain
results obtained in stress ratio at 10 °C tests and resilient modulus at 25 °C results for the binders included in
both studies. A good correlation between binder stiffness at 25 °C results and resilient modulus at 25 °C
results was also observed. A good correlation was also found between binder consistency 6% at 60 °C test
results and rut depth results obtained in Hamburg wheel tracking at 50 °C tests after 4000 loading cycles.

References
Arizona Department of Transportation 2008, Standard specifications for road and bridge construction, ADOT,
Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2018, Crumb rubber modified open graded and gap graded
asphalt pilot specification, version 1.0, 12 June 2018, National Technology and Leadership Committee,
AAPA, Port Melbourne, Vic.
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2019, Guide to the selection, heating and storage of binders for
sprayed sealing, advisory note 7, AAPA, Port Melbourne, Vic.
Austroads 2009, Guide to pavement technology part 4E: recycled materials, edn 1.1 2018, AGPT04E-09,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2011, Austroads review report: traffic noise/long life surfacings, AP-T162-11, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2013, Effects of polymer segregation in polymer modified binders on field performance,
AP-T254-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015, Improved design procedures for asphalt pavements: outcomes for year 2 of 3, AP-T296-15,
Austroads 2016a, Review of Australasian and overseas specifications and performance tests for bitumen,
AP-T308-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016b, Development of a binder test to rank the low temperature cracking resistance of polymer
modified binders: stage 2; hard binders, AP-T312-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016c, Improved design procedures for asphalt pavements, AP-R511-16, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2017a, Guide to pavement technology part 4F: bituminous binders, 2nd edn, AGPT04F-17,
Austroads 2017b, Development of a sprayed seal binder cracking test, AP-T326-17, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2017c, Guide to pavement technology part 2: pavement structural design, edn 4.3 2019,
AGPT02-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018a, Guide to pavement technology part 4K: selection and design of sprayed seals, edn 1.3
2019, AGPT04K-18, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2018b, Performance of asphalt and spray grade PMBs in asphalt mixes, AP-T337-18, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2019a, Accelerated long-term ageing methods for sprayed sealing binders: a field validation
study, AP-T349-19, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2019b, Performance of asphalt and spray grade PMBs in sprayed seals, AP-T345-19, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.

Braverman, JD 1979, Fundamentals of business statistics, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
Bressi, S, Fiorentini, N, Huang, J & Losa, M 2019, ‘Crumb rubber modifier in road asphalt pavements: state
of the art and statistics’, Coatings, vol. 9, no. 6, article no. 384, 22 pp.
California Department of Transportation 2018, Standard specifications, Caltrans, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Chiu, CT, Hsu, TH & Yang, WF 2008, ‘Life cycle assessment on using recycled materials for rehabilitating
asphalt pavements’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 545–56.
Choi, Y & Urquhart, R 2019, ‘Development of Australian performance-based specifications for bituminous
binders’, Proceedings of the 2019 world transport convention, 2019, Beijing, China, China Highway and
Transportation Society, Beijing, China, 13 pp.
Dantas-Neto, SA, Farias, MM, Pais, JC & Pereira, PPA 2006, ‘Influence of crumb rubber graduation on
asphalt rubber properties’, in Sousa, JB (ed), Proceedings of the asphalt rubber conference, Palm
Springs USA October 2006, Rubber Pavement Association, 14 pp.
Denneman, E, Lee, J, Raymond, C, Choi, Y, Khoo, KY & Dias, M 2015, P31 and P32: optimising the use of
crumb rubber modified bitumen in seals and asphalt (year 1 – 2014/15), contract report 009176 &
009177, prepared for Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads under the NACoE program,
ARRB, Port Melbourne, Vic.
Department for Infrastructure and Transport 2019, Supply of bituminous materials, master specification
RD-BP-S1, DIT, Adelaide, SA.
Department of Transport 2020, East Boundary Road crumb rubber asphalt trial emissions monitoring report,
report TR220, DoT, Melbourne, Vic.
Florida Department of Transportation 2021, Standard specifications for road and bridge construction:
January 2021, FDot, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Fornai, D, Sangiorgi, C, Mazzotta, F, Bermejo, JM & Saiz, L 2016, ‘A new era for rubber asphalt concretes
for the green public procurement in road construction’, European road infrastructure congress, 1st, 2016,
Leeds, UK, European Union Road Federation, Brussels, Belgium, 12 pp.
Grobler, J 2020, Transfer of crumb rubber modified gap-graded asphalt technology to Queensland and
Western Australia, ARRB, Port Melbourne, Vic.
Grobler, J, Beecroft, A & Choi, Y 2017, P31 Transfer of crumb rubber modified asphalt and sealing
technology to Queensland (phase 2), contract report 010595 & 010596, prepared for Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads under the NACoE program, ARRB, Port Melbourne, Vic.
Harrison, J, Lyons, M, O’Connor, G & Thomas, L 2019, Literature review on passenger vehicle tyre usage in
bitumen, technical report no. 216, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Hicks, RG, Tighe, S, Tabib, S & Cheng, DX 2012, Rubber modified asphalt: technical manual, Ontario Tire
Stewardship, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Hoffmann, P & Potgieter, CJ 2007, ‘Bitumen rubber chip and spray seals in South Africa’, Southern African
transport conference, 26th, 2007, Pretoria, South Africa, Southern African Transport Conference,
Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 225–38.
Hunter, RN, Self, A & Read, J 2015, The Shell bitumen handbook, 6th edn, ICE Publishing, London, UK.
Illingworth & Rodkin Inc, Donavan, P, Janello, C, Lodico, DM & California Department of Transportation
2011, Eight year evaluation of the noise performance of the Caltrans asphalt research pavements on
LA 138, Caltrans, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Jones, D, Harvey, J & Monismith, C 2007, Reflective cracking study; summary report, research report
UCPRC-SR-2007-01, University of California Pavement Research Center, Davis, CA, USA.
Jones, D, Wu, R, Barros, C & Peterson, J 2012, ‘Research and implementation of rubberized warm-mix
asphalt in California’, International symposium on asphalt pavements and environment, 2nd, 2012,
Fortaleza, Brazil, International Society for Asphalt Pavements, Lino Lakes, MN, USA.
Jung, JS, Kaloush, KE & Way, GB 2002, Lifecycle cost analysis; conventional versus asphalt rubber
pavements, Rubber Pavements Association, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Khalili, M, Jadidi, K & Amirkhanian, S 2019, ‘Rheological properties of modified crumb rubber asphalt binder
and selecting the best modified binder using AHP method’, Case Studies in Construction Materials,
vol. 11, pp. 1–20.
King, R, Brown, W & Mc Arthur, R 2019, ‘Crumb rubber in asphalt roads – where the rubber hits the road’,
International public works conference, 2019, Hobart, Tasmania, Institute of Public Works Engineering
Australasia, North Sydney, NSW, 5 pp.
Liang, M, Sun, C, Yao, Z, Jiang, H, Zhang, J & Ren, S 2020, ‘Utilization of wax residue as compatibilizer for
asphalt with ground tire rubber/recycled polyethylene blends’, Construction and Building Materials,
vol. 230, article no. 116966, 12 pp.
Lo Presti, D 2013, ‘Recycled tyre rubber modified bitumens for road asphalt mixtures: a literature review,
Construction and Building Materials, vol. 49, pp. 863–81.
Losa, M, Leandri, P & Cerchiai, M 2012, ‘Improvement of pavement sustainability by the use of crumb rubber
modified asphalt concrete for wearing courses’, International Journal of Pavement Research and
Technology, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 395–404.
Main Roads Western Australia 2017, Asphalt wearing course, specification 504, MRWA, Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2018a, Crumb rubber gap graded asphalt, draft specification 517, MRWA,
Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2018b, Bituminous surfacing, specification 503, MRWA, Perth, WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2020a, Materials for bituminous treatments, specification 511, MRWA, Perth,
WA.
Main Roads Western Australia 2020b, Crumb rubber open graded asphalt, specification 516, MRWA, Perth,
WA.
Major Road Projects Victoria 2021, Recycled first, webpage, MRPV, Melbourne, Vic, viewed 14 May 2021,
<https://roadprojects.vic.gov.au/about/recycled-first/>.
Marais, HIJ, Botha, C, Hofsink, W, Muller, J & van Heerden, J 2017, ‘Latest developments in crumb rubber
modified bitumen for use in asphalt and seals: the South African experience’, AAPA international flexible
pavements conference, 17th, 2017, Melbourne, Vic., Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, Port
Melbourne, Vic, 17 pp.
Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda 2007, Circular order 21/2007 on the use and specifications
to be met by binders and bituminous mixtures incorporating rubber from end of use tyres (NFU) (in
Spanish), MITMA, Madrid, Spain.
Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban Agenda 2015, General technical requirements for road and bridge
works (PG-3): part 2A: basic materials (in Spanish), MITMA, Madrid, Spain.

Muñoz, JMB, Medina, JG & Rodríguez, LS 2014, Guide for manufacturing bituminous mixes with crumb
rubber from used tyres (in French), Signus Ecovalor, Madrid, Spain.
Nynas 2014, Product data sheet: Nytex 4700, issued 30/9/2014, Nynas AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Oliver, JWH 1981, Modification of paving asphalts by digestion with scrap rubber, AIR 286-2A, Australian
Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.
Paje, SE, Bueno, M, Terán, F, Miró, R, Pérez-Jiménez, F & Martinez, AH 2010, ‘Acoustic field evaluation of
asphalt mixtures with crumb rubber’, Applied Acoustics, vol. 71, pp. 578–82.
Paje, SE, Luong, J, Vázquez, VF, Bueno, M & Miró, R 2013, ‘Road pavement rehabilitation using a binder
with a high content of crumb rubber; influence on noise reduction’, Construction and Building Materials,
vol. 47, pp. 789–98.
Picado-Santos, LG, Capitão, SD & Neves, JMC 2020, ‘Crumb rubber asphalt mixtures: a literature review’,
Construction and Building Materials, vol. 247, article no. 118577, 13 pp.
Putman, BJ & Amirkhanian, SN 2005, Rubberized asphalt mixtures: a novel approach to pavement noise
reduction, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, vol. 77, WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
Putman, BJ & Amirkhanian, SN 2006, Crumb rubber modification of binders: interaction and particle effects,
ResearchGate, 14 pp, viewed 14 May 2021,
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228375092_Crumb_rubber_modification_of_binders_interactio
n_and_particle_effects>.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2017, Transport and Main Roads specifications:
MRTS11 sprayed bituminous treatments (excluding emulsion), TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2019a, Transport and Main Roads specifications:
PSTS112 crumb rubber modified asphalt, TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2019b, Transport and Main Roads specifications:
MRTS11 sprayed bituminous treatments (excluding emulsion), TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2020, Transport and Main Roads specifications:
MRTS18 polymer modified binder (including crumb rubber), TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Roads and Infrastructure Australia 2020a, ‘More rubber to hit roads’, Roads and Infrastructure Australia,
February 2020, pp. 50–51.
Roads and Infrastructure Australia 2020b, Largest crumb rubber asphalt trial complete in South Australia,
Roads and Infrastructure Australia, viewed 14 May 2021, <https://www.roadsonline.com.au/largest-
crumb-rubber-asphalt-trial-complete-in-south-australia/>.
Roads and Traffic Authority 1995, Scrap rubber bitumen guide, RTA, Sydney, NSW.
Sienkiewicz, M, Borzedowska-Labuda, K, Wojtkiewicz, A & Janik, H 2017, ‘Development of methods

improving storage stability of bitumen modified with ground tire rubber; a review’, Fuel Processing
Technology, vol. 159, pp. 272–9.
Singh, D, Ashish, PK & Jagadeesh, A 2018, ‘Influence of particle and interaction effects of different sizes of
crumb rubber on rheological performance parameters of binders’, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, vol. 30, no. 5, 10 pp.
Sousa, J, Way, G & Carlson, D 2007, ‘Energy and CO2 savings using asphalt rubber mixes’, China asphalt
summit, Rubber Pavements Association, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 14 pp.

Southern African Bitumen Association 2019, Guidelines for the design, manufacture and construction of
bitumen-rubber asphalt wearing courses, manual 19, 5th edn, SABITA, Cape Town, South Africa.
Southern African Bitumen Association 2020, Technical guideline: the use of modified bituminous binders in
road construction, TG1, 5th edn, SABITA, Howard Place, South Africa.
Texas Department of Transportation 2014, Standard specifications for construction and maintenance of
highways, streets and bridges, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX, USA.
Transport for NSW 2020a, Crumb rubber asphalt, QA specification R118, TfNSW, Sydney, NSW.
Transport for NSW 2020b, Polymer modified binder for pavements, QA Specification D&C 3252, TfNSW,
Sydney, NSW.
Transport for NSW 2020c, Crumb rubber, QA Specification D&C 3256, TfNSW, Sydney, NSW.
Tyre Stewardship Australia 2019, Annual report 2018/2019, Tyre Stewardship Australia, Griffith, ACT.
Tyrewise 2013, ‘Report 7: Tyrewise summary report’, 3R Group Ltd, Hastings, New Zealand.
van Aswegen, E 2019, Transfer of appropriate crumb rubber modified bitumen technology to WA. Stage 2:
gap graded asphalt, contract report 014241-1, prepared by ARRB for WARRIP, Perth, WA.
van Aswegen, E & Latter, L 2019, Transfer of appropriate crumb rubber modified bitumen technology to WA.
Stage 1: open graded asphalt, contract report PRP16016, prepared by ARRB for WARRIP, Perth, WA.
Venudharan, V, Biligiri, KP, Sousa, JB & Way, GB 2017, ‘Asphalt-rubber gap-graded mixture design
practices: a state-of-the-art research review and future perspective’, Road Materials and Pavement
Design, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 730–52.
VicRoads 2017, Hot mix asphalt, section 407, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2018, Stone mastic asphalt, section 404, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2019, Light traffic crumb rubber asphalt, section 422, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2020a, High binder crumb rubber asphalt, section 421, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2020b, Sprayed bituminous surfacings, section 408, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Wang, H, You, Z, Mills-Beale, J & Hao, P 2012, ‘Laboratory evaluation on high temperature viscosity and low
temperature stiffness of asphalt binder with high percent scrap tire rubber’, Construction and Building
Materials, vol. 26, pp. 583–90.
Way, G, Kaloush, K & Biligiri, K 2011, Asphalt-rubber standard practice guide, Rubber Pavements
Association, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Wilson, G, Fernando, T, Budija, M & Urquhart, R 2009, ‘Crack reflection in sprayed seals: the search for a
binder test’, AAPA international flexible pavement conference, 13th, Surfers Paradise, Queensland,
Australia, Hallmark Conference and Events, Brighton, Vic, 7 pp.
Wong, CC & Wong, W-G 2007, ‘Effect of crumb rubber modifiers on high temperature susceptibility of
wearing course mixtures’, Construction and Building Materials, vol. 21, pp. 1741–5.
Wu, JP, Herrington, PR & Neaylon, K 2015, Removing barriers to the use of crumb rubber in roads, NZ
Transport Agency report no. 578, NZTA, Wellington, New Zealand.

Xiao, F 2006, ‘Development of fatigue predictive models of rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) containing
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) mixtures’, PhD thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
Xiao, F, Amirkhanian, SN, Shen, J & Putman, B 2009, ‘Influences of crumb rubber size and type on
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) mixtures’, Construction and Building Materials, vol. 23, pp. 1028–34.
Yang, X, You, Z, Perram, D, Hand, D, Ahmed, Z, Wei, W & Luo, S 2019, ‘Emission analysis of recycled tire
rubber modified asphalt in hot and warm mix conditions’, Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 365,
pp. 942–51.
AASHTO Standards
AASHTO M320-17, Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder.
AASHTO M332-20, Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder using multiple stress creep
recovery (MSCR) test.
AASHTO T283-14 (2018), Standard method of test for resistance of compacted asphalt mixtures to
moisture-induced damage.
AASHTO T321-17, Standard method of test for determining the fatigue life of compacted asphalt mixes
subjected to repeated flexural bending.
AASHTO TP31-96, Standard test method for determining the resilient modulus of bituminous mixes by
indirect tension.
Arizona Department of Transportation Test Methods
ARIZ 714c:2018, Sampling and sieving of crumb rubber.
ASTM Standards
ASTM D5/D5M-20, Standard test method for penetration of bituminous materials.
ASTM D36/D36M-14 (2020), Standard test method for softening point of bitumen (ring-and-ball apparatus).
ASTM D217-19b, Standard test methods for cone penetration of lubricating grease.
ASTM D297-15 (2019), Standard test methods for rubber products: chemical analysis.
ASTM D445-19a, Standard test method for kinematic viscosity of transparent and opaque liquids (and
calculation of dynamic viscosity).
ASTM D1864/D1864M-89 (2017), Standard test method for moisture in mineral aggregate used on built-up
roofs.
ASTM D2196-20, Standard test methods for rheological properties of non-Newtonian materials by rotational
viscometer.
ASTM D5329-16, Standard test methods for sealants and fillers, hot-applied, for joints and cracks in asphalt
pavements and Portland cement concrete pavements.
ASTM D5603-19a, Standard classification for rubber compounding materials: recycled vulcanizate rubber.
ASTM D5644-18, Standard test method for rubber compounding materials: determination of particle size
distribution of recycled vulcanizate particulate rubber.
ASTM D6114/D6114M-19, Standard specification for asphalt-rubber binder.

ASTM D7741/D7741M-18, Standard test method for measurement of apparent viscosity of asphalt-rubber or
other asphalt binders by using a rotational handheld viscometer.
Austroads Technical Specifications
ATS 3110:2020, Supply of polymer modified binders.
Austroads Test Methods
AGPT/T102:2020, Protocol for handling modified binders in preparation for laboratory testing.
AGPT/T103:2020, Mass change or loss on heating of polymer modified binders after rolling thin film oven
(RTFO) treatment.
AGPT/T108:2021, Segregation of polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T111:2006, Handling viscosity of polymer modified binders (Brookfield Thermosel).
AGPT/T112:2020, Flash point of polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T121:2014, Shear properties of polymer modified binders (ARRB Elastometer).
AGPT/T122:2006, Torsional recovery of polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T125:2018, Stress ratio of bituminous binders using the dynamic shear rheometer.
AGPT/T131:2006, Softening point of polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T132:2006, Compressive limit of polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T142:2020, Rubber content of crumb rubber modified bitumen: Soxhlet method.
AGPT/T143:2010, Particle size and properties of crumb rubber.
AGPT/T144:2006, Morphology of crumb rubber: bulk density test.
AGPT/T190:2019, Specification framework for polymer modified binders.
AGPT/T220:2005, Sample preparation: compaction of asphalt slabs suitable for characterisation.
AGPT/T231:2006, Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel tracking test.
AGPT/T274:2016, Characterisation of flexural stiffness and fatigue performance of bituminous mixes.
British Standards
BS 598-110:1998, Sampling and examination of bituminous mixtures for roads and other paved areas.
Methods of test for the determination of wheel-tracking rate and depth.
California Department of Transportation Test Methods
California Test 208:2011, Method of test for apparent specific gravity of fine aggregates.
California Test 385:2016, Method of test for crumb rubber modifier.
European Committee for Standardization
EN 13399:2017, Bitumen and bituminous binders: determination of storage stability of modified bitumen.

Florida Department of Transportation Test Methods
FM 5-559:2016, Testing of ground tire rubber.
Main Roads Western Australia Test Methods
WA 235.1:2010, Bulk density of granulated rubber.
WA 236.1:2010, Particle size distribution of granulated rubber.
WA 237.1:2010, Steel content of granulated rubber.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Test Methods
Q325:2021, Stability of asphalt: Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD).
Q704:2021, Skid resistance: portable pendulum.
Southern African Bitumen Association Test Methods
MB-14:2020, Particle size distribution and loose fibre content of rubber crumbs.
MB-16:2020, Bulk density of rubber crumbs.
Standards Australia
AS 1141.11.1:2020, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle size distribution: sieving method.
AS 1289.2.1.1:2005 (R2016), Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: soil moisture content tests:
determination of the moisture content of a soil: oven drying method (standard method).
AS 1289.2.1.4:2005 (R2016), Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes: soil moisture content tests:
determination of the moisture content of a soil: microwave-oven drying method (subsidiary method).
AS 2008: 2013, Bitumen for pavements.
AS/NZS 2341.4:2015, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of
dynamic viscosity by rotational viscometer.
AS/NZS 2341.10:2015, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of the
effect of heat and air on a moving film of bitumen (rolling thin film oven (RTFO) test).
AS 2341.12:2020, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of

penetration.
AS/NZS 2341.21:2015, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: sample preparation.
AS/NZS 2891.2.1:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: sample preparation: mixing, quartering
and conditioning of asphalt in the laboratory.
AS/NZS 2891.2.2:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: sample preparation: compaction of asphalt
test specimens using a gyratory compactor.
AS/NZS 2891.5:2015, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: compaction of asphalt by Marshall method
and determination of stability and flow: Marshall procedure.
AS/NZS 2891.7.1:2015, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of maximum density of
asphalt: water displacement method.

AS/NZS 2891.8:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: voids and volumetric properties of
compacted asphalt mixes.
AS/NZS 2891.9.2:2014, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of bulk density of
compacted asphalt: presaturation method.
AS/NZS 2891.13.1:2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of the resilient modulus of
asphalt: indirect tensile method.
Texas Department of Transportation Test Methods
Tex-200-F:2020, Sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates.
Transport for NSW Test Methods
T730:2012, Sieve analysis of scrap rubber.
T737:2012, Rubber content of a scrap rubber mix.


Appendix A Plots of Binder Test Properties

Versus Crumb Rubber Binder
Composition Not Included in the Main
Body of the Report
A.1 Blends Containing C170 Bitumen and Different Levels of Crumb
Rubber
Figure A 1: Stiffness at 25 °C and stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at 10 °C test versus crumb rubber content
for blends containing C170 bitumen and different levels of crumb rubber
Figure A 2: Resilience at 25 °C versus crumb rubber content for blends containing C170 bitumen and different
levels of crumb rubber

A.2 Blends Prepared During Preparation of a Compliant S45R Grade

Crumb Rubber Binder
Figure A 3: Stiffness at 25 °C and stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at 10 °C test versus polymer combining oil
content for blends containing C170 bitumen and 15% w/w crumb rubber
Figure A 4: Resilience at 25 °C versus polymer combining oil content for blends containing C170 bitumen and

A.3 Blends Containing 20% w/w Crumb Rubber Prepared at 210 °C
Figure A 5: Stiffness at 25 °C and stress at 3 strain in the stress ratio at 10 °C test versus polymer combining oil
content for blends containing C170 bitumen and 20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured at
210 °C
Figure A 6: Resilience at 25 °C versus polymer combining oil content for blends containing C170 bitumen and
20% w/w crumb rubber which were manufactured at 210 °C

Appendix B Hamburg Wheel Tracking Results

Obtained During the Study
Figure B 1: Rut depth at 50 °C versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing C320 bitumen
Figure B 2: Rut depth at 50 °C versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing an A15E grade binder

Figure B 3: Rut depth versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing a 9% w/w crumb rubber binder
Figure B 4: Rut depth versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing a 15% w/w crumb rubber
binder

Figure B 5: Rut depth versus number of cycles for asphalt specimens containing an 18% w/w crumb rubber
binder

Appendix C Individual Specimen Results

Obtained in Asphalt Fatigue Tests
Table C 1: Individual specimen results obtained in asphalt fatigue at 20 °C tests
Individual specimen Individual specimen

Binder Peak strain level (µm) initial stiffness at 20 °C fatigue life at 20 °C
(MPa) (cycles)
C320 bitumen 150 2 484 5 918 645
175 2 622 1 276 430
200 2 704 560 958
250 2 264 436 427
250 2 494 387 765
300 2 694 89 980
350 2 364 32 090
A15E 750 667 6 154 136
800 861 585 043
800 708 1 156 605
850 700 656 598

875 750 666 569
900 812 81 540
900 786 145 856
9% w/w crumb rubber 75 3 201 3 510 410
90 3 351 2 939 660
100 3 190 734 020
150 2 815 263 300
200 2 836 165 210
250 2 633 119 980
300 2 683 70 483
15% w/w crumb rubber 120 4 021 5 481 320
140 3 913 1 377 090
175 2 964 1 069 129
200 3 644 281 160
250 3 553 165 400
300 3 481 87 150
18% w/w crumb rubber 140 3 566 2 946 813
150 3 430 1 746 792
175 3 508 835 405
200 3 115 781 048
200 3 232 1 029 997
225 3 655 196 990
250 2 848 159 047
300 3 045 60 118

Individual specimen Individual specimen

Binder Peak strain level (µm) initial stiffness at 20 °C fatigue life at 20 °C
(MPa) (cycles)
350 2 652 38 578
C170 bitumen 125 2 091 3 187 575
140 2 037 1 846 065
150 2 516 1 000 938
200 2 254 273 838
250 2 451 142 694
300 2 291 162 613
300 2 295 86 647



AP-T359-21 National Specification For Crumb Rubber Binders in Asphalt and Seals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-T359-21 National Specification For Crumb Rubber Binders in Asphalt and Seals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Austroads Ltd 2021 | This material is for personal use only, it is not to be used for commercial training purposes,

unless approved by Austroads.

Binders in Asphalt and Seals

Abstract About Austroads

• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Austroads 2021 | page i

2.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Austroads 2021 | page ii

5. Effects of Crumb Rubber Characteristics on Binder and Asphalt Mix Properties........................... 70

7.2.1 Binder Materials.................................................................................................................... 91

Austroads 2021 | page iii

Austroads 2021 | page iv

Austroads 2021 | page v

Austroads 2021 | page vi

Austroads 2021 | page vii

Austroads 2021 | page 1

Austroads 2021 | page 2

Austroads 2021 | page 3

Austroads 2021 | page 4

2. Benefits and Impediments of Using Crumb

2.1.1 Environmental Benefits

Repurposing of end-of-life tyres

Traffic noise reduction

Austroads 2021 | page 5

Reduction in energy, greenhouse gas emissions or environmental burden

Austroads 2021 | page 6

2.1.2 Performance Benefits in Sprayed Seals and Asphalt

Performance benefits in sprayed seals

Austroads 2021 | page 7

Performance benefits in asphalt

Austroads 2021 | page 8

Rutting Fatigue Thermal cracking

Source: Adapted from Picado-Santos, Capitão and Neves (2020).

Austroads 2021 | page 9

2.2.1 Crumb Rubber Supply

Austroads 2021 | page 10

2.2.3 Crumb Rubber Binder Segregation and Degradation

2.2.4 Road Construction Costs

Austroads 2021 | page 11

Austroads 2021 | page 12

3. Previous Australian Research/trials into the

3.1 Review of National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE) Projects

3.1.1 Development of Queensland Specifications to Promote Crumb Rubber Use

Changes to the MRTS11 specification

Austroads 2021 | page 13

Development of the PSTS112 specification

3.1.2 NACOE Studies of Crumb Rubber Modified Binder Properties

Preliminary dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) studies

Austroads 2021 | page 14

Austroads 2021 | page 15

3.1.3 Construction of Asphalt Demonstration Sites Using Crumb Rubber Binders

Open graded asphalt (OGA) trial

Gap graded asphalt (GGA) trial

Austroads 2021 | page 16

3.1.4 Development of Queensland Crumb Rubber Modified Binder Specifications

Arizona specifications for crumb rubber binders used to produce asphalt

Austroads 2021 | page 17

Resilience at 25 °C (%) ASTM D5329 25 min. 20 min. 15 min.

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation (2008).

Austroads 2021 | page 18

Binder design (with After batch production

Source: Arizona Department of Transportation (2008).

California specifications for crumb rubber binders used to produce asphalt