Evaluation of

Workability/Compactability of
Warm Mix Asphalt
Thomas Bennert
Rutgers University

2009 Northeast Asphalt User Producer Group

South Portland, Maine
CAIT October 7-8, 2009
RUTGERS
 Acknowledgements

 Contributors
 Karissa Mooney, NuStar
 Gerry Reinke, MTE
 Walaa Mogawer, UMass Dartmouth

 Rutgers Asphalt Pavement

Laboratory staff

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Main Objective
 Purpose of study was to evaluate
current/practical methods for evaluating
workability/compactability of WMA
 New additives/technologies coming on market
every other week
 Proper dosage rate and/or applicability to
different mixtures (i.e. – asphalt rubber, high
RAP, etc.)

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Materials
 Asphalt Binder: PG76-22 preblended
with different WMA additives at different
dosage rates
 No Additive
 Sasobit: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%
 Rediset: 1.0 and 2.0%
 0.6% Evotherm 3G
Asphalt Mixture: 12.5mm Superpave
mixture, 4.9% AC, Trap Rock aggregate
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Compactibility/Workability Tests
 Binder Tests
 Rotational Viscosity (current Mixing and
Compaction Temperatures)
 Casola Method (NCHRP 9-39) for Mixing and
Compaction Temperatures
 Lubricity Test (Thin-Film Rheology)

 Mixture Tests
University of Massachusetts Workability Device
 Marshall Compaction
CAIT  Gyratory Compaction
RUTGERS
 Workability/Compactibility
Binder Tests

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Superpave – Mixing and Compaction
Temperatures
Viscosity, Pas
10
5

1
0.5
0.3 Compaction Range
0.2 Mixing Range

0.1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
CAIT Temperature, C
RUTGERS
 Rotational Viscosity Results

Mixing Temps (F) Compaction Temps (F)

Binder Type
High Low High Low
76-22 321.0 311.5 301.1 293.4
+ 0.6% 3G 323.2 313.2 302.3 294.2
+ 0.5% Sasobit 320.9 311.4 301.1 293.4
+ 1.0% Sasobit 316.6 307.6 297.8 290.5
+ 1.5% Sasobit 336.5 324.6 311.7 302.1
+ 1.0% Rediset 317.0 307.9 298.0 290.7
+ 2.0% Rediset 313.1 304.1 294.3 287.1

Does not represent typical field compaction

temperatures observed
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Casola Method – Test Procedure
 Casola Method
 TypicalDSR sample preparation
 Frequency sweep at 3 to 5 temperatures
 Construct Phase Angle Master Curve
 Determine frequency where δ = 86º

 Calculate mixing and compaction

temperatures using simple relationships
established from regression models
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Example of Casola Method

CAIT
Freq = 158.45
RUTGERS Phase = 86.06 Temp = 80C
 Casola Method Calculation

 Read frequency, ω, at which Phase

Angle hits 86 degrees
 Mixing Temperature (oF)
Tm = 310ω-0.0135
 Compaction Temperature (oF)
Tc = 287ω-0.012

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Casola Method – Test Results

R ec ommended Mixing  and 
C ompac tion T emps
o
T emperature ( F )
E valuation of W arm As phalt T echnology us ing the C as ola Method
mix compaction
WMA S ample            D S R  D ata C ollected 325 287
proces s wam‐0?‐08 temp  (oC ) phas e  (o) freq  (rad/s ec) ‐0.0135 ‐0.012
0.6%  3G 2 80 85.96 2.071 322 285
0.5%  S as o 3 80 86.06 0.417 329 290
1.0%  S as o 4 80 85.97 0.9046 325 287
1.5%  S as o 5 80 86.01 0.1923 332 293
1%  R edis et 6 80 86.08 1.276 324 286
2%  R edis et 7 80 86.02 1.611 323 285

Does not represent typical field compaction

temperatures observed
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Rotational Viscosity and Casola
Method

o o
Mixing Temps ( F) Compaction Temps ( F) Casola Method Temperatures
Binder Type o o
High Low High Low Mixing ( F) Compaction ( F)
76-22 321.0 311.5 301.1 293.4 322 285
+ 0.6% 3G 323.2 313.2 302.3 294.2 322 285
+ 0.5% Sasobit 320.9 311.4 301.1 293.4 329 290
+ 1.0% Sasobit 316.6 307.6 297.8 290.5 325 287
+ 1.5% Sasobit 336.5 324.6 311.7 302.1 332 293
+ 1.0% Rediset 317.0 307.9 298.0 290.7 324 286
+ 2.0% Rediset 313.1 304.1 294.3 287.1 323 285

Recommended mixing and compaction temperatures are

unrealistically high when compared to observations
of warm mix projects
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Thin-Film Rheology
 Rheology of materials in thin films are
different than bulk rheology
 Typical DSR uses a 1000 μ film
 Mineral fines are smaller than 50 μ
 MTE began testing at 100 μ and are now working
at 25μ
 MTE’s investigations began by looking at
tribology testing conducted by the lubricating
and medical prosthetics industries and
CAIT investigations performed by people studying
RUTGERSrheology of platetectonics
Lubricity
Test

CAIT
RUTGERS
Lubricity
Test

CAIT
RUTGERS
 NuStarNuStar
WMA-02-08, 25x0·500,
WMA-02-08, 0·100,
125°C, 0·050,
Stdy Shr,0·025 mm, cup,
AR3-0001f-2, 125°C,state
Steady Stdyflow
Shr,step
AR3-0001f-2
1
NuStar WMA-02-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-3, Steady state flow step 4
4.000 NuStar WMA-03-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-2, Steady state flow step 1
NuStar WMA-03-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-3, Steady state flow step 4
NuStar WMA-05-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-2, Steady state flow step 1
NuStar WMA-05-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-3, Steady state flow step 4
3.500 NuStar WMA-07-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-2, Steady state flow step 1
NuStar WMA-07-08, 125°C, Stdy Shr, AR3-0001f-3, Steady state flow step 4

3.000

2.500
viscosity (Pa.s)

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.5000

0
1.000 10.00 100.0 1000
velocity (rad/s)

CODE FORMULATION CODE FORMULATION

The point to be made is that as the 

CAIT
WMA‐02‐08 0.6% EVOTHERM 3G WMA‐05‐08 1.5% SASOBIT gap gets smaller the apparent 
WMA‐03‐08 0.5% SASOBIT WMA‐06‐08 1.0% REDISET viscosity decreases for the same 
rotational velocity
WMA‐04‐08 RUTGERS
1.0% SASOBIT WMA‐07‐08 2.0% REDISET
 NuStar
1 1 WMA-04-08, 25x0·500,50µ
NuStar WMA-04-08, 0·100, 0·050,Stdy
@ 125°C, 0·025Shr,
mm,Steady
cup, 125°C,
state Stdy Shr, 3
flow step AR3-0001f-2
1 1 NuStar WMA-02-08, 50µ @ 125°C, Stdy Shr, Steady state flow step 3
3.000 1 1 NuStar WMA-03-08, 50µ @ 125°C, Stdy Shr, Steady state flow step 3 20.00
1 1 NuStar WMA-07-08, 50µ @ 125°C, Stdy Shr, Steady state flow step 3
1 1 NuStar WMA-05-08, 50µ @ 125°C, Stdy Shr, Steady state flow step 3
1 1 NuStar WMA-06-08, 50µ @ 125°C, Stdy Shr, Steady state flow step 3
17.50
2.500

15.00
1
1
2.000

normal force (N)

12.50
viscosity (Pa.s)

1
11
1.500 10.00
1

1
1 7.500
1
1
1.000 1 11
1
1 1
11
5.000

0.5000
1111
1 2.500

0 111 1111 0
100.0 1000 10000 1.000E5
shear rate (1/s)
CODE FORMULATION
WMA‐04‐08 1.0% SASOBIT
WMA‐07‐08 2.0% REDISET
CODE FORMULATION CODE FORMULATION
WMA‐02‐08 0.6% EVOTHERM 3G

CAIT
WMA‐02‐08 0.6% EVOTHERM 3G WMA‐05‐08 1.5% SASOBIT
WMA‐06‐08 1.0% REDISET
WMA‐03‐08 0.5% SASOBIT WMA‐06‐08 1.0% REDISET
WMA‐03‐08 0.5% SASOBIT
WMA‐04‐08 RUTGERS
1.0% SASOBIT WMA‐07‐08 2.0% REDISET
WMA‐05‐08 1.5% SASOBIT
 Shear Rate vs Applied Torque
NuStar WMA-02-08, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3 40000
NuStar 76-22, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3
NuStar WMA-03-08, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3
NuStar WMA-04-08, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3
NuStar WMA-05-08, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3 35000
NuStar WMA-06-08, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3
NuStar WMA-07-08, 50µ, Steady shear, 105°C. flow step 3

30000

25000

torque (micro N.m)

20000

15000

10000

5000.0

0
100.0 1000 10000 1.000E5
shear rate (1/s)

CAIT Greater the shear rate that can be sustained before

RUTGERS peak is achieved the more workable the mixture should be.
 Final Thin-Film Rheology Rankings
SHEAR RATE FROM NORMAL FORCE TEST
AT WHICH PEAK TORQUE OCCURS
AT 105°C AND 50µ GAP
7000
6564

6000
-1

5252
SHEAR RATE, SEC

5000

4213
4105
4000

3244

3000
2610

2138
2000

CAIT
0.5 76 1.5 1% 1% 2% 0.6
% -22 % SA RE RE %
SA NE SA SO DIS DIS EV
SO AT SO BIT ET ET OT
BIT BIT HE
RM
RUTGERS b i i f f
3G
 Asphalt Binder Test Workability Rankings

Rotational Vis Casola Lubricity

Best
2% Rediset PG76-22 0.6% 3G
1% Sasobit 0.6% 3G 2% Rediset
1% Rediset 2% Rediset 1% Rediset
0.5% Sasobit 1% Rediset 1.5% Sasobit
PG76-22 1% Sasobit 1% Sasobit
1.5% Sasobit 0.5% Sasobit PG76-22
Worst 0.6% 3G 1.5% Sasobit 0.5% Sasobit

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Workability/Compactibility

Mixture Tests

CAIT
RUTGERS
 UMass Workability Mixer
 Continually measures
temperature and torque
on mixing blade
Torque is the unit

representing workability (i.e. –
higher torque values, poorer
workability)
 Device essentially measures
resistance of loose mix to
move/flow
 Method generally assumed to
CAIT be “baseline” for comparisons
RUTGERS
 Workability – Starting at 320oF
700
Control
0.5% Sasobit
600 1.0% Sasobit
1.5% Sasobit
1.0% Rediset
500 2.0% Rediset
Torque (in-lb)

0.6% Evotherm 3G

400

300

200

100

CAIT
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310
Temperature (F)

RUTGERS
 Workability – Starting at 270oF
700
Control
0.5% Sasobit
600 1.0% Sasobit
1.5% Sasobit
1.0% Rediset
500 2.0% Rediset
Torque (in-lb)

0.6% Evotherm 3G

400

300

200

100

CAIT 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

Temperature (F)
240 250 260 270

RUTGERS
 Marshall Compactor

 Historically, the Marshall Compactor

has been known to be sensitive to
mixture temperature
 Therefore, if HMA becomes less
workability due to cooling (or
temperature changes) perhaps it can be
used to assess general
workability/compactibility of WMA
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Marshall Compaction Procedure
 Mix HMA samples at
 315F, 270F, and 230F
 Cure for 2 hours and compact loose mix
at 15F lower than mixing temperature
 300F, 255F, and 215F
 Measure air voids of compacted
samples
 Construct trendline (exponential fit) of
compacted air voids vs compaction
CAITtemperature
RUTGERS
 Marshall Compacted Air Voids
10.0 300
9.1 255
9.0 8.6 215
Compacted Air Voids at 75 Blows (%)
8.1 8.1
8.0 7.7 7.7
7.4 7.3 7.4
7.1
6.8 6.8 6.9
7.0 6.4 6.6
6.2 6.1
5.9 5.9
6.0 5.7
5.5

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
76-22 0.5% 1% 1.5% 1% 2% 0.6% 3G

CAIT Sasobit Sasobit Sasobit Rediset Rediset

RUTGERS
 Marshall Compactibility Trends
10.0
76-22
9.5 0.5% Sasobit
9.0 1.0% Sasobit
1.5% Sasobit
Compacted Air Voids (%)

8.5 1.0% Rediset

2.0% Rediset
8.0
0.6% 3G
7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0
175 200 225 250 275 300 325

CAIT Compaction Temperature (F)

RUTGERS
 Gyratory Compactor
 Known to be generally insensitive to
compaction temperatures (at least in
typical range)
 Looked at compacted density at 100
gyrations
 Looked at compaction rate
(mm/gyration) to achieve predetermined
density (7% air voids)
 Same sample prep/conditions used as in
CAITMarshall compaction
RUTGERS
 Compacted to 100 Gyrations
7.0 6.7
Compacted Air Voids @ 100 Gyrations (%) 300

6.0 260
5.3 215
5.1 5.1 5.0
5.0 4.6
4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5
4.2 4.2
4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.94.0
4.0 3.8

3.0
3.0 2.8

2.0

1.0

0.0

CAIT
76-22 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1% 2% 0.6% 3G
Sasobit Sasobit Sasobit Rediset Rediset

RUTGERS
 Gyratory Compactability Trends
10.0
PG76-22
9.0 0.5% Sasobit
1.0% Sasobit
8.0 1.5% Sasobit
Compacted Air Voids (%)

1.0% Rediset
7.0 2.0% Rediset
0.6% 3G
6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

CAIT
175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Compaction Temperature (F)
RUTGERS
 Gyratory Compaction Rate
0.35 0.330
300 0.313 0.312
Gyratory Compaction Rate (mm/gyration)
260
0.3 0.2850.280 0.288
215 0.272
0.251 0.247
0.25 0.241
0.234
0.232 0.234
0.214 0.217
0.199 0.204
0.191 0.194
0.2 0.181
0.166

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
76-22 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 1% 2% 0.6% 3G

CAIT Sasobit Sasobit Sasobit Rediset Rediset

Compacted
RUTGERS to predetermined density of 7% air voids (+/- 0.2%)
 Mix Test Workability Rankings
UMass Workability Marshall
Device Compactor
Best 320oF 270oF
0.6% 3G 2% Rediset 1.5% Sasobit
2% Rediset 0.6% 3G 2% Rediset
1% Rediset 1% Rediset 0.6% 3G
1.5% Sasobit 1.5% Sasobit 1% Sasobit
1% Sasobit 1% Sasobit 1% Rediset
0.5% Sasobit 0.5% Sasobit 0.5% Sasobit
PG76-22 PG76-22 PG76-22
Worst

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Final Rankings

Rotational Casola Lubricity Test @ Asphalt Workability Marshall Compactor Gyratory Compaction
Binder Type o o o o
Viscosity Method 221 F Device @ 215 F @ 215 F Rate @ 215 F
PG76-22 5 1 6 7 7 7
+ 0.6% 3G 6 1 1 2 3 3
+ 0.5% Sasobit 4 5 7 6 6 6
+ 1.0% Sasobit 2 4 5 5 4 1
+ 1.5% Sasobit 7 6 4 4 1 2
+ 1.0% Rediset 3 3 3 3 5 4
+ 2.0% Rediset 1 2 2 1 2 5

• Used common temperature for comparison when applicable

• Good comparisons between UMass Workability, Marshall
compaction, and Lubricity Test

CAIT
RUTGERS
 Conclusions
 Conventional mixing and compaction
temperature assessment does not seem
to correspond to field observations
 Gyratory compactor was generally
insensitive to compaction temperature
when compared to Marshall
 Lubricity Test (binders) and UMass
Workability and Marshall Compaction
showed comparable results
CAIT
RUTGERS
 Conclusions (continued)
 Testing indicated that additives
preblended in asphalt binder could be
screened using Lubricity test
 Future work required on criteria
 Can be used to currently compare additives
and/or dosage rate
 Field assessment (plant or laboratory
mixture production) could be evaluated
CAITusing the Marshall compactor or Bucket-
mixer type device
RUTGERS
 Thank you for your time!

Thomas Bennert
Rutgers University
732-445-5376
bennert@eden.rutgers.edu

CAIT
RUTGERS