Short-Term Performance of Plant-Mixed
Warm Stone Mastic Asphalt
Laboratory Testing and Field Evaluation
Imad L. Al-Qadi, Zhen Leng, Jongeun Baek, Hao Wang, Matthew Doyen,
and Steven L. Gillen
Warm-mix asphalt (WMA) is gaining attention in the pavement indus-
try because of its environmental benefits. WMA would be especially
useful if it could be applied to heat-sensitive mixes, such as stone mastic
asphalt (SMA). However, before these SMA mixes are used with warm
mix additives, the performance of the mixes must be examined. A study
was conducted to verify the early-age performance of a warm SMA with
an Evotherm 3G additive. An Evotherm SMA and a conventional SMA
were evaluated and compared with in situ lightweight deflectometer
testing and comprehensive laboratory tests, including complex modulus,
wheel track, indirect tensile strength, and semicircular bending fracture.
Gyratory-compacted specimens made with fresh plant mixtures were
tested in the lab at various curing periods; lightweight deflectometer
tests were conducted in the field directly on an Illinois expressway over-
lay immediately after compaction up to 24 h. The results showed that
at the same curing period, the early-age performance of the Evotherm
SMA was generally comparable to that of the conventional SMA. The
curing process increased the dynamic modulus of both Evotherm SMA
and conventional SMA but did not significantly affect other laboratory
test results. The onsite modulus of the Evotherm SMA was found to
be less than that of the conventional SMA at the same temperature.
However, because of the lower compaction temperature, the pavement
constructed with the Evotherm SMA could be opened to traffic earlier
than could the pavement constructed with the conventional SMA while
providing the same modulus.
The use of warm-mix asphalt (WMA) in the United States has grown
rapidly in recent years because of its significant environmental ben-
efits. Compared with traditional hot-mix asphalt, production of
WMA consumes less energy, emits less greenhouse gas, and allows
I. L. Al-Qadi, Illinois Center for Transportation and Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, and Z. Leng and M. Doyen, MC-250, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
205 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801. J. Baek, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-Dong, Kwangjin-Gu,
Seoul, 143–747, South Korea. H. Wang, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Rutgers University, 623 Bowser Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854.
S. L. Gillen, Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 2700 Ogden Avenue, Downers
Grove, IL 60515. Current affiliation for Z. Leng: Department of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Corresponding author: Z. Leng, zleng2@illinois.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2306, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2012, pp. 86–94.
DOI: 10.3141/2306-10
86
for an extended construction season. Three WMA techniques have
been commonly used to facilitate the mixing of binder and aggre-
gates: organic additives, foaming techniques, and chemical addi-
tives. Use of organic additives and foaming techniques reduces
the effective viscosity of the binder, and chemical additives serve
as a surface-active agent to reduce friction at bitumen–aggregate
interfaces. Table 1 is a list of some of the most typical WMA prod-
ucts used in the United States and shows the degree to which each
reduces a mixture’s production temperature (1). However, because
there are various WMA preparation techniques, the physical and
chemical properties of the mixture can be altered, which can result
in different short-term and long-term mechanical behaviors of the
mixture. Therefore, many studies evaluated the performance of
mixtures produced with various WMA techniques (2–5). Most of
these studies reported equivalent performance of WMA with respect
to HMA. However, because the WMA technology is relatively
new, many questions remain about WMA’s characteristics, such as
increased susceptibility of permanent deformation caused by early-
age traffic, unknown long-term field performance, higher risk of
moisture susceptibility, and unclear traffic opening time.
WMA could provide significant benefits to the industry and in
northern states if it could be applied to heat-sensitive mixes, such as
polymer or ground tire rubber modified stone mastic asphalt (SMA)
mixes designed for high traffic volume or heavy load pavements.
Because these SMA mixes must be produced and compacted at high
temperatures, placing them during colder temperatures in the fall or
early spring is not practical. Use of warm-mix additives with these
mixes would allow for a significantly extended construction season.
Before SMA mixes with warm-mix additives are used, however,
their early-age performance must be determined to be comparable
to that of the conventional SMA mixes.
The early-age performance of WMA is a concern mainly because
of the curing process. Within a relatively short period after construc-
tion, time-dependent hardening, or curing, may occur in WMA as the
asphalt binder regains its original viscosity or as a certain amount of
entrapped moisture is evaporated from the WMA. Insufficient cur-
ing time may cause deterioration of WMA at an early stage, which
could consequently affect its long-term performance. Therefore, the
early-age performance of WMA must be investigated, especially
within the first 24 h of placement to ensure the roadway is not
opened to traffic too soon.
Several previous studies reported on the effects of curing time on
the strength of WMA. The earliest references to WMA in the United
States focused on the way in which curing conditions affected the
moisture content and stability of WMA prepared with foaming tech-
Al-Qadi, Leng, Baek, Wang, Doyen, and Gillen 87

TABLE 1 Typical WMA Products and Temperature Reductions TESTING MATERIAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PLAN

Production Temperature Testing Material

Decrease
Warm-Mix Additive
30° to 50°F >50°F
WMA Technique WMA Product (17° to 28°C) (28°C)
A chemical additive, Evotherm 3G, was selected to produce a warm-
Organic additive Sasobit xx x mix SMA. Evotherm 3G, developed by MeadWestvaco, is a water-
Foaming technique Double Barrel Green xx x free chemical package containing surfactant and an antistripping
Low energy asphalt xx agent, which improves aggregate coating, workability, and com-
Aspha-Min xx x paction. Evotherm 3G can lower mix temperatures 60°F to 85°F
Advera WMA xx x (33°C to 45°C). In the asphalt plant where the SMA mixtures for
WAM Foam xx
this study were produced, the Evotherm 3G additives were stored in
Chemical additive Evotherm xx xx tanks connected to the asphalt tank with pipes (Figure 1).
Rediset WMA xx x
REVIX x xx

NOTE: x = observed; xx = frequently observed. SMA Mixture Design

niques (6–8). These investigations discovered a strong correlation
between moisture content and strength of the mixtures. Consider-
able strength gain was observed for the specimens subjected to short
(within 1 day) and intermediate (1 to 7 days) curing periods. The
effect of curing for WMA prepared with organic and chemical addi-
tives has also been investigated (3). However, no strong evidence
was found to support that curing time affects the tensile strength of
Sasobit WMA and Evotherm WMA. Hence, depending on the type
of warm-mix technique and asphalt mixture, the curing effects of
WMA may vary.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
A 1/2-in. (12.5-mm) SMA, one of the typical SMAs that have been
used by contractors in the Chicago, Illinois, area on many large-
scale expressway overlay projects, was selected as the control for
this study. As Table 2 shows, the Evotherm SMA and the control
SMA share a mixture design, although the Evotherm SMA con-
tains 0.5% Evotherm 3G by weight of binder. Both mixtures use
PG 64-22 asphalt binder with 12% ground tire rubber and 8% fine
fraction of fractionated recycled asphalt pavement. The compac-
tion temperatures of the control SMA and the Evotherm SMA were
305°F and 260°F (152°C and 127°C), respectively. The volumet-
ric properties of the control SMA, which meet the standard Illi-
nois Department of Transportation requirements for SMA mixture
design, as modified by Illinois Tollway special provisions are as
follows:

This study determined the early-age performance of the warm-mix • Ndes: 80,
SMA containing an Evotherm 3G additive with both laboratory per- • Asphalt content: 6.2%,
formance testing and on-site stiffness measurement. The following • Bulk specific gravity: 2.440,
research tasks were conducted: • Maximum specific gravity: 2.529,
• Air void: 3.5%,
1. Evaluate the early-age mechanical properties of the Evotherm • Voids in mineral aggregate: 15.7%,
SMA with respect to a control conventional SMA through labora- • Voids filled with asphalt: 77.7%, and
tory performance testing. Laboratory tests were conducted on both • Tensile strength ratio: 0.94.
the Evotherm SMA mixture and the control SMA mixture. These
tests included complex modulus, loaded wheel track, indirect ten-
sile (IDT) strength, and semicircular bending (SCB) fracture.
2. Evaluate the effect of curing time on various mechanical prop-
erties of the Evotherm SMA based on the laboratory test results. For
both the Evotherm SMA and the control SMA, each performance
test was conducted at curing periods of between 3 h and 7 days after
compaction. Because the fracture property is not time critical, the
SCB fracture tests were conducted at curing times of between 12 h
and 12 weeks after compaction.
3. Compare the in situ stiffness of the field Evotherm SMA pave-
ment section and the control SMA pavement section with a light-
weight deflectometer (LWD) test. The LWD test was conducted at
various periods after compaction to monitor the change in pavement
surface modulus as the pavement cooled and continued to cure.
4. Determine the appropriate traffic opening time for the Evo-
therm SMA on the basis of the field LWD testing results. For
determining the traffic opening time for the Evotherm SMA, it was
decided that the Evotherm SMA and control SMA should provide
the same in situ stiffness at traffic opening. FIGURE 1 Injection of Evotherm 3G.
88 Transportation Research Record 2306

TABLE 2 Comparison of SMAs

Compaction
NMAS Warm Mix Temperature
Mix Ndes [in. (mm)] Binder FRAP (%) Additive [°F (°C)]

Control SMA 80 0.5 (12.5) PG 64-22 12% GTR 8 na 305 (152)

Evotherm SMA 80 0.5 (12.5) PG 64-22 12% GTR 8 0.5% of binder 260 (127)

NOTE: NMAS = nominal maximum aggregate size; FRAP = fractionated recycled asphalt pavement; GTR = ground tire rubber;
na = not applicable.

Laboratory Testing and Specimen Preparation
As shown in Figure 2, four laboratory performance tests were con-
ducted in this study: dynamic modulus test, loaded wheel track test,
IDT strength test, and SCB fracture test. Table 3 is a summary of
the laboratory testing matrix.
crete Mixtures. For each mix and curing period, three replicates
were prepared for testing. Dynamic modulus tests were con-
ducted at room temperature [77°F (25°C)] with frequencies of
25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz. The measured dynamic modulus and
phase angle for each test were reported as defined by the following
equations:

σ0
Dynamic Modulus Test E* = (1)
ε0
The dynamic modulus test was conducted according to AASHTO
TP-62, Determining Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt Con- σ = σ 0 sin ( ωt ) (2)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

FIGURE 2 Laboratory test setup: (a) dynamic modulus test, (b) loaded wheel track test, (c) IDT strength test, and (d) SCB
fracture test.
Al-Qadi, Leng, Baek, Wang, Doyen, and Gillen 89

TABLE 3 Laboratory Testing Matrix

Test Complex Modulus Wheel Track IDT Strength SCB

Material property |E*|, phase angle Rut depth Strength Work of fracture
Temperature, °F (°C) 77 (25) 86 (30) 77 (25) 10 (−12)
Specimen dimension, 3.94 (100) (D) 2.44 (62) (H) 5.91 (150) (D) 2.96 (75) (R)
in. (mm) 5.91 (100) (H) 1.97 (50) (H) 1.97 (50) (H)
Condition 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1 Hz Up to 20,000 cycles (dry) Max. 2,248 lbf (10 kN) CMOD control at 0.028 in./mm
(0.7 mm/min)
Curing period 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, 1 day, 3 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, 1 day, and 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, 1 day, 3 12 h, 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 3 weeks,
days, and 7 days 3 days days, and 7 days 6 weeks, and 12 weeks

NOTE: D = diameter; H = height; R = radius; max. = maximum.

ε = ε 0 sin ( ωt − φ ) (3) SCB Test

The SCB fracture test was used to conduct fracture characteriza-

where
|E*| = dynamic modulus,
σ0 = applied steady state stress amplitude,
ε0 = measured strain amplitude,
ω = angular frequency (2πf, where f = frequency), and
ϕ = phase angle in radians (ωΔt, where Δt = time lag between
stress and strain).
Loaded Wheel Test
A Hamburg-type loaded wheel tester, manufactured by PMW, Inc.,
was used to assess the rutting performance of mixtures. This test
was done in accordance with a Texas Department of Transporta-
tion procedure (9), except that it was conducted in a dry condition
at 86°F (30°C). The dry condition was selected to better represent
the short-term performance immediately after construction. The test
was performed by rolling a 158-lb (738-N) steel wheel on the speci-
men surface at 50 passes a minute and stopping after 20,000 passes.
The rut depth at a specified number of wheel passes or the number
of passes until failure was reported. For each mix and curing period,
two pairs of replicates were prepared for testing.
IDT Test
The IDT strength test was performed in accordance with AASHTO
T-322-07, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Creep Com-
pliance and Strength of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Indirect
Tensile Test Device, on a universal testing machine manufactured
by Instron, Inc. For each mix and curing time, two replicates were
prepared. The testing specimen was loaded until failure at a rate of
0.5 in./min (12.7 mm/min) at room temperature (77°F). The IDT
strength was calculated with the following equation:
2P
St =
π d ib
i followed throughout the study.
tion of asphalt mixtures. Cylindrical specimens were sliced into
cylinders 2 in. (50 mm) thick and cut in half along the diameter. A
0.6-in. (15-mm) notch was cut into each half of the specimen. The
test was performed at a temperature of 10.4°F (−12°C), which is
18°F (10°C) warmer than the low-temperature binder grade. The
test was conducted in a constant crack mouth opening displacement
(CMOD) rate mode and the load, displacement, and CMOD were
recorded. The work of fracture was calculated from the SCB test by
using the load–CMOD curve in the following equation:
Wf = ∫ Pdu (5 )
where Wf is the work of the fracture and u is the CMOD.
Specimen Preparation and Transportation
To eliminate the effect of reheating and to better simulate the curing
that occurs in the field, all laboratory testing specimens in this study
were compacted in the plant immediately after production. Six gyra-
tory compactors were operated simultaneously in the plant to ensure
that additional curing time did not occur in the loose mixture while
each sample was waiting to be compacted.
The specimens were prepared in an asphalt plant in Aurora, Illinois,
and then transported to the Advanced Transportation Research and
Engineering Laboratory of the University of Illinois in Rantoul for
testing. Because the asphalt plant is 150 mi (241 km) from the labora-
tory, to meet the strict performance testing schedule the specimens to
be tested 3 h after compaction were flown by chartered airplane. The
remaining specimens were transported by trucks.
A detailed rehearsal was performed before work began with the mix-
tures that were prepared for testing. The exact amount of time needed
for measuring bulk density and for cutting and coring the specimens
for each test was recorded. To minimize the effect of density mea-
surement and specimen preparation on testing results, these were con-
ducted right before the test was started. The procedure was consistently
(4)

where
On-Site LWD Test
St = tensile strength,
P = maximum applied load, Concurrent with the laboratory performance tests, LWD tests were
d = diameter of specimen, and conducted in the field for monitoring of the early-age on-site stiff-
b = thickness of specimen. ness of the SMA mixtures. As Figure 3 shows, an LWD is a type of
90 Transportation Research Record 2306

120 15
Deflect
Load

Deflection (micron)
12
90

Load (kN)
9
60
6
30
3

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Loading time (ms)
(a) (b)

FIGURE 3 LWD test: (a) equipment and (b) typical data.

field testing equipment that determines the stiffness of pavement
material. The basic principle of the LWD is to use geophones to
measure surface deflections induced by dropping weight. The cal-
culation of the pavement surface deflection modulus is based on the
Boussinesq solution:
f (1 − µ 2 ) σ 0 a
E0 =
d0
where
E0 = surface deflection modulus (MPa),
f = factor for stress distribution (2 is a standard value for flexible
plate),
µ = Poisson’s ratio (normally 0.35 for asphalt mixture),
σ0 = stress under plate (kPa),
a = radius of plate (mm), and
d0 = center deflection (µm).
Figure 4a shows the construction site on I-355 in the Chicago area,
where the Evotherm SMA and control SMA used in laboratory testing
were placed. The underlying structures of both SMA layers contain a
1.9-mm (0.75-in.) leveling binder course, a 30.5-cm (12-in.) cement
concrete layer, and a 30.5-cm (12-in.) aggregate subbase on top of the
subgrade. For each mixture, a leveled area was selected for the LWD
test to eliminate the effect of the surface slope on the testing results.
Three test locations were selected, as illustrated in Figure 4b: one
in the left wheelpath, one between wheelpaths, and one in the right
wheelpath. The LWD test started immediately after the final compac-
tion pass. To monitor the surface modulus change over time after
construction, the test was repeated every 30 min until 3 h and then
every 3 h until 24 h. Before each test, an infrared temperature gun was
used to measure the pavement surface temperature.
TESTING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(6) Results of Laboratory Performance Test
Air Void Contents of Prepared Specimens
The air void contents of the compacted gyratory specimens were
measured before each test. Table 4 is a summary of the measured
air void contents of the specimens prepared for various tests. The
data show that the air void contents are generally within the range
of 6.0% ± 0.5%, with only one exception: the control SMA for the
wheel track test.
Complex Modulus Test
Figure 5 shows the dynamic modulus test results at 25 Hz and 0.1 Hz.
At both frequencies, the modulus of both mixtures increases with
the curing time. However, at the same curing time, no significant
difference was found between the Evotherm SMA and the control
SMA, as supported by the overlapped error bars at all curing times.
The error bars represent the mean dynamic modulus plus and minus
one standard deviation. If the error bars at the same curing time
overlap, the two measurements are considered to be not statisti-
cally different. Thus the data presented in Figure 5 indicate that the

Right wheelpath

10ft
Between wheelpaths

10ft
Left wheelpath

One lane

(b)
(a)

FIGURE 4 Construction site at I-355 driving lane: (a) compaction and (b) LWD test
locations.
Al-Qadi, Leng, Baek, Wang, Doyen, and Gillen 91

TABLE 4 Air Void Contents of Prepared Specimens

Dynamic Modulus Test Loaded Wheel Track Test IDT Strength Test SCB Fracture Test

Mix Average (%) COV (%) Average (%) COV (%) Average (%) COV (%) Average (%) COV (%)

Control SMA 6.1 2 6.6 2 6.5 4 6.5 5

Evotherm SMA 6.1 2 6.0 2 5.8 2 5.9 2

NOTE: COV = coefficient of variance.

dynamic moduli of the Evotherm SMA and control SMA are com- cally the same in most cases except at the 72-h curing time, when
parable at the same curing stage. The dynamic moduli of both mixes the Evotherm SMA resulted in a slightly greater rut depth than the
show a trend to increase during the curing process. control SMA.

Loaded Wheel Track Test IDT Strength Test

Figure 6 shows the wheel track test results at 5,000 and 20,000 load-
ing cycles. Because the tests for the specimens with 3-h curing were
terminated before 20,000 loading cycles to start the tests for the
specimens with 6-h curing, no data were collected at 20,000 loading
cycles for the specimens with 3-h curing time.
Figure 6 shows no clear trend between the rut depth and the cur-
ing time for the mixtures. This lack of a trend indicates that curing
time does not significantly affect the early-age rutting performance
of either Evotherm SMA or control SMA. A comparison of the rut
depth of both mixtures at the same curing time showed that the
rut depths of the Evotherm SMA and the control SMA are statisti-
The early-age tensile strengths of the two mixtures were obtained
through the IDT test. Figure 7 shows the tensile strengths of the
Evotherm SMA and the control SMA at various curing stages. The
Evotherm SMA provides statistically higher tensile strength only
at 12 h, whereas the control SMA provides equal or higher tensile
strength at all other curing times. In general, the tensile strength of
the control SMA is comparable to, or higher than, that of the Evo-
therm SMA. The tensile strength of the Evotherm SMA increases
during the first 12 h and then stays relatively constant. The tensile
strength of the control SMA increases at between 24 and 72 h and
then remains relatively constant.

0.16
1200 Evotherm
SMA
Dynamic Modulus (ksi)

1000 Evotherm
0.12
Rut Depth (in.)

SMA
800
0.08
600

400 0.04

200
0.00
0 3 6 12 24 72
3 6 12 24 72 168 Curing Time (hr)
Curing Time (hr) (a)
(a)
250 0.20
Evotherm Evotherm
Dynamic Modulus (ksi)

SMA SMA
200 0.16
Rut Depth (in.)

150 0.12

100 0.08

50 0.04

0 0.00
3 6 12 24 72 168 6 12 24 72
Curing Time (hr) Curing Time (hr)
(b) (b)

FIGURE 5 Dynamic modulus test results at (a) 25 Hz and FIGURE 6 Loaded wheel track test results after (a) 5,000
(b) 0.1 Hz. cycles and (b) 20,000 cycles.
92 Transportation Research Record 2306

100 factors, such as compaction temperature, pavement layer thick-

Evotherm
ness, existing surface, and environmental conditions (e.g., ambient
Tensile Strength (psi)
SMA
80 temperature and wind speed).
Figure 9a shows the measured surface temperatures up to 3 h
60 after compaction for both mixtures. After the final compaction, the
pavement surface temperature of the Evotherm SMA was approxi-
40 mately 120°F (49°C), and the surface temperature of the control
SMA was 20°F (11°C) higher. The cooling rates for the two mixtures
20
within 3 h after compaction are very similar.
After the asphalt mixture was placed and compacted in the field,
0
3 6 12 24 72 168
its modulus changed over time, which was captured in the LWD
data. The change of the surface modulus over time caused by the
Curing Time (hr)
change in mixture temperature and possibly the mixture’s curing.
FIGURE 7 IDT test results. Figure 9b plots the surface moduli measured with LWD against the
corresponding temperatures for both mixtures. As pavement sur-
face temperature decreases, the surface modulus of both mixtures
SCB Test increases. However, at the same temperature, the control SMA
resulted in a higher surface modulus than that of the Evotherm SMA.
The fracture resistances of the two mixtures were characterized
through the SCB test. Figure 8 shows the SCB test results at various
curing stages. The test results do not show any significant effect of Traffic Opening Time for Evotherm SMA
curing time on the work of fracture for both mixtures. Although
the average work of fracture energy for the control SMA appears One of the challenges of WMA construction is to determine its
to decrease with curing time, the error bar data show this trend is appropriate traffic opening time. The LWD testing provides a way to
not statistically significant. At all curing times, the error bars of
the Evotherm SMA and the control SMA overlap, which means the 200
fracture resistance of the Evotherm SMA is comparable to that of
Evotherm SMA Control SMA
the control SMA at the same curing time.
Surface Temperature (°F)

150

On-Site LWD Test Results

100
To further evaluate and compare the on-site stiffness of the Evo-
therm SMA and the control SMA, LWD tests were conducted on
the field test sections built with these two mixtures.
50

Measured Surface Temperature

and Surface Modulus 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Because an asphalt mixture is a viscoelastic material, its modulus is Time After Compaction (hr)
sensitively dependent on the temperature. Therefore, it is impor- (a)
tant to record the temperature for each LWD test. The temperature
of the asphalt mixture always decreases during the first couple of 700
hours after compaction, and its cooling rate is dependent on various Evotherm SMA
600 Control SMA
Surface Modulus (ksi)

500
7 Evotherm
6 SMA 400
Work of Fracture (J)

5 300
4 200
3
100
2
0
1 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
0 Surface Temperature (°F)
1 3 7 49 84 (b)
Curing Time (day)
FIGURE 9 Field testing results: (a) pavement surface temperature
FIGURE 8 SCB test results. versus time and (b) surface modulus versus surface temperature.
Al-Qadi, Leng, Baek, Wang, Doyen, and Gillen
determine the opening time for WMA based on the surface modulus
measurement. In the criterion used here, the warm mix SMA and
the control SMA should provide the same modulus when they are
opened to traffic.
The following regression equations between the surface modu-
lus E and the surface temperature T for the control SMA and the
Evotherm SMA can be obtained from the data in Figure 9b:
Econtrol = −8.2489Tcontrol + 1195.6 (7)
EEvotherm = −7.3626TEvotherm + 1019.2 (8)
Equation 7 (R2 = .9494) is used to determine the surface modulus
of the control SMA at a certain traffic opening temperatures. This
surface modulus can then be plugged into Equation 8 (R2 = .7854)
for determining the traffic opening temperature for Evotherm SMA.
Because the control SMA and Evotherm SMA were constructed at
the same thickness and on the same underlying structure, the same
LWD surface modulus will lead to the same modulus for the two
mixtures.
According to Figure 9a, the relationship between the surface tem-
perature T and the time after construction t for the control SMA
and the Evotherm SMA can be described with the following two
equations, respectively:
3 2
Tcontrol = −0.0209tcontrol + 1.0388tcontrol − 13.649tcontrol + 137.4 (9)
3 2
TEvotherm = −0.0319tEvotherm + 1.2371tEvotherm − 12.199tEvotherm + 115.44
(10)
Then, since the traffic opening temperatures for the two mixtures
are already known, the traffic opening times for the control SMA
and the Evotherm SMA can be determined with Equations 9 (R2 =
.9781) and 10 (R2 = .9781), respectively. These times provide the
Evotherm SMA and the control SMA with an equal modulus when
they are opened to traffic.
In construction practice, the traffic opening time of the HMA is
usually determined by the pavement surface temperature. Table 5
shows the calculated traffic opening times for the Evotherm SMA
and control SMA with the traffic opening temperatures for the con-
trol SMA of 140°F, 120°F, and 100°F (60°C, 49°C, and 38°C). In
Table 5, Column 2 is calculated from Column 1 with Equation 7;
Column 3 is calculated from Column 2 with Equation 8; and Col-
umns 4 and 5 are calculated from Columns 1 and 3 with Equations
9 and 10. Although the Evotherm SMA had a slightly smaller in
situ stiffness than the control SMA at the same temperature, the
Evotherm SMA can still be opened to traffic earlier than could the
control SMA because of its lower temperature after compaction.
However, the presented traffic opening times for the SMA mix-
tures apply only to the environmental conditions in this study. For
TABLE 5 Traffic Opening Time for Evotherm SMA
Assumed Traffic
Opening Temperature Surface Modulus
for Control [°F (°C)] [ksi (MPa)]
140 (60) 40.8 (281.3)
120 (49) 205.7 (1,418.3)
100 (38) 370.7 (2,555.9)
93
the traffic opening times of the same mixtures paved in other envi-
ronmental conditions to be determined, the temperature and cooling
time relations could be obtained with existing cooling model pro-
grams, such as the MultiCool software developed at the University
of Minnesota (10). Then the procedure presented in this study could
be followed to determine the traffic opening times for the two
mixtures in any specific environmental condition.
SUMMARY
For the early-age performance of warm-mix SMA with an Evo-
therm additive to be characterized, both laboratory testing and on-
site LWD testing were conducted. The following points summarize
the findings of this study:
• Laboratory testing results showed that the effect of curing
time was generally insignificant on the early-age rutting resistance,
tensile strength, and fracture resistance of the Evotherm SMA.
The early-age dynamic modulus of Evotherm SMA increased with
curing time. However, because a similar trend was observed in the
control SMA, this curing effect was not considered to be caused by
the Evotherm additive.
• The laboratory testing results indicated that the early-age
dynamic modulus and fracture resistance of the Evotherm SMA
were comparable to those of the control SMA at the same curing
stage. Before 72 h, the Evotherm SMA and the control SMA exhib-
ited similar rutting resistance and tensile strength. After 72 h, the
Evotherm SMA showed slightly lower rutting resistance and tensile
strength.
• Field LWD testing indicated that the on-site modulus of the
Evotherm SMA was lower than that of the control SMA at the same
temperature. However, because of the lower compaction temper-
ature, the Evotherm SMA could be opened to traffic earlier than
could the control SMA.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was based on the results of the Illinois Tollway project,
Short-Term Performance of Modified Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA)
Mixes Produced with Warm-Mix Additives. This project was con-
ducted in cooperation with the Illinois Center for Transportation
and the Illinois Tollway. The authors appreciate the assistance
of research engineers Jeffrey Kern and James Meister and gradu-
ate students Ibrahim Abuawad, Sarfraz Ahmed, Qazi Aurangzeb,
Seonghwan Cho, Khaled Hasiba, Jaime Hernandez-Urrea, Brian Hill,
Hassan Ozer, Alejandro Salinas, Pengcheng Shangguan, and Songsu
Son of the Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering
Laboratory of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Traffic Opening
Traffic Opening Time (h)
Temperature for
Evotherm [°F (°C)] Control Evotherm
132.9 (56.1) 0 0
110.5 (43.6) 1.4 0.5
88.1 (31.2) 3.7 3.2
94
REFERENCES
1. Prowell, B. D., and G. Hurly. Warm-Mix Asphalt: Best Practices.
National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Md., 2007.
2. Diefenderfer, S., and A. Hearon. Laboratory Evaluation of a Warm
Asphalt Technology for Use in Virginia. FHWA/VTRC 09-R11. Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 2008.
3. Hurley, G., and B. D. Prowell. Evaluation of Sasobit® for Use in Warm
Mix Asphalt. National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University,
Auburn, Ala., 2005.
4. Prowell, B. D., G. C. Hurley, and E. Crews. Field Performance of
Warm-Mix Asphalt at National Center for Asphalt Technology Test
Track. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, No. 1998, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 96–102.
5. Xiao, F., S. N. Amirkhanian, and B. J. Putman. Evaluation of Rutting
Resistance in Warm-Mix Asphalts Containing Moist Aggregate. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2180, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 75–84.
6. Ruckel, P. J., S. M. Acott, and R. H. Bowering. Foamed-Asphalt Paving
Mixtures: Preparation of Design Mixes and Treatment of Test Speci-
Transportation Research Record 2306
mens. In Transportation Research Record 911, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 88–95.
7. Brennen, M., M. Tia, A. G. Altschaeffl, and L. E. Wood. Laboratory
Investigation of the Use of Foamed Asphalt for Recycled Bituminous
Pavements. In Transportation Research Record 911, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 80–87.
8. Chowdhury, A., and J. W. Button. A Review of Warm Mix Asphalt. Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, 2008.
9. Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Test. Texas Department of Transportation,
Austin, 2009.
10. Timm, D., V. Voller, E.-B. Lee, and J. T. Harvey. Calcool: A Multilayer
Asphalt Pavement Cooling Tool for Temperature Prediction During
Construction. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 2,
No. 3, 2001, pp. 169–185.
The contents of this study reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data. The contents do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policies of the Illinois Tollway.
The Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Pavement Sections Committee
peer-reviewed this paper.