Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
DOI 10.1617/s11527-014-0464-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Creep-recovery behavior of bituminous binders
and its relation to asphalt mixture rutting
Olli-Ville Laukkanen • Hilde Soenen •
Terhi Pellinen • Serge Heyrman • Geert Lemoine
Received: 29 August 2014 / Accepted: 31 October 2014 / Published online: 9 November 2014
Ó RILEM 2014
Abstract Rutting is one of the main distress modes
of asphalt pavements, especially after prolonged warm
periods, and thus a great deal of research has been
focused on the development of a rheological param-
eter that would address the rutting susceptibility of
both unmodified and modified bituminous binders. In
this study the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery
(MSCR) test method is used to investigate the creep-
recovery behavior of various bituminous binders and
its relation to asphalt mixture rutting. Frequency
sweep and MSCR tests were conducted on three
unmodified and six elastomer and/or wax modified
binders, and the resulting data were used to calculate
the values of various binder rutting parameters. These
binders were also used to manufacture asphalt slabs
for mixture rutting simulations in the LPC wheel
O.-V. Laukkanen (&)  T. Pellinen
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
School of Engineering, Aalto University, PO Box 12100,
00076 Aalto, Finland
e-mail: olli-ville.laukkanen@aalto.fi
T. Pellinen
e-mail: terhi.pellinen@aalto.fi
H. Soenen  S. Heyrman  G. Lemoine
Nynas NV, Noorderlaan 183, 2030 Antwerp, Belgium
e-mail: hilde.soenen@nynas.com
S. Heyrman
e-mail: serge.heyrman@nynas.com
G. Lemoine
e-mail: geert.lemoine@nynas.com
tracking device. It was found that the non-recoverable
creep compliance parameter (Jnr3200) and the accu-
mulated strain at the end of the MSCR test (cacc)
correlate very strongly with each other and that they
both have a superior capability of predicting asphalt
mixture rutting compared to other rheological binder
rutting indicators. An effort was made to explain the
manifested nonlinear viscoelastic properties of the
modified binders with their expected microstructural
characteristics. The use of the MSCR test in the rutting
characterization of bituminous binders is highly
recommended based on the results of this research.
Keywords Bituminous binders  Rheology  Creep-
recovery  Multiple Stress Creep Recovery test 
Rutting
1 Introduction
One of the main failure types of asphalt pavements is
rutting, or permanent deformation, which has a
pronounced influence on pavement’s service life
especially in the warm climate regions and in combi-
nation with heavy and slow-moving loads [1–3].
According to Sybilski et al. [4], binder properties have
approximately a 40 % contribution to asphalt pave-
ment rutting performance. Christensen and Bonaquist
[5] stated that one step increase in binder high
temperature performance grade (PG) allows 11–18
4040
times more traffic for the same amount of rutting.
Because of the significant contribution of binder into
the rutting susceptibility of asphalt pavement, several
empirical rutting indicators, such as Ring-and-Ball
softening point, and more fundamental rheological
rutting parameters have been proposed to assess
rutting-related binder characteristics. Probably the
most widely used rheological rutting parameter is G*/
sind, which was developed in the Strategic Highway
Research Program (SHRP) [6] and which equals to the
inverse of the loss compliance, 1/J00 .
However, multiple studies [7–11] have shown that
G*/sind parameter cannot predict the rutting resistance
of modified binders reliably. This is due to the fact that
most polymer modified bitumens (PMBs) possess a
remarkable amount of delayed elasticity [12]. Still,
Soenen et al. [13] noticed that this parameter gives a
fairly good prediction of the rutting susceptibility of
modified binders in the wheel tracking test (WTT) if
the frequency, at which the G*/sind parameter is
evaluated, is considerably reduced to meet the long
loading times of WTT. Nevertheless, several research-
ers have tried to discover novel ways to assess the
rutting susceptibility of both unmodified and modified
bituminous binders. One commonly used binder rut-
ting parameter to replace the G*/sind parameter is the
zero-shear viscosity (ZSV) [14–16] which is the
viscosity measured in shear deformation at a shear
rate approaching to zero. The ZSV can be measured
either by conducting a creep or oscillatory measure-
ment with a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) [17–20].
Based on literature, the ZSV is difficult to determine
for some highly modified binders where a three-dimen-
sional network is formed by a continuous elastomeric
phase [21–23]. Therefore, some researchers have pro-
moted the use of the low-shear viscosity (LSV) instead of
the ZSV to characterize binders’ contribution to the
rutting performance of corresponding asphalt mixtures
[17, 23–26]. A study by de Visscher and Vanelstraete [27]
shows that the LSV values measured at 0.001 Hz and
0.01 Hz give a fairly good prediction of asphalt mixture
rutting performance, while the LSV value measured at
0.0001 Hz overestimates the rutting potential of modified
binders. However, Soenen et al. [13] pointed out that the
frequency at which the best correlation is obtained
depends on the type of device used to evaluate the rutting
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures. As a conclusion, there
is no consensus about the frequency at which the LSV
value should be determined.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
In 2001 Bahia et al. [8] proposed a very different
kind of testing procedure, which is often referred to as
the Repeated Creep Recovery (RCR) test, to charac-
terize the rutting susceptibility of bituminous binders.
This test method comprises of repetitive creep-recov-
ery cycles at a constant creep stress. The durations of
the creep and recovery phases were suggested to be 1 s
and 9 s, respectively, and it was advised that the creep
stress level should be chosen to be in the linear
viscoelastic (LVE) region of the tested binder. The
tendency of a binder to experience permanent defor-
mation can be then assessed through the value of
viscous creep stiffness Gv evaluated by fitting Burgers
model into the test data. Some researchers [17, 28, 29]
have also proposed that the value of accumulated
strain at the end of the test could be used to estimate
the rutting susceptibility of a binder.
Although rheological behavior of bituminous bind-
ers is dictated mainly by temperature and loading time,
it is also dependent of the applied stress or strain if
testing is conducted in the nonlinear viscoelastic
(NLVE) region of a binder [30]. Multiple studies [3,
31–33] concern the NLVE behavior of bituminous
binders as one of the main factors that contribute to the
rutting performance of asphalt mixtures. This rela-
tionship between mixture rutting and NLVE binder
properties is most conveniently explained by localized
strain distribution within the microstructure of asphalt
mixture [34, 35]. In order to take nonlinearity effects
into account in the rutting characterization, the
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test has
recently been introduced [36].
In the standard MSCR test protocol bitumen sample
is loaded for 1 s with a constant creep stress after which
it is allowed to recover for 9 s at zero stress. The test is
run at two stress levels: 100 and 3,200 Pa. Ten cycles are
run at each of the two stress levels for a total of 20 cycles.
There are no rest periods between the creep and recovery
cycles or when the creep stress is changed. From the test
data, the values of non-recoverable creep compliance,
Jnr, and percent recovery, R, are calculated at both stress
levels as described in the relevant AASHTO and ASTM
standards [37, 38]. Jnr is suggested to describe the binder
contribution to asphalt mixture permanent deformation,
and the R value is related to the delayed elastic, i.e.
elastomeric response of the polymer in a binder.
Furthermore, percent difference values Jnrdiff and Rdiff
can be calculated and used to assess the stress sensitivity
of a binder.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053 4041

As described above, the motivation for this research
is arising from the need to correlate rheological binder
properties with the asphalt mixture rutting perfor-
mance. Therefore, the aim of this experimental study
was to investigate the creep-recovery behavior of
various bituminous binders, some of which were
modified with elastomer and/or wax, and to compare
the results with the rutting performance of the asphalt
mixtures that were manufactured using these binders.
The non-recoverable creep compliance parameter, Jnr,
derived from the MSCR test results was compared
with other binder rutting parameters, derived from the
frequency sweep data, in its capability to predict
asphalt mixture rutting. Also, MSCR test data were
analyzed in detail to further study the material
response of different types of binders under repeated
creep-recovery loading. The effects of temperature
and loading time on the MSCR test results were not
studied in this article, but these topics are covered in
the articles by Motamed and Bahia [39, 40].
2 Experimental
2.1 Materials
2.1.1 Bituminous binders
However, a highly wax modified binder was not
included because the wax would have detrimental
effects on the low-temperature properties of the
binder. Conventional properties of the binders were
defined in terms of penetration (EN 1426) [41] and
Ring-and-Ball softening point (TR&B) (EN 1427) [42].
Aforementioned properties of the studied binders are
presented in Table 1 with their EN grade classifica-
tions (EN 12591, EN 14023) [43, 44]. Note that the
type of bitumen modification is also indicated in the
sample code (B = no modification, E = elastomer
modification, W = wax modification, EW = elasto-
mer ? wax modification).
In this article, test data produced during a round
robin test of the MSCR test method [45] were also
utilized. This study included five testing laboratories
and nine different binders. The binders used in this
round robin test were almost the same as the ones
analyzed in this study (exceptions were binder 7 of the
round robin test that was not investigated in this study,
and binder EW9 that was not studied in the round robin
test but was included in this study). In the round robin
test all participating laboratories prepared and tested
five replicate samples of each binder, and the grand
averages of the MSCR test parameters were calculated
among all the replicate test runs conducted in different
laboratories.

Three unmodified and six modified binders were
investigated in this study. The unmodified binders
differed from each other by their penetration grade.
Modified binders were obtained by the addition of
different amounts of elastomer or synthetic wax or
both. Wax was included in the additive selection
because it is used as a warm mix additive in practice.
2.1.2 Asphalt mixtures
Asphalt mixtures were produced from the studied
binders to study the relationship between binder
rheology and asphalt mixture rutting. Manufactured
asphalt mixtures were of the type of dense asphalt
concrete AB-4C according to the Belgian specification

Table 1 The types and Binder Modification Penetration TR&B (°C) EN grade
levels of modification, (1/10 mm)
conventional properties and Type Level
EN grades of the studied
binders B1 None – 18 61.3 10/20
B2 None – 64 47.4 50/70
B3 None – 81 44.9 70/100
E4 Elastomer Moderate 42 57.7 PMB 25/55-55
E5 Elastomer Moderate 60 61.5 PMB 45/80-50
E6 Elastomer High 75 65.4 PMB 75/130-65
W7 Wax Moderate 33 78.1 –
EW8 Elastomer ? wax High 31 92.9 –
EW9 Elastomer ? wax High 20 95.4 –
4042 Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053

Table 2 The composition of the asphalt mixtures used in this

study
Type Component Density Volume Mass
(Mg/m3) (%) (%)

Aggregate Crushed porphyry 2.71 20.2 20.4

6.3/10
Aggregate Crushed porphyry 2.72 22.7 23.0
4/6.3
Aggregate Crushed porphyry 2.72 14.8 15.0
2/4
Sand Crushed porphyry 2.68 20.9 20.9
0/2
Sand Natural sand 2.65 13.9 13.8
Filler Duras filler type IIa 2.49 7.5 7.0
Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) (%) 19.1
Bitumen content (by the total weight of 5.84
mixture) (%) Fig. 1 Gradation curve for the mixture used in this study and
a grading limits for AB-4C mixture according to the Belgian
Duras filler mainly consists of calcium with some fly ash
specification SB 250
(fines are from the combustion of household waste)

SB 250 [46] (AC 0/10 according to the EN classifi-
cation system), which is a mixture suitable for the
pavement surface layer on the roads having low to
moderate traffic volumes. The mixture design was the
same for all the manufactured asphalt mixtures and it
is represented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. The average air
void content of 4.4 % was achieved with the slab
compactor using the method of heavy compaction for
500 9 180 9 100 mm (length 9 width 9 height)
asphalt mixture slab described in the EN 12697-33
standard [47].
2.2 Test methods
2.2.1 Rheological characterization of bituminous
binders
All the rheological measurements were conducted
with a stress-controlled Paar Physica MCR 500
rheometer (Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) which
was equipped with a double Peltier temperature
control system to minimize the temperature gradients
in the test specimen. Frequency sweep tests were
conducted using a 8-mm parallel plate geometry with
2-mm gap in the temperature range of 10–40 °C, and a
25-mm parallel plate geometry with 1-mm gap in the
range of 40–70 °C, respectively. Strains were kept
within the LVE range of the binders during these
measurements. 25-mm parallel plate geometry and
1-mm gap was also used in the MSCR tests as
recommended by the relevant standards [37, 38]. All
MSCR tests were conducted at 50 °C, regardless of the
binder type. All the rheological tests were conducted
on virgin binder samples.
To prepare test specimens for the MSCR tests, a
sufficient amount of hot binder was first poured on the
lower plate of the rheometer. The lower plate was
preheated to 50 °C to ensure good adhesion between the
binder specimen and the plates of the rheometer.
Thereafter, measurement head was fastened to the
rheometer and lowered to the measurement
gap ? 0.050 mm. The temperature of the test specimen
was let to equilibrate at 50 °C for 5 min after which it
was trimmed flush with the edges of the plate geometry
using a hot spatula. After trimming the measurement
head was further lowered to the exact measurement gap
so that a small outward bulge was created. Before the
start of the measurement, the thermal equilibrium of the
specimen was verified using the method described in
Annex B of the EN 14770 standard [48]. In the round
robin test varying specimen preparation techniques
were used as described by Soenen et al. [45].
2.2.2 WTTs
The WTT simulates the application of an actual wheel
load on a pavement at high in-service temperatures.
Hence, it can directly estimate the internal resistance
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053 4043

Fig. 2 The LPC wheel tracking device Fig. 3 Schematic illustration of a typical rutting curve in WTT
with characteristic creep phases: phases (I)–(III) corresponds to
the primary, secondary and tertiary creep phases, respectively
of asphalt mixtures in terms of rutting depth [49]. In
this study, WTTs were conducted in an LPC wheel
evaluate the values of three different binder rutting
tracking device (see Fig. 2), which is a large WTT
parameters, namely G*/sind, the ZSV and the LSV, at
device according to EN 12697-22 [50]. In this test
the temperature of 50 °C. The same temperature was
configuration the dimensions of asphalt slabs are
used in the WTTs of the asphalt mixtures to establish a
500 9 180 9 100 mm (length 9 width 9 height).
firm basis for the comparison of the binders’ and
All WTTs were conducted at 50 °C with a single
mixtures’ rutting performance. The value of G*/sind
wheel load of 5 kN. The wheel cycle time (the time
parameter was evaluated at two different frequencies:
that it takes for the wheel to travel back and forth over
at 1.59 Hz (=10 rad/s) according to AASHTO M320-
the slab) is 1 ± 0.1 s and the travel distance is
05 [51] and at the lowest measurement frequency of
410 ± 5 mm for the device. This corresponds to the
0.01 Hz as suggested by Soenen et al. [13]. Also, high
wheel speed of approximately 0.82 m/s (&3 km/h).
PG temperatures of the binders (the temperature at
Measurements were conducted in two repeats and rut
which G*/sind = 1 kPa) were calculated at the fre-
depths were measured at 15 different points of the slab
quency of 1.59 Hz. Interpolation and extrapolation of
as required by the EN 12697-22 standard. The rut
the G*/sind parameter values at different temperatures
depths were measured and average rut depths were
were done assuming exponential temperature depen-
calculated after 1000, 3000, 5000, 10000, 20000,
dence of G*/sind parameter, Eq. (1), as suggested by
30000, 40000 and 50000 loading cycles.
Elseifi et al. [52].
Schematic illustration of the development of rut
depth in WTT is shown in Fig. 3 with characteristic G =sindðTÞ ¼ AeBT ; ð1Þ
creep phases. The primary creep phase is often
where A and B are binder dependent model fitting
associated with the post-compaction of the mixture,
parameters. Fits of this equation to the experimental
whereas the second creep phase corresponds more to
data proved to be accurate for all the studied binders
its actual rutting performance. Correspondingly, the
(with R2 values of 0.995–0.999).
tertiary creep phase describes permanent deformation
ZSV values were obtained by fitting measured
caused by progressively increasing plastic flow.
complex viscosity data to the simplified Cross and
Carreau models, Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively.
2.3 Analysis methods
g0
g ð x Þ ¼ ð2Þ
2.3.1 Calculation of the binder rutting parameters 1 þ Kxm
g0
In this study, frequency sweep data measured within g ð x Þ ¼ ; ð3Þ
½1 þ ðx=xc Þ2 s
the LVE region of the studied binders were used to
4044
where g*(x) is complex viscosity (Pa s), g0 is the ZSV
(Pa s), x is angular frequency (rad/s), K is the Cross
model time constant (s), xc is the critical angular
frequency for the onset of the shear thinning region in
the simplified Carreau model (rad/s), and m and s are
unitless model parameters. It should be noted that in
this case viscosity is modelled as a function of angular
frequency as opposed to the conventional way to
describe shear thinning as a function of shear rate.
LSV values of the binders were evaluated at 0.01 Hz
which was the lowest frequency used in the frequency
sweep measurements during this study.
In short, the non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr,
is calculated as the ratio between the non-recovered
creep strain at the end of the recovery phase and the
applied creep stress. Respectively, the percent recov-
ery, R, is the ratio between recoverable and total creep
strain. The full equations for calculating the MSCR
test parameters are given in the relevant standards [37,
38].
2.3.2 Calculation of the mixture rutting parameters
Two different mixture rutting parameters were derived
from the WTT results. The first one of these is the
rutting rate that is calculated according to Eq. (4).
Rutting rate ðmm=103 loading cyclesÞ
d50;000  d10;000
¼ ; ð4Þ
40
where d50,000 and d10,000 are the rut depths in mm after
50,000 and 10,000 loading cycles, respectively. Rut-
ting rates were calculated only from the rut depths that
were measured at or after 10,000 loading cycles since
it was observed that in all the mixtures rut depth did
not increase linearly with the number of loading cycles
in the beginning of the test. This is due to the post-
compaction of the tested asphalt slabs (cf. Fig. 3). The
second mixture rutting indicator used in this study is
parameter b from the power law model, Eq. (5).
ep ðNÞ ¼ aN b ; ð5Þ
where ep(N) is the rut depth after N loading cycles, N is
the number of loading cycles, and a and b are model
constants. Parameter b also equals to the slope of the
creep curve in the secondary creep phase when the rut
depth is plotted against the number of loading cycles
on a log–log scale.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
3 Results and discussion
3.1 LVE rutting parameters
In Table 3 values of the LVE rutting parameters are
shown for the studied binders with corresponding
rankings. It can be seen that all the LVE rutting
parameters rank highly modified binders EW8 and
EW9 as the most rut resistant except for the G*/sind
parameter measured at 1.59 Hz which ranks unmod-
ified binder B1 as more rut resistant than binder EW8.
At the other extreme, all LVE rutting parameters
indicate that binder B3 is the most susceptible to create
rutting in an asphalt pavement, followed by another
unmodified binder B2. The aforementioned results are
in agreement with the rutting performance of corre-
sponding mixtures in WTT. In general, a conclusion
can be drawn that all the LVE rutting parameters used
here rank the studied binders in a rather similar order.
It was also noticed that the simplified Cross model
gives unrealistically high predictions of the ZSV for
highly modified binders EW8 and EW9. This becomes
obvious when plotting frequency sweep data in g*(G*)
plot which is referred to as ‘‘Winter plot’’ (for the sake
of clarity, the absolute value signs of the norms of
complex viscosity and complex modulus are omitted
in this article). The advantage of this plot is that it
differentiates shear thinning behavior more clearly
from Newtonian flow behavior than the conventional
g*(x) plot [53]. In Fig. 4 the frequency sweep data
measured at 50 °C is presented in the Winter plot for
all the studied binders. Furthermore, the evolution of
complex viscosity as a function of frequency was
modeled (in the range of 10-5–102 Hz) using the
simplified Cross model. The results from this model-
ing are presented as solid lines in Fig. 4. It can be seen
from the figure that complex viscosity values approach
asymptotically an upper limiting value, which is the
ZSV, for all the binders except for EW8 and EW9. The
divergence of the viscosity at a finite value of complex
modulus is considered to be a measure of the yield
stress [54, 55], and in the case of highly modified
binders its existence is probably caused by a gel-like or
semi-solid structure as suggested by Qin et al. [56].
3.2 MSCR test parameters and accumulated strain
In this study, all MSCR tests were conducted at the
constant temperature of 50 °C and five replicates were
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053 4045

Rank

3
8
9
5
7
6
4
2
1
LSV at 0.01 Hz

8.47 9 10-1
1.94 9 101
0

6.92 9 100
3.06 9 100
3.90 9 100
0

3.29 9 101
9.10 9 101
1.52 9 10

9.23 9 10
kPa s
ZSV from the simplified Carreau

Rank

3
8
9
5
7
6
4
2
1
8.42 9 10-1
1.92 9 101
0

7.30 9 100
2.99 9 100
4.44 9 100
1

1.49 9 102
9.63 9 102
1.51 9 10

1.16 9 10

Fig. 4 Winter plot of the studied binders. The solid lines

model
kPa s

represent fits of the simplified Cross model

ZSV from the simplified Cross

prepared per binder. From the test results average

Rank

values of the MSCR test parameters were calculated

1–2
1–2
4
8
9
5
7
6
3

for each binder, and these average values are presented

in Table 4. Additionally, the accumulated strain
values at the end of the MSCR test (cacc) are reported
8.65 9 10-1

in the table. The corresponding test results derived

2.29 9 101
0

1.50 9 101
3.39 9 100
1.34 9 101
1
1.57 9 10

6.31 9 10

from the round robin test data are not presented here
model
kPa s

but can be found from the original work by Soenen

All the parameters are evaluated at 50 °C (except for the high PG temperature)
n.d.
n.d.

et al. [45].
In Table 4 the studied binders are ranked accord-
Rank
G*/sind at 0.01 Hz

ing to their R3200, Jnr3200 and cacc parameter values.

3
8
9
5
7
6
4
2
1

n.d. not determined because of unrealistically high predicted value

Generally, it can be observed that modified binders

-2

5.32 9 10-2
4.45 9 10-1
1.92 9 10-1
2.62 9 10-1
-1
1.22 9 100

2.45 9 100
6.49 9 100
9.53 9 10

5.94 9 10

are much more rut resistant compared to the

Value extrapolated from the measurement data using Eq. (1)
Table 3 The LVE rutting parameters of the studied binders

unmodified binders that are of the same penetration

kPa

grade. Therefore, it can be concluded that the rutting

resistance of bituminous binders can be significantly
G*/sind at 1.59 Hz

Rank

enhanced through their modification as has been

2
8
9
5
6
7
4
3
1

shown many times in the literature. It can be also

1.11 9 102
1

6.90 9 100
2.24 9 101
1.60 9 101
1.32 9 101
1

1.04 9 102
1.80 9 102
1.15 9 10

7.27 9 10

seen that the Jnr3200 and cacc parameters give exactly

the same ranking of binders while the R3200
kPa

parameter ranks the binders in a slightly different

way. Indeed, the values of Jnr3200 and cacc have a
very strong linear correlation as depicted in Fig. 5.
Rank

This is due to the fact that the accumulated strain at

temperature

3
8
9
5
7
6
4
2
1

the end of the test is created almost completely

High PG

during the last ten creep-recovery cycles of the test.

This, in turn, is because the applied creep stress, and
68
65
80a

76a
73a
74a
a

89a
93a
°C

77

therefore also the resulting creep deformation, is

Binder

much higher during the latter half of the test than

EW8
EW9
W7
B1
B2
B3
E4
E5
E6

during the first half of it.

a
4046 Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053

Table 4 Average values of Binder R100 R3200 Jnr100 Jnr3200 Rdiff Jnrdiff cacc
the MSCR test parameters
-1 -1
calculated from the test data % % Rank kPa kPa Rank % % – Rank
collected during this study
B1 25.1 24.4 7 0.051 0.052 4 2.7 1.0 1.699 4
B2 7.0 4.1 8 0.709 0.744 8 41.7 4.9 24.503 8
B3 4.8 1.9 9 1.178 1.248 9 61.4 6.0 41.125 9
E4 52.7 49.6 5 0.140 0.151 5 5.8 7.6 4.977 5
E5 35.2 29.5 6 0.282 0.315 7 16.1 11.8 10.377 7
E6 70.2 58.5 4 0.145 0.211 6 16.7 46.3 6.902 6
W7 92.4 67.7 3 0.004 0.027 3 26.8 523.7 0.865 3
EW8 94.1 88.6 1 0.003 0.006 2 5.8 144.5 0.199 2
EW9 91.7 84.2 2 0.001 0.003 1 8.2 136.4 0.107 1

Fig. 5 The correlation between the Jnr3200 and cacc parameter

values

It can be also seen from Table 4 that the value of the

Jnrdiff parameter is particularly high for wax modified
binder W7. Therefore this binder can be considered to
be highly stress sensitive as the creep stress of
3,200 Pa is clearly outside its LVE region. The high
stress sensitivity of wax modified binders has also
been addressed in the literature [57–61]. The pro-
nounced stress sensitivity of binder W7 is further
highlighted in Fig. 6 where the development of
accumulated strain is presented for the selected
binders B1, W7 and EW8 separately during the first Fig. 6 The development of accumulated strain for the selected
binders B1, W7 and EW8 during a the first ten and b the last 10
and last ten creep-recovery cycles of the MSCR test creep-recovery cycles of the MSCR test, conducted at 100 and
(where creep stresses of 100 and 3,200 Pa are used, 3,200 Pa creep stress levels, respectively
respectively). Although the high stress sensitivity of
the wax modified binder indicates a risk of excessive is highly dependent on their thermal and loading
rutting, this result should be treated with care. This is histories [57], and it is not obvious how wax modified
because rheological behavior of wax modified binders binders should be prepared to rheological testing in
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053 4047

order to get results that accurately describe their actual

performance in asphalt pavements [61].
In AASHTO MP 19-10 specification [62] a limiting
value of 75 % has been set to the Jnrdiff parameter to
detect and eliminate highly stress sensitive binders
from road construction. From the studied binders W7,
EW8 and EW9 exceeded this critical value. However,
this is probably not alarming in terms of rutting since
the non-recoverable creep compliance is very small
for these binders still at 3,200 Pa creep stress. Thus,
the aforementioned 75 % limit is not necessarily
suitable for highly modified, very rut resistant binders.
It should be also noted that this criterion has originally
been developed assuming that the MSCR test is
conducted at high PG temperature and on binders that
are short-term aged. In this study, binders were tested
at a lower temperature (50 °C) and in an unaged
condition, which probably has an influence on their
stress sensitivity. The binders were not short-term
aged before testing because their rutting susceptibility
is highest in a fresh state (for example, in the case of
warm mixes, binder does not age so much during
pavement construction) and because unaged binders
were tested also in the previous round robin test [45].

3.3 Evolution of material response under repeated

creep-recovery loading

In order to gain a more detailed understanding of the

mechanical behavior of different binders under
repeated creep-recovery loading, the values of non-
recoverable creep compliance and percent recovery
were calculated for individual creep-recovery cycles
of the MSCR test. Results for binders B1, W7 and
EW8 are shown in Fig. 7. From Fig. 7a it can be seen
that the strain response of unmodified binder B1 does
not change when it is subjected to multiple successive
creep-recovery loadings. However, for modified bitu-
minous binders W7 and EW8 a clear evolution in the
material response can be observed.
In Fig. 7b parameter values measured at different
creep stress levels do not overlap, which evidences the
high stress sensitivity of wax modified binder W7. At
the lower creep stress level of 100 Pa the waxy
microstructure inside the binder is intact leading to the
decrease of non-recoverable creep compliance and to
the increase of percent recovery with increasing
number of creep-recovery cycles. This kind of behav-
ior indicates that the strain recovery is not completed
Fig. 7 The values of non-recoverable creep compliance and
percent recovery for individual creep-recovery cycles of the
MSCR test for a unmodified binder B1, b wax modified binder
W7 and c elastomer ? wax modified binder EW8
within the 9-s time window thus increasing the relative
amount of recovery during the following creep-
recovery cycles. However, at the higher creep stress
of 3,200 Pa non-recoverable creep compliance values
tend to increase and percent recovery values decrease
with increasing number of creep-recovery cycles. This
is probably caused by the gradual rupture of the waxy
microstructure when loaded with relatively high creep
4048
Fig. 8 Values of non-recoverable creep compliance and percent recovery at various creep stress levels for selected binders
stresses. Therefore, this binder appears to be the more
prone to rutting, the higher is the number of successive
creep-recovery cycles in the test.
For elastomer ? wax modified binder EW8 the
decrease in the non-recoverable creep compliance and
the increase in percent recovery is apparent at both
creep stress levels, see Fig. 7c. This indicates that the
addition of elastomeric modifier can prevent the
rupture of stress sensitive crystalline microstructure
(or at least overpower its effect) at high creep stresses
and thus significantly enhance the rutting performance
of the binder. The manifested presence of delayed
elasticity in elastomer modified binders has also been
reported by [28, 63, 64]. Binder EW8 shows also
notable dependence on the creep stress, but this is
possibly due to the rheometer’s incapability to mea-
sure very small non-recoverable creep strains accu-
rately as discussed in connection with Table 4.
3.4 Effect of creep stress on the values of non-
recoverable creep compliance and percent
recovery
The effect of creep stress on the MSCR test parameter
values was studied more in detail by applying ten
repetitive creep-recovery loading cycles on selected
binders at various creep stress levels between 100 and
15,000 Pa. The durations of the creep and recovery
phases were 1 and 9 s, respectively, in the same way as
in the standard MSCR test procedure. The evolution of
non-recoverable creep compliance and percent
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
recovery as a function of creep stress is depicted in
Fig. 8. As a general trend, the values of non-recover-
able creep compliance increase and the values of
percent recovery decrease with increasing creep stress
indicating that binders become less rut resistant and
more viscous under heavy traffic loads. However,
unmodified binder B1 shows barely any stress depen-
dency even at the stress levels on the order of
10,000 Pa. In the case of modified binders stress
sensitivity is far more apparent as already observed
from their higher Jnrdiff values in Sect. 3.2 and as
reported by Wasage et al. [65]. However, surprisingly,
wax modified binder W7 does not show almost any
stress dependency at the creep stress levels of 3,200 Pa
and under. Up to now, we have no explanation for this
observation, a possible reason could be that due to
multiple heatings the morphology or connectivity of
the wax crystals has changed and they have become
more stress resistant.
It is hypothesized that there are two main micro-
mechanisms that can explain the origin of the
pronounced nonlinearity in modified binders. If mod-
ifying agent does not form a continuous network in the
binder, the system can be considered to be a concen-
trated suspension-like material in which the NLVE
behavior is induced by the deformation of the (poly-
mer-rich) droplets and their orientation in the direction
of shear under large shear stresses [66–68]. In turn,
this shear induced reorganization of the internal
structure often results in the viscous liquid behavior
of these materials, which in this case can be observed
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053 4049

as the increased rutting susceptibility of modified Table 5 Values of the asphalt mixture rutting indicators and
binders at high creep stresses [69]. On the other hand, corresponding rankings
in many highly modified binders a physical network is Binder Rutting rate Power–law fit
formed by the modifying agent as demonstrated by 3
mm/10 Rank a b Rank R2
numerous researchers [70–74]. In these kinds of loading
binders nonlinear behavior is most likely associated cycles
with the breakdown of network points or crosslinks
B1 0.0159 3 0.635 0.152 3 0.926
[75]. Furthermore, it can be expected that these kinds
B2 0.0746 8 0.480 0.261 8 0.992
of structural changes result in a more pronounced
B3a n.d. 9 n.d. n.d. 9 n.d.
NLVE behavior than the ordering of particles in
suspension-like modified binders. This is concluded E4 0.0163 4 0.603 0.173 4 0.957
from the fact that those of the modified binders which E5 0.0419 6 0.688 0.195 7 0.989
were expected to contain a physical network based on E6 0.0307 5 0.623 0.183 5 0.992
the knowledge from the literature [56, 74] (i.e. highly W7 0.0437 7 0.830 0.192 6 0.973
modified binders E6, EW8 and EW9 and wax modified EW8 0.0119 2 0.765 0.141 2 0.896
binder W7) showed more distinct nonlinear behavior EW9 0.0077 1 0.424 0.132 1 0.955
than the modified binders which were considered to be n.d. not determined
suspension-like (binders E4 and E5 that were modified a
WTT failed due to the softness of the binder
with only moderate amount of elastomer).
cycles, so they can be considered to be moderately or
3.5 WTT results highly rut resistant. Furthermore, no tertiary creep
behavior was observed in the tests except for the
The WTT results are shown in Fig. 9 with the mixture manufactured with binder B3.
corresponding power–law fits, and the values of the
two calculated mixture rutting parameters are shown 3.6 Correlations between binder rutting
in Table 5 with corresponding rankings of the mix- parameters and asphalt mixture rutting
tures. Note that WTT failed for the mixture manufac-
tured with unmodified binder B3 due to the softness of In order to test the goodness of the rheological binder
the binder, and therefore no results could be reported rutting parameters (calculated in Sects. 3.1 and 3.2), a
for this mixture. For all the other mixtures the average correlation analysis was conducted between these
rut depth was less than 10 mm after 50,000 loading parameters and the mixture rutting parameters calcu-
lated in Sect. 3.5. As it was observed during the study
that the rheological properties of wax modified binder
W7 highly depend on the specimen preparation
method used [61], this binder was excluded from the
correlation analysis. More research is needed to
evaluate what kind of microstructure waxy binders
form in the asphalt mixtures and to develop a specimen
preparation method that reproduces this microstruc-
ture for rheological binder testing.
Coefficients of determination for linear and
power–law correlations between the calculated mix-
ture and binder rutting parameters are presented in
Table 6. It can be observed that Jnr3200 and cacc
parameters have a superior capability of predicting
asphalt mixture rutting compared to the other binder
rutting indicators, as measured by the rutting rate
Fig. 9 WTT results for the studied mixtures. The solid lines and power–law exponent b calculated from the
represent the corresponding power–law fits WTT data. The strong linear correlation between
4050 Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053

0.975 (0.985)b

0.982 (0.984)b
n.d.

n.d.
cacc

0.976 (0.985)b

0.982 (0.984)b
Jnr3200

n.d.

n.d.
0.01 Hz
LSV at

0.337
0.912

0.434
0.891
Table 6 Coefficients of determination for the linear and power–law relationships between binder and mixture rutting parameters

The value in parentheses is the coefficient of determination calculated for the data collected during the round robin study [45]
ZSV from the simplified
Carreau model

0.202
0.575

0.273
0.684
simplified Cross model
ZSV from the

n.d. not determined since high correlation was already found for linear correlation
0.752a
a

0.738a
a

Fig. 10 Correlations of the MSCR test parameters a Jnr3200 and

0.894

0.877

b cacc with the power–law exponent b derived from the WTT

Correlations do not include data for binders EW8 and EW9, see Table 3

results
at 0.01 Hz
G*/sind

MSCR test results and asphalt mixture rutting is

0.331
0.910

0.430
0.890

illustrated in Fig. 10 where the correlations of

Jnr3200 and cacc parameters with the power–law
temperature

exponent b are shown. It can be also observed that

High PG

there does not exist a great difference between the

0.656
0.876

0.768
0.878

Jnr3200 and cacc parameters in terms of the accuracy

of mixture rutting prediction. However, this is not
Parameter b from the power law model

surprising since it was pointed out already earlier in

Rutting rate (mm/103 loading cycles)
G*/sind at
1.59 Hz

the text that the values of these two parameters

0.401
0.758

0.502
0.741

correlate very strongly with each other, see Fig. 5.

In addition, it was observed that the correlations
were stronger when MSCR test data from the round
0.498
0.674

0.632
0.750
TR&B

robin study [45] were used in the correlation

analysis (values presented in parentheses in
Table 6). This suggests that the correlation between
Power law

Power law

the MSCR test parameters and asphalt mixture

Linear

Linear

rutting improves as a higher number of MSCR test

results are averaged. This finding corroborates the
b
a
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
fact that the reproducibility of the MSCR test can be
rather poor for some modified binders [45].
In general, it is clear from Table 6 that more
satisfactory correlations between most of the binder
rutting parameters and mixture rutting were obtained
when power–law relationships were established
instead of linear relationships. However, for the
MSCR test parameters Jnr3200 and cacc very good
linear correlations were found, and therefore it was not
seen as necessary to establish power–law correlations
for these parameters. For specification purposes it is
preferable that the binder rutting parameter is linearly
correlated with asphalt mixture rutting, so this is also
one of the advantages of the Jnr3200 and cacc parameters
over the other rheological binder rutting parameters.
4 Concluding remarks
This study explored the creep-recovery behavior of
bituminous binders and its relation to the rutting
characteristics of asphalt mixtures in the LPC WTT.
The MSCR test method was investigated in detail, and
its capability to predict binders’ contribution to
mixture rutting was compared with other rheological
binder rutting indicators.
It was found that the non-recoverable creep com-
pliance at 3,200 Pa creep stress level, Jnr3200, and the
accumulated strain at the end of the MSCR test (cacc)
correlate very strongly with each other, and that they
both are able to predict binder’s contribution to asphalt
mixture rutting very accurately. Furthermore, the
relationships between these two parameters and
asphalt mixture rutting appeared to be linear. How-
ever, although it would be tempting to use the cacc
parameter as a surrogate for the Jnr parameter due to its
simpler calculation, it should be noted that this
parameter is not normalized by the applied creep
stress and thus its values are not directly comparable
when measured at different creep stress levels.
As expected, modified bituminous binders were
discovered to be much more rut resistant compared to
unmodified binders of the same penetration class.
However, it was also observed that highly modified
binders, and especially binders modified with wax, are
more stress sensitive compared to unmodified and
moderately modified binders. This is believed to be
due to the rupture of the physical network that the
modifying agent forms in them. It was also concluded
4051
that the criterion Jnrdiff \ 75 % is not necessarily
suitable for these kinds of binders as very small non-
recoverable creep compliance values (corresponding
to high rut resistance) are measured for them even at
high creep stresses.
A detailed investigation of the creep-recovery data
revealed that the modification of bitumen significantly
changes the way the material response develops under
repeated creep-recovery loading. For unmodified
binders the strain response is not changed with
successive creep-recovery loadings, but for elastomer
and wax modified binders the effects of delayed
elasticity and the rupture of crystalline microstructure,
respectively, can be observed. These kinds of changes
in material response are not captured by the standard
MSCR test parameters, but they can provide a deeper
understanding of the influence of different modifiers
and their microstructural characteristics on the binder
rutting performance.
Based on the results of this research, the use of the
MSCR test in the rutting characterization of both
unmodified and modified bituminous binders is
strongly recommended. However, different types of
bituminous binders and asphalt mixtures, especially
those modified with synthetic waxes, need more
evaluations to validate the universal power of the
MSCR test to characterize the rutting performance of
bituminous binders.
References
1. Al-Qadi IL, Yoo PJ, Elseifi MA, Nelson S (2009) Creep
behavior of hot-mix asphalt due to heavy vehicular tire
loading. J Eng Mech 135:1265–1273
2. Baghaee Moghaddam T, Soltani M, Karim MR (2014)
Evaluation of permanent deformation characteristics of
unmodified and Polyethylene Terephthalate modified
asphalt mixtures using dynamic creep test. Mater Des
53:317–324
3. Delgadillo R, Bahia HU (2010) The relationship between
nonlinearity of asphalt binders and asphalt mixture perma-
nent deformation. Road Mater Pavement 11:653–680
4. Sybilski D, Soenen H, Gajewski M, Chailleux E, Bankowski
W (2013) Binder testing. In: Advances in interlaboratory
testing and evaluation of bituminous materials. Springer,
Dordrecht, pp 15–83
5. Christensen DW Jr, Bonaquist R (2005) Rut resistance and
volumetric composition of asphalt concrete mixtures. J As-
soc Asphalt Pavement 74:485–518
6. Kennedy TW, Huber GA, Harrigan ET, Cominsky RJ,
Hughes CS, Von Quintus H, Moulthrop JS (1994) Superior
4052
performing asphalt pavements (Superpave): the product of
the SHRP asphalt research program. Strategic Highway
Research Program, National Research Council, Washington
7. Bahia HU, Hanson D, Zeng M, Zhai H, Khatri M, Anderson
R (2001) Characterization of modified asphalt binders in
superpave mix design. NCHRP 9-10 report 459. National
Academy Press, Washington
8. Bahia HU, Zhai H, Zeng M, Hu Y, Turner P (2001)
Development of binder specification parameters based on
characterization of damage behavior. J Assoc Asphalt
Pavement 70:442–470
9. Dongre R, D’Angelo J (2003) Evaluation of different
parameters for superpave high temperature binder specifi-
cation based on rutting performance in the accelerated
loading facility at FHWA. Transp Res Rec 1829:455–487
10. Stuart K, Mogawer W, Romero P (2000) Evaluation of the
Superpave asphalt binder specification for high-temperature
pavement performance. J Asphalt Paving Technol
69:148–176
11. D’Angelo J, Dongre R (2002) Superpave binder specifica-
tions and their performance relationship to modified bind-
ers. Proc Canadian Technical Asph Assoc 47:91–103
12. Delgadillo R, Nam K, Bahia H (2006) Why do we need to
change G*/sind and how? Road Mater Pavement 7:7–27
13. Soenen H, Visscher JD, Tanghe T, Vanelstraete A, Redelius
P (2006) Selection of binder performance indicators for
asphalt rutting based on triaxial and wheel tracking tests.
J Assoc Asphalt Pavement 75:165–201
14. Sybilski D (1996) Zero-shear viscosity: phenomenons at
measurement, interpretation and relation to permanent
deformation. In: Proceedings of Eurasphalt & Eurobitume
Congress, Strasbourg, vol 3, Paper 5.142
15. Sybilski D (1996) Zero-shear viscosity of bituminous binder
and its relation to bituminous mixture’s rutting resistance.
Transp Res Rec 1535:15–21
16. Phillips MC RC (1996) Binder rheology and asphaltic
pavement permanent deformation; the zero-shear-viscosity.
In: Proceedings of Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress,
Strasbourg, vol 3, Paper 5.134
17. De Visscher J, Soenen H, Vanelstraete A, Redelius P (2004)
A comparison of the zero shear viscosity from oscillation
tests and the repeated creep test. In: Proceedings of 3rd
Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Vienna, vol 2,
pp 1501–1513
18. De Visscher J, Vanelstraete A (2004) Practical test methods
for measuring the zero shear viscosity of bituminous bind-
ers. Mater Struct 37:360–364
19. Morea F, Agnusdei J, Zerbino R (2010) Comparison of
methods for measuring zero shear viscosity in asphalts.
Mater Struct 43:499–507
20. Biro S, Gandhi T, Amirkhanian S (2009) Determination of
zero shear viscosity of warm asphalt binders. Constr Build
Mater 23:2080–2086
21. Desmazes C, Lecomte M, Lesueur D, Phillips M (2000) A
protocol for reliable measurement of zero-shear-viscosity in
order to evaluate the anti-rutting performance of binders. In:
Proceedings of 2nd Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress,
Barcelona, Book 1, pp 203–211
22. Lu X, Isacsson U (1997) Influence of styrene-butadiene-
styrene polymer modification on bitumen viscosity. Fuel
76:1353–1359
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
23. van Rooijen RC, de Bondt AH (2004) Experience with the
zero shear viscosity concept to characterize rutting. In:
Proceedings of 3rd Euroasphalt and Eurobitumen congress,
Vienna, Paper 150
24. Morea F, Agnusdei JO, Zerbino R (2011) The use of asphalt
low shear viscosity to predict permanent deformation per-
formance of asphalt concrete. Mater Struct 44:1241–1248
25. Morea F, Zerbino R, Agnusdei J (2013) Improvements on
asphalt mixtures rutting performance characterization by
the use of low shear viscosity. Mater Struct 46:267–276
26. Morea F, Zerbino R, Agnusdei J (2014) Wheel tracking
rutting performance estimation based on bitumen Low
Shear Viscosity (LSV), loading and temperature conditions.
Mater Struct 47:683–692
27. De Visscher J, Vanelstraete A (2009) Equiviscous temper-
ature based on low shear viscosity: evaluation as binder
indicator for rutting and critical discussion of the test pro-
cedure. In: Proceedings of 7th international RILEM sym-
posium ATCBM09 on advance testing and characterization
of bituminous materials, Athens, vol 2, pp 1009–1018
28. Merusi F, Giuliani F (2011) Intrinsic resistance to non-
reversible deformation in modified asphalt binders and its
relation with specification criteria. Constr Build Mater
25:3356–3366
29. Hrdlicka GM, Tandon V (2007) Estimation of hot-mix
asphalt concrete rutting potential from repeated creep bin-
der tests. In: TRB 86th annual meeting, Washington, Paper
07-2886
30. Airey GD, Rahimzadeh B, Collop AC (2002) Linear vis-
coelastic limits of bituminous binders. J Assoc Asphalt
Pavement 71:89–115
31. Delgadillo R (2008) Nonlinearity of asphalt binders and the
relationship with asphalt mixture permanent deformation.
PhD Thesis, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
32. Delgadillo R, Cho DW, Bahia H (2006) Part 1: bituminous
materials: nonlinearity of repeated creep and recovery bin-
der test and relationship with mixture permanent deforma-
tion. Transp Res Rec 1962:3–11
33. Motamed A, Delgadillo R, Bahia H, Zeng M (2008) Effects
of increased loading level and time on rutting resistance of
modified asphalt binders and mixtures. In: Proceedings of
53rd Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Saskatoon,
pp 211–233
34. Kose S, Guler M, Bahia HU, Masad E (2000) Distribution of
strains within hot-mix asphalt binders: applying imaging
and finite-element techniques. Transp Res Rec 1728:21–27
35. Masad E, Somadevan N (2002) Microstructural finite-ele-
ment analysis of influence of localized strain distribution on
asphalt mix properties. J Eng Mech 128:1105–1114
36. D’Angelo J, Kluttz R, Dongre RN, Stephens K, Zanzotto L
(2007) Revision of the superpave high temperature binder
specification: the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Test.
J Assoc Asphalt Pavement 76:123–162
37. AASHTO TP 70 (2009) Standard method of test for multiple
stress creep recovery (MSCR) test of asphalt binder using a
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington
38. ASTM D7405 (2010) Standard test method for Multiple
Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of asphalt binder using
a dynamic shear rheometer. American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:4039–4053
39. Motamed A, Bahia HU (2011) Influence of test geometry,
temperature, stress level, and loading duration on binder prop-
erties measured using DSR. J Mater Civ Eng 23:1422–1432
40. Motamed A, Bahia HU (2012) Incorporating temperature
into the constitutive equation for plastic deformation in
asphalt binders. Constr Build Mater 29:647–658
41. EN 1426 (2007) Bitumen and bituminous binders: deter-
mination of needle penetration. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels
42. EN 1427 (2007) Bitumen and bituminous binders: deter-
mination of the softening point, Ring and Ball method.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
43. EN 12591 (2009) Bitumen and bituminous binders. Speci-
fications for paving grade bitumens. European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels
44. EN 14023 (2010) Bitumen and bituminous binders. Speci-
fication framework for polymer modified bitumens. Euro-
pean Committee for Standardization, Brussels
45. Soenen H, Blomberg T, Pellinen T, Laukkanen O (2013)
The multiple stress creep-recovery test: a detailed analysis
of repeatability and reproducibility. Road Mater Pavement
14:2–11
46. SB 250 (2011) Standard tender specifications. Agentschap
Wegen en Verkeer, Brussels
47. EN 12697-33 (2003) Bituminous mixtures. Test methods
for hot mix asphalt. Part 33: specimen prepared by roller
compactor. European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels
48. EN 14770 (2012) Bitumen and bituminous binders: deter-
mination of complex shear modulus and phase angle.
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels
49. Liu Y, Han S, Zhang Z, Xu O (2012) Design and evaluation
of gap-graded asphalt rubber mixtures. Mater Des
35:873–877
50. EN 12697-22 (2007) Bituminous mixtures. Test methods
for hot mix asphalt. Part 22: wheel tracking. European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels
51. AASHTO M320 (2005) Standard specification for perfor-
mance graded asphalt Binder. american Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington
52. Elseifi MA, Flintsch GW, Al-Qadi IL (2003) Quantitative
effect of elastomeric modification on binder performance at
intermediate and high temperatures. J Mater Civ Eng
15:32–40
53. Winter HH (2009) Three views of viscoelasticity for Cox-
Merz materials. Rheol Acta 48:241–243
54. Goel V, Chatterjee T, Bombalski L, Yurekli K, Mat-
yjaszewski K, Krishnamoorti R (2006) Viscoelastic prop-
erties of silica-grafted poly (styrene–acrylonitrile)
nanocomposites. J Polymer Sci B 44:2014–2023
55. Goel V, Pietrasik J, Matyjaszewski K, Krishnamoorti R
(2010) Linear viscoelasticity of spherical SiO2 nanoparti-
cle-tethered poly (butyl acrylate) hybrids. Ind Eng Chem
Res 49:11985–11990
56. Qin Q, Farrar MJ, Pauli AT, Adams JJ (2014) Morphology,
thermal analysis and rheology of Sasobit modified warm
mix asphalt binders. Fuel 115:416–425
57. Soenen H, De Visscher J, Vanelstraete A, Redelius P (2006)
Influence of thermal history on rheological properties of
various bitumen. Rheol Acta 45:729–739
4053
58. Polacco G, Filippi S, Paci M, Giuliani F, Merusi F (2012)
Structural and rheological characterization of wax modified
bitumens. Fuel 95:407–416
59. Soenen H, De Visscher J, Vanelstraete A, Redelius P (2005)
The influence of thermal history on binder rutting indica-
tors. Road Mater Pavement 6:217–238
60. Soenen H, Tanghe T, Redelius P, De Visscher J, Vervaecke
F, Vanelstraete A (2008) A laboratory study on the use of
waxes to reduce paving temperatures. In: Proceedings of 4th
Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress, Copenhagen, CD-
ROM
61. Laukkanen O, Soenen H (2014) Rheological characteriza-
tion of wax modified bituminous binders: effect of specimen
preparation and thermal history. Constr Build Mater (under
review)
62. AASHTO MP 19 (2010) Performance-graded asphalt bin-
der using multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test.
Association of American State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington
63. Zoorob S, Castro-Gomes J, Pereira Oliveira L, O’Connell J
(2012) Investigating the multiple stress creep recovery
bitumen characterisation test. Constr Build Mater
30:734–745
64. Merusi F (2012) Delayed mechanical response in modified
asphalt binders: characteristics, modeling and engineering
implications. Road Mater Pavement 13:321–345
65. Wasage T, Stastna J, Zanzotto L (2011) Rheological ana-
lysis of multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test. Int J
Pavement Eng 12:561–568
66. Navarro F, Partal P, Martınez-Boza F, Valencia C, Gallegos
C (2002) Rheological characteristics of ground tire rubber-
modified bitumens. Chem Eng J 89:53–61
67. Navarro F, Partal P, Martınez-Boza F, Gallegos C (2004)
Thermo-rheological behaviour and storage stability of
ground tire rubber-modified bitumens. Fuel 83:2041–2049
68. Garcı́a-Morales M, Partal P, Navarro FJ, Martı́nez-Boza F,
Mackley MR, Gallegos C (2004) The rheology of recycled
EVA/LDPE modified bitumen. Rheol Acta 43:482–490
69. Šušteršič E, Tušar M, Zupančič Valant A (2013) Rheolog-
ical and mechanical characterization of waste PMMA/ATH
modified bitumen. Constr Build Mater 38:119–125
70. Chen J, Liao M, Shiah M (2002) Asphalt modified by sty-
rene–butadiene–styrene triblock copolymer: morphology
and model. J Mater Civ Eng 14:224–229
71. Lu X, Isacsson U (1997) Compatibility and storage stability
of styrene–butadiene–styrene copolymer modified bitu-
mens. Mater Struct 30:618–626
72. Mouillet V, Lamontagne J, Durrieu F, Planche J, Lapalu L
(2008) Infrared microscopy investigation of oxidation and
phase evolution in bitumen modified with polymers. Fuel
87:1270–1280
73. Sengoz B, Isikyakar G (2008) Analysis of styrene-buta-
diene-styrene polymer modified bitumen using fluorescent
microscopy and conventional test methods. J Hazard Mater
150:424–432
74. Sengoz B, Isikyakar G (2008) Evaluation of the properties
and microstructure of SBS and EVA polymer modified
bitumen. Constr Build Mater 22:1897–1905
75. Yang J, Han C (2013) Dynamics of silica-nanoparticle-filled
hybrid hydrogels: nonlinear viscoelastic behavior and chain
entanglement network. J Phys Chem C 117:20236–20243