Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/trmp20

Evaluation of rutting potential of asphalts using

resilient modulus test parameters

Vishnu Radhakrishnan, Rajashekar Reddy Dudipala, Anupam Maity & K.

Sudhakar Reddy

To cite this article: Vishnu Radhakrishnan, Rajashekar Reddy Dudipala, Anupam Maity
& K. Sudhakar Reddy (2019) Evaluation of rutting potential of asphalts using resilient
modulus test parameters, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 20:1, 20-35, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2017.1374994

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1374994

Published online: 12 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 591

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2019
Vol. 20, No. 1, 20–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1374994

Evaluation of rutting potential of asphalts using resilient modulus test

parameters
Vishnu Radhakrishnana∗ , Rajashekar Reddy Dudipalab , Anupam Maitya and
K. Sudhakar Reddya

a IndianInstitute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; b University College of Engineering, Osmania

University, Hyderabad, India

(Received 14 January 2017; accepted 22 August 2017 )

Rutting potential of asphalts can be evaluated in the laboratory by different tests. Any visco-
elastic parameter of the mix evaluated at a high pavement temperature can be considered to
be a possible parameter to distinguish mixes in terms of their rutting susceptibility. In this
study, the potential of the time lag (between load and deformation) observed in a resilient
modulus test as an appropriate parameter to explain the rutting resistance of different mixes
has been examined. Resilient modulus is a parameter routinely evaluated by many agencies
and is used as an input for design and evaluation of pavements. Time lag values were extracted
from the resilient modulus test conducted at 35°C and 50°C on asphalt mixes prepared with
(a) nine different types of binder and one aggregate gradation and (b) nine different aggregate
gradations and with VG30 binder. A wheel tracking test was conducted on the mixes at 60°C.
Time lag has been found to be sensitive to bitumen type and aggregate gradation. A strong
correlation was observed between the time lag and rut depth measured in the wheel tracking
test. It is evident from the present study that time lag measured from the resilient modulus test,
which is conducted routinely by many agencies, has the potential to be used as a mix rutting
parameter.
Keywords: visco-elastic; resilient modulus; time lag; wheel tracking

Introduction
Rutting of asphalts is a major distress observed in bituminous pavements. Some of the existing
pavement design methods such as the mechanistic empirical pavement design guide (NCHRP
1-37A, 2004) address the issue of mix rutting by limiting the mix rut depth estimated using appro-
priate material models is less than the acceptable rut depth during the service life of pavement.
In most of the other design methods, subgrade rutting criteria and/or mix design specifications
are used to directly or indirectly control mix rutting. The rutting resistance of asphalts is usually
evaluated in terms of the permanent deformation characteristics of the binder and mix evalu-
ated in the laboratory, in accelerated test facilities or in field pavement sections. Binder and mix
tests that offer the possiblity of evaluating the resilient and plastic deformation behaviour of the
materials can distinguish the relative rutting performance of different asphalts.
Complex shear modulus (G*) and phase angle (δ), G*/sin δ, damping coefficient (tan δ), dis-
sipated energy (Anderson & Kennedy, 1993; Bahia & Anderson, 1995; Kennedy et al., 1994),

*Corresponding author. Email: vishnusmail4u@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 Road Materials and Pavement Design 21

zero shear viscosity (Sybilski, 1996), low shear viscosity (Morea, Agnusdei, & Zerbino, 2011),
accumulated strain and viscous creep stiffness estimated from a repeated creep and recovery test
(Bahia et al., 2001), accumulated creep strain estimated from oscillation test parameters (Shenoy,
2001) and non-recoverable creep compliance and percentage recovery (D’Angelo, 2009) are
some bitumen parameters considered in the past for explaining the rutting potential of bitumens.
Similarly, asphalt parameters such as dynamic modulus (E*), phase angle () and E*/sin
determined using an asphalt mixture performance tester (Birgisson, Roque, Kim, & Pham, 2004;
Pellinen & Witczak, 2002; Shenoy & Romero, 2002; Witczak, Kaloush, Pellinen, El-Basyouny,
& Von Quintus, 2002), flow time and flow number evaluated from static and repeated load defor-
mation tests (Brown, Kandhal, & Zhang, 2001; Roy, Veeraragavan, & Krishnan, 2016; Witczak
et al., 2002), radial phase lag measured by applying cyclic confining pressure in a triaxial cyclic
compression test (Hofko & Blab, 2014), complex shear modulus and phase angle of the mix,
slope of complex shear modulus with frequency, maximum permanent shear strain measured in
a repeated shear constant height test using a Superpave shear tester (Brown et al., 2001; McGen-
nis, Anderson, Kennedy, & Solaimanian, 1995; Sousa, Durrani, & Raja, 2002; Tayebali, Khosla,
Malpass, & Waller, 1999) have been used to explain mix rutting.
Compaction curve parameters obtained from a superpave gyratory compaction test (Dessouky,
Masad, & Bayomy, 2004; Mallick, 1999), high-temperature indirect tensile strength (Christensen
& Bonaquist, 2007), deformation slope, rate of deformation accumulation and final rut depth
measured in a wheel tracking test and asphalt pavement analyser (Cooley, Kandhal, Buchanan,
Fee, & Epps, 2000) are some of the other parameters used in the past to explain mix rutting
behaviour.
All the bitumen and mix parameters mentioned in the preceding paragraphs represent the
visco-elasto-plastic nature of the binder and mixes and hence are used effectively as predictors
of mix rutting. It can thus be seen that any visco-elastic parameter of the mix evaluated at higher
service temperatures can be considered to be a possible parameter that can be used to distinguish
mixes in terms of their rutting susceptibility or to predict rutting. Resilient modulus, which is
used by several agencies as an input parameter for analysis and design of bituminous pavements
(French design manual, 1997; IRC 37, 2012; South African pavement design manual, 2014;
AUSTROADS, Denneman, Lee, Dias, & Petho, 2016) and also for estimating layer coefficients
in the 1993 AASHTO pavement design, is measured by observing the recoverable (resilient)
part of the total strain in the specimen subjected to repeated application of a load pulse followed
by a rest period. Since asphalt is a visco-elasto-plastic material, there is a time lag between the
applied load and the resulting deformation. This time lag is expected to be sensitive to bitumen
type, aggregate gradation, test temperature and frequency of loading and duration of load pulse
besides load magnitude and degree of compaction. Thus, it is worth examining whether the time
lag observed in a resilient modulus test between the applied stress and the resulting strain can be
correlated to mix rutting. The present study is a step towards this.

Scope and methodology

The scope of the study selected and the methodology adopted for examining the relationship
between the mix rutting and resilient modulus test parameters are presented in the following
paragraph.

• The effect of bitumen type on the rutting and resilient modulus characteristics was eval-
uated on asphalts prepared using nine different bitumens (4 unmodified and 5 modified
bitumens). The bitumens included four unmodified viscosity grade bitumens: VG10, VG30
and VG40 (procured from two sources and identified with suffixes S1 and S2); four
22 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

polymer-modified bitumens: PMB40 and PMB70 (with EVA as modifier); PMB40 and
PMB70 (with SBS as modifier) and one crumb-rubber-modified bitumen (CRMB60). The
designations of unmodified bitumens used in the paper are as per BIS 73 (2013), whereas
the modified bitumens are designated as per BIS 15462 (2004). The mid-point gradation
recommended by the ministry of road transport and highways (MoRTH, 2013) for bitu-
minous concrete with 19 mm nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) was selected for
this exercise.
• For evaluating the effect of aggregate gradation on the rutting and resilient modulus char-
acteristics of mixes, specimens were prepared with a VG30 bitumen and nine different
aggregate gradations with 19 mm NMAS.
• The bitumens were evaluated using dynamic shear rheometer for two rutting parameters:
G*/sinδ and J nr (non-recoverable creep compliance obtained from the multiple stress creep
and recovery test) both measured at 60°C.
• A resilient modulus test was conducted as per BS EN12697-26 (2012) at a frequency
of 1 Hz with a load rise time of 124 ms. The test was conducted at two different test
temperatures: 35°C and 50°C.
• Load and deformation data extracted from the resilient modulus test conducted on different
types of asphalts prepared using nine different bitumens (including five modified bitumens)
and nine different aggregate gradations were used to estimate the corresponding time lag
values.
• The design bitumen contents were selected corresponding to 4% air void content in the mix
under a design compaction effort of 172 gyrations applied using a gyratory compactor. The
design compaction level has been selected (Asphalt Institute SP-2, 2004) corresponding to
the high traffic volumes and high summer pavement temperatures relevant for many of the
national highways in India.
• Specimens of 18 different mixes (9 with different bitumen types and 9 with different aggre-
gate gradations) prepared with 7% air void content were tested in a wheel tracker at 60°C
for their rutting resistance assessed in terms of rut depths measured after 20,000 load cycles
(40,000 passes).
• Mix rut depths have been correlated to the time lag values obtained from the resilient
modulus test conducted at 35°C and 50°C on the eighteen different mixes. Correlations
were also developed to examine the sensitivity of the mix rut depths to bitumen type and
aggregate gradation.

Materials used in the study

The properties of the unmodified bitumens used in the present study are given in Table 1 and the
properties of the modified bitumens are listed in Table 2.
The aggregates used in the study were procured from the construction site of National highway
60 near Kharagpur. Physical properties of the aggregates are given in Table 3. To investigate the

Table 1. Properties of unmodified bitumens.

Test VG10 VG30 VG40-S1 VG40-S2 Test method (BIS)

Specific gravity 1.026 1.02 1.063 1.047 BIS 1202 (1978)

Penetration, 25 C, 100 g, 5 s, (dmm) 84 52 34 25 BIS 1203 (1978)
Softening point (°C) 50 57 60 62 BIS 1205 (1978)
Ductility, 25 C, 50 mm/min, (cm) 100 + 100 + 100 + 96 BIS 1208 (1978)
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 23

Table 2. Properties of modified bitumens.

PMB40 PMB70 PMB40 PMB70 Test method

Test (EVA) (EVA) (SBS) (SBS) CRMB60 (BIS)

Specific Gravity 1.059 1.02 1.033 1.026 1.056 1202 (1978)

Penetration, 25°C, 100 g, 5 s, 35 62 38 66 25 1203 (1978)
(dmm)
Softening point (°C) 66 62 64 59 65 1205 (1978)
Elastic recovery of half thread in 74 72 55 65 74 BIS 15462 (2004)
ductilometer at 15°C, (%)
Separation test, increase in 2 2 2 2 3 BIS 1205 (1978)
softening point (°C)

Table 3. Physical properties of the aggregates used in the study.

Property Value Test method (BIS)

Combined flakiness and elongation index (%) 19 BIS: 2386 (Part I) (1963)
Los Angeles abrasion value (%) 22 BIS: 2386 (Part IV) (1963)
Aggregate impact value (%) 15 BIS: 2386 (Part IV) (1963)
Water absorption (%) 0.9 BIS: 2386 (Part IV) (1963)

Table 4. Details of aggregate gradations used in the present study.

Cumulative percentage passing

Sieve Size (mm) G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9

26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 86 98 95 90 82 95 90 100 95
13.2 73 90 80 59 70 83 59 79 69
9.5 63 78 70 52 58 53 52 72 62
4.75 46 62 45 35 42 44 35 55 45
2.36 34 35 25 31 30 40 28 44 36
1.18 25 25 15 26 22 34 20 34 27
0.6 18 18 10 19 16 27 15 27 21
0.3 13 14 8 15 10 20 10 20 15
0.15 10 8 5 12 7 13 5 13 9
0.075 7 3 3 7 5 8 2 8 5

effect of aggregate gradation on the rutting and resilient modulus test parameters, nine different
aggregate gradations have been selected. Details of the aggregate gradations are given in Table 4.
G1 is 0.45 superpave gradation for 26.5 mm maximum aggregate size (19 mm NMAS). G2 has
less (38%) of coarser fraction (coarser than 4.75 mm) and more of 4.75–0.075 mm size material
compared to 0.45 gradation. G3 has less of larger size portion (26.5–13.2 mm) and less per-
cent passing 0.075 mm. G4 gradation is coarser than G1 with larger proportion of 23.5–4.75 mm
fraction. G5 gradation is similar to that of G1 (0.45 gradation) except that the gradation line
is made to pass below the restricted zone (Asphalt Institute manual SP2, 2004). G6 gradation
has lower proportion of 4.75–0.3 mm and more of both 0.3–0.075 mm and passing 0.075 mm
fractions. Gradations G7, G8 and G9 correspond to the lower, upper and mid-point gradation
limits of the gradation envelope for bituminous concrete BC-1 mix (NMAS of 19 mm) speci-
fied by MoRTH (2013). Bituminous concrete (BC) is commonly used as a surfacing layer for
24 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

Table 5. Summary of the experimental programme.

Experimental Bitumen Aggregate Specimen
objectives type gradation preparation Test conditions

Effect of bitumen 9 different G9 Samples prepared • Mr test: 1 Hz frequency,

type on rutting bitumens at 7% air voids at 124 ms load rise time,
and resilient design bitumen Test performed at 35°C
modulus test content and 50°C
parameters • Rut Testing: 25
Effect of aggregate VG30 9 different cycles/min; 700 N wheel
gradation on gradations load; 60°C, 20,000 cycles
rutting and (G1–G9) (40,000 passes)
resilient modulus • Bitumen rheological
test parameters testing: RTFO bitumen,
60°C, G*/sinδ at 10 rad/s,
Jnr @ 100 and 3200 Pa,
1 s loading, 9 s unloading

Table 6. Design bitumen contents for mixes with different bitumens and G9 gradation.

Bitumen used in the mix

PMB40 PMB70 PMB40 PMB70
VG10 VG30 VG40-S1 VG40-S2 (EVA) (EVA) (SBS) (SBS) CRMB60
4.59 4.33 4.56 4.47 4.20 4.29 4.52 4.44 4.78

Table 7. Design bitumen contents for mixes with different gradations and VG30 bitumen.

Gradation used in the mix

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9
4.25 5.28 6.34 4.46 4.51 4.53 4.94 4.25 4.33

high traffic volume roads in India. Compared to G1, G7 has higher coarser fraction and low
percentage passing 0.075 mm fraction. For G8, the coarser fraction is less and the quantities of
the two lower fractions (0.3–0.075 mm and passing 0.075 mm) are more. G9 is similar to that
of 0.45 gradation (G1) except that there are marginal differences in the proportions of some
fractions.
The details of different combinations of the experimental investigations considered in the study
are given in Table 5.

Mix design
Design bitumen contents for the eighteen mixes were selected from superpave volumetric mix
design exercise (Asphalt Institute Manual SP 2, 2004) for 4% design air void content. For the
conditions of high traffic volume and high service temperatures to which many of the Indian
highways are subjected, 172 gyration compaction effort was considered as appropriate. Design
bitumen contents are given in Tables 6 and 7.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 25

Table 8. G*/sinδ and J nr values.

Non-recoverable creep compliance, J nr
(kPa−1) for a shear stress of
Bitumen type G*/sinδ (Pa) 100 Pa 3200 Pa

VG10 4173.5 2.66 2.941

VG30 9897.4 0.649 0.807
VG40-S1 12,390.6 0.303 0.342
VG40-S2 45,970.4 0.103 0.09
PMB40 (EVA) 30,539.4 0.115 0.117
PMB70 (EVA) 13,124.2 0.23 0.266
PMB40 (SBS) 10,745.6 0.167 0.183
PMB70 (SBS) 6727.9 0.432 0.537
CRMB60 17,699 0.301 0.453

Measurement of bitumen rheological properties

Bitumen rheological parameters were evaluated at 60°C in two modes of testing (oscillation and
creep and recovery) using a dynamic shear rheometer (Malvern Kinexus DSR + rheometer was
used in the investigation). The test was conducted on short-term aged bitumen samples prepared
by ageing the samples in rolling thin film oven (ASTM D2872, 2012). Parallel plate geometry
with 25 mm diameter plate was used with a gap of 1 mm. Oscillation test (ASTM D7175, 2015)
was performed at 10 rad/s in stress-controlled mode. The G*/sinδ values measured for different
bitumens are given in Table 8. A multiple stress creep and recovery test was performed as per
ASTM D7405 (2015). The average non-recoverable creep compliance (J nr ) values are presented
in Table 8.

Measurement of resilient modulus

The resilient modulus test was conducted as per BS EN12697-26 (2012). Figure 1 shows the
experimental test setup used for conducting the indirect tensile resilient modulus test. Load was
selected to produce peak horizontal deformation in the range of 5–9 μm (BS EN, 12697-26:
2012). 150 mm diameter cylindrical specimens were prepared using a gyratory compactor. The
test was conducted out at two test temperatures: 35°C and 50°C. A typical load-deformation
(horizontal) plot drawn for the final five cycles of loading is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the representation of the test data for the initial 400 ms period. Time lag was
noted as the difference between the times of occurrence of the peaks of applied load and resulting
deformation. VLOOKUP function available in Microsoft excel was used for this purpose.
Figures 4–7 present the average resilient modulus value and time lag data for different mix
combinations. Three replicate specimens were tested for each mix combination. The error bars
in the Figures 4–7 are for one standard deviation.

Wheel tracking test on mixes

Since the time lag measured in the resilient modulus test is expected to be appropriate for explain-
ing the relative rutting susceptibility of asphalts, the wheel tracking test was conducted on mixes
to examine the relationship between time lag and mix rutting. Specimens of the 18 mixes con-
sidered in this study were prepared using design bitumen contents (given in Tables 6 and 7) by
compacting them to have 7% air void content. Figure 8 shows the wheel tracking test setup in
26 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

Figure 1. Experimental test setup for resilient modulus testing.

Figure 2. Load deformation plot of final 5 cycles in the resilient modulus test.

Figure 3. Time lag measured in the resilient modulus test.

 Road Materials and Pavement Design 27

Figure 4. Resilient modulus values of mixes with different bitumens (G9 gradation).

Figure 5. Time lag for mixes with different bitumen types and G9 gradation.

Figure 6. Resilient modulus values of mixes with different gradations (VG30 bitumen).
28 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

Figure 7. Time lag for mixes with different gradations (VG30 bitumen).

Figure 8. Wheel tracking test setup.

which the specimen are loaded by a normally loaded (700 ± 10 N) wheel which moves forwards
and backwards repeatedly at a frequency of 25 cycles/minute. The environmental chamber of
the equipment maintains the temperature of the specimen at the selected temperature of 60°C.
The specimens were conditioned at the test temperature for 4 hours prior to testing. Two 150 mm
diameter and 50 mm height specimens were tested simultaneously by fitting the two specimens
into the mould, as shown in Figure 8 after trimming the vertical faces of the specimens. For each
mix, four specimens were tested. The rut depths measured after 20,000 load cycles are presented
in Figures 9 and 10.

Analysis of data
The influence of aggregate gradation and bitumen type on resilient modulus, time lag and rut
depth can be seen clearly from the trends presented in Figures 4–7, 9 and 10. The ANOVA
results presented in Table 9 indicate that the mean values of time lag computed for different
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 29

Figure 9. Rut depth after 20,000 cycles for mixes with different bitumen (G9 Gradation).

Figure 10. Rut depth after 20,000 cycles for mixes with different gradations (VG30 bitumen).

mixes are statistically significant and that all the binders and gradations considered in this study
produced significantly different resilient modulus values and rut depth measurements.
The relationship between bitumen rutting parameters G*/sinδ and J nr both measured at 60°C,
and mix rut depth (also measured at 60°C) is presented in Figures 11 and 12. J nr parameter mea-
sured at 100 Pa as well as 3200 Pa correlated with rut depth much better compared to G*/sinδ.
Thus, for a given gradation, J nr parameter is found to be a better predictor of the rutting suscep-
tibility of mixes prepared using different bitumens. The fact that J nr correlates better with mix
rutting has been demonstrated in some previous studies (D’Angelo, 2009).
Stiffer mixes are generally expected to have greater resistance to rutting, and hence mixes with
higher resilient modulus values may be expected to have more rutting resistance. However, the
correlations obtained between the resilient modulus and rut depth are not very good and have
low R2 values.
For agencies that do not have J nr as a bitumen specification and which use resilient modulus as
an input parameter for analysis and design of bituminous pavements, time lag data extracted from
the resilient modulus test will be a useful parameter to assess the relative rutting susceptibility
30 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

Table 9. ANOVA table (α = .05) for Resilient modulus test parameters and rut depth.

Mix type Source of variation df MS F P-value

ANOVA results for resilient modulus measured at 50°C

Different bitumen and G9 gradation Between groups 8 3,580,536 657.863 0.000
Within groups 18 5442.68
Total 26
Different gradations and VG30 bitumen Between groups 8 162,566 97.1928 0.000
Within groups 18 1672.61
Total 26
ANOVA results for time lag measured at 50°C
Different bitumen and G9 gradation Between groups 8 39.55 138.609 0.000
Within groups 18 0.285
Total 26
Different gradations and VG30 bitumen Between groups 8 26.167 160.568 0.000
Within groups 18 0.163
Total 26
ANOVA results for rut depths measured at 60°C
Different bitumen and G9 gradation Between groups 8 3.827 166.163 0.000
Within groups 18 0.023
Total 26
Different gradations and VG30 bitumen Between groups 8 3.905 120.241 0.000
Within groups 18 0.032
Total 26

Figure 11. Correlation of G*/sinδ (60°C) with mix rutting (60°C).

of mixes prepared using different bitumens and aggregate gradations. As resilient modulus is an
input for many design methods, time lag, which can be measured at higher temperature after
the resilient modulus, is measured at the desired reference temperature. Figures 13–18 show the
correlation of time lag with rut depth.
It can be seen that very good correlation exists between time lag and rut depth for both groups
of mixes (with varying bitumen type and aggregate gradation). It can further be observed that for
mixes with variation of bitumen type, the correlation is much stronger for 50°C resilient modulus
test temperature when compared to 35°C. On the other hand, for mixes with single bitumen type
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 31

Figure 12. Correlation of non-recoverable creep compliance at 60°C with mix rutting (60°C).

Figure 13. Correlation of time lag (35°C) with rut depth for mixes with different bitumens (G9
Gradation).

Figure 14. Correlation of time lag (50°C) with rut depth for mixes with different bitumens (G9
Gradation).
32 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

Figure 15. Correlation of time lag (35°C) with rut depth for mixes with different gradations (VG30
bitumen).

Figure 16. Correlation of time lag (50°C) with rut depth for mixes with different aggregate gradations
(VG30 bitumen).

Figure 17. Variation of rut depth with time lag measured at 35°C for all 18 mixes.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 33

Figure 18. Variation of rut depth with time lag measured at 50°C for all 18 mixes.

and different aggregate gradation, the correlations are equally strong for both temperatures. Thus,
the test temperature is more important for evaluating the relative rutting susceptibility of mixes
with different bitumen types than when evaluating the effect of different aggregate gradation.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the present study:

• Experimental investigations conducted on different asphalts prepared using (a) different

bitumens and (b) different aggregate gradations suggest that time lag, which is the lag
between the applied stress and the resulting strain, is sensitive to bitumen type and also to
aggregate gradation.
• Strong correlation could be observed between the time lag values (measured from the M r
test) and rut depth measured in the wheel tracker test for mixes with (a) same gradation
and different binders and (b) same binder and different gradations.
• The correlation between time lag and mix rutting is found to be stronger for resilient mod-
ulus data obtained for 50°C test temperature especially for mixes prepared with different
bitumens.
• The fact that non-recoverable creep compliance (J nr ) is a superior rutting parameter
compared to G*/sinδ has been validated in this study.
• It is evident from the present study that time lag measured from resilient modulus test
conducted routinely by many agencies has the potential to be used as a mix rutting
parameter.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Anderson, D. A., & Kennedy, T. W. (1993). Development of SHRP binder specification. Proc. Association
of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 62, 481–507.
34 V. Radhakrishnan et al.

ASTM D2872. (2012). Standard test method for effect of heat and air on a moving film of Asphalt (Rolling
thin – film oven test). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D7175. (2015). Standard test method for determining the rheological properties of asphalt binder
using a dynamic shear rheometer. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASTM D7405. (2015). Standard test method for multiple stress creep and recovery (MSCR) of asphalt
binder using a dynamic shear rheometer. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Bahia, H. U., & Anderson, D. A. (1995). The new proposed rheological properties of asphalt binders: Why
are they required and how do they compare to conventional properties. In John C. Hardin (Ed.), Physical
properties of asphalt cement binders (pp. 1–27). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Bahia, H. U., Hanson, D. I., Zeng, M., Zhai, H., Khatri, M. A., & Anderson, R. M. (2001). Characterization
of modified asphalt binders in superpave mix design (No. Project 9-10 FY’96).
Birgisson, B., Roque, R., Kim, J., & Pham, L. V. (2004). The use of complex modulus to characterize the
performance of asphalt mixtures and pavements in Florida (No. Final Report).
BIS 73. (2013). Paving bitumen – specification (4th revision). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS 1202. (1978). Determination of specific gravity. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS 1203. (1978). Determination of penetration. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS 1205. (1978). Determination of softening point. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS 1208. (1978). Determination of ductility. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS 15462. (2004). Polymer and rubber modified bitumen – specification. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian
Standards.
BIS 2386 (Part I). (1963). Methods of test for aggregates for concrete, Part 1 Particle shape and size. New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
BIS 2386 (Part IV). (1963). Methods of test for aggregates for concrete, Part 1 mechanical properties. New
Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
Brown, E. R., Kandhal, P. S., & Zhang, J. (2001). Performance testing for hot mix asphalt. National Center
for Asphalt Technology Report, (01–05).
BS EN12697-26. (2012). Bituminous mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt, Part 26: Stiffness, Avenue
Marnix 17, B-1000, Brussels.
Christensen, D., & Bonaquist, R. (2007). Using the indirect tension test to evaluate rut resistance in develop-
ing hot-mix asphalt mix designs. Practical Approaches to Hot-Mix Asphalt Mix Design and Production
Quality Control Testing, 62. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec124.pdf
Cooley, L. A., Kandhal, P. S., Buchanan, M. S., Fee, F., & Epps, A. (2000). Loaded wheel testers in the
United States: State of the practice. Auburn, AL: Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council.
D’Angelo, J. A. (2009). The relationship of the MSCR test to rutting. Road Materials and Pavement Design,
10(suppl. 1), 61–80.
Denneman, E., Lee, J., Dias, M., & Petho, L. (2016). Improved design procedures for Asphalt pavements
(Research Report AP-R511-16), Austroads, 287 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia.
Dessouky, S., Masad, E., & Bayomy, F. (2004). Prediction of hot mix asphalt stability using the superpave
gyratory compactor. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16(6), 578–587.
French design manual for pavement structures. (1997). LCPC/SETRA Ed.
Hofko, B., & Blab, R. (2014). Enhancing triaxial cyclic compression testing of hot mix asphalt by
introducing cyclic confining pressure. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 15(1), 16–34.
IRC 37. (2012). Tentative guidelines for design of flexible pavements. New Delhi, India: Indian Roads
Congress.
Kennedy, T. W., Huber, G. A., Harrigan, E. T., Cominsky, R. J., Hughes, C. S., Von Quintus, H., &
Moulthrop, J. S. (1994). Superior performing asphalt pavements (Superpave): The product of the SHRP
asphalt research program (Report No. SHRP-A-410). Strategic Highway Research Program, National
Research Council.
Mallick, R. (1999). Use of Superpave gyratory compactor to characterize hot-mix asphalt. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1681, 86–96.
McGennis, R. B., Anderson, R. M., Kennedy, T. W., & Solaimanian, M. (1995). Background of superpave
asphalt mixture design and analysis. National asphalt training center demonstration project 101. Final
report, December 1992-November 1994 (No. PB–95-221495/XAB). Asphalt Inst., Lexington, KY.
Morea, F., Agnusdei, J. O., & Zerbino, R. (2011). The use of asphalt low shear viscosity to predict
permanent deformation performance of asphalt concrete. Materials and Structures, 44(7), 1241–1248.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 35

MoRTH. (2013). Ministry of road transport and highways. Specifications for road and bridge works. (5th
Revision). New Delhi: Indian Roads Congress.
NCHRP 1-37A. (2004). Guide for mechanistic – empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement
structures (Final Report). Champaign, Illinois.
Pellinen, T., & Witczak, M. (2002). Use of stiffness of hot-mix asphalt as a simple performance test.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1789, 80–90.
Roy, N., Veeraragavan, A., & Krishnan, J. M. (2016). Influence of confinement pressure and air voids
on the repeated creep and recovery of asphalt concrete mixtures. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 17(2), 133–147.
Shenoy, A. (2001). Refinement of the Superpave specification parameter for performance grading of
asphalt. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 127(5), 357–362.
Shenoy, A., & Romero, P. (2002). Standardized procedure for analysis of dynamic modulus E* data to
predict asphalt pavement distresses. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1789, 173–182.
Sousa, J. B., Durrani, A. Z., & Raja, Z. I. (2002). Application of the repeated simple shear test at constant
height in the prediction of permanent deformation performance of asphalt mixes in Pakistan. Road
Materials and Pavement Design, 3(2), 151–165.
South African Pavement Design Manual. (2014). Chapter 10, Second Edition, Republic of South Africa.
SP-2. (2004). Superpave Series No. 2, Superpave Mix Design, Asphalt Institute (4th ed.). Lexington, KY:
Research Park Drive.
Sybilski, D. (1996). Zero-shear viscosity of bituminous binder and its relation to bituminous mixture’s
rutting resistance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1535, 15–21.
Tayebali, A., Khosla, N., Malpass, G., & Waller, H. (1999). Evaluation of superpave repeated shear at
constant height test to predict rutting potential of mixes: Performance of three pavement sections in
North Carolina. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1681,
97–105.
Witczak, M.W., Kaloush, K., Pellinen, T., El-Basyouny, M., & Von Quintus, H. (2002) NCHRP Report 465.
Simple performance test for superpave mix design. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.