See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277664119

How to Construct an Asphalt Binder Master Curve and Assess the Degree of
Blending between RAP and Virgin Binders

Article in Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · December 2013

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000726

CITATIONS READS

89 7,967

3 authors:

Abbas Booshehrian Walaa Mogawer

University of Minnesota Twin Cities University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
16 PUBLICATIONS 1,026 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 2,353 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ramon Bonaquist
Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC
43 PUBLICATIONS 1,482 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abbas Booshehrian on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 How to Construct Asphalt Binder Master Curve and Assess the Degree of

2 Blending Between RAP and Virgin Binders

3
4 Abbas Booshehrian
5 Graduate Research Assistant
6 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
7 Highway Sustainability Research Center (HSRC)
8 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
9 151 Martine Street – Room 124, Fall River, MA 02723
10 Phone: (508) 910-9865
11 Fax: (508) 999-9120
12 Email: abooshehrian@umassd.edu
13
14
15 Dr. Walaa S. Mogawer, PE – Corresponding Author
16 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
17 Highway Sustainability Research Center (HSRC)
18 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
19 151 Martine Street – Room 131, Fall River, MA 02723
20 Phone: (508) 910-9824
21 Fax: (508) 999-9120
22 Email: wmogawer@umassd.edu
23 (Corresponding author)
24
25 Dr. Ramon Bonaquist, P.E.
26 Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC
27 108 Powers Court
28 Suite 100
29 Sterling, VA 20166
30 Phone: (703) 444-4200
31 Fax: (703) 444-4368
32 Email: aatt@erols.com
33
34
35
36
37
38

39

40

41
 Booshehrian et al. 1

1 ABSTRACT

2 The master curve of an asphalt binder provides a relationship between the binder stiffness and

3 reduced frequency over a range of temperatures and frequencies. Accordingly, the master curve

4 makes it possible to predict viscoelastic properties over a wide frequency range and also to

5 predict viscoelastic properties at any temperature. To construct a master curve, the stiffness of

6 an asphalt binder at multiple temperatures and frequencies is measured. The data is then fitted

7 into the Christensen-Anderson model (CAM) which is s a standard model applied to asphalt

8 binders.

9 Recently, a methodology has been developed that utilizes the measured dynamic modulus of a

10 hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixture and the master curves for the as-recovered binders to determine

11 the degree of blending between aged and virgin binders in asphalt mixtures that incorporates

12 recycled materials.

13 This study presents the methodology for constructing asphalt binder master curves using the

14 CAM in a step-by-step format. The study also describes in a step-by-step format the

15 methodology for evaluating the degree of blending between Aged and virgin binder.

16 Furthermore, to clarify the method and elaborate on the analysis of experimental results, plant

17 produced mixtures containing different percentages of RAP were obtained and tested. The test

18 results were used to develop the master curves and examine the degree of blending by the aid of

19 the methodology explained in the paper.

20

21 CE Database Subject Headings: Asphalt binders, Asphalt mixtures, Extraction, Dynamic

22 modulus test, binder testing.

23
24
 Booshehrian et al. 2

1 INTRODUCTION

2 The performance grading of asphalt binders according to AASHTO R29 “Grading or Verifying

3 the Performance Grade of an Asphalt Binder” and AASHTO M320 “Standard Specification for

4 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder” provides a snapshot of the rheological characteristics of

5 asphalt binders at high, intermediate, and low pavement temperature. To completely

6 characterize the flow characteristics of asphalt binders, researchers have investigated the concept

7 of developing master curves for asphalt binders (Anderson, et al., 1991; Christensen and

8 Anderson, 1992). The master curve characterizes the stiffness of asphalt binders over a wide

9 range of loading times and temperatures. Accordingly, the stiffness of asphalt binders would be

10 measured at several temperatures and then combined in a single “master curve” by shifting

11 individual stiffness curves along the time axis to obtain a stiffness curve at a reference

12 temperature. The resulting master curve and its associated temperature shift factors provide a

13 complete characterization of the stiffness-temperature response of a typical asphalt binder

14 A typical master curve that utilizes the complex shear modulus, G*, of asphalt binder as

15 the stiffness measurement is illustrated in Figure 1 (Christensen and Anderson, 1992).

16 Christensen and Anderson developed a mathematical model, equation 1, which can fully

17 characterize the viscoelastic properties of asphalt binder.

18
19
R
 log 2
 log 2
 
G * ( )  G g 1   c 
R
 (1)
  r  
 
20
21 Where:
22 G*() = complex shear modulus
23 Gg = glass modulus assumed equal to 1GPa
24 r = reduced frequency at the defining temperature, rad/sec
25 c = cross over frequency at the defining temperature, rad/sec
 Booshehrian et al. 3

1  = frequency, rad/sec
2 R = rheological index
3
4 The Christensen-Anderson model is a very useful tool because the master curve parameters (c,

5 R, and Td) have specific physical significance. The cross-over frequency, c, is a measure of the

6 overall hardness of the binder. As the cross-over frequency decreases, the hardness increases.

7 The rheological index, R, is an indicator of the rheologic type. It is defined as the difference

8 between the log of the glassy modulus and the log of the dynamic modulus at the cross-over

9 frequency. As the value of R increases, the master curve becomes flatter indicating a more

10 gradual transition from elastic behavior to steady-state flow. In other words, the behavior of the

11 asphalt at intermediate loading times and temperatures will be more rubbery/leathery and less

12 brittle. Normally, R is higher for oxidized asphalt. The defining temperature, Td, is related to the

13 glass transition temperature of the binder, and is an indicator of the temperature dependency of

14 the material. The temperature dependency increases as Td increases (Anderson, et al., 1991;

15 Christensen and Anderson, 1992).

16 Asphalt binder master curves have also been constructed and used to characterize the

17 viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders, to compare asphalt mixtures by extracting and

18 recovering the binders and constructing the master curve for the as-recovered binder.

19 Furthermore, a procedure have been developed by Bonaquist (Bonaquist, 2005) that utilizes the

20 as-recovered master curve and the measured dynamic modulus of the associated hot mix asphalt

21 (HMA) mixture to evaluate the degree of blending between virgin and aged binder from readily

22 available recycled materials. Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and recycled asphalt shingles

23 (RAS) are both available recycled materials. Many agencies are reluctant to allow producers to

24 use more than 10 to 20 percent RAP because it is not clear whether sufficient mixing between

25 virgin and aged binder occurs (Bonaquist, 2007). This method can remarkably help researchers
 Booshehrian et al. 4

1 and agencies to have an understanding about the degree of blending between new and recycled

2 materials. Nevertheless, there is no document that present the step-by-step tests and analysis

3 needed to construct the asphalt binder master curve.

4 This paper will present a step-by-step description of the tests and analysis needed to

5 construct asphalt binder master curves. It will also describe how the master curve can be used to

6 evaluate the degree of blending between virgin and aged binders. Several plant produced

7 mixtures were obtained. These mixtures were produced with different RAP contents. The

8 master curves of the extracted and recovered binders were plotted and used to evaluate the

9 degree of blending between the virgin and aged binder for each mixture.

10

11 OBJECTIVES

12 The main objectives of this research study were classified into two categories.

13 How to construct master curve and assess the degree of blending:

14 1. Describe in a step-by-step format the tests and analysis needed to construct a master

15 curve for asphalt binders using the Christensen Anderson model.

16 2. Describe in a step-by-step format the test and analysis needed to assess the degree of

17 blending.

18 How to apply the method on plant and reheated mixtures:

19 1. Obtain HMA mixtures that are plant produced with different RAP contents

20 2. Measure the dynamic modulus of each mixture.

21 3. Extract and recover the asphalt binder from each mixture.

22 4. Construct a master curve for each binder.

 Booshehrian et al. 5

1 5. Use the master curves of the binders to evaluate the degree of blending between the

2 RAP and virgin binders.

4 Procedure for Constructing a Binder Master Curve

5 Master curves require Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) and Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)

6 testing at multiple temperatures. The DSR testing was conducted in accordance with AASHTO

7 T315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using Dynamic Shear

8 Rheometer (AASHTO, 2010) and the BBR testing was conducted in accordance with AASHTO

9 313, Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam

10 Rheometer (AASHTO, 2010). The steps needed to construct the master curve for the binders are

11 described in the following:

12

13 Step 1: Measuring the Complex Shear Modulus (G*) and Stiffness S(t) of Binders

14 The G* of the binders were measured by conducting a frequency sweep at multiple temperatures

15 using the DSR. At each temperature, sixteen G* values were collected by running a frequency

16 sweep (100 to 0.1 rad/s). Table 1 shows the different combinations of temperatures and

17 frequencies at which the G* was measured. For temperatures in the range of 10 to 34C the

18 8mm DSR head geometry was used. For temperatures higher than 34C, the 25mm DSR head

19 geometry was used. It should be noted that for the DSR strain level, it is required to use a strain

20 level lower than the maximum strain that could be used while maintaining linear behavior. These

21 strain levels must be calculated for each test temperature by running a strain sweep test on the

22 asphalt binder specimen according to AASHTO T315, Determining the Rheological Properties

23 of Asphalt Binder Using Dynamic Shear Rheometer (AASHTO, 2010). Also, the BBR was used
 Booshehrian et al. 6

1 to measure the stiffness S(t) of each binder at temperatures below 0C. The S(t) of each binder

2 was then converted to a G*. For each negative temperature, six stiffness values S(t) were

3 collected as shown in the Table 1.

5 Step 2: Converting Stiffness values from BBR to G*

6 The stiffness of each binder S(t) measured at different times using the BBR was converted to G*.

7 Equation 2 presents the simplest and most common relationship relating complex shear modulus

8 to stiffness at a certain frequency (Christensen and Anderson, 1992).

S (t ) 1
G * ( )  ,  (t: seconds,  in rad/s) (2)
3 t
9
10
11 Step 3: Constructing Master Curve Using Christensen-Anderson model at Td

12 The master curve provides relationship between the G* of a recovered binder and reduced

13 frequency (r) on a log-log scale. The r is calculated using Equation 3 and is function of the

14 shift factor log a(T). The shift factor represents the amount of shifting required at each

15 temperature to be shifted to a defining temperature (Td). The plot of shift factors versus

16 temperatures, generally prepared in conjunction with the master curve, gives a visual

17 representation of how the viscoelastic properties of a binder changes with temperature

18 (Anderson, et al., 1991; Christensen and Anderson, 1992; Rowe and Sharrock, 2011).

r   10loga (T ) (3)
19
20 Where:
21 r = reduced frequency at the defining temperature, rad/sec
22  = frequency, rad/sec
23 Log a(T) = shift factor
24 T = temperature, K
25
 Booshehrian et al. 7

1 For temperatures above Td, it was found that the shift factor for asphalt binders can be

2 accurately described using a modified Williams-Landel-Ferry (WLF) equation (Anderson, et al.,

3 1991) shown as Equation 4.

 19T  Td 
log a(T )  (4)
92  T  Td
4

5 However, for temperatures below Td, the shift factor can be described more accurately by an

6 Arrhenius function (Anderson, et al., 1991) shown as Equation 5.

1 1 
log a(T)  13016.07   (5)
 T Td 
7
8 Where:
9 Log a(T) = shift factor
10 T = temperature, K
11 Td = defining temperature, K
12
13 The shift factors are calculated using Equations 4 and 5 and then substituted in Equation 3 to

14 calculate the r. The r is then substituted in the Christensen-Anderson model, Equation 1, to

15 construct a master curve at the Td for all the recovered binders.

16 In order to construct the master curve, the three unknown parameters in the Christensen-

17 Anderson model, c, R, and Td, need to be calculated. To do so, an initial value was assumed for

18 each of the three unknowns. Having the initial value for Td, r can be computed by using

19 equations 3 to 5. Then, r and R were used in Equation 1 to calculate G* at different

20 combinations of temperature and frequency. The Microsoft® Excel Solver tool was used to

21 minimize the sum of the squared errors (SSE) of the logarithm of calculated and measured G* by

22 varying the c, R, and Td. The three parameters at the minimum SSE were used in Equation 1 to

23 construct the master curve.

 Booshehrian et al. 8

2 Step 4: Shifting the Master Curves to Tr

3 In step 3, the G* values at any temperature and frequency have been shifted to a G* at a defining

4 temperature (Td). However, Td is an intrinsic characteristic of each binder. Therefore, in order to

5 compare the binders from the different mixtures, master curves were shifted to a single

6 temperature identified as the reference temperature (Tr). In this study, Tr is equal to 25°C which

7 is a common intermediate temperature for pavements. Since the master curve have been

8 constructed at Td , in order to have a master curve at Tr, Tr must be treated as an assumed

9 temperature (T) and each unknown at Tr can be calculated by known variables at Td, those of

10 which computed at Step 3 (Christensen and Anderson, 1992). The same equations can be

11 applied with only one difference which is substituting T with Tr. Shifting only affects the log

12 a(T) and c of the binders and R remains constant since the shifting moves the curve horizontally

13 (changes the reduced frequency) and not vertically (G* is constant). The shift factors at Tr are

14 calculated by using Equations 4 and 5 and using Tr instead of T. By using Equation 3 and

15 substituting T with Tr, the cross over frequency at Tr can be calculated by calculating the shift

16 factor between Tr and Td (Equation 6 and 7).

c @T  c @T  10loga (T T )
d r
r d
(6)
17

18 Consequently we have:

c @T  c @T / 10loga (T T )
r d
r d
(7)
19

20 The R from step 3 and the calculated c at Tr (Equation 7) were used in Equation 1 to calculate

21 G* at Tr. The calculated/shifted G* can be plotted versus r to construct the master curve at a

22 reference temperature (Tr). To plot the shift factor log a(T) versus temperature (T) at Tr, the
 Booshehrian et al. 9

1 combination of two shifts should be considered. First, shifting from T to Td, and then subtracting

2 the shift from Tr to Td to result in shifting from T to Tr. Therefore,

log a(T  Tr )  log a(T  Td )  log a(Tr  Td ) (8)

3
4

5 Procedure for Evaluating the Degree of Blending/Mixing

6 The degree of blending/mixing between the RAP and the virgin binders will have a significant

7 impact on the volumterics and performance of HMA containing RAP. A method was developed

8 by Bonaquist to assess that degree by comparing the measured dynamic modulus (E*) of the

9 mixtures with predicted dynamic modulus from binder testing of as-recovered binders

10 (Copeland, 2011). The former represents the real blending of the virgin binder with RAP, and

11 the latter represents the fully blended condition. The |E*| is used in the method because it is

12 highly sensitive to the stiffness of the binder (G*) in the mixture.

13

14 Step I: Constructing Partial Master Curve at Tr

15 Since the measured |E*| were normally tested at temperatures ≥ 4C and frequencies 0.1 to 25

16 Hz, the DSR data, at temperatures ≥ 4C and frequencies 0.1 to 100 rad/s can be used to

17 construct a partial master curve for the extracted binders by fitting the data to the Christensen-

18 Anderson model, Equation 1, following Steps 3 and 4. Therefore, a more accurate master curve

19 for positive temperatures can be constructed by eliminating the BBR results for negative

20 temperatures.

21

22 Step II: Calculating G* Values Corresponding to the Test Temperature and Frequency of

23 Measured E*
 Booshehrian et al. 10

1 Using the partial master curve, G* values for any combination of frequency and temperature can

2 be calculated. In order to study the degree of blending, the frequencies and temperatures at

3 which the |E*| were tested are of interest and determined in the following manner. First,

4 Equation 8 was used to measure the shift factor between each mixture test temperature and

5 reference temperature (Tr). Second, the test frequency was shifted using Equation 3 by having

6 the above-mentioned shift factor to obtain the reduced frequency at Tr. Finally, utilizing the

7 partial master curve from Step I and calculated reduced frequency, the G* value was then

8 computed using equation 1.

10 Step III: Predicting E* Values Corresponding to G* using the Hirsch Model

11 The binder G* calculated in Step II was inputted in the Hirsch model, Equations 9 and 10, to

12 calculate the predicted mixture dynamic modulus |E*| for fully blended conditions.

13
  VMA   VFA  VMA 
| E* |mix  Pc 4,200,0001    3 | G* |binder  
  100   10,000 
1  Pc

  VMA   (9)
 1  100  
  VMA

 4,200,000 3 VFA | G* |binder 
 
 
14
VFA  3 | G* | binder 
0.58

 20  
 VMA 
Pc  (10)
 VFA  3 | G* | binder 
0.58

650   
 VMA 
15
16 Where:
17 |E*|mix = mixture dynamic modulus, psi
18 |G*|binder = binder shear modulus, psi
19 VMA = Voids in mineral aggregates, %
20 VFA= Voids filled with asphalt, %
21
 Booshehrian et al. 11

1 Step IV: Comparing Measured E*with Predicted E*

2 At each temperature and frequency of dynamic modulus test, a measured E* (provided by

3 testing) and a predicted |E*| (provided by steps I to III) were collected. The predicted and

4 measured |E*| were then compared statistically to determine if good or poor degree of blending

5 exists.

6 The first step in the statistical analysis was to compute the 95% confidence interval for

7 measured |E*|. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the mean dynamic modulus for tests on

8 multiple specimens was determined as outlined in AASHTO TP 79, Standard Method of Test for

9 Determining the Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number for Hot Mix Asphalt: (HMA) Using the

10 Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) (AASHTO Provisional, 2010). Based on the

11 number of replicates, the appropriate confidence interval was calculated by Equation 11.

S
Range  x  z / 2  (11)
n
12
13 Where:
14 Zα/2 = 1.96
15 n = Number of replicates
16

17 The next step in the statistical analysis was to compute the 95% confidence interval for the

18 predicted |E*|. In order to construct the confidence interval for the predicted values, the

19 precision of the prediction model (Hirsch model) was examined. The residual values of Hirsch

20 model were collected and the standard deviation of the residuals was determined (Christensen, et

21 al., 2003). Equation 11 was used again to construct the interval. If the measured and predicted

22 confidence intervals overlap, there is an indication that the blending between virgin and recycled

23 materials has occurred (good blending). The lower the difference between the measured and
 Booshehrian et al. 12

1 predicted |E*|, is indicative of better blending. If the intervals do not overlap, that is an indication

2 that the blending is poor blending.

4 Plant-Produced Mixtures

5 Plant produced mixtures incorporating varying percentages of RAP were obtained from Callanan

6 Industries in New York as shown in Tables 2 and 3.

8 Dynamic Modulus Test

9 The dynamic modulus of the plant and reheated asphalt mixtures at multiple temperatures and

10 frequencies need to be determined using either AASHTO TP 79, Standard Method of Test for

11 Determining the Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number for Hot Mix Asphalt: (HMA) Using the

12 Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT). Each specimen was tested at temperatures of 4°C,

13 20°C, and 35°C (39ºF, 68ºF, and 95ºF) and loading frequencies of 25 Hz, 10 Hz, 5 Hz, 1 Hz, 0.5

14 Hz, 0.1 Hz, and 0.01 Hz (35°C only) in accordance with AASHTO PP61 “Developing Dynamic

15 Modulus Master Curves for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance

16 Tester (AMPT)” (AASHTO, 2010)

17 .

18 Recovery and Extraction of the Binders

19 Appropriate mass of plant mixture was used to extract and then recover the binders (combination

20 of new and aged binder) according to AASHTO T 164, Standard Method of Test for Quantitative

21 Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)(AASHTO 2010) and AASHTO T

22 170, Standard Method of Test for Recovery of Asphalt Binder from Solution by Abson Method

23 (AASHTO 2010), respectively.

 Booshehrian et al. 13

1 Since the analysis for both master curve and degree of blending are highly dependent on the

2 properties of extracted binders, extra care must be taken while extraction and recovery. The use

3 of chemical solution can manipulate the realistic characteristics of asphalt binders.

5 Master Curves for the as-recovered and aged binders

6 To completely characterize the flow characteristics of the recovered binders, master curves were

7 constructed for the as-recovered and PAV-aged binders. The Christensen-Anderson model

8 parameters, R, c, and Td associated with the master curves are presented in Table 4 for both the

9 as-recovered and the PAV aged binders. Figures 2 and 3 illustrates the master curve for the as

10 recovered and PAV aged binders, respectively.

11 In Table 4, the c is lower for PAV-aged binders in comparison to as-recovered binders

12 for each mixture. Hence, the hardness increases with PAV aging for all the recovered binders.

13 Additionally, for the PG 64-22, as the percent RAP increased, the hardness of the as-recovered

14 binders increased. The use of a softer binder, PG 58-28, dropped the hardness of the 30% and

15 40% RAP to a level lower than the hardness of the control (0% RAP) mixture produced using the

16 PG 64-22. This indicated that the use of a softer binder might alleviate the increase in stiffness

17 associated with the inclusion of high RAP contents. Generally, the R and Td values showed an

18 increase in stiffness and temperature dependency as the RAP content increased.

19 The master curves in Figures 2 and 3 showed, in general, the expected trend – as the RAP

20 content in the mixture increased, the stiffness of the mixture increased. This trend was more

21 evident at the intermediate and the high temperature.

22 Figure 4 shows a schematic example of the parameters in the Christensen-Anderson

23 model. The two master curves are related to as-recovered and PAV-aged extracted binder of
 Booshehrian et al. 14

1 mixture PG 58-28 with 40% RAP. As mentioned earlier in Figure 1, by drawing the viscous

2 asymptote and glass asymptote and having the intersection point, the cross over frequency, c,

3 and the R value can be calculated.

4 As it can be seen, the PAV-aged binder has a higher value for R, which contributes to a

5 flatter curve and consequently more brittle binder. The c for As-recovered binder is higher

6 which, as expected, demonstrates the lower stiffness of this binder in comparison with PAV-aged

7 one.

9 Assessing the Degree of Blending for each mixture

10 Figures 5 through 10 present the degree of blending for all the mixtures. All the mixtures

11 exhibited a good degree of blending. However, the mixture with 30 percent RAP content

12 produced with the softer binder, PG 58-28, did not have as good a degree of blending as the other

13 mixtures. Although the measured and predicted confidence interval for the |E*| overlapped, the

14 difference in the mean values between the measured and predicted were higher in comparison to

15 the other mixtures. This could be attributed to the lower discharge temperature for this mixture

16 relative to the other mixtures. It should be noted, however, that the 30 percent RAP content with

17 the stiffer binder (PG 64-22) had as good degree of blending as the rest of the mixtures at the

18 lower discharge temperature.

19 In addition, the degree of blending for the reheated mixtures was examined along with the

20 plant mixtures. As it can be seen in Figures 5 through 10, the blending between new and recycled

21 materials was slightly improved during the reheating process. This could be due to the fact that

22 reheating has stiffened the mixtures further leading to measured E* values that are close to the

23 predicted E* values.
 Booshehrian et al. 15

1 Summary

2 A step-by-step procedure for constructing a master curve for asphalt binder was presented. The

3 data collected to construct the master curve were shifted using the Christensen-Anderson model

4 which is a standard model being used for asphalt binders. Additionally, a step-by-step

5 description of a methodology, that uses the asphalt binder master curve and the measured

6 stiffness of the corresponding mixture, was expressed to evaluate the degree of blending between

7 RAP and virgin binders. This methodology was used to evaluate the degree of blending for a

8 plant produced mixture that was produced using different RAP contents. The RAP contents

9 were 0%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. Also, in addition to using the same PG binder for all RAP

10 contents, a softer binder was used for the two highest RAP contents.

11 All the mixtures exhibited a good degree of blending. However, the mixture with 30

12 percent RAP content produced with the softer binder, PG 58-28, did not have as good a degree of

13 blending as the other mixtures. Although the measured and predicted confidence interval for the

14 |E*| overlapped, the difference in the mean values between the measured and predicted were

15 higher in comparison to the other mixtures. This could be attributed to the lower discharge

16 temperature for this mixture relative to the other mixtures.

17

18 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

19 The authors would like to acknowledge Callanan Industries in New York, who produced and

20 supplied the mixtures for this project, also, Pike Industries, Inc. who performed all of the binder

21 extractions and recoveries for this study.

22

23
 Booshehrian et al. 16

1 REFERENCES

2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2010). Standard

3 Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing.

4 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

5 (AASHTO),Washington, D.C., 30th Edition.

6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2010). AASHTO

7 Provisional Standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation

8 Officials (AASHTO).Washington, D.C. 14th Edition.

9 Anderson, D., Christensen, D., and Bahia, H. (1991). “Physical Properties of Asphalt Cement

10 and the Development of Performance Related Specifications.” Journal of the Association

11 of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 60, 437-532.

12 Bonaquist, R. (2005). “New Approach for the Design of High RAP HMA.” Presented at the

13 2005 Northeast Asphalt User’s Producer’s Group Meeting, Burlington, VT, October 19th

14 to 20th.

15 Bonaquist, R. (2007). “Can I Run More RAP?” Hot Mix Asphalt Technology. Sep/Oct, 11-13.

16

17 Christensen, D. and Anderson, D. (1992). “Interpretation of Dynamic Mechanical Test Data for

18 Paving Grade Asphalt.” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 61,

19 67-116.

20 Christensen, D., Pellinen, T., and Bonaquist, R.(2003). “Hirsch Model for Estimating the

21 Modulus of Asphalt Concrete.” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving

22 Technologists, 72, 97-121.

 Booshehrian et al. 17

1 Copeland, A. (2011). “Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mixtures: State of the Practice.”

2 Publication FHWA-HRT-11-021, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal

3 Highway Administration, McLean, VA, April.

4 Rowe, G., and Sharrock, M. (2011). “Alternate Shift Factor Relationship for Describing the

5 Temperature Dependency of the Visco-elastic Behavior of Asphalt Materials.”

6 Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD,

7 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Paper

8 #11-3692.

10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
 Booshehrian et al. 18

1 LIST OF TABLES

3 TABEL 1. Test Conditions Used in Constructing the Binder Master Curve.

4 TABLE 2. Plant Produced Mixtures Gradation.

5 TABLE 3. Plant Produced Mixtures – Properties and Production Information.

6 TABEL 4. Binders Rheological Properties.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

35
36
37
 Booshehrian et al. 19

1 LIST OF FIGURES

3 Fig. 1. A Typical Master Curve and Physical Properties.

4 Fig. 2. Master Curves for As-recovered Binders.

5 Fig. 3. Master Curves for PAV-Aged Binders.

6 Fig. 4. Comparison of Rheological Properties of As-recovered and PAV Aged Binder (58-28

7 40%RAP).

8 Fig. 5. Degree of Blending for Mixture 58-28 30%RAP.

9 Fig. 6. Degree of Blending for Mixture 58-28 40%RAP.

10 Fig. 7. Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 0%RAP.

11 Fig. 8. Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 20%RAP.

12 Fig. 9. Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 30%RAP.

13 Fig. 10. Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 40%RAP.

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 .TABEL 1 Test Conditions Used in Constructing the Binder Master Curve.
Intermediate & High
Low Temperature
Temperatures
Dynamic Shear Rheometer Bending Beam
Test Device
(DSR) Rheometer (BBR)
Temperature, C 10 22 34 46 58 70 -10, -16, -22, -28
Strain Level, % 0.1 1 1 5 10 10 n/a
0.100, 0.159, 0.251, 0.398,
Frequency (), 0.631, 1.000, 1.59, 2.51, 3.98,
n/a
rad/sec 6.31, 10.0, 15.9, 25.1, 39.8,
63.1, 100
Time, sec. n/a 8, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240
n/a = Not Applicable
 TABLE 2 Plant Produced Mixtures Gradation.

PG Plant % NMAS Final Gradation of the mix

Grade Type RAP (mm) 12.5 9.5 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
58-28 Drum 40 12.5 98.1 89.3 53.7 32 17.9 12.5 8.5 5.1 3.2
58-28 Drum 30 12.5 97.5 91.2 59.5 33.3 21.2 14.7 9.7 5.8 5.3
64-22 Drum 40 12.5 97.6 88.7 53 30.9 19.3 14.3 10.1 6.1 4.3
64-22 Drum 30 12.5 95 85.8 54.4 30.2 22.7 16.5 11.6 7.8 6
64-22 Drum 20 12.5 99.1 90.8 59 30.9 18.8 11.8 8.3 6.7 3.8
64-22 Drum 0 12.5 99.8 90.8 68.3 42.3 26.8 18.9 13.2 5.2 3.8
 TABLE 3 Plant Produced Mixtures – Properties and Production Information.

% Agg. Discharge Comp. Storage

PG % %
RAP VMA VFA Temp. Temp. Temp. Time
grade Binder RAP
Binder (°C) (°C) (°C) (hrs)
58-28 5.2 40 4.9 12.7 88.36 232 166 135 4
58-28 5.2 30 4.93 13.7 81.12 210 152 135 3.5
64-22 5.2 40 4.9 12.53 87.9 232 166 143 3
64-22 5.2 30 4.93 12.96 85.08 210 152 143 2.75
64-22 5.2 20 4.95 14.09 79.86 210 160 143 0.75
64-22 5.2 0 -- 12.64 89.32 191 154 143 2.75
 TABEL 4 Binders Rheological Properties

Rheological Properties
Base PG RAP
Condition Grade Content ɷc, at 25
Binder (%) R C, Td (C)
(rad/sec)
30% 1.962 413.45 -12.49
58-28
As-Recovered
40% 1.841 1109 -13.57
0% 2.146 170.41 -4.26
20% 2.15 139.43 -3.47
64-22
30% 2.224 95.06 -3.54
40% 2.228 56.03 -3.45
30% 2.791 1.52 6.14
58-28
40% 2.631 6.58 3.88
PAV-Aged

0% 2.627 2.68 5.44

20% 2.642 2.01 6.26
64-22
30% 2.668 1.45 5.81
40% 2.924 0.24 12.56
 Glassy Modulus  1 GPa
1.0E+09

1.0E+08
Rheological Index, R
1.0E+07
-28 C BBR
Viscous -22 C BBR
1.0E+06
Asymptote -16 C BBR
-10 C BBR
1.0E+05 10 C DSR
G*, Pa

22 C DSR

1.0E+04 34 C DSR
46 C DSR
58 C DSR
1.0E+03
70 C DSR
FIT
1.0E+02
Cross-Over
1.0E+01 Frequency, c

1.0E+00
1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06 1.0E+08 1.0E+10

Reduced Frequency at 25 oC, rad/sec

FIGURE 1 A Typical Master Curve and Physical Properties.

 1.0E+09
As-recovered

1.0E+08 58-28 30%

58-28 40%
64-22 0%
1.0E+07
64-22 20%
64-22 30%
1.0E+06
64-22 40%

1.0E+05 10
G* (Pa)

1.0E+04 6

Log Shift Factor

4

1.0E+03 2

-2
1.0E+02
-4

-6
1.0E+01 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Temperature (°C)

1.0E+00
1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06
Reduced Frequency at 25 C (rad/sec)

FIGURE 2 Master Curves for As-recovered Binders.

 1.0E+09
PAV-Aged

1.0E+08 58-28 30%

58-28 40%
1.0E+07 64-22 0%
64-22 20%
1.0E+06 64-22 30%
64-22 40%

1.0E+05
G* (Pa)

10
8

1.0E+04 6

Log Shift Factor

4
2
1.0E+03 0
-2

1.0E+02 -4
-6
-8 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
1.0E+01
Temperature (°C)

1.0E+00
1.0E-08 1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06
Reduced Frequency at 25 C (rad/sec)

FIGURE 3 Master Curves for PAV-Aged Binders.

 1.0E+09
58-28 40%RAP

R = 1.84
1.0E+08

R =2.63
As-recovered
1.0E+07

PAV Aged
1.0E+06

1.0E+05 10
G* (Pa)

1.0E+04 6

Log Shift Factor

4

2
1.0E+03
0

-2
1.0E+02
-4

ɷc = 1109
ɷc = 6.58

-6
1.0E+01 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Temperature (°C)

1.0E+00
1.0E-08 1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06 1.0E+08 1.0E+10
Reduced Frequency at 25 C (rad/sec)

FIGURE 4 Comparison of Rheological Properties of As-recovered and PAV Aged Binder (58-28 40%RAP).
 100000 Measured Plant E*
58-28 30%RAP Predicted Plant E*
Measured Reheated E*
10000
Predicted Reheated E*
Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

1000

100

10

Temp(C),Freq(Hz)

FIGURE 5 Degree of Blending for Mixture 58-28 30%RAP.

 100000 Measured Plant E*
58-28 40%RAP Predicted Plant E*
Measured Reheated E*
10000
Predicted Reheated E*
Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

1000

100

10

Temp(C),Freq(Hz)

FIGURE 6 Degree of Blending for Mixture 58-28 40%RAP.

 100000 Measured Plant E*
64-22 0%RAP Predicted Plant E*
Measured Reheated E*
10000
Predicted Reheated E*
Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

1000

100

10

Temp(C),Freq(Hz)

FIGURE 7 Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 0%RAP.

 100000 Measured Plant E*
64-22 20%RAP Predicted Plant E*
Measured Reheated E*
10000
Predicted Reheated E*
Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

1000

100

10

Temp(C),Freq(Hz)

FIGURE 8 Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 20%RAP.

 100000 Measured Plant E*
64-22 30%RAP Predicted Plant E*
Measured Reheated E*
10000
Predicted Reheated E*
Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

1000

100

10

Temp(C),Freq(Hz)

FIGURE 9 Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 30%RAP.

 100000 Measured Plant E*
64-22 40%RAP Predicted Plant E*
Measured Reheated E*
10000
Predicted Reheated E*
Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

1000

100

10

Temp(C),Freq(Hz)

FIGURE 10 Degree of Blending for Mixture 64-22 40%RAP.

View publication stats