Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Laboratory evaluation on high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness

of asphalt binder with high percent scrap tire rubber
Hainian Wang a,⇑, Zhanping You b,1, Julian Mills-Beale b,2, Peiwen Hao a,3
a
Highway School, Chang’an University, South Erhuan Middle Section, Xia’n, Shaanxi, 710064, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this research is to utilize crumb rubber from scrap tires as an environmental friendly and
Received 6 November 2010 sustainable additive for enhancing the high temperature and low temperature rheological properties of
Received in revised form 23 May 2011 asphalt binders for asphalt pavements. Two different crumb rubber sources with different gradations –
Accepted 18 June 2011
fine and coarse – were used in this project. The crumb rubber-modified (CRM) binder was produced
Available online 12 July 2011
by adding 10, 15, 20 and 25% crumb rubber particles by weight of a Superpave PG 64-22 asphalt binder.
The CRM binders with and without Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO) aging were characterized by the
Keywords:
AASHTO rotational viscosity test at 135, 140, 150, 160, 170, 177, and 190 °C (AASHTO T316). Furthermore,
Asphalt rubber
Rotational viscosity
the low temperature cracking resistance of the binders was evaluated using the AASHTO Bending Beam
Creep stiffness Rheometer (BBR) test procedure at 12 and 18 °C (AASHTO T313). The statistical analysis of variance
Laboratory test (ANOVA) was applied to quantify the effect of the influencing factors such as temperature, rubber particle
RTFO aging size, and rubber concentration on the CRM binders’ performance. From the laboratory tests and ANOVA
Rubber concentration results in this study, it is evident that the addition of crumb rubber into asphalt binder can both signif-
icantly improve the viscosity of binder at high temperature and lower the creep stiffness at low temper-
ature, which is beneficial to better both high temperature stability and low temperature cracking
resistance of asphalt pavements. After RTFO aging, the viscosity decreases with increasing rubber concen-
tration. Finer crumb rubber attains higher viscosity at high temperature and lower creep stiffness at low
temperature. Considering the viscosity–temperature relationship, RTFO aging effects, creep stiffness
decreasing percentage, and economical factors, 15% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio is proposed for the pro-
duction of CRM binder.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines

With the motor industry developing and spreading at a higher
pace in all parts of the world, high amount of scrap tires were pro-
duced every year, which makes the disposal of tires a serious envi-
ronmental problem [1]. Crumb rubber, which is obtained from the
grinding of scrap tires, has proved to be an efficient solution to the
environmental concerns surrounding the accumulation of waste
tires in recent years [2,3]. The beneficial use of crumb rubber into
virgin asphalt binder and pavements provides an environmentally
sustainable method of disposing of the millions of tires generated
annually [4].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 29 82334824.
E-mail addresses: wanghainian@yahoo.com.cn (H. Wang), zyou@mtu.edu (Z.
You), jnmillsb@mtu.edu (J. Mills-Beale), haopw@yahoo.com.cn (P. Hao).
1
Tel.: +1 906 487 1059.
2
Tel.: +1 906 487 2528.
3 vious research work [10,11]. Lougheed and Papagiannakis
Tel.: +86 29 82334427.
asphalt rubber (AR) as ‘‘a blend of asphalt cement, reclaimed tire
rubber and certain additives, in which the rubber component is
at least 15% by weight of the total blend and has reacted in the
hot asphalt cement sufficiently to cause swelling of the rubber par-
ticles,’’ [5]. Researchers have shown that the addition of crumb
rubber into virgin asphalt can produce asphalt rubber binders with
better resistance to rutting, fatigue cracking and thermal cracking
as well as reducing the thickness of asphalt overlays and potential
reflective cracking [6,7]. The asphalt rubber acts in slurry and chip
seal materials as a stress absorbing membrane while demonstrat-
ing good anti-fatigue and durability performance in field applica-
tions [8,9].
The addition of crumb rubber into virgin asphalt induces a
significant increase in binder viscosity. As the viscous property
of asphalt rubber is critical to mixture compaction temperature
and binder workability during storage and pumping process,
the viscosity of asphalt rubber has been the central focus in pre-

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.061
584 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

adopted the Brookfield viscometer to test the viscosity of three 3. Experimental program
virgin and six rubber-modified asphalt binders [12]. Their sam-
3.1. Materials
ples contained crumb rubber concentrations of 3%, 5%, 7%, 12%
and 18% by weight of the virgin binder. Notable among their Two particle size crumb rubber materials cryogenically produced from different
conclusions was the introduction of the concept of ‘‘stabilized sources in China were adopted in this paper. Fig. 1 shows the percent passing gra-
viscosity’’. Stabilized viscosity is the phenomenon whereby the dation of Crumb Rubber A (Rubber A) and Crumb Rubber B (Rubber B). Five rubber
asphalt concentrations, 0%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% by weight of asphalt, were used
viscosity of the rubber-modified asphalt will decrease to a stabi-
in this study.
lized value after approximately 45–75 min of blending; with the A Superpave PG 64–22 binder was used as the control binder in this study. This
exact stabilized time dependent on the crumb rubber concentra- binder was obtained from a construction site near Detroit in Michigan and met the
tion. West et al. evaluated the effect of the tire rubber grinding MDOT specification requirements. Table 1 shows the properties of control PG 64-22
method on AR binder properties and characteristics, and they binder.
Two sources of cryogenic fine crumb rubber were added to the virgin PG 64-22
found a good correlation between the grinding process of crumb
binder to produce the CRM binders. The basic properties of the crumb rubber are
rubber and the viscosity and storage settlement. Crumb rubber shown in Table 2.
with greater specific surface areas and more irregular shapes
can induce high viscosity conditions in asphalt rubber binder 3.2. Experimental plan
[13].
Lee et al. adopted the gel permeation chromatography (GPC), The detailed experimental plan is indicated in Fig. 2. The plan sums up the
material preparation, Superpave™ characterization and evaluation of the CRM
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) and rotational viscosity (RV) to
binders.
characterize control binder, SBS-modified binder and rubber-mod-
ified binder of two short-term aging method, rolling thin film oven 3.3. Sample preparation
(RTFO) aging and short-term oven aging (STOA) [14]. According to
their tests, increased aging time will cause an increase in viscosity The crumb rubber was added gradually into the asphalt binder at a reaction
at high temperatures for the control and SBS-modified binders. It temperature of 350 °F (177 °C), and mixed mechanically for about 45 min. The reac-
tion time of 45 min was considered adequate based on some preliminary literature
should be noted however that there was no clear trend in the vis-
cosity change for the rubber-modified binder with and without
aging. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) and differential Table 1
scanning calorimeter (DSC) techniques have been used to evaluate The properties of virgin asphalt.
the effect of crumb rubber characteristics, including rubber sources
Aging states Test properties Testing results
and rubber concentration, on crumb rubber-modified (CRM) bin-
naged binder Rotational viscosity 0.435
der viscosity [15]. Their tests proposed that the CRM type and
@ 135 °C (Pa s)
sources plays an obvious role in influencing the viscous properties G = sin d @ 64 °C (kPa) 1.412
of the CRM binder. Statistical regression and neural network ap- RTFO aged residue G = sin d @ 64 °C (kPa) 3.69
proaches have been applied to predict the viscosities of different RTFO + PAV aged residue G  sin d @25 °C (kPa) 1171
rubber type CRM binders with different concentrations and pro- Stiffness @ 12 °C (MPa) 189
m-value @ 12 °C 0.314
posed an efficient way to estimate the viscous properties of differ-
ent variables such as asphalt binder grade, binder source, test
temperature, rubber content and rubber source [16]. With the Table 2
aid of the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), rotational viscometer Properties of the crumb rubber materials.
and the GPC, interaction effects such as blending time, temperature
Property Rubber A Rubber B
and rubber content of CRM binders were investigated in research 3
Specific gravity (g/m ) 1.12 1.14
conducted by Jeong et al. [17]. Their work proved that longer
Moisture content (%) 0.56 0.65
blending time and higher blending temperature result in a higher Ash content (%) 3.6 4.3
viscosity of CRM binders. Acetone to mention oil complex (%) 8.9 10.2
Previous research investigations have focused on viscous prop- Fiber content (%) 0.1 0.05
erties of CRM binders from different aspects and this was beneficial Metal content (%) 0 0
Carbon black content (%) 32.7 35.4
to understand the different influence factors and their effects on
the performance of CRM binders. It must be emphasized that the
aging effect on the viscosity of binders containing different CRM
concentrations and at different temperatures still need a thorough 100
study. Additionally, it is pertinent to focus on the low temperature
Rubber A
stiffness of CRM binders to investigate the relationship between Rubber B
low temperature stiffness and thermal cracking of CRM mixture 80
Passing Percentage (%)

pavements. These areas of study have received less attention in

past and current studies.
60

40
2. Objective and scope

The objective of this research is to utilize crumb rubber from 20

scrap tires as an environmental friendly and sustainable additive
for enhancing the rheological properties of asphalt binders. The fo-
0
cus was to investigate the viscous property of CRM binders with 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.425 0.6 0.85 1.18
and without RTFO aging at different test temperatures, and also Sievesize (mm)
test the low temperature creep stiffness of CRM binders with dif-
ferent rubber concentrations. Fig. 1. The passing percent gradation of Crumb Rubbers A and B.
 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590 585

PG 64-22 Asphalt
Binder

Rubber modified
Virgin asphalt asphalt

RTFOT Source A Source B

Unaged RTFOT
+PAV

Rotational Rotational BBR @ -18C

10% 15% 20% 25%
Viscosity Viscosity & -12C

Same testing Same testing Same testing Same testing Same testing
procedures as procedures as procedures as procedures as procedures as
Virgin asphalt Virgin asphalt Virgin asphalt Virgin asphalt Source A

Fig. 2. Experimental plan for the CRM binder tests.

0%
8 0% 8 10%
10% 15%
4 15% 4 20%
20% 25%
2 25% 2
Viscosity (Pa.s)
Viscosity (Pa.s)

1 1

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25

0.125 0.125

Rubber A Rubber B
0.0625 0.0625

0.03125 0.03125
140 160 180 200 140 160 180 200
Temperature ( ) Temperature ( )

Fig. 3. Viscosities of unaged CRM binders (Rubber A on left; Rubber B on right).

reviewing indicating that the CRM binder could reach the highest viscosity at this
time [12,18]. After 45 min reaction time, the CRM binder was tested under the
Brookfield viscometer at seven different temperature conditions – 190, 177, 170,
160, 150, 140, and135 °C. A 25% torque was applied and the rotation speed was
set at 100 rpm. The #29 spindle was adopted in the tests in favor of the #27 spindle
due to the high viscosity of CRM binders. Both unaged and RTFO-aged CRM binders
were tested to evaluate their viscosity. The viscosity test followed the AASHTO T
316 standard test specification. Furthermore, the low temperature stiffness of
CRM binders was evaluated at 12 and 18 °C using the BBR test equipment
according to the AASHTO T 313 standard test specification. Three replicates were
conducted in both rotational viscosity and BBR and the average rest values were ap-
plied in the subsequent discussion.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. High temperature viscosity
The influence of rubber types, rubber concentration, test tem-
perature, and aging effect on the viscosity of CRM binders is dis-
cussed in this section. Figs. 3 and 4 show the viscosity graphical
plots for the unaged and RTFO-aged CRM binders, respectively. It
is clear that the viscosity of CRM binder at any rubber concentra-
tion decreases with increasing test temperature, with the same
trend holding true for the non-modified asphalt. The addition of
crumb rubber can greatly increase the binder viscosity, which is vi-
tal in increasing the binder film thickness for coating aggregates in
the hot mixture. Ultimately, the more viscous CRM binder will
maintain the stability of asphalt mixtures.
With increasing percentage of crumb rubber, the binder viscos-
ity increases at each test temperature. The most remarkable in-
crease in viscosity occurs when the rubber content is increasing
from 0% to 10%, and with the continual increase in rubber content,
the overall viscosity increasing amplitude experiences a little de-
crease for the two CRM binders at unaged or RTFO-aged condition.
The Superpave™ specification (AASHTO M 320) requires that the
maximum viscosity of asphalt binder is no greater than 3 Pa s at
135 °C for the convenience of storage and pumping in construction
period. However, it is difficult to follow this requirement for CRM
586 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

binders. If the CRM binders reach 3 Pa s viscosity for rubber B mod-
ified binder, their temperature need to increase to 147, 162, and
174 °C for 15%, 20%, and 25% rubber–asphalt ratio binder, respec-
tively. The normal requirement of 3 Pa s is thus not feasible for
high percent CRM binder. Thus, the storage, blending and rolling
temperature of asphalt mixtures with high percent CRM binder
need to be heated to higher temperature in construction, respec-
tively. The exact optimal temperatures of CRM binders are subject
to viscosity–temperature curves, which may be influenced by the
rubber characteristics, rubber concentration and asphalt binder.
To better understand the inherent relationship between each
influencing factor and their effects on the viscosity of CRM binders,
the regression between the viscosity and the test temperature for
CRM binders was studied here and could be presented as:
logðVÞ ¼ a  T þ b
where V is the viscosity of the CRM binder; T, the test temper-
ature; ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’, the regression parameters. The slope coefficient
‘‘a’’ represents the changing rate of binder viscosity with the test
temperature.
The relationship was developed based on research investiga-
tions by [16,19]. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the regression parameters
between the viscosity and test temperatures at different rubber as-
phalt ratio for CRM binders with and without RTFO aging, respec-
tively. R2 is the correlation coefficient of the regression.
From the R2 values in Tables 3 and 4, Formula 1 characterizes
well the good correlation between the viscosity and test temper-
ature for both CRM binders with and without RTFO. The absolute
value of ‘‘a’’ increased about 10% and 5%, from 10% to 20% rubber
asphalt ratio, for rubber A and rubber B binders, respectively. For
the unaged CRM binder, as the rubber asphalt ratio increases un-
til to 20%, the viscosity decrease rate is increasing with the
increasing of test temperature. For the both RTFO-aged CRM bind-
ers, the largest absolute ‘‘a’’ value occurred at 15% rubber asphalt
ratio. A bigger absolute value for ‘‘a’’ is desired for the CRM bind-
ers as it will be beneficial to have a relatively low viscosity at
high temperature for construction workability of the CRM binders
ð1Þ
and have a greater viscosity at relatively low temperature for rut-
ting resistance and high temperature stability of rubber asphalt
mixture.
Among the many influencing factors on the viscosity of CRM
binder, the test temperature is one of those most important. How-
ever, different states and countries may have different require-
ments on the viscosity test temperature for CRM binders.

0%
0%
8 8 10%
10%
15%
15%
4 4 20%
20%
25%
25%
2 2
Viscosity (Pa.s)

Viscosity (Pa.s)

1 1

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25

0.125 Rubber A 0.125 Rubber B

0.0625 0.0625
140 160 180 200 140 160 180 200
Temperature ( ) Temperature ( )

Fig. 4. Viscosities of RTFO aged CRM binders (Rubber A on left; Rubber B on right).

Table 3
Regression parameters for viscosities of unaged CRM binders.

Rubber asphalt ratio (%) Rubber A Rubber B

2
a b R a b R2
10 0.01468 2.16155 0.997 0.01526 2.22813 0.996
15 0.01604 2.73542 0.999 0.01559 2.77321 0.999
20 0.01625 3.04589 0.999 0.01604 3.10298 0.999
25 0.01292 2.48987 0.999 0.01412 2.93286 0.999

Table 4
Regression parameters for viscosities of RTFO-aged CRM binders.

Rubber asphalt ratio (%) Rubber A Rubber B

a b R2 a b R2
10 0.01595 2.56664 0.998 0.01562 2.54588 0.998
15 0.01605 2.8533 0.999 0.01637 3.04484 0.999
20 0.01545 2.9974 0.999 0.01429 2.90593 0.999
25 0.01553 2.85271 0.999 0.01408 2.91606 0.999
 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590 587

Arizona, Texas and ASTM assigned 177 °C in their specifications,
while California and South Africa set 190 °C in the viscosity testing,
other than normal 135 °C for regular binders [20,21]. The 177 and
190 °C test temperature were taken out to analyze their effects on
the viscosities of both CRM binders with and without RTFO aging,
and were shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively.
It can be observed that the crumb rubber size have an obvious
influence on the high temperature viscosity of CRM binders. Rub-
ber B is finer than Rubber A, and its modified binder has a higher
viscosity than Rubber A whether with or without RTFO aging. For
the unaged CRM binders, there is no remarkable difference be-
tween Rubbers A and B modified binder at 10% rubber asphalt ra-
tio, and the difference increases to 71% and 60% at 25% rubber
asphalt ratio for 177 and 190 °C test temperatures, respectively.
The finer crumb rubber has a greater surface area and therefore re-
acted and swelled efficiently during the blending process. As a re-
sult, the finer crumb rubber reached a higher viscosity with the
same rubber asphalt ratio.
The 85 min RTFO aging also has a notable effect on the viscosity
of CRM binders. With increasing rubber concentration, the percent
improvement in CRM binder viscosity after RTFO aging begins to
decrease. For Rubber A binder at a test temperature of 177 °C,
the viscosity improving percentage decreases from 75% (0% rubber)
to 42% (10% rubber), and further to 34% (15% rubber) and then to
21% (20% rubber), and -21% (25% rubber). During the aging process,
3.0
2.72
10%
15% Test Temperature
2.5 177 C
o 2.34
20%
25%
1.87
Viscosity (Pa.s)
the aromatic oil and light fractions contents decrease in the asphalt
binder and this induces a greater binder viscosity. With the addi-
tion of crumb rubber into asphalt at high temperatures, the rubber
particle will absorb the aromatic oil and light fractions in the as-
phalt and swell in size to induce a higher viscosity. With increasing
rubber concentration in the CRM binder, the percentage of free aro-
matic and light fractions will decrease, and the actual effect of
RTFO aging will also decrease. When the rubber asphalt ratio
reaches 25%, the viscosity of RTFO-aged binder is even smaller than
that of unaged binder. This is not beneficial for long term storage of
the rubber asphalt after modifying, and could ultimately deterio-
rate the field performance.
It is noticed that, at the temperatures less than 170 °C, the 20%
Rubber A binder has higher viscosity value than 25% Rubber A bin-
der. The possible reason could be elaborated as following. The vis-
cosity test on CRM binder is conducted from high temperature
(190 °C) to low temperature (135 °C) using rotational viscometer
in the laboratory. The accumulated long time temperature control-
ling and equilibration period may induce some potential aging on
the binder and due to the aforementioned decreasing of free aro-
matic and light fraction content, and result in the lower viscosity
of 25% CRM binder at the temperature less than 170 °C. However,
this effect may also be subjected to the crumb rubber source,
and more SEM tests could provide detailed explanation on this
mechanism in the future.
The viscosity improving effect is also influenced by the crumb
rubber concentration in the rubber asphalt binders. With the
increasing of rubber concentration, the viscosity improving per-
2.59 centage shows a decreasing trend. Take unaged Rubber B binder
tested at 190 °C as an example, the viscosity is increased 433% from
0% to 10% rubber asphalt ratio, 183% from 10% to 15% rubber as-
phalt ratio, 74% from 15% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio, and 61% from

2.0 1.81
20% to 25% rubber asphalt ratio. With increasing rubber concentra-
1.59
1.50 tion in the CRM binder, the percentage of free aromatic and light
1.40
1.5
1.25
fractions will decrease, which induces a smaller viscosity improv-
ing effect. It should be also noted that, with the increasing of high
1.02 1.03
1.0 temperature viscosity of CRM binder, it will induce the difficulty of
0.76
pumping, reduce its workability, and raise the heat energy con-
0.59
0.54 sumption in construction. From these two aspects, the 25% rubber
0.5 0.38 0.36
asphalt ratio is not proposed for field application.

0.0
A UNAGED A RTFO B UNAGED B RTFO
4.2. ANOVA analysis on high temperature viscosity
Fig. 5. Viscosity comparisons of Rubbers A and B modified asphalt at different
concentration levels and 177 °C test temperature. The statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to
investigate the high temperature viscosity of CRM binders as a
function of test temperature and rubber concentration and the re-
sults are summarized in Table 5. For both Rubber A and Rubber B
1.90 binder, the F value is greater than its F critical value and the P-va-
2.0 1.80
10%
Test Temperature lue is smaller than the significance level of 0.05. The ANOVA data
1.71
15% o indicates that both the test temperature and rubber concentration
190 C
20%
have significant effect on the viscosity of CRM binders.
25%
1.5 In order to thoroughly compare the viscosity of CRM binders at
Viscosity (Pa.s)

1.28
1.18 1.18 different rubber concentration, the one-factor ANOVA was adopted
to evaluate if the viscosities of adjacent rubber concentration CRM
0.97
1.0 0.95
0.90 binders have significant difference, as shown in Table 6. The ANO-
VA data shows that with the increasing of rubber concentration up
0.72 0.68
to 20%, the rubber concentration has a significant influence on the
0.54
0.43
viscosity of CRM binder, as the F value is greater than its corre-
0.5 0.39
spondent F critical value and P-value is smaller than 0.05. How-
0.25 0.24
ever, there is no significant difference between the viscosities of
20% and 25% rubber concentration for both Rubber A and Rubber
0.0 B CRM binder. From the cost-effective viewpoint of viscosity
A UNAGED A RTFO B UNAGED B RTFO
increasing performance and increasing cost on crumb rubber, it
Fig. 6. Viscosity comparisons of Rubbers A and B modified asphalt at different is also not suggested to apply the rubber concentration to more
concentration levels and 190 °C test temperature. than 20%.
588 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

Table 5
Two-factor ANOVA on the viscosity of CRM binder (a = 0.05).

Materials Source of variance SS(Pa s) df MS(Pa s) F P-value F crit

Rubber A Temperature 47.673 6 7.946 8.7172 4E05 2.508
Concentration 55.958 4 13.989 15.348 2E06 2.776
Rubber B Temperature 15.307 4 3.827 6.3269 0.003 3.007
Concentration 48.044 4 12.011 19.858 5E06 3.007

Note: SS, the sum of squared deviations; df, the degree of freedom; MS, mean square; F, the F value; F crit, the F critical value.

4.3. Low temperature stiffness

189 189
200 Rubber A
The BBR test can be used to evaluate how much a binder de- Rubber B

flects or creeps under a constant load at low temperature. The

145 142 Testing Temperature
creep stiffness obtained from BBR test can well characterize the 150 o

Stiffness (MPa)
-12 C
cracking resistance of asphalt binder at low temperature. Figs. 7 112
and 8 illustrate the creep stiffness of A and B CRM binders with dif- 101
ferent rubber contents at 12 and 18 °C test temperatures. The 90 85
100 77
addition of crumb rubber into the asphalt greatly decreases the
low temperature stiffness of CRM binders, which can increase the 60
toughness of CRM mixtures and decrease the occurring possibility
50
of the asphalt binder and pavement cracking at low temperature.
For CRM A binder at 20% rubber asphalt ratio, its creep stiffness re-
duces to about 50% of the control binder at both 12 and 18 °C
test temperatures. Additionally, with increasing rubber concentra- 0
0 10 15 20 25
tion, the creep stiffness decreases for both CRM binders at both
Rubber asphalt ratio (%)
12 and 18 °C test temperatures. The crumb rubber is not as
temperature sensitive as the asphalt binder, and has lower modu- Fig. 7. Low temperature stiffness obtained by BBR tests on of Rubbers A and B
lus and stiffness than the asphalt binder at low temperature. As a (12 °C).
result, the increasing rubber content will induce lower creep stiff-
ness for CRM binders at low temperature.
Superpave™ specification (AASHTO M 320) requires the creep 400
356 356
stiffness to be less than 300 MPa and m-value to be greater than Rubber A
350
0.300 at the test temperature during the performance grading of Rubber B
the asphalt binder. The research mainly focuses on the creep stiff- 300 266 Testing Temperature
ness of CRM binders to characterize their low temperature cracking o
Stiffness (MPa)

-18 C
performance. The control PG 64–22 binder meets this requirement 250
at 12 °C but fails at 18 °C. With the addition of crumb rubber, 200
193
181
both CRM binders can definitely meet the criteria at 18 °C even 200 176 168
153
at 10% rubber asphalt ratio. Therefore, the addition of crumb rub- 135
150
ber decreased the low temperature grade from 22 °C to 28 °C
compared to the control binder.
100
When the rubber asphalt ratio exceeds 15%, the percentage de-
crease in creep stiffness is not as remarkable as before. The creep 50
stiffness decreases by 25% from control binder to the 10% rubber
asphalt ratio binder, and by 27% from the 10% to 15% rubber as- 0
0 10 15 20 25
phalt ratio binder. Finally, it decreases by 9% from the 15% to
20% rubber asphalt ratio for Rubber A binder at 18 °C. From this Rubber asphalt ratio (%)
point, the highest rubber asphalt ratio, 25%, would be no suggested Fig. 8. Low temperature stiffness obtained by BBR tests on Rubbers A and B
in field application. (18 °C).
The crumb rubber particle size also has some influence on the
creep stiffness of the CRM binder. For the CRM binders at both
12 and 18 °C, Rubber B (finer size rubber) binder has less creep reaction between the fine crumb rubber and asphalt binder com-
stiffness than Rubber A binder. This may be due to a more efficient pared to the coarse crumb rubber and the asphalt binder.

Table 6
One-factor rubber concentration ANOVA on the viscosity of CRM binder (a = 0.05).

Rubber concentration Rubber A Rubber B

F P-value F crit F P-value F crit
0% vs 10% 17.418 0.005856 5.9874 15.6694 0.0075 5.9874
10% vs 15% 13.022 0.01125 5.9874 15.2241 0.008 5.9874
15% vs 20% 12.862 0.011554 5.9874 13.3954 0.0106 5.9874
20% vs 25% 2.7134 0.150604 5.9874 2.41051 0.1844 5.9874

Note: F, the F value; F crit, the F critical value.

 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590 589

Table 7
Two-factor ANOVA on the low temperature stiffness of CRM binder (a = 0.05).

Test temperature Source of variation SS (MPa) df MS (MPa) F P-value F crit

12 °C Rubber type 791.05 1 791.05 9.25 0.006 4.35
Concentration 54866.07 4 13716.52 160.31 0.000 2.87
Interaction 581.68 4 145.42 1.70 0.190 2.87
18 °C Rubber type 3286.53 1 3286.53 10.14 0.005 4.35
Concentration 166566.47 4 41641.62 128.43 0.000 2.87
Interaction 4119.80 4 1029.95 3.18 0.036 2.87

Note: SS, the sum of squared deviations; df, the degree of freedom; MS, mean square; F, the F value; F crit, the F critical value.

Table 8 ture curve. According to the ANOVA analysis on high temperature

One-factor rubber concentration ANOVA on the low temperature stiffness of CRM
binder (a = 0.05).
Rubber concentration 12 °C 18 °C
F P-value F crit F P-value
0% vs 10% 158.20 1.5E06 5.32 73.50 0.000
10% vs 15% 153.14 1.7E06 5.32 15.24 0.005
15% vs 20% 10.12 0.01297 5.32 10.73 0.011
20% vs 25% 2.31 0.16734 5.32 7.41 0.026
Note: F, the F value; F crit, the F critical value.
4.4. ANOVA analysis on low temperature stiffness
The ANOVA was also applied to investigate the low temperature
stiffness of CRM binders as a function of rubber type and rubber
concentration at 12 and 18 °C, respectively. The ANOVA analy-
sis results are summarized in Table 7. For both 12 and 18 °C test
temperature, the F value is greater than its correspondent F critical
value and the P-value is smaller than the significance level of 0.05.
The ANOVA data indicates that both the rubber type and rubber
concentration have significant effect on the low temperature stiff-
ness of CRM binders.
In order to thoroughly investigate the low temperature stiffness
of CRM binders at different rubber concentration, the one-factor
ANOVA was adopted to evaluate if the low temperature stiffness
of adjacent rubber concentration CRM binders have significant dif-
ference, as shown in Table 8. The ANOVA data shows that, for both
12 and 18 °C test temperature, with the increasing of rubber
concentration up to 20%, the rubber concentration has a significant
influence on the low temperature stiffness of CRM binder, as the F
value is greater than its correspondent F critical value and P-value
is smaller than 0.05. However, its influence impact (F value) is
decreasing with the increasing of rubber concentration. Finally,
there is no significant difference between the low temperature
stiffness of 20% and 25% rubber concentration. From the cost-effec-
tive viewpoint of low temperature stiffness decreasing perfor-
mance and increasing cost on crumb rubber, it is also not
suggested to apply the rubber concentration to more than 20%.
4.5. Proper rubber asphalt ratio
According to the rotational viscosity tests and bending beam
rheometer tests on CRM binders conducted in this paper, it is clear
that the addition of crumb rubber into pure asphalt can better both
its high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness,
which is desired and beneficial to the better performance of rubber
asphalt mixture. However, it should be also noted that, with the
increasing of rubber concentration in the CRM binders, the modify-
ing effects of viscosity and stiffness is decreasing. Based on the vis-
cosity and temperature regression relationship, the 15% to 20%
rubber asphalt ratio binders will have the greatest regression
parameter, ‘‘a’’, and induce the most desirable viscosity–tempera-
viscosity and low temperature stiffness, there is no significant per-
formance difference between 20% and 25% rubber concentration
CRM binders. Meanwhile, the over excessive rubber concentration
F crit
will also make the difficulty of pumping, reduce the mixture work-
ability, raise the heating energy consumption and increase the cost
5.32
5.32
of rubber asphalt binder. Considering the all the factors above, 15
5.32 to 20% rubber asphalt ratio is suggested in the production of
5.32 CRM binder. The optimum rubber concentration should be deter-
mined by considering the actual application fields and modifying
demands, asphalt plant pumping and blending conditions, and
other factors comprehensively, which is to be further investigated.
5. Conclusions
Two crumb rubber samples of different gradations – fine and
coarse – were used in this project. Four rubber asphalt ratios were
applied to prepare the CRM binders using Superpave PG 64-22 as-
phalt binder and the crumb rubber additives. Seven test tempera-
tures were taken to evaluate the viscous properties of the CRM
binders with and without RTFO aging. The BBR test was used to
measure creep stiffness of both CRM binders at 12 and 18 °C
in this paper. The ANOVA technique was applied to quantify the ef-
fect of factors, such as test temperature, rubber type, rubber con-
centration, on the CRM binders’ performance. The test results
obtained from this study can unveil some inherent correlations
of each influencing factor and the viscosity and creep stiffness of
CRM binders and provide some guiding frameworks in determin-
ing the rubber constitutive design and construction parameters
for CRM asphalt binders. Some preliminary conclusions that can
be drawn from the research are:
(1) The addition of crumb rubber into asphalt binder can signif-
icantly improve the viscosity of binders, which is beneficial
to enhance the high temperature performance of asphalt
binders and mixture. The viscosity specification requirement
of 3 Pa s is however not feasible for high percent CRM
binder.
(2) The addition of crumb rubber into asphalt binder can reduce
the creep stiffness of CRM binder at low temperature which
is helpful for better cracking resistance ability of asphalt bin-
der and mixture. From the perspective of low temperature
stiffness, the addition of 10% crumb rubber into control bin-
der can lower a low temperature grade from 22 °C to
28 °C.
(3) With increasing rubber concentration, the performance on
high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness
of CRM binders are improved, but its improving impact
tends to decrease. ANOVA results indicate that there is no
significant performance difference on high temperature vis-
cosity and low temperature stiffness between 20% and 25%
rubber concentration CRM binders.
(4) Finer crumb rubber can help achieve higher viscosity at high
temperature and lower creep stiffness at low temperature.
590 H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590
(5) Considering the viscosity–temperature relationship, RTFO
aging effects, creep stiffness decreasing percentage and eco-
nomical factors, 15–20% rubber asphalt ratio is proposed for
the production of CRM binder. However, further CRM binder
and mixture tests will confirm its extensive laboratory
performance.
Acknowledgement
The research is supported by the funds of Natural Science Found
Committee (NSFC) of China (No. 50808023) (No. 51011120574)
and the Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Col-
leges, Chang’an University (CHD2010JC061). The experimental
work was completed in the Transportation Materials Research Cen-
ter at Michigan Technological University, which maintains the
AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) accreditation on
asphalt and asphalt mixtures.
Reference
[1] Kiser JV. Asphalt rubber: overcoming the obstacles. Scrap 2003;60(1):46–50.
[2] Xiao F, Wenbin Zhao PE, Amirkhanian SN. Fatigue behavior of rubberized
asphalt concrete mixtures containing warm asphalt additives. Constr Build
Mater 2009;23(10):3144–51.
[3] Shen J, Amirkhanian S, Xiao F, Tang B. Surface area of crumb rubber modifier
and its influence on high-temperature viscosity of CRM binders. Int J Pavement
Eng 2009;10(5):375–81.
[4] Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN, Wu B. Fatigue and stiffness evaluations of reclaimed
asphalt pavement in hot mix asphalt mixtures. J Test Eval 2011;39(1).
[5] ASTM international annual book of standards. D 8 definitions, vol. 04.03; 2008.
[6] Raad L, Saboundjian S. Fatigue behavior of rubber-modified pavements.
Transport Res Record 1998(1639):73–82.
[7] Huang B, Mohammad LN, Graves PS, Abadie C. Louisiana experience with
crumb rubber-modified hot-mix asphalt pavement. Transport Res Record
2002:1–13.
[8] Kuennen T. Surface treatments: when seals make sense. Better Roads
2004;74(10):24–32.
[9] Chen D-H, Scullion T, Bilyeu J, Won M. Detailed forensic investigation and
rehabilitation recommendation on interstate highway-30. J Perform Constr
Facil 2005;19(2):155–64.
[10] Celik ON, Atis CD. Compatibility of hot bituminous mixtures made with crumb
rubber-modified binders. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(6):1143–7.
[11] Akisetty CK, Lee S-J, Amirkhanian SN. Effects of compaction temperature on
volumetric properties of rubberized mixes containing warm-mix additives. J
Mater Civil Eng 2009;21(8):409–15.
[12] Lougheed TJ, Papagiannakis AT. Viscosity characteristics of rubber-modified
asphalts. J Mater Civil Eng 1996;8(3):153–6.
[13] West RC, Page GC, Veilleux JG, Choubane B. Effect of tire rubber grinding
method on asphalt–rubber binder characteristics. Transport Res Record
1998:134–40.
[14] Lee S-J, Amirkhanian SN, Shatanawi K, Kim KW. Short-term aging
characterization of asphalt binders using gel permeation chromatography
and selected Superpave binder tests. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(11):2220–7.
[15] Thodesen C, Shatanawi K, Amirkhanian S. Effect of crumb rubber
characteristics on crumb rubber modified (CRM) binder viscosity. Constr
Build Mater 2009;23(1):295–303.
[16] Thodesen C, Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN. Modeling viscosity behavior of crumb
rubber modified binders. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(9):3053–62.
[17] Jeong K-D, Lee S-J, Amirkhanian SN, Kim KW. Interaction effects of crumb
rubber modified asphalt binders. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(5):824–31.
[18] Cao W-D, Lu W-M. Experimental research on recycled tire rubber modified
asphalt mixture using hybrid process. Jianzhu Cailiao Xuebao/J Build Mater
2007;10(1):110–4 [in Chinese].
[19] Specht LP, Khatchatourian O, Brito LAT, Ceratti JAP. Modeling of asphalt–
rubber rotational viscosity by statistical analysis and neural networks. Mater
Res 2007;10(1):69–74.
[20] ASTM Standards D6114, 2009. Standard specification for asphalt–rubber
binder. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2009.
[21] Hoffmann P, Potgieter CJ. Bitumen rubber chip and spray seals in South Africa.
SATC 2007 – 26th annual Southern African transport conference: the
challenges of implementing policy, 225–238.