Você está na página 1de 10

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

Using a modified asphalt bond strength test to investigate the


properties of asphalt binders with poly ethylene wax-based warm
mix asphalt additive
Taha A. Ahmed a,⇑, Hosin ‘‘David” Lee b,1, R. Christopher Williams c,2
a
Australian College of Kuwait, Department of Civil Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, P.O. Box 1411, Safat 13015, Kuwait
b
The University of Iowa, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 4105 Seamans Center, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
c
Iowa State University, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, 813 Bissell Road, Ames, Iowa 50011-1066, USA

Received 23 March 2017; received in revised form 16 July 2017; accepted 15 August 2017
Available online 1 September 2017

Abstract

This paper presents a feasibility of a modified Asphalt Bond Strength (ABS) test method for use with a new adhesion testing device
with three different pullout stubs and its application for evaluating Polyethylene (PE) wax-based Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) additive.
Four different asphalt binders were used to evaluate the feasibility of applying the existing AASHTO ABS test method using a new
ASTM-certified adhesion testing device and three different pullout stubs. The modified ABS test method was used to evaluate the loss
of adhesion and cohesion in asphalt bond strength due to moisture-induced damage. The paper also discusses rheological properties of
extracted asphalt binders from three different test sections in Minnesota, Ohio and Iowa constructed using PE wax-based WMA additive
and different amounts of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) materials. Based on the modified ABS test results using the new adhesion
testing device, it was found that the proposed pullout stub with 0.0 mm thickness (no edge) exhibited consistent results. Based on the
results from extracted asphalt performance grading and the multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test, it was found that the PE
wax-based WMA additive, which was specially designed for asphalt mixtures with a high RAP content, significantly improved the rhe-
ological properties of aged asphalt binders from RAP materials.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Warm-mix asphalt; Poly ethylene (PE) wax based; Moisture damage; Adhesion; Asphalt bond strength (ABS); Reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP)

1. Introduction and literature review cohesion characteristics of the asphalt mixture’s compo-
nents. The lake of enough bond strength between the
The bond strength between asphalt binder and asphalt binder and the aggregate in the asphalt mixture
aggregate can be explained in terms of the adhesion and can lead to moisture damage. Moisture damage is the result
of moisture interaction with the asphalt binder-aggregate
⇑ Corresponding author. adhesion within the asphalt mixture, making it more sus-
E-mail addresses: taha-ahmed@uiowa.edu (T.A. Ahmed), hlee@ ceptible to moisture during cyclic loading [1–3]. This weak-
engineering.uiowa.edu (H.‘‘David” Lee), rwilliam@iastate.edu ening, if severe enough, can result in stripping.
(R.C. Williams). Previous research showed that there are three main
1
Fax: +1 319 335 5660. adhesion mechanisms that can describe the adhesion
2
Fax: +1 (515) 294 8216.
between the asphalt binder and aggregate surface; chemical
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement
Engineering. adhesion, surface energy, and mechanical adhesion.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.08.004
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 29

Chemical adhesion occurs as a result of forming water- strength is controlled by the combination and the interac-
insoluble components caused by a chemical reaction tion of asphalt binder and the mineral filler [3]. Water
between the acidic and basic components of asphalt and can affect the cohesion of asphalt mastic in several ways
aggregate surface. Some research studies suggested that such as weakening the mastic due to water saturation
the bond formed by chemical sorption might be necessary and void swelling [4]. An asphalt mixture could lose up
in order to minimize stripping potential in asphalt–aggre- to 50 percent of its resilient modulus upon saturation
gate mixtures. In general, some aggregates with acidic sur- but, upon drying, the modulus can be completely recovered
faces don’t react as strongly with asphalt binders, which [5]. This is shown graphically in Fig. 1.
may not be enough to counter other moisture damage caus- Based on the above discussion, it can be said that the
ing factors [1]. moisture damage in asphalt mixture can be due to a cohe-
Surface energy can be explained in terms of relative wet- sion failure within the mastic, or an adhesion failure at the
tability of aggregate surface by water or asphalt. The sur- aggregate-asphalt binder interface. Both failure modes can
face tension between the asphalt binder and the aggregate be related to the characteristics of the asphalt mastic and
at the wetting line is less than the surface tension between the asphalt film thickness around aggregate particles. Thus,
the water and the aggregate due to its higher viscosity. asphalt mixtures with thin asphalt film tend to fail in ten-
Thus, if all the three are in contact (water, aggregate, and sion by adhesive bond rupture whereas asphalt mixture
asphalt binder), water more likely replaces asphalt binder. with thicker asphalt film thickness tends to fail in a cohe-
This will result in less aggregate coating by asphalt binder sive failure mode due to the damage within mastic. The
and eventual striping. The interfacial tension between determination of asphalt film thickness that differentiates
aggregate and asphalt binder depends on the asphalt type, the two modes of failure would depend on the rheological
aggregate type, and the aggregate surface roughness [1,2]. properties of the asphalt, the amount of damage the
Mechanical adhesion depends on the physical properties asphalt or mastic can withstand prior to failure, a rate of
of the aggregate such as surface texture, porosity or loading, and a temperature at the time of loading [6].
absorption, surface coatings, surface area, and particle size Therefore, several test methods were developed to eval-
[1]. Asphalt binder gets into the aggregate surface pores uate the loss of adhesion or cohesion between the asphalt
and irregularities, and when it hardens it causes a mechan- binder and the aggregate surface due to moisture-induced
ical lock. The interference of moisture with the asphalt bin- damage. However, many of these tests use indirect methods
der penetration reduces the mechanical lock and leads to to measure the adhesion and cohesion properties, which
stripping. Good mechanical lock can improve the nature may not be very consistent [7]. Therefore, a new test proce-
of the chemical bond between the asphalt binder and aggre- dure (AASHTO TP 91-11: Standard Method of Test for
gate surface even in the presence of water [1,2]. Determining Asphalt Binder Bond Strength by Means of
Cohesion is developed in the asphalt mastic, asphalt bin- the Asphalt Bond Strength (ABS) Test) was developed
der mixed with fine aggregate, and it would depend on the for measuring moisture damage characterization based on
rheological properties of the asphalt binder. The asphalt asphalt-aggregate adhesive and cohesive properties [8].
mastic’s resistance to microcracking is highly influenced The new method measures the pull-off force needed to
by the dispersion of the mineral filler. Thus, the cohesive break the bond strength between the asphalt binder and

Fig. 1. Effect of moisture on resilient modulus is reversible [5].


30 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37

the aggregate surface using adhesion testing device. This roughness. After cut and lapped, samples were cleaned for
AASHTO procedure is based on test results using only 60 min in ultrasonic cleaner containing distilled water at a
one type of devices. However, the test procedure should temperature of 60 °C to remove residual particles on the
be universally applicable using multiple testing devices. plate surface [8]. To measure the pull-off force needed to
Therefore, in this study, a different adhesion testing device detach the asphalt binder samples from the aggregate sur-
is proposed to improve the consistency of the existing face, a hydraulic pressure is applied to pull out a stub
AASHTO procedure. attached to the asphalt sample. Fig. 2 shows a schematic
Several studies have reported that, Warm Mix Asphalt of the pull-off test method and the PosiTest Pull-Off Adhe-
(WMA) mixtures are more susceptible to moisture than sion Tester.
conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixtures [9]. There- The AASHTO TP 91-11 procedure recommended new
fore, this research study used the new modified Asphalt geometry and treatment to the stub surface used with
Bond Strength (ABS) test method to investigate the adhe- PATTI Quantum Gold adhesion tester in order to create
sive and cohesive characteristics of WMA mixtures pre- a rough texture that would provide a mechanical interlock
pared using Poly Ethylene (PE) wax-based additive. This and a larger contact area between the asphalt binder and
PE wax-based additive works by reducing the viscosity of stub. This AASHTO procedure is based on test results
the asphalt at lower temperatures with a melting point of using only one type of device and one pullout stub of
100 °C and crystallization point of 90 °C. The PE wax- 0.8-mm thickness. Therefore, for this study, three different
based additive controls the crystallization so that it does modified pullout stubs with thicknesses of 0.8 mm, 0.4 mm
not become brittle at low temperature. Additionally, the and 0 mm (no edge) are proposed to be used with the
PE wax-based additive contains anti-stripping agent to PosiTest AT-A automatic adhesion tester. Fig. 3 shows
enhance the bonding of asphalt binder to the aggregate sur- one pullout stub used for PATTI Quantum Gold and three
face. In this study, three different forms of the PE wax- modified stubs used for PosiTest Pull-Off adhesion tester
based WMA additive are evaluated to measure their effec- device.
tiveness in improving the rheological properties of asphalt Limestone aggregate and four different binder grades
binders. were tested using the three pullout stubs in order to find
out which pullout stub should be used with the new adhe-
2. Asphalt bond strength test method sion testing device. Only un-conditioned samples were
tested in this part of the study.
ASTM-certified adhesion testing device, PosiTest AT-A
automatic adhesion tester, was used to perform the ABS
test following the AASHTO TP 91-11 procedure. In order 3. Test sections with Poly Ethylene Wax-based WMA
to prepare the test specimens, the asphalt binder is attached additive
to the aggregate surface by means of adhesion at controlled
environmental and moisture conditions. According to Three different forms of the PE wax-based WMA addi-
AASHTO TP 91-11 procedure, all aggregate substrates tive; pellets, liquid, and specially designed liquid form for
were prepared by cutting quarried rocks using a standard mixtures with high RAP amount were evaluated in this
rock saw to create parallel faces and then Lapped using a study to measure their effectiveness in improving the rheo-
280-grit silicon carbide material on a standard lapidary logical properties of asphalt binders. The three forms were
wheel to remove saw marks and ensure a consistent surface implemented in three different projects with a rate of 1.5%

Fig. 2. Schematic of the pull-off test method (left) and positest pull-off adhesion tester (right) [10].
T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 31

Fig. 3. Pull-out Stubs for (a) PATTI quantum gold adhesion tester, and (b) PosiTestÒ pull-off adhesion tester.

by optimum asphalt content of the mix. Asphalt binders Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) mix design
were extracted from field WMA mixtures from following specifications for a medium traffic volume. The mix used
three test sections. a blend of Limestone and Natural gravel aggregates and
First, the PE wax-based pellet (PE-Pellet) form was 25% RAP materials by weight for the intermediate layer
applied to a 2.0-in mill and overlay WMA test section on and 20% RAP by weight for the surface layer. Asphalt bin-
the southbound outside lane of TH 169 state highway in der PG70-22 was used for the surface layer and PG64-22
Champlin, Minnesota. Asphalt binder PG64-28 and Gran- was used for the intermediate layer. Only asphalt binder
ite aggregate along with 25% RAP by total weight of mix extracted from the surface layer mixtures was evaluated
were used to prepare the mix. Another HMA test section in this study.
was constructed for comparison using the same properties. Third, the specially designed PE wax-based liquid
The HMA and WMA mixtures were designed according to (SDPE-Liquid) form for mixtures with high RAP amount
Superpave mix design procedure for a medium traffic level was applied to a surface layer with a thickness of 1.5 in.
of 3–10 million ESALs according to Minnesota Depart- on state highway 6 in Iowa City, Iowa. Two WMA and
ment of Transportation (MnROAD) mix design HMA test sections were constructed for a 10 million
requirements. ESALs traffic volume. The mixes were designed according
Second, the PE wax-based liquid (PE-Liquid) form was to Superpave mix design procedure per Iowa Department
applied to a 3.0-in. asphalt layer on State Highway 158 in of Transportation (Iowa DOT) mix design requirements.
Lancaster, Ohio. The 3.0-in. layer consisted of intermediate The mixtures used asphalt binder PG64-28 and Limestone
layer with a thickness of 1.75 in. and surface layer with a aggregate along with 30% fractionated RAP by binder
thickness of 1.25 in. WMA and HMA mixes were designed replacement. Table 1 shows a summary of properties and
according to Marshall mix design procedure following the materials used in the test sections.
32 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37

Table 1
Summary of properties and materials used in the test sections.
Test Section #1 Test Section #2 Test Section #3
Site Location Highway TH 169, Champlin, Minnesota Highway 158, Lancaster, Ohio Highway 6, Iowa City, Iowa
Application Type 2.0-in. Surface Layer 1.25-in. Surface Layer 1.5-in. Surface Layer
Aggregate type Granite Limestone & Natural gravel Limestone
RAP Content,% 25% (by total mix weight) 20% (by total mix weight) 30% (by binder replacement)
Binder Type PG64-28 (polymer modified) PG70-22 (polymer modified) PG64-28 (polymer modified)
WMA Additive Type Poly Ethylene wax-based Poly Ethylene wax-based Specially Designed Poly Ethylene
pellet (PE-Pellet) liquid (PE-Liquid) wax-based liquid (SDPE-Liquid)
Mix Design Method Superpave Marshall Superpave

4. Modified asphalt bond strength test results The ABS test results are shown in Fig. 4 with the num-
bers above each bars representing the average value and the
In order to capture the effect of different pullout stub whisker representing the standard deviation. Overlapping
thicknesses and the asphalt binder grade on the asphalt- of the standard deviations implies the similarity in the mea-
aggregate bond strength, test specimens using four different sured ABS values between the different types of pullout
asphalt binder grades; PG58-28, PG64-22, PG64-28M stubs. As can be seen from Fig. 4, the 0.0 mm pullout stub
(polymer modified) and PG70-22M (polymer modified) produced significantly higher and more consistent ABS val-
were prepared following AASHTO TP 91-11 test proce- ues than 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm stubs. It can be seen from
dure. Asphalt samples, limestone aggregate plates and pull- Fig. 4 that the bond strength was significantly affected by
out stubs were heated up at 150° C for a minimum of the asphalt type.
30 min to remove absorbed water on the aggregate surface In order to measure the actual thickness of the applied
and provide a better bond between the asphalt binder and asphalt layer, the aggregate plates were cut across the cen-
the aggregate surface. The aggregate plates were then terline of the asphalt samples and investigated using Olym-
brought to an application temperature of 60° C, whereas pus SZ61 microscope equipped with Olympus DP26 digital
the application temperature for the pullout stubs still camera as shown in Fig. 5a). The average values of the
150° C. After a sufficient heat-up time, the molten asphalt asphalt layer for 0.8 mm, 0.4 mm and 0.0 mm pullout stubs
samples were carefully poured in 10.0 mm diameter were 998 lm, 539 lm and 106 lm, respectively. Fig. 5b)
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) silicon molds and left shows samples of asphalt layer thicknesses created by the
for 30 min to reach the room temperature. The asphalt pullout stubs after running the test. As can be seen from
samples were attached to the aggregate plates by placing Fig. 5b), the measured layer thicknesses were slightly
them on the surface of the pullout stub then firmly pressing higher than the real stubs’ thicknesses due to the irregular-
each stub with the asphalt sample into the aggregate plate ity and pores of the aggregate plates and the groves on the
surface until the stub is in contact with the aggregate sur- stubs. Asphalt layer thicknesses were measured after the
face and no excess of asphalt flowing is observed. The pre- asphalt samples were exposed to a direct tension during
pared samples were then left for 24 h at room temperature the test, which resulted in a plastic deformation in the
before testing. asphalt samples.

Fig. 4. ABS test results of modified pullout stubs.


T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 33

Fig. 5. (a) Olympus SZ61 microscope, (b) samples of asphalt layer thicknesses created by the pullout stubs, and (c) Test sample with 75% cohesive failure.

According to AASHTO TP 91-11, samples are consid- nificantly higher than the others because there were more
ered failed in adhesion if more than 50% of the binder is direct contact points between the pullout stub and the
removed after the test is performed. Otherwise, the failure aggregate plate.
is cohesive. All the tested samples failed in a cohesive mode Two-way ANOVA, as shown Table 2, was conducted to
except for PG58-28 and PG64-22 asphalt samples tested evaluate the impact of pullout stub type, the asphalt perfor-
with 0.0 mm pullout stubs. Fig. 5c) shows a picture of a test mance grade and their interaction on the measured ABS
sample with 75% cohesive failure with the yellow areas values between the asphalt binder and the aggregate sur-
indicating an adhesive failure. face. It can be seen from Table 2 that, the pullout stub type,
By looking at the measured asphalt layers and the corre- the asphalt performance grade and their interaction had
sponding mode of failure, it can be seen that samples with significant impacts on the measured ABS value between
high asphalt layer thickness always fail in cohesive mode. the asphalt binder and the aggregate surface. It can be con-
This explains why all the asphalt samples created using cluded that using the 0.0 mm (no edge) pullout stubs with
0.8 mm, and 0.4 mm stubs failed in a cohesive mode. On the new adhesion tester device produced more consistent
the other hand, the asphalt samples created by 0.0 mm stub and reasonable ABS values by providing more direct con-
exhibited both cohesive and adhesive failure modes. The tact points between the pullout stub and the aggregate
ABS values obtained from 0.0 mm pullout stubs were sig- surface.

Table 2
ANOVA table of the ABS test results.
Source Degrees of Freedom Type 1 SS Mean Square F Value P-Value > F
Asphalt Performance Grade (PG) 3 120048.2222 40016.0741 59.96 <0.0001
Pullout Stub (PS) 2 329435.0556 164717.5278 246.83 <0.0001
PG * PS 6 16502.2778 2750.3796 4.12 0.0055
34 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37

5. Rheological and adhesive/cohesive characteristics of ing process includes soaking the prepared samples for 24
extracted asphalt binders h in a heated water bath at 40° ± 2 °C followed by leaving
for 1 h at room temperature before testing. The specified
The asphalt binders of the collected mixtures from the conditioning temperature by the AASHTO TP 91-11 pro-
test sections were extracted, re-graded and then evaluated cedure can be changed to match the conditioning tempera-
using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test fol- ture used for AASHTO T 283 (Standard Method of Test
lowing ASHTO TP70, ‘‘Standard Method of Test for Mul- for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to
tiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Moisture-Induced Damage) or any other reasonable tem-
Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR).” The perature as needed. However, in this study, the condition-
MSCR test uses the creep and recovery method to measure ing temperature kept unchanged because the study focused
the percent recovery and non-recoverable creep compliance mainly on the feasibility of using the existing test procedure
(Jnr). It can be used to predict the rutting susceptibility of with a new adhesion testing device other than the one was
the mix [11]. Typically, reducing Jnr value by half can originally used.
reduce rutting by half [12].
The modified ABS test using the PosiTest Pull-Off adhe- 5.1. Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binder
sion testing device and 0.0 mm (no edge) pullout stub was
used to evaluate the asphalt-aggregate bond strength of the The extraction process was done following the ASTM
extracted and recovered asphalt binders in both dry (un- D2172/D2172M-11 ‘‘Standard Methods for Quantitative
conditioning) and wet (moisture conditioning) situations. Extraction of Bitumen from Bituminous Paving Mixtures”,
According to AASHTO TP91-11, the moisture condition- and ASTM D5404/D540M-12 ‘‘Standard Practice for

Table 3
Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binders from Minnesota test section.
Property HMAPG 76-22 PE-PelletPG 76-22 Specification Test Method
Tests on Original Binder
Dynamic shear, G*/sind (10 rad/s), kPa 1.914 at 76 °C 1.78 at 76 °C 1.00 Min AASHTO T315
Tests on Residue from RTFO, AASHTO T240
Mass loss,% NT NT 1.00% Max AASHTO T240
Dynamic shear, G*/sin d (10 rad/s), kPa 3.26 at 76 °C 2.304 at 76 °C 2.20 Min AASHTO T315
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of Asphalt Binder AASHTO TP 70-11
Non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr3.2, kpa 1 2.75 at 76 °C 3.405 at 76 °C Max, 4.0 kpa 1
HMA: Standard Traffic ‘‘S”
Percent difference between Jnr3.2 and Jnr0.1, Jnrdiff,% 34.65 at 76 °C 25.85 at 76 °C Max, 75% PE-Pellet: Heavy Traffic ‘‘S”
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel, AASHTO R28 @ 100 °C
Dynamic shear, G*sin d at 28 °C (10 rad/s), kPa 3929.5 at 25 °C 3548.5 at 28 °C 5000 Max AASHTO T315
Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)
S-value, MPa 161 at 12 °C 188 at 12 °C 300 Max AASHTO T313
m-value 0.317 at 12 °C 0.3055 at 12 °C 0.300 Min

Table 4
Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binders from ohio test section.
Property HMA PE-Liquid Specification Test method
PG 82-16
PG 82-16
Tests on Original Binder
Dynamic shear, G*/sind (10 rad/s), kPa 2.2219 at 82 °C 2.437 at 82 °C 1.00 Min AASHTO T315
Tests on Residue from RTFO, AASHTO T240
Mass loss,% NT NT 1.00% Max AASHTO T240
Dynamic shear, G*/sin d (10 rad/s), kPa 3.3917 at 82 °C 3.066at 82 °C 2.20 Min AASHTO T315
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of Asphalt Binder AASHTO TP 70-11
Non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr3.2, kpa 1 2.87 at 82 °C 3.745 at 82 °C Max, 4.0 kpa 1
HMA: Standard Traffic ‘‘S”
Percent difference between Jnr3.2 and Jnr0.1, Jnrdiff,% 70.4 at 82 °C 62.85 at 82 °C Max, 75% PE-Liquid: Heavy Traffic ‘‘S”
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel, AASHTO R28 @ 100 °C
Dynamic shear, G*sin d at 28 °C (10 rad/s), kPa 4399.5 at 28 °C 4330 at 28 °C 5000 Max AASHTO T315
Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)
S-value, MPa 119 at 6 °C 109 at 6 °C 300 Max AASHTO T313
m-value 0.372 at 6 °C 0.3835 at 6 °C 0.300 Min
T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 35

Table 5
Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binders from Iowa test section.
Property HMAPG SDPE-Liquid Specification Test method
82-16 PG 70-28
Tests on Original Binder
Dynamic shear, G*/sind (10 rad/s), kPa 1.363 at 82 °C 1.12 at 70 °C 1.00 Min AASHTO T315
Tests on Residue from RTFO, AASHTO T240
Mass loss,% NT NT 1.00% Max AASHTO T240
Dynamic shear, G*/sin d (10 rad/s), kPa 2.326 at 82 °C 2.6875 at 70 °C 2.20 Min AASHTO T315
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of Asphalt Binder AASHTO TP 70-11
Non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr3.2, kpa 1 3.95 at 82 °C 1.815 at 70 °C Max, 4.0 kpa 1
HMA: Standard Traffic ‘‘S”
Percent difference between Jnr3.2 and Jnr0.1, Jnrdiff,% 39.7 at 82 °C 33.7 at 70 °C Max, 75% SDPE-Liquid: Heavy Traffic ‘‘H”
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel, AASHTO R28 @ 100 °C
Dynamic shear, G*sin d at 28 °C (10 rad/s), kPa 3675.5 at 28 °C 4726.5 at 22 °C 5000 Max AASHTO T315
Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)
S-value, MPa 80.95 at 6 °C 226 at 18 °C 300 Max AASHTO T313
m-value 0.367 at 6 °C 0.3125 at 18 °C 0.300 Min

Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Eva- the extracted asphalt binder from the SDPE-Liquid mix-
porator”. After the extraction and recovery of asphalt bin- ture was tested and graded as PG70-28 for a heavy traffic
ders was done, a full performance grading was done ‘‘H” level. The SDPE-Liquid additive reduced the impact
following AASHTO M 320 ‘‘Standard Specification for of aging on the asphalt binder during construction and
Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder” and AASHTO improved the high and low temperature grades of the
MP19-10 ‘‘ Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Using extracted asphalt binder. Further, the SDPE-Liquid addi-
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test” [13]. Tables tive enhanced the asphalt binder characteristics during
3–5 show summaries of the performance grading results for the MSCR test by decreasing the non-recoverable creep
the different extracted and recovered asphalt binders. compliance, which resulted in a higher qualified asphalt
The target asphalt performance grade for Minnesota binder for a higher traffic level ‘‘H” instead of a standard
test section with 25% RAP by weight of mix was 70–22. traffic level ‘‘S” obtained for the extracted asphalt PG82-
Therefore, due to the high RAP content, virgin asphalt 16 from the HMA mixture.
grade was lowered by one level to PG 64-28. The extracted
asphalt binders from both HMA and PE-Pellet mixtures of
Minnesota test section were tested and graded as PG76-22 5.2. Asphalt bond strength test results
for a standard traffic ‘‘S” level.
Asphalt binder PG70-22 was used for Ohio test section The modified Asphalt Bond Strength (ABS) test results
with 20% RAP by weight of mix. The extracted asphalt are shown in Table 6 and plotted in Fig. 6 with the num-
binders from both HMA and PE-Liquid mixtures of Ohio bers above the bars representing the average values and
test sections were tested and graded as PG82-16 for a stan- the whiskers representing the standard deviation. Overlap-
dard traffic ‘‘S” level. ping of the standard deviation implies the similarity in the
The target performance grade for Iowa test section was measured ABS between the asphalt types.
70–22 with 30% RAP by binder replacement. According to For both HMA and PE-Pellet samples from Minnesota
Iowa DOT, asphalt performance grade should be lowered test section, moisture conditioned samples exhibited
one level when using more than 20% RAP by binder slightly lower ABS values than the un-conditioned samples.
replacement in the mix and, therefore, PG64-28 was used Moisture conditioned PE-Pellet samples exhibited slightly
to produce the mixtures. The extracted asphalt binder from lower ABS values than moisture conditioned HMA sam-
the HMA mixture of Iowa test section was tested and ples. Moisture conditioned HMA and PE-Pellet samples
graded as PG82-16 for a standard traffic ‘‘S” level whereas from Minnesota test section exhibited higher ABS values
Table 6
ABS test results of extracted asphalt binders.
Mix type/asphalt grade Un-conditioned samples Conditioned samples
Average, psi St. Dev. Failure Mode Average, psi St. Dev. Failure Mode
Minnesota _HMA/PG76-22 488.7 52.3 53% Cohesion 426.0 32.2 85% Cohesion
Minnesota _PE_Pellet/PG76-22 490.7 41.0 73% Cohesion 391.3 22.0 73% Cohesion
Ohio_HMA/PG82-16 567.0 16.5 76% Cohesion 200.7 12.5 77% Adhesion
Ohio_PE-Liquid/PG82-16 475.3 14.5 76% Cohesion 192.0 12.2 78% Adhesion
Iowa_HMA/PG82-16 490.0 50.3 76% Cohesion 269.7 38.7 80% Adhesion
Iowa_SDPE-Liquid/PG70-28 519.7 12.6 76% Cohesion 322.3 5.5 65% Cohesion
36 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37

Fig. 6. ABS test results of extracted asphalt binders.

than samples from Iowa and Ohio test sections, which indi- non-recoverable creep compliance and the percent recovery
cates a high resistance to moisture damage. of the asphalt binder. Furthermore, the samples prepared
Moisture conditioned HMA and PE-Liquid samples using the SDPE-liquid additive exhibited a better moisture
from Ohio test section exhibited similar ABS values and resistance than HMA samples.
significantly lower than un-conditioned samples. Moisture In order to improve the repeatability of ABS test, more
conditioned HMA and PE-Liquid samples from Ohio tests should be performed on various aggregate surfaces,
exhibited the lowest ABS values, which indicate a low resis- different asphalt binders, and different conditioning meth-
tance to moisture damage. ods and temperatures. Also, the impact of aggregate
Moisture conditioned HMA and SDPE-Liquid samples absorption on the moisture conditioned samples should
from Iowa test section exhibited significantly lower ABS be included in future studies to see if the aggregate absorp-
values than un-conditioned samples. The moisture condi- tion has a significant influence on the measured bond
tioned SDPE-Liquid samples exhibited significantly higher strength using the ABS test method.
ABS values than HMA samples. It can be seen that, both
HMA and SDPE-Liquid mixtures are susceptible to mois- Acknowledgement
ture damage. However, the SDPE-Liquid showed a better
resistance to moisture damage, which can be attributed to The Authors would like to acknowledge the great sup-
the SDPE-Liquid additive’s ability to improve the rheolog- port of the Korean Institute of Civil Engineering and
ical properties of the asphalt binder. Building Technology and the Mid-America Transportation
Center in funding this research study.
6. Conclusions References

The study presented a feasibility of a modified asphalt [1] D.N. Little Jr., D.R. Jones IV, Chemical and Mechanical Processes of
bond strength test method for use with a new adhesion test- Moisture Damage in Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements, National Seminar,
ing device with three different pullout stubs and its applica- TRB Committee on Bituminous–Aggregate Combinations to Meet
Surface Requirements Transportation Research Board (TRB), San
tion for evaluating PE wax-based WMA additive.
Diego, CA, February 2003, pp. 37–74.
Based on the research findings, it can be concluded that [2] A.R. Tarrer, V. Wagh, The Effect of the Physical and Chemical
the ABS test can be conducted using a new adhesion testing Characteristics of the Aggregate on Bonding, Strategic Highway
device with a modified 0.0 mm (no edge) pullout stub. The Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
modified ABS test method was successfully applied to eval- 1991.
[3] B.M. Kiggundu, F.L. Roberts, The Success/Failure of Methods Used
uate extracted and recovered asphalt binders from three
to Predict the Stripping Potential in the Performance of Bituminous
different test sections. The modified ABS test method Pavement Mixtures, NCAT Report No. 88-03, National Center for
showed that the asphalt binder type had an impact on Asphalt Technology, Auburn, January 1988.
the ABS test results similar to the previous study done [4] R.L. Terrel, S. Al-Swailmi, Water Sensitivity of Asphalt-Aggregate
using the original ABS test method [7,8]. Mixes: Test Selection, SHRP Report A-403 , Strategic Highway
Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
Additionally, it was found that the SDPE-liquid WMA
June 1994.
additive significantly improved both high and low temper- [5] R.J. Schmidt, P.E. Graf, The Effect of Water on the Resilient
ature grades of asphalt. The MSCR test results showed Modulus of Asphalt Treated Mixes, Proc Association of Asphalt
that the SDPE-liquid additive significantly enhanced the Paving Technologists 41 (1972) 118–162.
T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 37

[6] A. Hefer, D. Little, Adhesion in Bitumen-Aggregate Systems and [10] Defelsko Company, PosiTest, Pull-off Adhesion Tester Operational
Quantification of the effects of Water on the Adhesive Bond, Report Manual, Obtained from http://www.defelsko.com/adhesion-tester/
No. ICAR/505-1, International Center for Aggregates Research, adhesiontester.htm. (Site last accessed July 2014).
December 2005. [11] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), The Multiple Stress
[7] M. Raquel, V. Raul, H.U. Bahia, Measuring the Effect of Moisture Creep Recovery (MSCR) Procedure, FHWA-HIF-11-038, April
on Asphalt-Aggregate Bond with the Bitumen Bond Strength Test, 2011. Obtained from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/materials/
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2009, pp. 70–81. pubs/hif11038/tb00.cfm (Site last accessed July 2014).
[8] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, [12] E. DuBois, Y. Mehta, A. Nolan, Correlation between multiple stress
AASHTO TP9-11: Standard Method of Test for Determining creep recovery (MSCR) results and polymer modification of binder,
Asphalt Binder Bond Strength by Means of the Asphalt Bond Constr. Build. Mater. 65 (29) (August 2014) 184–190.
Strength (ABS) Test, 2011. [13] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
[9] H. Lee, T. Glueckert, T. Ahmed, Y. Kim, C. Baek, S. Hwang, Standard Specifications of Transportation Materials and Methods of
Laboratory evaluation and field implementation of polyethylene wax- Sampling and Testing, 29th Edition [CD-ROM], 2009.
based warm mix asphalt additive in USA, Int. J. Pav. Res. Technol. 6
(5) (2013) 547–553.