Evaluation of Rutting and Stripping Potential of Different WMA Additives

Evaluation of Rutting and Stripping Potential of WMA with Different Additives
Biswajit K. Bairgi1
; Ivan A. Syed2
; and Rafiqul A. Tarefder3
1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of New Mexico, MSC01 1070, 1
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (corresponding author). E-mail:
bkumar@unm.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of New Mexico, MSC01
1070, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. E-mail: ivsy3d@unm.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of New Mexico, MSC01 1070, 1 University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131. E-mail: tarefder@unm.edu
Abstract
WMA technology is the latest sustainable asphalt technology what allows
lower mixing and compaction temperature without compromising required
performance properties. This study conducted a laboratory evaluation of stripping and
rutting potential and comparison of laboratory results with field distresses of WMA
LTPP sections in the New Mexico (NM) state. The LTPP sections include four WMA
sections: foaming, Evotherm, Cecabase 1 (non-polymerized), and Cecabase 2
(polymerized), and a control HMA. Laboratory tests include Hamburg wheel tracking
test (HWTT) and tensile strength ratio (TSR) on field mixtures. Laboratory
evaluation showed that all the mixtures have adequate rutting resistance; minimal
HWTT rut depth, and adequate stripping resistance; TSR ≥0.85, and no stripping
inflection point. Polymer addition to WMA mixtures resulted in enhanced rutting
resistance. The observed field distresses showed consistency with laboratory
evaluation. A linear correlation has also been developed between air voids and TSR.
INTRODUCTION
The universal awareness in regards of destruction of natural resource, climate change,
and destruction of ecosystem have motivated asphalt pavement technologies to
reduce production and compaction temperature of asphalt mixtures without
compromising required performance behavior (Button et al. 2007). Warm mix asphalt
(WMA), developed in Europe in the late 1990 and in the United States (U.S.) in early
2004, is the latest asphalt technology what addresses both universal awareness of
environmental sustainability and enhancement of mixture workability and
compactibility (Yin et al. 2015). WMA can be produced at about 38o
C lower
temperature than a traditional HMA, which results in a number of environmental,
operational, and economical benefits (Anderson et al. 2008). In the US, the WMA
usage has been increased from 19.2 million tons in 2009 to 106 million tons in 2013,
which is more than 5.5 times in four years (Hansen and Copeland, 2013). Among
various WMA technologies, foamed WMA is the mostly used WMA technology.
Typically, foamed asphalt is produced through injection of cold water (1% to 3% by
wt. of binder) into hot asphalt binder using mechanical foaming technologies (Button
International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 201
© ASCE
International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

et al. 2007; Newcomb et al. 2015). Chemical additives such as Evotherm, Cecabase,
etc. contain emulsion and surfactants (Takamura, 2005). Incorporation of such additives
into asphalt binder does not reduce binder viscosity significantly, however it lowers
internal friction of asphalt mixture when it is subjected to high shear during placement
and compaction (Goh et al. 2013). Table 1 contains a brief of foaming, Evotherm, and
Cecabase WMA technologies as found in existing literature.
Table 1. A Brief of Foaming, Evotherm, and Cecabase WMA Technologies.
WMA
Generic Class
WMA
Process
Addition Rate Working process
Reduction in
Mixing
Temp.
Experience till
2012
Chemical
additives
Cecabase RT 0.3% -0.5% by wt.
of binder
Water-free surfactant
package what improve
coating & compaction
35o
C-60o
C 2 million tons since
2004 (Worldwide)
Evotherm 3G 0.25% - 0.75% by
wt. of binder
Chemical package that
enhance coating,
adhesion, and
workability
54o
C-75o
C 7.5 million tons
since 2006
(worldwide)
Rediset LQ 0.4% - 0.75% by
wt. of binder
Cationic surface-active
agents based chemical
additives
33o
C Developed in 2011
Foaming by
additives/
water
injection
Advera 0.10% - 0.30% by
wt. of mix
Synthetic zeolite based
foaming technologies
30o
C-40o
C 1 million since 2006
(US and Canada)
Aspha-min 0.3% by wt. of
Mixture
Synthetic zeolite based
foaming technologies
30o
C 1.3 million tons
since 2005
(Worldwide)
Terex
Foaming
1% - 3% water (by
wt. of binder)
Single expansion
chamber of binder
through water injection
43o
C-63o
C NA
Astec Green
System
1% - 3% water
injection (by wt.
of binder)
Multi-nozzle device to
microscopically foam
the asphalt binder
43o
C-63o
C 453 Units installed
since 2007
Organic/and
nonfoaming
additives
Sasobit 0.8% - 3% (by wt.
of asphalt binder
Synthetic wax what is
soluble in asphalt binder
at above 100o
C
18o
C-54o
C 3 million tons since
2005(USA and
Canada)
Asphaltan B 2% to 4% by wt.
of asphalt binder
Montan wax organic
additives works
similarly as Sasobit
18o
C-54o
C NA
Source: Prowell et al. 2012, Button et al. 2007, Goh et al. 2013, Newcomb et al. 2015, Chowdhury and Button (2008)
Rutting and moisture susceptibility are two major issues in regards of WMA
performance. Rutting is a measure of permanent deformation due to densification and
shear deformation by repeated shear loading from traffic (Walubita et al. 2012; Gui-ping,
2006). Moisture damage is a progressive deterioration of asphalt mixtures through loss of
strength and stiffness due to presence of water (Huang et al. 2009; Hossain et al. 2015;
Hossain et al. 2016a). Many research studies have been conducted on traditional HMA,
binder, mastic etc., however, very limited research have been found on WMA mixtures
and binder (Bhasin et al. 2007; Caro et al. 2013; Bairgi, 2015; Hossain et al. 2016b).
Larrain and Tarefder (2016) predicted rutting performance of WMA using Weibull
failure rate function (WFRF) modeling and showed that rut depth data fit with WFRF
model. Punith et al. (2012) evaluated the effect of recycled products (RAP and RAS)
on half warm mix asphalt (HWMA) in terms of stripping and rutting and found no
significant effects. Ozturk and Kutay (2014) found moisture damage potential did not
follow specific trend in foamed WMA. Goh et al. (2013) found no significant
changes in terms of rutting in Cecabase WMA compared to HMA. However, these
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

past studies were conducted on laboratory mixed and laboratory compacted samples.
Research question persists on performance of plant mixed WMA and in addition,
their corresponding field performance to bridge with laboratory findings. This study
conducts a laboratory evaluation of rutting and stripping performance of four
different types of WMA and one control HMA collected from long-term pavement
performance (LTPP) section in New Mexico. The LTPP sections includes (i) HMA
(ii) foaming, (iii) Evotherm®, (iv) Cecabase® 1, and (v) Cecabase® 2 (polymerized).
Objectives. This study aims to conduct striping and rutting potential evaluation of
previously stated WMA through laboratory and field performance evaluation.
Specific objectives are as follows:
• Conduct Hamburg wheel tracking test (HWTT) for stripping and rutting
evaluation.
• Conduct tensile strength ratio (TSR) test for stripping evaluation
• Conduct distress survey on LTPP sections to investigate field performance.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Five different test sections including (i) HMA, (ii) Foaming, (iii) Evotherm, (iv)
Cecabase 1, and (v) Cecabase 2 were constructed on Interstate 40 (I-40) freeway as
an overlay over the existing pavement in early September, 2014. A brief mix design
summary of these mixtures are presented in Table 2. Field samples were collected
from these LTPP sections as per AASHTO T 168 guidelines (AASHTO, 2016). The
plant mixed samples were subjected to laboratory shot-term aging to simulate plant
mixed and field compacted specimen following a short term aging protocol of WMA
as stated in Im and Zhou (2015). Cylindrical samples with 150 mm diameter have
been prepared utilizing a Superpave gyratory compactor. Two different standard
tests: HWTT and TSR have been conducted on these specimens to evaluate stripping
and rutting potential. A field distress survey have been conducted to evaluated field
rutting and stripping. Figure 1 illustrates the outline of the research methodologies.
Table 2. Mix Design Summary of Five Different Mixtures for Test Sections.
Mixture
Type
Binder
Grade
(PG)
% AC
(Virgin+RAP)
Superpave Mix Design: Volumetric Properties
% Air
Void
VMA VFA
Effective
AC %
D.P.
HMA 70-28 4.6 (3.5+1.1) 4 14.2 71.8 4.5 1.2
Foaming 70-28 4.6 (3.5+1.1) 4 14.2 71.9 4.5 1.2
Evotherm 70-28 4.6 (3.5+1.1) 4 14.0 71.5 4.4 1.2
Cecabase 1 70-28 4.6 (3.5+1.1) 4 14.3 71.9 4.5 1.2
Cecabase 2 70-28+ 4.6 (3.5+1.1) 4 14.3 72 4.4 1.2
Note 1: AC = Asphalt Content, RAP = Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, VMA = Voids in Mineral Aggregates, VFA = Voids filled
with asphalt, D.P. = Dust Proportion
Note 2: All aggregates meet SP III gradation and all mixtures contain 20% RAP & 1% Versa Bind. Cecabase® 1 mixture
contains unmodified asphalt binder, where Cecabase® 2 contains polymer modified binder.
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

Figure 1. Outline of research methodologies.
Hamburg-wheel tracking (HWTT) test. The HWTT is a laboratory test procedures of
asphalt mixtures what simulates repeated wheel loading on asphalt mixtures specimen to
evaluate rutting and stripping behavior. In the HWTT, a steel wheel (158 lbs.) with 8-
inch diameter and 1.85-inch width moves (52±2 passes per minute) across a pair of
asphalt mixture specimen submerged in water at approximately 50o
C (Figure 2). A
linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) measures the rut depth at 11 points
along wheel passing direction with 0.01 mm precision. Several states Department of
Transportation (DOT) such as Colorado (CDOT), Texas (TxDOT), and California
(Caltrans), etc. have developed the HWTT specification for mix design performance
evaluation. CDOT allows 10 mm maximum rut depth for 10,000 (CDOT, 2015).
TxDOT specified HWTT for different number of wheel passes according to PG
binder grade allowing a fixed rut depth 12.5 mm (TxDOT, 2012). In regard of
stripping prediction, a mixture, prone to moisture damage, typically exhibits a SIP at
1000 number of wheel passes as stated in CDOT specification of HWTT (CDOT,
2015). Again, Caltrans specified a SIP at 5000 number of cycles for conventional
mixtures and 10000 number of wheel passes for the mixtures containing polymer.
Laboratory and Field
Assessment
Field Distress
Evaluation
Laboratory Test
Mixture Type
o HMA
o Foaming
o Evotherm
o Cecabase 1
o Cecabase 2
Hamburg Wheel
Tracking Test
o Rutting
o Stripping
Field Distress
Survey
o Rutting
o Stripping
Tensile Strength
Ratio
Stripping
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

Figure 2: Hamburg-wheel tracking test device and samples.
Plot of rut depth vs. number of wheel passes are analyzed to predict rutting
and stripping susceptibility. Figure 3, a typical plot of rut depth vs. number of wheel
passes, includes a post compaction consolidation, a creep slope, a stripping slope, and
a stripping inflection point (SIP). Post compaction consolidation occurs within 1,000
number of wheel passes and simulates initial densification of pavement mixtures
when traffic movement is allowed on a newly constructed pavement. The creep slope
is inverse of rate of deformation from the segment between SIP and post compaction
consolidation. It relates the rutting susceptibility through measurement of permanent
deformation what occurs due to plastic flow. The stripping slope, also the inverse of
rate of deformation from the following segment, relates the stripping susceptibility of
the mixtures. A lower value of creep and stripping slope represents a more rutting and
stripping of tested samples. If the plot does not include a stripping slope or a SIP, the
mixture has adequate moisture damage resistance.
Figure 3. Typical HWTT Results Analysis.
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

TSR
asp
and
spe
bef
70%
app
TSR
con
wat
Gil
init
wet
Wh
TE
HW
rut
cre
den
fou
R test. TSR
phalt mixture
d dry) of a
ecification. T
fore testing.
% and 80%
proximately
R test speci
nditioning an
ter condition
lson splitting
tiation of cra
t tensile stren
here, t = spec
EST RESUL
WTT results
depth and S
ep slope a
nsification an
ur WMA and
R test is a st
es based ind
asphalt mix
The percenta
Together w
is maintain
5-10 minute
imens were
nd on the oth
ning as per A
g tensile tes
ack growth
ngth (Sw) an
……

cimen thickn
(a) T
(b)
Figure
LTS AND DI
s & discussi
SIP to predic
and post co
nd rut defor
d control HM
Va
tandard test
direct tensile
xture specim
age of air vo
with air voids
ed for wet s
es suction at
subjected t
her hand, dr
AASHTO T
st device (F
in the speci
nd dry tensile
………………

ness, mm &
SR Test Specim
Vacuum Suctio
e 4. Tensile
ISCUSSION
ions. The H
t rutting and
ompaction s
rmation rate
MA samples.
acuum Suction
method for
e strength v
mens (Figur
oids of both
s requiremen
subset throu
10-26 Hg p
to consecuti
ry subsets sp
T 283. Finall
Figure 4c) t
imens. TSR
e strength (S
………..……

D = specime
mens
on
strength rat
NS
HWTT result
d stripping p
slope are a
e analysis. F
In HWTT p
r predicting
value of two
re 4a) as p
h of the subs
nts, a degree
ugh applicati
pressure (Fig
ive freeze-th
pecimens we
ly, test spec
to find max
value is ca
Sd) using Equ
………………
…………
en diameter,
(c) TSR Tes
tio (TSR) te
ts are analyz
otential, resp
also analyze
Figure 5 sho
procedure, tw
stripping re
o different su
per AASHT
sets are kept
e of saturati
ion of vacuu
gure 4b). We
haw and no
ere subjected
cimens were
ximum load
alculated as
uation [1] an
……...[1]
………[2]
, mm
sting
est.
zed based on
pectively. Fu
ed to comp
ows HWTT
wo sets of da
esistance of
ubsets (wet
TO T 283
t 6% to 8%
on between
um suction,
et subsets of
ormal water
d to normal
e tested in a
(P) before
the ratio of
nd [2].
n maximum
urthermore,
pare initial
analysis of
ata (left and
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

right wheel), rut depth vs. number of wheel passes, have been obtained and the
average rut depth has been taken as the representative rut depth of each mixture
(Figure 5a). The plot of maximum rut depth vs. number of wheel passes of all
mixtures have been plotted in Figure 5b. It is seen that there is a post compaction
slope and a creep slope for every mixtures, however, no SIP. Rut depth, at 20,000
number of wheel passes, HMA, Evotherm, Cecabase 1, and foaming mixtures
showed statistically equivalent rut depth based on ANOVA analysis (Figure 6a).
However, between two Cecabase mixtures, Cecabase 1 showed slightly higher rut
depth (3.71 mm) than Cecabase 2 (2.41 mm). As stated earlier, Cecabase 2 is
polymerized, thereby, Cecabase 2 mixture is stiffer than Cecabase 1, what also
reflected from lower rut depth of Cecabase 2 mixture. Rut depth, at 10,000 number of
wheel passes, also showed same trend with slightly lower value. Now, it is seen that
rut depth obtained in this study is significantly lower than the specified rut depth in
different established specification as discussed earlier. Post compaction slope and
creep also follow similar trend as maximum rut depth for these mixtures (Figure 6b &
Figure 6c). Again, between two Cecabase WMA mixtures, Cecabase 2 showed higher
post compaction and creep slope. It reveals that polymer incorporation into chemical
additives like Cecabase improves significant rut resistance compared to control
HMA. Since, there is no stripping slope or thereby no SIP found in this study, all
mixtures have sufficient moisture damage resistance. Usage of 1% hydrated lime in
the every mixture is expected reason for observed adequate moisture damage
resistance of these mixtures.
(a) HWTT Analysis Procedure (Cecabase 2) (b) Rut Depth vs. Number of Wheel Passes
Figure 5. HWTT results Analysis.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Rut
Depth
(mm)
Number of Wheel Passes
Left
Right
Average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Rutting
Depth
(mm)
Wheel Passes
HMA
Foaming
Evotherm
Cecabase 1
Cecabase 2
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

F
TSR
Fig
psi,
ten
psi,
stre
no
ten
stat
Cec
Acc
hig
Me
resi
1
1
Post
Comaction
(pass/mm)
(b) Post Comp
Figure 6. Pl
R test resu
gure 7(a) illu
, 42.2 psi, 3
sile strength
, respectivel
ength of five
statistically
sile strength
tistically di
cabase 2 mix
cording to th
gher is consi
exico specif
istance.
3.17
0
2
4
6
8
HM
Rut
Depth
(mm)
677
0
400
800
1200
1600
paction Slope (
lot of rut de
ults and dis
ustrates, the
35.8 psi, an
h of wet sub
ly. An one-
e different m
significant
h. One-way
fferent amo
xtures show
he New Mex
dered to hav
fication, all
3
4.76
MA F
640
511
Mixture Type
(a) Rut Depth
(passes/mm)
epth, post co
cussions. T
average ten
nd 42.5 psi,
set samples
-way ANOV
mixtures. Bas
difference a
y ANOVA
ong five di
wed slightly h
xico practice
ve adequate
l the mixt
.27
4.77
Foaming
M
At 10000 Cy
837
1171
h/maximum im
ompaction s
SR test resu
nsile strength
respectively
37.2 psi, 21
VA test has
sed on ANO
among five
test on TSR
ifferent spe
higher TSR
e, an asphal
stripping re
ures posses
3.56
4.67
Evotherm
Mixture Type
ycles At 200
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
Creep
Slope
(pss/mm)
mpression
(c) Creep Slo
slope, and c
ults are pres
h of dry sub
y. On the o
1.9 psi, 40.6
s been cond
OVA analysi
mixtures in
R value als
ecimens. Ho
compared t
lt mixtures w
esistance. Th
ssed adequ
2.80
3.
Cecabase
000 Cycles
8929
7224
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mix
ope (passes/mm
reep slope a
sented in Fi
bsets are 32
ther hand, t
psi, 36.0 ps
ducted on dr
is it is seen t
n terms of w
so shows T
owever, Fo
to other thre
with TSR va
hus, based o
uate moistur
1.84
.71
e 1 Ceca
4
9359
1138
xtrue Type
m)
analysis.
igure 7. As
.4 psi, 31.8
the average
si, and 30.5
ry and wet
that there is
wet and dry
TSR is not
aming and
ee mixtures.
alue 0.85 or
on the New
re damage
2.41
abase 2
87
17494
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

A s
TSR
bot
betw
inc
thaw
ten
TSR
simple linea
R value of t
th wet and
ween air vo
orporate into
w condition
sile strength
(a) TSR vs
0
10
20
30
40
50
Tensile
Strength
(psi)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
TSR
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
4 5
Air V
Figu
ar regression
these mixtur
dry specime
oids and TS
o the mixtur
ning. Since,
h results in lo
s. Air Void (%)
Figure
32.4
37.2
HMA
0.87
HMA
5 6
Void (%) of Wet
(a) Dry a
(b) TSR v
ure 7. TSR t
n equation h
res. Figure 8
ens. It is se
SR. Higher
res what resu
TSR is the
ower TSR.
) of Wet Subse
8. Correlat
31.8
21.9
Foaming
M
W
1.45
Foaming
7 8
Subset
and Wet Tensil
value of Test S
est results a
has been dev
8 shows regr
een that ther
percentage
ults in lower
ratio of wet
et (b
tion of air vo
42.2 40.6
Evotherm
Mixture Type
Wet Subset D
1.04
Evotherm
Mixture Type
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
4
TSR
e Strength
Specimens
and analysis
veloped betw
ression line o
re is a nega
of air voids
r wet tensile
t to dry tens
b) TSR vs. Ai
oids with T
35.7 36.4
Cecabase 1
Dry Subset
0.99
Cecabase
e
4 5
Air Void (
s.
ween air vo
of TSR vs. a
ative linear
s allow mor
strength dur
sile strength
ir Void (%) of
SR.
42.5
4
30
1 Cecabase
1.39
1 Cecabase
6 7
(%) of Dry Subs
oid (%) and
air voids of
correlation
re water to
ring freeze-
, lower wet
Dry Subset
0.5
e 2
e 2
7 8
set
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

Fie
hav
illu
ther
of t
not
Thu
tota
201
that
diff
the
eva
slop
dist
CO
Thi
tech
In
beh
dra
eld perform
ve been surv
ustrates the ru
re are minim
the rutting o
t significantl
us, rut depth
al rutting of
16 shows tha
t there is no
ferent sectio
se sections,
aluations we
pe and post
tress survey
ONCLUSIO
is study inv
hnologies, im
addition, th
havior. Base
awn:
• WMA w
and equ
Cecabas
evaluate
differen
• No strip
adequat
field ev
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Rut
Depth
(mm)
mance evalua
veyed in two
ut depth with
mal rutting in
occurs in the
ly increase a
h found after
f these sectio
at rutting rat
statistical si
ons. Howeve
what represe
ere also foun
compaction
what is also
Fig
NS
vestigated r
mplemented
he study al
d on the ove
with foamed
uivalent rutt
se WMA b
ed rutting i
nt sections.
pping inflect
te stripping
aluation resu
HMA
ation. The p
o different p
h ±standard
n these secti
e first year o
after 2-3 yea
r 2 years of
ons. Differe
te is lower a
ignificant di
er, Cecabase
ents higher r
nd to be co
n slope. No
o consistent w
gure 9. Field
rutting and
d in LTPP se
lso addresse
erall observ
d asphalt, Ce
ing resistanc
inder result
is also mini
tion point (S
resistance o
ults.
Foaming
2015 (O
pavement di
phases: Octo
deviation as
ions after 2
of constructio
ars (Quintus
overlay con
ence of rut d
after 1 year.
fference in t
e 2 mixtures
rut resistanc
nsistent to H
stripping w
with HWTT
d evaluated
stripping b
ections in N
ed field ev
ations of thi
cabase, and
ce. In additi
ts in a high
imal and st
SIP) is found
of these mix
Evotherm
Mixture Ty
October) 20
istress cond
ober, 2015 &
s found in th
years. Past
on of pavem
s et al, 2012
nstruction re
depth betwe
One-way A
terms of rut
showed the
ce of polyme
HWTT anal
were found in
and TSR an
rut depth.
behavior of
NM, through
aluation of
is study, fol
Evotherm a
ion, incorpo
her rut resis
tatistically e
d in HWTT r
xtures what
m Cecabase
ype
016 (April)
dition of LTP
& April, 201
he survey. It
studies state
ment and rut
2; Rushing e
epresents app
en year 201
ANOVA ana
depth amon
e least rut de
erized WMA
lysis in term
n the any p
nalysis.
f four differ
laboratory e
f rutting an
lowing conc
additives sho
oration of po
stance to W
equivalent a
results, whic
is also cons
1 Cecabase
PP sections
6. Figure 9
is seen that
es that most
depth does
et al. 2014).
proximately
15 and year
lysis shows
g these five
epth among
A. This field
ms of creep
hase of the
rent WMA
experiment.
d stripping
clusions are
ow adequate
olymer into
WMA. Field
among five
ch indicates
sistent with
e 2
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

• WMA with foaming, Evotherm, Cecabase, polymerized Cecabse, and HMA
shows statistically equivalent TSR. In addition, all mixtures meet TSR criteria
for adequate stripping resistance what is also consistent with HWTT results.
• There is negative linear correlation between TSR and of air voids of TSR test
specimens what indicates, mixtures with higher percentage of air voids are
more prone to stripping.
REFERENCES
AASHTO. (2016). “Sampling of Hot Mix Asphalt Paving Mixtures” AASHTO T 168
Specification.
Anderson, R. M., Baumgardner, G., May, R., and Reinke, G. (2008). “NCHRP 9-47:
Interim Report: Engineering Properties, Emissions, and Field Performance of
Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies”. National Highway Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
Arega, Z. and Bhasin, A. (2012). “Interim Report: Binder Rheology and Performance
in Warm Mix Asphalt,” Report No. FHWA/TX-12-0-6591-2.
Bairgi, B. K. (2015). “Viability assessment of the use of ground tire rubber in asphalt
pavements,” M. Sc. Thesis, Arkansas State University.
Bonaquist, Ramon Francis. Mix design practices for warm mix asphalt. Vol. 691.
Transportation Research Board, 2011.
Button, J. W., Estakhri, C., and Wimsatt, A. (2007). “A Synthesis of Warm Mix
Asphalt. Federal Highway Administration,” Report No. FHWA/TX-07/0-
5597-1, College Station, TX.
CDOT. (2015). “Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures.
Colorado Procedure for HWTT, CDOT LMTP.
Chowdhury, A. and Button, J. W. (2008). “A Review of Warm Mix Asphalt”, Texas
Transportation Institute, Report No. SWUTC/08/473700-00080-01.
Goh, S. W, Y., Hasa, M. R. M., and Z. You. (2013). “Performance Evaluation of
Cecabase® RT in Warm Mix Asphalt Technology,” 13th
COTA International
Conference of Transportation Professionals, pp. 2782-2790.
Gui-ping, H. and Wing-gun, W. (2006). “Laboratory study on permanent deformation
of foamed asphalt mix incorporating reclaimed asphalt pavement materials.
Science Direct, Construction and Building Materials 21, pp. 1809-1819.
Hansen, K. and Copeland, A. (2013). “4th annual asphalt pavement industry survey
on recycled materials and warm-mix asphalt usage” 2009–2013. Information
Series 138. National Pavement Association. Lanham, MD.
Hossain, Z., Bairgi, B., & Belshe, M. (2015). “Investigation of moisture damage
resistance of GTR-modified asphalt binder by static contact angle
measurements,” Construction and Building Materials, 95, 45-53.
Hossain, Z., Bairgi, B., Zaman, M., & Bulut, R. (2016a). “Prediction of the Stripping
Resistance of Nanoclay-Modified Asphalts Using Their Surface Chemistries,”
Geo-Chicago 2016, 477.
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

Hossain, Z., Bairgi, B., Zaman, M., Bulut, R., & Sumpter, B. (2016b). Evaluation of
Static Contact Angles and Moisture Resistance of Organoclay-modified
Asphalt Binders. In Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting (No.
16-2566).
Huang, J. F., Wu, S. P. L., Ma, X. and Liu, Z. F. (2009). “Material Selection and
Design for Moisture Damage of HMA Pavement,” Materials Science Forum.
Vol. 614, pp. 269-274.
Im and Zhou (2015). “Laboratory short-term aging protocol for plant-mixed and
laboratory compacted samples,” Journal of Construction and Building
Materials 89 pp. 1-12.
Larrain, M. M. M. and Tarefder, R. A. (2016). “Weibull Model for Rutting Prediction
of Warm Mix Asphalt Agents Using Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device,”
Transportation Research Board, Paper ID: 16-3974, Washington D.C., 2016.
Newcomb, D. E., Arambula, E., Yin, F., Zhang, J, Bhasin, A., Li, W., and Arega, Z.
(2015). “NCHRP Report 807: Properties of Foamed Asphalt for Warm Mix
Asphalt Applications,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 2015.
Ozturk, H. I. and Kutay, M. E. Effect of Foamed Binder Characteristics on Warm
Mix Asphalt (WMA) Performance. Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C. 2014.
Punith, V. S., Xiao, F., Wingard, D., Pultman, B. J., and Aziz, N. M. (2012)
“Moisture Susceptibility and Rutting Resistance Evaluation of Foamed Half
Warm Asphalt Mixtures,” Transportation Research Board, Annual Meeting
2012.
Quintus, H. L., Mallela, J., Bonaquist, R., Schwartz, C. W., and Carvalho, R. L.
(2012). “NCHRP Report 719: Calibration of Rutting Models for Structural
and Mix Design,” Transportation Research Board, Washington, D. C.
Rushing, J. F., Little, D. N., and Garg, N. (2014) “Selecting a Rutting Performance
Test for Airport Asphalt Mixture Design,” Journal of Road Materials and
Pavement Design, Vol. 15, No. S1, 2014. pp. 172-194.
Takamura, K. (2005). “Binder Characterization for Latex Polymer-Modified
Evotherm® Warm Mix,” Charlotte Technical Center, BASF Corporation,
Charlotte, NC, 2005.
TxDOT. (2012). “Test Procedure for Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test,” TxDOT
Designation: Tex-242, 2012.
Walubita L. F., Zhang, J., Das, G, and Hu, Xiaodi. (2012). “Comparison of the
Hamburg, Dynamic Modulus, and Repeated Load Tests for Evaluation of
HMA Permanent Deformation,” Transportation Research Board (TRB),
Washington, D. C. 2012.
Yin, F., Arambula-Mercado, E., and Newcomb, D. (2015). “Effect of laboratory
foamer on asphalt foaming characteristics and foamed mixture properties,”
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2015, pp. 1-9.
© ASCE
Downloaded
from
ascelibrary.org
by
University
Of
Florida
on
10/30/17.
Copyright
ASCE.
For
personal
use
only;
all
rights
reserved.

Evaluation of Rutting and Stripping Potential of Different WMA Additives

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evaluation of Rutting and Stripping Potential of Different WMA Additives

Similar to Evaluation of Rutting and Stripping Potential of Different WMA Additives (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluation of Rutting and Stripping Potential of Different WMA Additives