Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation Between Rheological Rutting Tests on Bitumen and Asphalt Mix Flow Number

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Selecting an asphalt binder that has the potential of withstanding permanent deformation in the field is a challenging task; in particular, relating the binder’s rutting resistance to the corresponding behaviour of the asphalt mixture can prove difficult. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the correlation between rutting susceptibility of bitumen with that of the asphalt mixtures prepared using the same bitumen. The testing methods used in this study include laboratory experiments on bitumen and asphalt used by several agencies in their specifications, such as the percentage of recovery (%R) and non-recoverable compliance (Jnr) through multiple stress creep and recovery (MSCR) test, Superpave rutting parameter G*/sinδ through frequency sweep tests and the flow number of asphalt mixtures through uniaxial repeated load tests. Statistical comparisons across bitumen and asphalt test outcomes were made by analysing the correlations generated by several types of bitumen tested, i.e. both polymer-modified using various polymers (elastomers and plastomers) and standard unmodified bitumen. The G*/sinδ parameter at various frequency (0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.59, 5 and 10 Hz) and testing temperature (40 and 60 °C) and Jnr at various stress levels (0.1, 3.2, 6.4 kPa) and temperature (60 ℃) were correlated with flow number at 50, 55 and 60 ℃. The correlation was also analysed by grouping some of the materials tested to verify the statistical fit between tests on bitumen and on asphalt mixes. The results show how Jnr is a better indicator of rutting performance for asphalt materials than G*/sinδ; however, G*/sinδ provides a good correlation with the permanent deformation of asphalt groups prepared using similar binders (i.e. belonging to the same family of polymers).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

Not applicable

References

  1. ARA, I., ERES Consultants Division. (2004). Guide for mechanistic—Empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures. Final Rep., NCHRP Project 1-37A. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/2appendices_RR.pdf.

  2. Luo, R., & Prozzi, J.A. (2008). Development of a pavement rutting model from long-term pavement performance data. In Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting. https://trid.trb.org/view/847814.

  3. Hafeez, I., et al. (2015). A laboratory-based research study to investigate the aggregate packing characteristics and its influence on asphaltic mixtureʼs performance. Arabian Journal for Science Engineering., 40, 3119–3134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1804-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kandhal, P. S., & Cooley, L.A. (2003). Accelerated laboratory rutting tests: Evaluation of the asphalt pavement analyser, vol. 508. Transportation Research Board.

  5. Epps, J., et al. (1998). Performance of HMA test sections at WesTrack. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 67. https://trid.trb.org/view/542950.

  6. Stiady, J., Hand, A., & White, T. (2001). Quantifying contributions of aggregate characteristics to HMA performance using PUR Wheel laboratory tracking device. Aggregate contribution to hot mix asphalt (HMA) performance. ASTM International.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang, J., et al. (2015). Use of the MSCR test to characterize the asphalt binder properties relative to HMA rutting performance—A laboratory study. Construction and Building Materials, 94, 218–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ishaq, M. A., & Giustozzi, F. (2020). Rejuvenator effectiveness in reducing moisture and freeze/thaw damage on long-term performance of 20% RAP asphalt mixes: An Australian case study. Journal of Case Studies in Construction Materials, 13, e00454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Southern, M. (2015). A perspective of bituminous binder specifications. Advances in asphalt materials (pp. 1–27). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zani, L., Giustozzi, F., & Harvey, J. (2017). Effect of storage stability on chemical and rheological properties of polymer-modified asphalt binders for road pavement construction. Construction and Building Materials, 145, 326–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodrich, J. L. (1988). Asphalt and polymer modified asphalt properties related to the performance of asphalt concrete mixes (with discussion). In Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists Proc. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT). https://trid.trb.org/view/486635.

  12. Behnood, A., & Gharehveran, M. M. (2019). Morphology, rheology, and physical properties of polymer-modified asphalt binders. European Polymer Journal, 12, 766–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jamal, M., & Giustozzi, F. (2021). Chemo-rheological investigation on waste rubber-modified bitumen response to various blending factors. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00045-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harman, T., Youtcheff, J., & Bukowski, J. (2011). The multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) procedure. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/materials/pubs/hif11038/hif11038.pdf.

  15. Greene, J., Choubane, B., & Chun, S. (2013). Evaluation of a heavy polymer modified binder through accelerated pavement testing. In Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. https://trid.trb.org/view/1241351.

  16. Choi, Y. (2010). Laboratory study on relationship between binder properties and asphalt rutting. https://trid.trb.org/view/1099116.

  17. Timm, D.H., et al. (2013). Field and laboratory study of high-polymer mixtures at the NCAT test track. Final report. p. 13-03.

  18. Chen, J.-S., Wang, T. J., & Lee, C.-T. (2018). Evaluation of a highly-modified asphalt binder for field performance. Construction and Building Materials, 171, 539–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Habbouche, J., et al. (2020). A critical review of high polymer-modified asphalt binders and mixtures. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 21, 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1503273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Joohari, I. B., & Giustozzi, F. (2021). Waste tyres crumb rubber as a sustainability enhancer for polymer-modified and hybrid polymer-modified bitumen. International Journal of Pavement Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2021.1943745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Joohari, I. B., & Giustozzi, F. (2020). Chemical and high-temperature rheological properties of recycled plastics-polymer modified hybrid bitumen. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Joohari, I. B., & Giustozzi, F. (2020). Effect of different vinyl-acetate contents in hybrid SBS-EVA modified bitumen. Journal of Construction Building Materials, 262, 120574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bahia, H. U., & Anderson, D. A. (1995). Strategic highway research program binder rheological parameters: background and comparison with conventional properties. Transportation Research Record. https://trid.trb.org/view/452529.

  24. D’Angelo, J., et al. (2007). Revision of the superpave high temperature binder specification: the multiple stress creep recovery test (with discussion). Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2009.9690236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. AASHTO. (2011). Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing.

  26. Abdallah, I. N. (2011). Strategies to improve and preserve flexible pavements at intersections. https://www.proquest.com/docview/874289483?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.

  27. Archilla, A. R., Diaz, L. G., & Carpenter, S. H. (2007). Proposed method to determine the flow number in bituminous mixtures from repeated axial load tests. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 133, 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-947X%282007%29133%3A11%28610%29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goh, S. W., et al. (2011). Preliminary dynamic modulus criteria of HMA for field rutting of asphalt pavements: Michigan’s experience. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 137, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE%29TE.1943-5436.0000191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mohammad, L. N., et al. (2006). Permanent deformation analysis of hot-mix asphalt mixtures with simple performance tests and 2002 mechanistic-empirical pavement design software. Transportation Research Record, 1970, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, J., et al. (2013). Comparison of flow number, dynamic modulus, and repeated load tests for evaluation of HMA permanent deformation. Construction and Building Materials, 44, 391–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Witczak, M. W. (2002). Simple performance test for superpave mix design (Vol. 465). Transportation Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Witczak, M. W. (2007). Specification criteria for simple performance tests for rutting (Vol. 580). Transportation Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhou, F., & Scullion, T. (2001). Laboratory results from heavy duty asphalt mixes. Texas Department of Transport, Technical Memorandum to TxDOT.

  34. Susanto, H. A., et al. (2021). Effect of viscoelastic material in hot mix asphalt rutting performance correlation using different wheel-tracking test. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00046-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gibson, N., et al. (2012). Performance testing for superpave and structural validation. Federal Highway Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kaloush, K. E., Witczak, M. W., & Sullivan, B. W. (2003). Simple performance test for permanent deformation evaluation of asphalt mixtures. In: Sixth International RILEM Symposium on Performance Testing and Evaluation of Bituminous Materials. RILEM Publications SARL.

  37. Zhou, F., & Scullion, T. (2002). Discussion: Three stages of permanent deformation curve and rutting model. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 3, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1029843021000083676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhou, F., & Scullion, T. (2003). Preliminary field validation of simple performance tests for permanent deformation: case study. Transportation Research Record, 1832, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.3141/1832-25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhou, F., Scullion, T., & Sun, L. (2004). Verification and modeling of three-stage permanent deformation behavior of asphalt mixes. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 130, 486–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Walubita, L. F., et al. (2012). Hot-mix asphalt permanent deformation evaluated by Hamburg wheel tracking, dynamic modulus, and repeated load tests. Transportation Research Record, 2296, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/2296-05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Walubita, L. (2016). HMA shear resistance, permanent deformation, and rutting tests for Texas mixes: year-1 report, 2014.

  42. Walubita, L., et al. (2013). Exploring the flow number (FN) index as a means to characterise the HMA permanent deformation response under FN testing. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 55, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC152554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kaloush, K. E. (2002). Simple performance test for permanent deformation of asphalt mixtures. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304687181?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.

  44. Hu, S., Zhou, F., & Scullion, T. (2011). Development, calibration, and validation of a new ME rutting model for HMA overlay design and analysis. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23, 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1061/%28ASCE%29MT.1943-5533.0000130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. AASHTO. (2017). Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder (p. 8). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Roberts, C., van Rooijen, R., & Thimm, L. (2012). A comparison of binder test that relate to asphalt mixture deformation. In Proc. 5th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress (Istanbul). https://www.h-a-d.hr/pubfile.php?id=437.

  47. Gungor, A. G., & Saglik, A. (2012). Evaluation of rutting performance of neat and modified binders using zero shear viscosity. In 5th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ahmet-Guengoer-5/publication/318865594_EVALUATION_OF_RUTTING_PERFORMANCE_OF_NEAT_AND_MODIFIED_BINDERS_USING_ZERO_SHEAR_VISCOSITY/links/598234fea6fdcc8b56f57bd2/EVALUATION-OF-RUTTING-PERFORMANCE-OF-NEAT-AND-MODIFIED-BINDERS-USING-ZERO-SHEAR-VISCOSITY.pdf.

  48. Dreessen, S., & Planche, J. (2009). Seeking for a relevant binder test method for rutting prediction. Environmentally friendly roads-ENVIROAD 2009.

  49. Laukkanen, O.-V., et al. (2015). Creep-recovery behavior of bituminous binders and its relation to asphalt mixture rutting. Materials and Structures, 48, 4039–4053. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0464-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Leahy, R. B., Harrigan, E. T., & Von Quintus, H. (1994). Validation of relationships between specification properties and performance. Washington, DC: Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gibson, N., et al. (2012). Performance testing for superpave and structural validation. Publication no. FHWa-HRT-11-045, US Department of Transportation.

  52. Beckedahl, H., Sivapatham, P., & Neutag, L. (2008). Impacts of the compaction degree of asphalt mixes on the asphalt pavement performance-temperature dependent resilient modules, rutting and fatigue. In Proceedings of the 4th Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress Held May 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark. https://trid.trb.org/view/1082382.

  53. Guericke, R., & Schlame, K. (2008). A new softening-point based on asphalt pavement performance figures. In 4th eurasphalt and eurobitume congress, Copenhagen.

  54. Soenen, H., et al. (2006). Selection of binder performance indicators for asphalt rutting based on triaxial and wheel tracking tests. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologies, 75, 165–201. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hilde-Soenen/publication/289641171_Selection_of_binder_performance_indicators_for_asphalt_rutting_based_on_triaxial_and_wheel_tracking_tests/links/590c92dea6fdccad7b0e0270/Selection-of-binder-performance-indicators-for-asphalt-rutting-based-on-triaxial-and-wheel-tracking-tests.pdf.

  55. D’Angelo, J. A. (2009). The relationship of the MSCR test to rutting. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 10, 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Bastos, J. B., Babadopulos, L. F., & Soares, J. B. (2017). Relationship between multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) binder test results and asphalt concrete rutting resistance in Brazilian roadways. Construction and Building Materials, 145, 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lv, Q., et al. (2019). Investigation of the rutting performance of various modified asphalt mixtures using the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device test and Multiple Stress Creep Recovery test. Construction and Building Materials, 206, 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaloush, K. E., B.S.U., Salim, R., & Gundla, A. (2019). Evaluation of MSCR testing for adoption in ADOT asphalt binder specifications. A.D.o. Transportation.

  59. Dueñas, A. P., et al. (2012). Relationships between zero shear viscosity, low shear viscosity and MSCRT tests and EN 12697-22 rutting test. In Proc. of the 5th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress (Istanbul). https://www.h-a-d.hr/pubfile.php?id=622.

  60. Tabatabaee, N., & Tabatabaee, H. A. (2010). Multiple stress creep and recovery and time sweep fatigue tests: Crumb rubber modified binder and mixture performance. Transportation Research Record, 2180, 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Syed, I. A., et al. (2019). Comparison of rut performance of asphalt concrete and binder containing warm mix additives. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 12, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-019-0021-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Holleran, G., et al. (2015). Bitumen in New Zealand: Performance based asphalt binder specification. In AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference, 16th, 2015, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

  63. De Visscher, J., et al. (2016). European round robin tests for the multiple stress creep recovery test and contribution to the development of the European standard test method. In 6th Eurobitumen and Euraspahlt Congress, Prague, Czech Republic.

  64. Beecroft, A., Denneman, E., & Petho, L. (2015). Analysis of the temperature profile for an asphalt pavement over one-year in Brisbane. In AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference, 16th, 2015, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

  65. O’Connell, J., Mturi, G., & Zoorob, S. (2015). A review of the development of the non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, for use in South Africa. In Proceedings 11th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for southern Africa, Sun City, South Africa.

  66. White, G. (2015). The multiple stress creep recovery test for airport asphalt binders. Road and Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice, 24, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  67. White, G. (2015). Grading of Australian bitumen by multiple stress creep recovery. Road and Transport Research: A Journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice, 24, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Domingos, M. D. I., & Faxina, A. L. (2015). Rheological behaviour of bitumens modified with PE and PPA at different MSCR creep–recovery times. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16, 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.953503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Motamed, A., & Bahia, H. U. (2011). Influence of test geometry, temperature, stress level, and loading duration on binder properties measured using DSR. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23, 1422–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Santagata, E., et al. (2015). A novel procedure for the evaluation of anti-rutting potential of asphalt binders. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Dreessen, S., & Gallet, T. (2012). MSCRT: Performance related test method for rutting prediction of asphalt mixtures from binder rheological characteristics. In Proc. of the 5th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress (Istanbul).

  72. Airey, G. (2004). Styrene butadiene styrene polymer modification of road bitumens. Journal of Materials Science, 39, 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMSC.0000012927.00747.83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Brasileiro, L., et al. (2019). Reclaimed polymers as asphalt binder modifiers for more sustainable roads: A review. Sustainability, 11, 646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Capitão, S., Picado-Santos, L., & Martinho, F. (2012). Pavement engineering materials: Review on the use of warm-mix asphalt. Construction and Building Materials, 36, 1016–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ranieri, M., Celauro, C., & Di Paola, M. (2017). Asphalt mixtures improved with plastic additives: mix design and case study in an airport. Doctoral Thesis, University of Palermo, Italy.

  76. VicRoads. (2021). Code of practice RC 500.01: Registration of bituminous mix designs. VicRoads.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Standard, A. (2014). Methods of sampling and testing asphalt, Method 21: Sample preparation—Mixing, quartering and conditioning of asphalt in the laboratory. Standard Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Austroads. (2019). Specification framework for polymer modified binders. Austroads. https://austroads.com.au/publications/pavement/agpt-t190-19/media/AGPT-T190-19_Specification_framework_for_PMBs.pdf.

  79. Australia S. (2013). AS/NZS 2891.3.3:2013—Methods of sampling and testing asphalt Binder content and aggregate grading—Pressure filter method (p. 6). Standards Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Roberts, F.L., et al. (1996). Hot mix asphalt materials, mixture design and construction. Natl Asphalt Pavement Assn; 2 edition. ISBN-10: 0914313010

  81. Wasage, T., Stastna, J., & Zanzotto, L. (2011). Rheological analysis of multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 12, 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Francken, L. (1977). Permanent deformation law of bituminous road mixes in repeated triaxial compression. In Volume I of proceedings of 4th International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 22–26, 1977.

  83. Bonaquist, R.F. (2008). Ruggedness testing of the dynamic modulus and flow number tests with the simple performance tester. NCHRP Report No. 629. https://doi.org/10.17226/14200

  84. Heinze, G., & Dunkler, D. (2017). Five myths about variable selection. Transplant International., 30, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12895

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study in this paper has been partially funded by the Higher Commission of Education—Pakistan and Iterchimica srl.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 376-392 Swanston St., Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Muhammad Aakif Ishaq & Filippo Giustozzi

  2. Iterchimica Srl, 24040, Suisio, BG, Italy

    Loretta Venturini

Authors
  1. Muhammad Aakif Ishaq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loretta Venturini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Filippo Giustozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: all authors; laboratory experiments: MAI; data analysis: all authors; methodology: all authors; writing—original draft: MAI; writing—review and editing: LV and FG; project administration, funding and supervision: FG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Giustozzi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethics approval

The facts and views in the manuscript are ours and we are totally responsible for the authenticity, validity and originality. We also declare that this manuscript is our original work and we have not copied from anywhere else. There is no plagiarism in our manuscript.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

We undertake and agree that the manuscript submitted to your journal has not been published elsewhere and has not been simultaneously submitted to other journals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ishaq, M.A., Venturini, L. & Giustozzi, F. Correlation Between Rheological Rutting Tests on Bitumen and Asphalt Mix Flow Number. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 15, 1297–1316 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00089-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-021-00089-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation