Tran-SET 2020
Evaluation of Conventional Elastic Recovery Tests for Modified Binders
Publication: Tran-SET 2020
ABSTRACT
Polymers, rubbers, and acids have been widely used for asphalt binder modifications. Different state and highway agencies follow different performance grade (PG) plus test techniques to characterize polymer-modified binders. The elastic recovery (ER) test method (AAHSTO T 301) is one of the most commonly used PG Plus test techniques to determine the presence of elastomeric modifiers. However, the ER test method is not suitable to determine the mechanical properties of the polymer-modified binders beyond its linear viscoelastic range and there is no uniform guideline to conduct the ER test. Thus, the main research goal of this study is to recommend alternative test method(s), which can possibly be pursued by using a commonly available device, a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). Guidelines have been developed toward adopting the appropriate test method(s) so that neither suppliers nor users are penalized. In this study, the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) certified SBS-modified PG 70-22 and PG 76-22 binders collected from ten sources were investigated in the laboratory. Test procedures including multiple stress creep and recovery (MSCR), ER-DSR, linear amplitude sweep (LAS), and binder yield energy test (BYET) have been explored to find their effectiveness. After exploring the DSR-based tests, it is concluded that the presence of the elastomer can be identified through ER-DSR and MSCR tests. The ER-DSR test has been found to be the best alternative to the ER test method. The MSCR percent recovery (%R) parameter was also found to have a good correlation with the ER.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Transportation Consortium of South Central States (TranSET) to conduct this study. The authors are also thankful to Paragon Technical Services Inc. and other suppliers for providing test materials and technical support for this study.
REFERENCES
1.
Becker, Y., Mendez, M. P., and Rodriguez, Y. (2001). A polymer modified asphalt. Vision Technol. 9:39-50.
2.
Yildirim, Y. (2007). Polymer modified asphalt binders. Constr. Build. Mater. 21:66-72.
3.
Clopotela, C. S., and Bahia, H. U. (2012). Importance of Elastic Recovery in the DSR for Binders and Mastics. Engineering Journal, 16(4):99-106.
4.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) T 301-13. (2013). Standard Method of Test for Elastic Recovery Test of Asphalt Materials by Means of a Ductilometer. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part 2B, 33th Edition, Washington, DC.
5.
Rahaman, M. Z., Hossain, Z., and Zaman, M. (2018). Nonrecoverable Compliance and Recovery Behavior of Polymer-Modified and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement-Modified Binders in Arkansas. Journal of Testing and Evaluation. 46(6):2483-2497.
6.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M320-16. (2016). Standard Method of Test for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part 2B, 36th Edition, Washington, DC.
7.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M332-14. (2014). Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part 2B, 34th Edition, Washington, DC.
8.
Moraes, R., Swiertz, D., and Bahia, H. (2017). Comparison of New Test Methods and New Specifications for Rutting Resistance and Elasticity of Modified Binders. Canadian Technical Asphalt Association.
9.
D’Angelo, J. (2010). New High-Temperature Binder Specification Using Multistress Creep and Recovery, Transportation Research Circular EC-147, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1-13.
10.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) TP 101. (2014). Standard method of test for estimating damage tolerance of asphalt binders using the linear amplitude sweep. Washington D.C.
11.
Johnson, C. M. (2010). Estimating asphalt binder fatigue resistance using an accelerated test method. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
12.
Hintz, C., and Bahia, H. (2013). Simplification of linear amplitude sweep test and specification parameter. Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res. Board 2370:10-16.
13.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) TP 123. (2016). Measuring asphalt binder yield energy and elastic recovery using the dynamic shear rheometer. Washington D.C.
14.
Johnson, C. M., Wen, H., and Bahia, H. (2009). Practical application of viscoelastic continuum damage theory to asphalt binder fatigue characterization, J. Asphalt Paving Technol. 78:597-638.
15.
Wen, H., and Bhusal, S. (2013). Toward the development of a new thermal cracking test using the dynamic shear rheometer, J. Test. Eval. 41(3):1-8.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Tran-SET 2020
Pages: 215 - 225
Editors: Craig Newtson, Ph.D., New Mexico State University, Susan Bogus Halter, Ph.D., University of New Mexico, and Marwa Hassan, Ph.D., Louisiana State University
ISBN (Online): 978-0-7844-8330-5
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Jan 12, 2021
Published in print: Jan 12, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.