Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Performance Testing for Superpave 

and Structural Validation 

Publication No. FHWA-HRT-11-045 november 2012
FOREWORD

This final report provides the comprehensive findings from two Transportation Pooled Fund 

(TPF) research projects, TPF-5(019): Full-Scale Accelerated Performance Testing for Superpave 

and Structural Validation and SPR-2(174): Accelerated Pavement Testing of Crumb Rubber 

Modified Asphalt Pavements. The research identified candidate purchase specification tests for 

asphalt binder that better discriminate expected fatigue cracking and rutting performance than 

current SUperior PERforming Asphalt PAVEment (Superpave®) tests. Full-scale accelerated 

pavement testing and laboratory characterization tests on mixtures and binders provided the basis 

for the recommendations. 

This report documents a historical review of the development of asphalt binder performance 

specifications, experimental design, test pavement construction and performance, statistical

methodology to rank and identify the strongest candidates, and all pertinent laboratory 

characterization of binders and mixtures that supplemented the recommendations. The research 

also provided a detailed case study of pavement evaluation using falling weight deflectometer 

and objective means to evaluate two emerging technologies; the asphalt mixture performance 

tester and the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide.

(1)

This document will be of interest to highway personnel involved with Superpave®, materials 

selection, performance specifications, and pavement design and evaluation.

Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz

Director, Office of Infrastructure

Research and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use 

of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.

FHWA-HRT-11-045

2. Government Accession No. 3 Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title

Performance Testing for Superpave and Structural Validation

5. Report Date

November 2012

6. Performing Organization

7. Author(s)

Nelson Gibson, Xicheng Qi, Aroon Shenoy, Ghazi Al-Khateeb, 

M. Emin Kutay, Adrian Andriescu, Kevin Stuart, Jack Youtcheff, and 

Thomas Harman

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address:

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

TPF-5(019): Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, 

Montana, New Jersey, New York, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas 

SPR-2(174): Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Montana, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, Texas

13. Type of Report and Period

Final Report

January 2002–January 2008

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

A project database is available upon request from FHWA Office of Infrastructure Research & Development. The 

Task Manager was Nelson Gibson, HRDI-10.

16. Abstract

The primary objective of this full-scale accelerated pavement testing was to evaluate the performance of unmodified 

and polymer modified asphalt binders and to recommend improved specification tests over existing SUperior 

PERforming Asphalt PAVEment (Superpave®) binder performance grading methodologies. Candidate replacement 

tests were evaluated via their ability to discern fatigue cracking resistance and rutting. Two fatigue cracking 

specification tests were identified as more capable in capturing performance than others: binder yield energy and 

critical tip opening displacement. Two rutting specification tests that quantify irrecoverable deformations exhibited 

the best strength to capture rutting: multiple stress creep and recovery and oscillatory-based nonrecoverable stiffness. 

Based on the full-scale performance and laboratory tests, crumb rubber (recycled tires) modified asphalt (Arizona wet 

process) was shown to significantly slow or stop the growth of fatigue cracks in a composite asphalt pavement 

structure. A hybrid technique to modify asphalt with a combination of crumb rubber and conventional polymers 

(terminally blended) exhibited good fatigue cracking resistance relative to the control binder. Also, a simple 

addition of polyester fibers to asphalt mix was shown to have high resistance to fatigue cracking without the use 

of polymer modification.

The research study also quantified the capabilities of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s 

mechanistic-empirical pavement design and analysis methodologies to predict rutting and fatigue cracking of 

modified asphalts that were not captured in the calibration data from the Long-Term Pavement Performance program. 

Falling weight deflectometer, multidepth deflectometer, and strain gauge instrumentation were used to measure 

pavement response. The results illustrated that the nationally calibrated mechanistic-empirical performance models 

could differentiate between structural asphalt thickness but had difficulty differentiating modified from unmodified 

asphalt binder performance. Nonetheless, the mechanistic-empirical performance ranking and predictions were 

enhanced and improved using mixture-specific performance tests currently being implemented using the asphalt 

mixture performance tester.

17. Key Words

APT, ALF, Fatigue cracking, Rutting, Superpave, Asphalt 

binder specification, FWD, Mechanistic-empirical 

pavement design, Asphalt mixture performance tests

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

271

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius o

C 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................1

Current Asphalt Binder Specifications ................................................................................1

Post-SHRP Full-Scale Validation of Binder Specification................................................12

Identified Shortcomings with Current Asphalt Binder Specifications ..............................16

PROBLEM STATEMENT...................................................................................................18

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION...................................19

ASPHALT BINDER SELECTION......................................................................................19

ARIZONA WET PROCESS CRUMB RUBBER MODIFIED ASPHALT .....................21

MIX DESIGN AND AGGREGATE ....................................................................................22

Gap-Graded Crumb Rubber Mix Design...........................................................................25

PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION .............................25

Hydrated Lime Distribution...............................................................................................33

CHAPTER 3. ALF LOADING CONDITIONS, FULL-SCALE PERFORMANCE, 

AND ANALYTICAL PLAN.......................................................................................................37

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................37

Wheel and Tire Characteristics..........................................................................................37

Temperature Control..........................................................................................................38

MEASURED RUTTING.......................................................................................................38

Transverse Profile and Densification.................................................................................46

MEASURED FATIGUE CRACKING ................................................................................47

Bottom-Up Cracking Evaluation .......................................................................................58

Rutting in Fatigue Sections................................................................................................59

Anomalous Rutting Performance of Lane 6 ......................................................................62

Rutting in Unbound Layers................................................................................................69

NUMERICAL AND STATISTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LAYOUT AND 

PERFORMANCE..................................................................................................................70

ANALYTICAL PLAN: HOW WILL ONE CANDIDATE BINDER 

SPECIFICATION PARAMETER BE COMPARED AGAINST ANOTHER?..............71

Single Composite Score.....................................................................................................75

Illustration of the Numerical and Statistical Challenges....................................................76

CHAPTER 4. MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF ALF TEST LANES...........83

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................83

FWD ANALYSIS OF UNBOUND LAYER MODULI......................................................83

Composite Modulus on CAB.............................................................................................84

Back-Calculated Modulus of Pavement Structure.............................................................85

Evaluation of Effective Loading Frequency from FWD ...................................................91

Assessment of Unbound Layer FWD Back-Calculation with Multiple Depth 

Deflectometers...................................................................................................................94

Seasonal Monitoring of Pavement Sections with FWD ..................................................105
iv

DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF ASPHALT LAYER MODULUS ................................105

IDT Resilient Modulus of Asphalt...................................................................................105

Dynamic Modulus of Field Cores and Plant- and Laboratory-Produced Mixtures.........106

MEPDG AND STANDALONE ANALYSES OF ALF PAVEMENTS ..........................113

ALF Wheel and Tire ........................................................................................................114

ALF Temperature and Aging...........................................................................................115

Other Caveats of the MEPDG and Standalone ................................................................116

HMA Dynamic Modulus Input to MEPDG.....................................................................116

Quantifying Cracking.......................................................................................................121

PRIMARY STRAIN RESPONSE OF PAVEMENTS .....................................................122

Measured Reduction of Modulus.....................................................................................124

PREDICTED PERFORMANCE FROM MEPDG STANDALONE PROGRAM .......127

Influence of Construction Variability on Rutting ............................................................127

Influence of Construction Variability on Fatigue Cracking ............................................131

Assessment of MEPDG Predictive Capability ................................................................134

CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................140

CHAPTER 5. CANDIDATE BINDER PARAMETERS .......................................................143

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................143

FATIGUE CRACKING......................................................................................................143

Superpave® Intermediate Temperature ............................................................................143

Superpave® Low-Temperature DT and BBR ..................................................................143

Time Sweep and Stress Sweep ........................................................................................145

Large Strain Time Sweep Surrogate ................................................................................147

Critical Tip Opening Displacement and Essential Work of Fracture ..............................149

Yield Energy ....................................................................................................................152

RUTTING/PERMANENT DEFORMATION BINDER PARAMETERS.....................153

Superpave® High Temperature—Standard and Modified ...............................................154

Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery................................................................................154

Oscillatory-Based Nonrecoverable Stiffness (1/Compliance).........................................157

Low and Zero Shear Viscosity.........................................................................................161

Material Volumetric Flow Rate .......................................................................................163

CHAPTER 6. MIXTURE PERFORMANCE TESTS............................................................167

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................167

MIXTURE TESTS FOR RUTTING..................................................................................167

HWT ................................................................................................................................167

French PRT......................................................................................................................169

SST RSCH .......................................................................................................................171

Dynamic Modulus |E*| and Phase Angle.........................................................................176

Flow Number ...................................................................................................................180

MIXTURE TESTS FOR FATIGUE CRACKING...........................................................194

Texas Transportation Institute Overlay Tester ................................................................194

IDT Strength—ALF Cores ..............................................................................................195

Dynamic Modulus |E*| and Phase Angle.........................................................................196

Axial Cyclic Fatigue ........................................................................................................200

Mixture EWF and Calculated CTOD ..............................................................................206
v

EVALUATION OF MIXTURE TESTS’ ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE 

PERFORMANCE................................................................................................................208

Rutting and Permanent Deformation ...............................................................................208

Cracking and Fatigue .......................................................................................................212

CHAPTER 7. CANDIDATE BINDER SPECIFICATION PARAMETER 

STRENGTHS.............................................................................................................................215

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................215

RUTTING/PERMANENT DEFORMATION..................................................................215

Discussion of Implementability, Purchase Specification Applicability, and 

Other Caveats...................................................................................................................219

FATIGUE CRACKING......................................................................................................219

Discussion of Implementability, Purchase Specification Applicability, and 

Other Caveats...................................................................................................................224

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................227

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................227

Binder Performance Specification Parameters ................................................................227

RECCOMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................233

APPENDIX. DENT TEST METHOD SPECIFICATION.....................................................235

TITLE ...................................................................................................................................235

SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................235

REFERENCED DOCUMENTS.........................................................................................235

TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................235

APPARATUS .......................................................................................................................236

PREPARATION OF SAMPLES........................................................................................238

TEST PROCEDURES.........................................................................................................238

CALCULATIONS ...............................................................................................................239

REPORTING RESULTS....................................................................................................240

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................243

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................245
vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Flowchart. SHRP asphalt strategy....................................................................................3

Figure 2. Graph. Dissipated energy during asphalt binder bending beam fatigue...........................5

Figure 3. Graph. Relationship between strain level and fatigue life in asphalt binder....................5

Figure 4. Graph. Zaca-Wigmore test road cracking performance and estimated binder 

properties..........................................................................................................................................6

Figure 5. Graph. SHRP justification for the selection of high-temperature rutting criteria ............7

Figure 6. Chart. Comparison between SHRP mixture flexural beam fatigue and asphalt 

binder rheology ................................................................................................................................8

Figure 7. Chart. Example of SHRP repeated shear and shear stiffness of mixtures 

compared against asphalt binder rheology.....................................................................................10

Figure 8. Graph. G* versus sin binder test values for high and low rates of fatigue cracking ...11

Figure 9. Graph. FHWA APT validation of SHRP binder fatigue specification for 4-inch 

(100-mm) HMA test sections.........................................................................................................12

Figure 10. Graph. FHWA APT validation of SHRP binder fatigue specification for 8-inch 

(200-mm) HMA test sections.........................................................................................................13

Figure 11. Graph. Post-SHRP rutting binder validation conducted by FHWA.............................14

Figure 12. Graph. RSCH data from NCHRP 9-10.........................................................................16

Figure 13. Graph. Modified binder properties and mixture permanent deformation from 

NCHRP 9-10..................................................................................................................................17

Figure 14. Graph. Modified binder properties and mixture fatigue from NCHRP 9-10 ...............17

Figure 15. Graph. High-intermediate-low PG grades of ALF binders in the experiment .............21

Figure 16. Illustration. Oblique diagram of the test section’s three-dimensional layout...............26

Figure 17. Graph. Pavement layer profile measured from a trench cut in an ALF test section 

from past study...............................................................................................................................27

Figure 18. Photo. Conventional photo of hot mix placement from the back of the paver.............29

Figure 19. Photo. Thermal image of hot mix placement from the back of the paver....................29

Figure 20. Photo. Characteristic lime nuggets indicating less than desired uniform mixing ........34

Figure 21. Photo. Relative size of lime nuggets ............................................................................34

Figure 22. Illustration. Diagram of 425 tire imprint ......................................................................37

Figure 23. Illustration. LDMA used to measure rut depth.............................................................39

Figure 24. Graph. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C).................................40

Figure 25. Graph. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 165 °F (74 °C).................................41

Figure 26. Graph. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C)..............................42

Figure 27. Graph. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 113 °F (45 °C)..............................43

Figure 28. Graph. Ranked rut depth of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) and 

25,000 passes .................................................................................................................................44

Figure 29. Graph. Ranked rut depth of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) and 

25,000 passes .................................................................................................................................45

Figure 30. Graph. Surface profile taken in transverse position across the wheel path of 

a typical zero wander ALF rut .......................................................................................................47

Figure 31. Photo. Typical cracking pattern in loaded ALF wheel paths .......................................48

Figure 32. Graph. Cumulative crack length versus ALF passes in 4-inch (100-mm) 66 °F 

(19 °C) fatigue loaded sections......................................................................................................50

δ
vii

Figure 33. Graph. Percent cracked area versus ALF passes in 4-inch (100-mm) 66 °F 

(19 °C) fatigue loaded sections......................................................................................................50

Figure 34. Graph. Cumulative crack length versus ALF passes in 5.8-inch (150-mm) 66 °F 

(19 °C) fatigue loaded sections......................................................................................................52

Figure 35. Graph. Percent cracked area versus ALF passes in 5.8-inch (150-mm) 66 °F 

(19 °C) fatigue loaded sections......................................................................................................52

Figure 36. Photo. Cores from lane 8 (PG70-22)............................................................................53

Figure 37. Graph. Crack length developed per load cycle at the point of surface crack 

initiation .........................................................................................................................................54

Figure 38. Graph. Cumulative crack length of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes with interpolated and 

extrapolated curves ........................................................................................................................55

Figure 39. Graph. Percent cracked area of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes with interpolated and 

extrapolated curves ........................................................................................................................56

Figure 40. Graph. Arithmetic scale plot of cumulative crack length of 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes with interpolated and extrapolated curves............................................................................56

Figure 41. Graph. Semilog scale plot of cumulative crack length of 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes with interpolated and extrapolated curves............................................................................57

Figure 42. Graph. Arithmetic scale plot of percent cracked area of 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes with interpolated and extrapolated curves............................................................................57

Figure 43. Graph. Semilog scale plot of percent cracked area of 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes with interpolated and extrapolated curves............................................................................58

Figure 44. Photo. X-ray computed tomography image slices of an ALF core ..............................58

Figure 45. Photo. Cores taken from lane 1 ....................................................................................59

Figure 46. Graph. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C)...................................60

Figure 47. Graph. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C)................................61

Figure 48. Illustration. Schematic layout of ALF lane construction..............................................66

Figure 49. Graph. Particle size distribution of extracted aggregate for lanes 2, 6, and 12............69

Figure 50. Diagram. Numerical tree of subsets of available comparative data points ..................70

Figure 51. Equation. Kendall’s tau ................................................................................................72

Figure 52. Graph. Fictitious data with linear regression fit for Kendall’s tau rank correlation 

example..........................................................................................................................................74

Figure 53. Graph. Possible permutations of rankings for Kendall’s tau........................................74

Figure 54. Graph. Continuous area-under-the-curve interpretation for Kendall’s tau ..................75

Figure 55. Equation. t-statistic.......................................................................................................75

Figure 56. Graph. Log-log plot of measured versus predicted dynamic modulus data points 

from calibrated Witczak predictive equation.................................................................................76

Figure 57. Graph. Arithmetic plot of measured versus predicted dynamic modulus data 

points from calibrated Witczak predictive equation ......................................................................77

Figure 58. Graph. Variation in composite modulus from FWD on top of CAB ...........................84

Figure 59. Graph. FWD back-calculated CAB modulus from various trial layer 

configurations ................................................................................................................................86

Figure 60. Graph. FWD back-calculated subgrade modulus from various trial layer 

configurations ................................................................................................................................86

Figure 61. Graph. Variation of IDT resilient modulus with temperature ......................................87

Figure 62. Graph. Lane 8 PG70-22 asphalt mixture dynamic modulus ........................................92

Figure 63. Graph. Lane 9 SBS 64-40 asphalt mixture dynamic modulus .....................................92

Figure 64. Graph. Lane 10 air-blown asphalt mixture dynamic modulus.....................................93
viii

Figure 65. Graph. Lane 11 SBS-LG asphalt mixture dynamic modulus.......................................93

Figure 66. Graph. Lane 12 terpolymer asphalt mixture dynamic modulus...................................94

Figure 67. Illustration. Vertical pavement cross section showing anchor points and 

measurement locations of MDD ....................................................................................................95

Figure 68. Illustration. Layout of lanes 4 and 11 pavement layer configuration for 

forward-calculation scheme of MDD instrumentation response ...................................................96

Figure 69. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 4 during 

FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C).......................................................................................................98

Figure 70. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 11 during 

FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C).......................................................................................................99

Figure 71. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 4 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 50 and 66 °F (10 and 19 °C)...................................................102

Figure 72. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 4 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 82 and 147 °F (28 and 64 °C).................................................103

Figure 73. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 11 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 50 and 66 °F (10 and 19 °C)...................................................104

Figure 74. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 11 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 82 and 147 °F (28 and 64 °C).................................................105

Figure 75. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for field cores versus reduced frequency in 

log-log scale .................................................................................................................................107

Figure 76. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for field cores versus reduced frequency in 

semilog scale................................................................................................................................108

Figure 77. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for plant-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in log-log scale............................................................................................................109

Figure 78. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for plant-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in semilog scale...........................................................................................................110

Figure 79. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for lab-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in log-log scale............................................................................................................111

Figure 80. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for lab-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in semilog scale...........................................................................................................112

Figure 81. Graph. Curves fit to phase angle measured during dynamic modulus test 

versus reduced frequency.............................................................................................................113

Figure 82. Graph. Rut depth versus pavement age from MEPDG and standalone application...114

Figure 83. Graph. Asphalt modulus versus pavement age from early run of MEPDG ...............115

Figure 84. Graph. Ratio between predicted dynamic modulus at various air void contents 

relative to a reference condition...................................................................................................118

Figure 85. Graph. Extrapolated dynamic modulus in log scale versus reduced frequency.........119

Figure 86. Equation. ALF cracking .............................................................................................121

Figure 87. Equation. Equivalent MEPDG cracking.....................................................................121

Figure 88. Illustration. Layout of an ALF test site with strain gauges ........................................122

Figure 89. Graph. Measured HMA tensile strain versus predicted HMA tensile strain..............123

Figure 90. Graph. Lane 3 measured tensile strain versus number of ALF passes.......................124

Figure 91. Graph. Lane 8 in-situ measured HMA modulus with seismic analysis versus 

number of ALF passes.................................................................................................................125

Figure 92. Graph. Lane 10 in-situ measured HMA modulus with seismic analysis versus 

number of ALF passes.................................................................................................................125

Figure 93. Graph. Lane 11 measured seismic modulus versus number of ALF passes ..............126
ix

Figure 94. Graph. Lane 12 measured seismic modulus versus number of ALF passes ..............127

Figure 95. Graph. Predicted curves of rutting from the MEPDG versus number of ALF 

passes at 147 °F (64 °C)...............................................................................................................128

Figure 96. Equation. Empirical rutting distress model used by MEPDG....................................128

Figure 97. Graph. Percent fatigue cracking predicted from MEPDG standalone program 

for the as-built scenario................................................................................................................131

Figure 98. Graph. Percent fatigue cracking predicted from MEPDG standalone program 

for the as-built with average unbound layer modulus scenario ...................................................132

Figure 99. Graph. Percent fatigue cracking predicted from MEPDG standalone program 

for the as-designed scenario.........................................................................................................132

Figure 100. Graph. Measured ALF rutting versus MEPDG standalone-predicted rutting 

for the as-built scenario................................................................................................................135

Figure 101. Graph. Measured ALF rutting versus MEPDG standalone-predicted rutting 

for the as-designed scenario.........................................................................................................135

Figure 102. Equation. Cycles to fatigue cracking failure ............................................................137

Figure 103. Graph. Predicted cycles to 7.75 percent cracked area from MEPDG in 

arithmetic scale versus measured number of cycles....................................................................138

Figure 104. Graph. Predicted cycles to 7.75 percent cracked area from MEPDG in 

log scale versus measured number of cycles ...............................................................................138

Figure 105. Graph. Predicted cycles to failure from MEPDG equation in arithmetic 

scale versus measured number of cycles to surface crack initiation............................................139

Figure 106. Graph. Failure strain of ALF binders in the low-temperature DT test 

versus temperature .......................................................................................................................144

Figure 107. Graph. BBR creep m-value of ALF binders versus temperature..............................145

Figure 108. Graph. Typical observations during stress sweep and time sweep tests ..................146

Figure 109. Equation. Stress sweep parameter............................................................................147

Figure 110. Graph. Complex shear modulus and temperature during 25 percent controlled 

strain test ......................................................................................................................................148

Figure 111. Graph. Loss modulus and temperature during 25 percent controlled strain test......148

Figure 112. Illustration. Plan view drawing of DENT test specimen design ..............................150

Figure 113. Photo. DENT test specimens loaded in ductilometer...............................................150

Figure 114. Graph. Typical raw data from DENT test ................................................................150

Figure 115. Graph. Total work of fracture versus ligament length .............................................151

Figure 116. Equation. Total work of fracture ..............................................................................151

Figure 117. Equation. DENT beta parameter ..............................................................................151

Figure 118. Equation. Approximate CTOD.................................................................................152

Figure 119. Graph. Typical raw data measured during monotonic binder strength test 

for yield energy............................................................................................................................153

Figure 120. Graph. Typical applied binder shear stresses during MSCR test .............................155

Figure 121. Graph. Measured raw strain data during MSCR test................................................155

Figure 122. Graph. Measured raw strain data during entire MSCR test......................................156

Figure 123. Graph. Creep compliance variation during MSCR test where strain is 

normalized by applied stress........................................................................................................156

Figure 124. Equation. Derived estimate of percent unrecovered strain.......................................157

Figure 125. Equation. Derived estimate of unrecovered compliance..........................................157

Figure 126. Graph. Standard high-temperature Superpave® rutting parameter in log 

scale versus reduced frequency in log scale ................................................................................158
x

Figure 127. Graph. Oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance rutting parameter in 

log scale versus reduced frequency in log scale ..........................................................................159

Figure 128. Graph. Oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance rutting parameter in 

arithmetic scale versus temperature in log scale..........................................................................160

Figure 129. Graph. Trigonometric functions for the standard high-temperature Superpave®

rutting parameters and oscillatory-based non-recovered compliance..........................................160

Figure 130. Graph. Measured nonrecovered compliance from MSCR test versus nonrecovered 

compliance estimated from shear modulus and phase angle from DSR frequency sweep..........161

Figure 131. Equation. ZSV..........................................................................................................162

Figure 132. Graph. Complex viscosity in log scale versus frequency in log scale......................162

Figure 133. Graph. Complex viscosity in log scale versus frequency in log scale......................163

Figure 134. Illustration. Key components of an FMD for determination of MVR .....................164

Figure 135. Graph. MVR versus temperature..............................................................................164

Figure 136. Graph. HWT rut depth versus wheel tracking cycles...............................................168

Figure 137. Graph. HWT test cycles to 4-inch (10-mm) rut depth for plant-produced mixtures169

Figure 138. Photo. Pneumatic wheel in French PRT and rutted test specimen...........................169

Figure 139. Graph. Rut depth at 60,000 passes in French PRT for plant-produced mixtures.....170

Figure 140. Graph. Permanent shear strain in SST RSCH test versus number of load cycles....172

Figure 141. Graph. SST RSCH cycles to 2 percent permanent shear strain rut for 

plant-produced mixtures ..............................................................................................................173

Figure 142. Graph. Permanent shear strain in SST RSCH test for top lifts versus number 

of load cycles ...............................................................................................................................174

Figure 143. Graph. Permanent shear strain in SST RSCH test for bottom lifts versus 

number of load cycles..................................................................................................................174

Figure 144. Graph. Permanent shear strain and number of cycles to 20,000 microstrain ...........175

Figure 145. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 136 °F (58 °C) and 10 Hz ...................................178

Figure 146. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 136 °F (58 °C) and 0.1 Hz ..................................179

Figure 147. Graph. |E*|/sin at 136 °F (58 °C) and 10 Hz..........................................................179

Figure 148. Graph. |E*|/sin at 136 °F (58 °C) and 0.1 Hz.........................................................180

Figure 149. Graph. Permanent axial strain growth in flow number test......................................181

Figure 150. Illustration. Calculated volumetric permanent strains in a vertical cross sectional 

plane in the direction of vehicle travel.........................................................................................183

Figure 151. Graph. Axial permanent strain versus number of cycles for mixes with 7 percent 

air void content, 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement, and 76 psi (523 kPa) axial deviator stress.........184

Figure 152. Graph. Axial permanent strain versus number of cycles for mixes with as-built 

air void content, 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement, and 120 psi (827 kPa) axial deviator stress.......184

Figure 153. Graph. Axial permanent strain versus number of cycles for mixes with as-built 

air void content, 1 psi (6.9 kPa) confinement, and 30 psi (207 kPa) axial deviator stress..........185

Figure 154. Graph. Permanent axial microstrain at 20,000 cycles for ALF mixtures with 

7 percent air voids at 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement and 76 psi (523 kPa) axial deviator stress...186

Figure 155. Graph. Permanent axial microstrain at 5,000 cycles for 4-inch (100-mm) 

ALF mixtures with as-built air void content at 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement and 120 psi 

(827 kPa) axial deviator stress.....................................................................................................186

Figure 156. Graph. Permanent axial microstrain at 5,000 cycles for 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

ALF mixtures with as-built air void content................................................................................187

Figure 157. Equation. MEPDG empirical rutting model.............................................................187

Figure 158. Equation. Plastic irrecoverable strain.......................................................................188

δ

δ
xi

Figure 159. Equation. Equivalence assumed between laboratory performance and MEPDG 

mechanistic-empirical model formulation ...................................................................................188

Figure 160. Equation. Equating laboratory test power law permanent deformation 

parameters with MEPDG mechanistic-empirical model formulation .........................................188

Figure 161. Equation. Derivation of recoverable strain for MEDPG mechanistic-empirical 

permanent deformation model based on applied stress in flow number test and dynamic 

modulus........................................................................................................................................188

Figure 162. Graph. Dynamic modulus versus reduced frequency...............................................189

Figure 163. Equation. Equating laboratory test power law permanent deformation 

parameters with MEPDG mechanistic-empirical model formulation (continued from 

figure 160)....................................................................................................................................189

Figure 164. Equation. Derivation of k1 term for MEPDG mechanistic-empirical model 

for rutting based on laboratory test conditions ............................................................................189

Figure 165. Graph. Rut depth versus number of ALF passes for best and worst 4-inch 

(100-mm) ALF lanes....................................................................................................................191

Figure 166. Graph. Rut depth versus number of ALF passes for best and worst 5.8-inch 

(150-mm) ALF lanes....................................................................................................................192

Figure 167. Graph. Rut depth versus number of ALF passes for 113 °F (45 °C) ALF tests.......192

Figure 168. Graph. Predicted rutting in log scale versus measured rutting in log scale using 

10 psi (69 kPa) confined flow number test data at 147 °F (64 °C)..............................................193

Figure 169. Graph. Predicted rutting in log scale versus measured rutting in log scale using 

1 psi (6.9 kPa) confined flow number test data at 147 °F (64 °C)...............................................193

Figure 170. Illustration. Side view of OT showing fixed and moveable horizontal plates.........194

Figure 171. Graph. IDT strength and corresponding air void content.........................................196

Figure 172. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz .....................................198

Figure 173. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 66 °F (19 °C) and 0.1 Hz ....................................199

Figure 174. Graph. |E*|sin at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz.............................................................199

Figure 175. Graph. |E*|sin at 66 °F (19 °C) and 0.1 Hz............................................................200

Figure 176. Photo. Gyratory-compacted specimen and core test specimen with tension 

platens glued to each end .............................................................................................................201

Figure 177. Photo. Instrumented tension mounted in universal test machine .............................202

Figure 178. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| and phase angle versus number of fatigue 

cycles during a stress-controlled fatigue test ...............................................................................203

Figure 179. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| and phase angle versus number of fatigue 

cycles during a strain-controlled fatigue test ...............................................................................204

Figure 180. Equation. Energy ratio..............................................................................................204

Figure 181. Equation. DER..........................................................................................................204

Figure 182. Equation. Calculation of dissipated energy from phase angle, stress, and strain.....204

Figure 183. Photo. Asphalt mixture DENT specimen for EWF and CTOD characterization.....207

Figure 184. Graph. Fracture energy versus ligament length from mixture DENT testing ..........208

Figure 185. Equation. Composite statistical score.......................................................................209

Figure 186. Illustration. DENT inserts ........................................................................................237

Figure 187. Equation. Total work of fracture calculated from integration of load and 

displacement data.........................................................................................................................239

Figure 188. Graph. Example wt versus ligament length plot for determining EWF....................240

Figure 189. Chart. Example reporting sheet ................................................................................241

Figure 190. Graph. Typical load-displacement curves for EWF test ..........................................242

δ

δ
xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison between SHRP mixture flexural beam fatigue and asphalt binder 

rheology using correlation coefficient, R.........................................................................................9

Table 2. Post-SHRP rutting binder validation conducted by FHWA ............................................14

Table 3. Summary of asphalt binder properties and their location in the ALF test lane 

configuration..................................................................................................................................20

Table 4. Recycled crumb rubber particle size in CR-AZ binder ...................................................21

Table 5. Physical properties of CR-AZ binder during blending....................................................22

Table 6. Laboratory mix design evaluation of volumetrics...........................................................25

Table 7. Gradation of AASHTO A-4 subgrade .............................................................................27

Table 8. CAB gradation .................................................................................................................28

Table 9. HMA specifications.........................................................................................................30

Table 10. HMA aggregate gradation targets and limits.................................................................30

Table 11. Lime contents measured from ALF lane cores..............................................................35

Table 12. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) ..............................................39

Table 13. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 165 °F (74 °C) ..............................................40

Table 14. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) ...........................................41

Table 15. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 113 °F (45 °C) ...........................................42

Table 16. Ranked rut depth of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) and 25,000 passes.......43

Table 17. Statistical comparison of rut depth of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) 

and 25,000 passes...........................................................................................................................44

Table 18. Ranked rut depth of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) and 25,000 passes....45

Table 19. Statistical comparison of rut depth of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) 

and 25,000 passes...........................................................................................................................45

Table 20. Cross comparison of rutting in 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) lanes at 

25,000 passes .................................................................................................................................46

Table 21. Cumulative crack length in 4-inch (100-mm) fatigue crack sections............................49

Table 22. Percent cracked area in 4-inch (100-mm) fatigue crack sections..................................49

Table 23. Cumulative crack length in 5.8-inch (150-mm) fatigue crack sections.........................51

Table 24. Percent cracked area in 5.8- inch (150-mm) fatigue crack sections..............................51

Table 25. Ranked fatigue cracking of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C)............................55

Table 26. Ranked fatigue cracking of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C).........................55

Table 27. Rut depth in 4-inch (100-mm) fatigue crack sections....................................................60

Table 28. Rut depth in 5.8-inch (150-mm) fatigue crack sections.................................................62

Table 29. Unmodified and modified binders studied by Youtcheff et al.......................................63

Table 30. French PRT rutting performance of binders studied by Youtcheff et al .......................64

Table 31. Flexural beam fatigue performance of binders studied by Youtcheff et al ...................64

Table 32. Stiffness and MSCR of RTFO and extracted terpolymer binder...................................65

Table 33. FHWA forensic test results for lane 2, 6, and 12 air void content and water 

absorption from SSD and CoreLok®..............................................................................................67

Table 34. MAMTL forensic test results for lane 2, 6, and 12 air void content, binder content, 

and water absorption from SSD and CoreLok®.............................................................................68

Table 35. MAMTL forensic test results for lane 2, 6, and 12 extracted aggregate gradation .......69

Table 36. Illustration of the calculation of Kendall’s tau measure of association

rank-correlation parameter.............................................................................................................73
xiii

Table 37. Distribution of Kendall’s tau parameter from Monte Carlo simulations.......................78

Table 38. Distribution R from Monte Carlo simulations...............................................................79

Table 39. Distribution of significance of Kendall’s tau from Monte Carlo simulations...............79

Table 40. Distribution of regression significance (1 – p-value) from Monte Carlo simulations...80

Table 41. Modulus back-calculation results for the HMA layers..................................................88

Table 42. Modulus back-calculation results for the CAB..............................................................89

Table 43. Modulus back-calculation results for the subgrade .......................................................90

Table 44. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 4 during FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C) ..........97

Table 45. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 11 during FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C) ........97

Table 46. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 4 during ALF rolling wheel loading at 

10,000 lbf (44 kN)........................................................................................................................100

Table 47. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 11 during ALF rolling wheel loading at 

10,000 lbf (44 kN)........................................................................................................................101

Table 48. IDT resilient modulus of plant produced material.......................................................106

Table 49. Air void content of field cores for dynamic modulus..................................................106

Table 50. Air void content of plant-produced mixture for dynamic modulus.............................109

Table 51. Air void content of lab-produced mixture for dynamic modulus................................111

Table 52. First-month modulus from MEPDG used in standalone program...............................120

Table 53. Example of equivalent |E*| temperatures and frequencies using time-temperature 

superposition................................................................................................................................121

Table 54. Measured and predicted HMA tensile strains..............................................................123

Table 55. Predicted 147 °F (64 °C) (40,600 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone ..............129

Table 56. Predicted 166 °F (74 °C) (40,600 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone ..............129

Table 57. Predicted 113 °F (45 °C) (302,064 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone ............130

Table 58. Predicted 66 °F (19 °C) (302,064 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone ..............130

Table 59. Predicted 66 °F (19 °C) (302,064 passes) fatigue cracking from MEPDG 

standalone ....................................................................................................................................133

Table 60. Statistical analysis of measured and predicted rutting at different temperatures ........136

Table 61. Statistical analysis of measured and predicted fatigue cracking..................................140

Table 62. ALF binder standard Superpave® intermediate specification parameters...................143

Table 63. Low-temperature failure stress, failure strain, and creep m-value...............................144

Table 64. Summary of time sweeps from Martono and Bahia.(65)...............................................146

Table 65. Summary of stress sweeps from Martono and Bahia.(65).............................................147

Table 66. Shenoy’s large strain intermediate stiffness and temperature .....................................149

Table 67. Ranked test results by CTOD with EWF and yield stress...........................................152

Table 68. Ranked results of yield energy on ALF binders..........................................................153

Table 69. ALF binder standard and modified Superpave® intermediate specification 

parameters....................................................................................................................................154

Table 70. Ranked MSCR nonrecovered compliance...................................................................157

Table 71. Ranked oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance...................................................161

Table 72. Ranked ZSV and LSV .................................................................................................163

Table 73. Ranked MVR and temperature grade from FMD........................................................165

Table 74. HWT performance of ALF mixtures...........................................................................168

Table 75. Rut depths from French PRT.......................................................................................170

Table 76. SST RSCH cycles to 2 percent permanent shear strain...............................................172

Table 77. Summary of SST RSCH ALF core performance.........................................................175

Table 78. Air void content of dynamic modulus specimens........................................................176
xiv

Table 79. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 136 °F (58 °C) and 10 Hz ...............................177

Table 80. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 136 °F (58 °C) and 0.1 Hz ..............................177

Table 81. Summary of AMPT flow number test conditions........................................................182

Table 82. AMPT flow number performance................................................................................185

Table 83. Modulus, recoverable strain, and permanent strain curve power law coefficients 

for mix-specific MEPDG rutting predictions ..............................................................................190

Table 84. Mixture-specific MEPDG rutting model coefficients .................................................190

Table 85. ALF 4-inch (100-mm) field core performance in TTI OT.(93).....................................194

Table 86. IDT strength test results, post-construction (incomplete dataset)................................195

Table 87. IDT strength test results and air void content, bottom lift only (2006 complete 

dataset).........................................................................................................................................196

Table 88. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz .................................197

Table 89. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 66 °F (19 °C) and 0.1 Hz ................................198

Table 90. Initial strain levels of ALF mixtures in stress-controlled fatigue tests........................202

Table 91. Number of cycles to fatigue failure from different failure criteria ..............................205

Table 92. EWF and CTOD properties of asphalt aggregate mixtures.........................................208

Table 93. Rutting comparisons made between laboratory and full scale ALF performance.......209

Table 94. Statistical comparison of laboratory permanent deformation tests and ALF 

rutting for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes, including lane 6 terpolymer .................................................210

Table 95. Statistical comparison of laboratory permanent deformation tests and ALF 

rutting for 4-inch (100–mm) lanes, excluding lane 6 terpolymer................................................210

Table 96. Statistical comparison of laboratory permanent deformation tests and ALF 

rutting for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes.............................................................................................211

Table 97. Fatigue cracking comparisons made between laboratory and full-scale ALF 

performance .................................................................................................................................212

Table 98. Statistical comparison of laboratory fatigue cracking tests and ALF fatigue,

4-inch (100-mm) lanes.................................................................................................................213

Table 99. Statistical comparison of laboratory fatigue cracking tests and ALF fatigue, 

5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes..............................................................................................................214

Table 100. Evaluation of correct or incorrect trends among binder properties, mixture 

properties, and 4-inch (100-mm) ALF rutting .............................................................................216

Table 101. Evaluation of correct or incorrect trends among binder properties, mixture 

properties, and 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF rutting ..........................................................................217

Table 102. Ranking of binder high-temperature rutting parameters with lane 6 (terpolymer)....218

Table 103. Ranking of binder high-temperature rutting parameters without lane 6 

(terpolymer) .................................................................................................................................218

Table 104. Evaluation of correct or incorrect trends between binder properties, 

mixture properties, and 4-inch (100-mm) ALF fatigue cracking ................................................220

Table 105. Ranked binder fatigue cracking parameters from 4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes........221

Table 106. Ranked binder fatigue cracking parameters from 5.8-inch (150 mm) ALF lanes 

with lane 9 (SBS 64-40)...............................................................................................................221

Table 107. Ranked binder fatigue cracking parameters from 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

ALF lanes without lane 9 (SBS 64-40)........................................................................................222

Table 108. Description of Ontario binders and physical properties ............................................222

Table 109. Total number of crack performance of Ontario pavement test sections....................223

Table 110. Total crack length performance of Ontario pavement test sections...........................223

Table 111. Total transverse crack performance of Ontario pavement test sections ....................223
xv

Table 112. Comparison between binder fatigue cracking test and Ontario total number of 

cracks ...........................................................................................................................................224

Table 113. Comparison between binder fatigue cracking test and Ontario total length of 

cracks ...........................................................................................................................................224

Table 114. Comparison between binder fatigue cracking test and Ontario length of 

transverse cracks..........................................................................................................................224
xvi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC Asphalt concrete

ALF Accelerated load facility

AMPT Asphalt mixture performance tester

ANOVA Analysis of variance

APT Accelerated pavement testing

BBR Bending beam rheometer

CAB Crushed aggregate base

COV Coefficient of variation

CR-AZ Arizona wet process crumb rubber modified

CR-TB Terminally blended crumb rubber modified

CTOD Critical tip opening displacement

DENT Double edged notched tension

DER Dissipated energy ratio 

DSR Dynamic shear rheometer

DT Direct tension

EICM Enhanced Integrated Climatic model

ETG Expert task group

EWF Essential work of fracture

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMD Flow measurement device

FWD Falling weight deflectometer

GPS General Pavement Study

HMA Hot mix asphalt
xvii

HWT Hamburg wheel tracking

IDT Indirect tension

LDMA Layer deformation measurement assembly

LSV Low shear viscosity

LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance

LVDT Linear variable differential transformer

MAMTL Mobile Asphalt Materials Testing Laboratory

MDD Multiple depth deflectometer

MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide

MTD Material transfer device

MSCR Multiple stress creep and recovery

MVR Material volumetric rate

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

OT Overlay tester

PAV Pressure-aging vessel

PG Performance grade

PRT Pavement rut tester

PSPA Portable seismic pavement analyzer

PTF Pavement test facility

RMSE Root mean square error

RSCH Repeated shear at constant height

RTFO Rolling thin film oven

SBS Styrene-butadiene-styrene

SBS-LG Linear grafted SBS

SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
xviii

SPS Specific Pavement Study

SPT Simple performance test

SSD Saturated surface dry

SST Simple shear tester

Superpave® SUperior PERforming Asphalt PAVEment

TCE Trichloroethylene

TFHRC Tuner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

TPF Transportation Pooled Fund

TTI Texas Transportation Institute

VECD Viscoelastic continuum damage

VFA Voids filled with asphalt

VMA Voids in mineral aggregate

ZSV Zero shear viscosity
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The United States produces hundreds of millions of tons of hot mix asphalt (HMA) each year 

for pavement construction and maintenance. Although the asphalt weighs less and represents a 

smaller proportion of the HMA mixture, the liquid asphalt binder component is more costly than 

the stone aggregate component, translating to billions of dollars spent annually. Asphalt binders 

for HMA are purchased, graded, and verified using the SUperior PERforming Asphalt 

PAVEment (Superpave®) performance grade (PG) system developed by the Strategic Highway 

Research Program (SHRP). 

Current Asphalt Binder Specifications

The aim of the Superpave® PG system and asphalt binder specifications is to ensure acceptable 

performance of flexible asphalt pavements in three distinct temperature or seasonal regimes, 

each associated with a different distress. The assurance of acceptable performance comes with 

the following requirements: 

• The asphalt binder must be part of a valid asphalt-aggregate mixture design. 

• The HMA layer must be configured in a valid pavement structural design.

• The pavement must be constructed without any deficiencies.

State transportation agencies specify PG binder using specifications adopted by the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO M 320,

Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder, assigns three temperature 

grades to a particular asphalt binder using the following three tests:(2)

• AASHTO T 313: Standard Method of Test for Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness 

of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR).

(3)

• AASHTO T 314: Standard Method of Test for Determining the Fracture Properties of 

Asphalt Binder in Direct Tension (DT).

(4)

• AASHTO T 315: Standard Method of Test for Determining the Rheological Properties of 

Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR).

(5)

Both AASHTO T 313 and AASHTO T 314 measure material properties intended to control 

low-temperature thermal cracking performance.

(3,4) This is not within the scope of this research. 

AASHTO T 315 measures material properties intended to control both high-temperature rutting 

and intermediate-temperature fatigue cracking distresses. The rheological properties of asphalt 

binders characterized using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) are the viscoelastic (complex) 

shear modulus, |G*|, and viscoelastic phase angle, . Temperature and rate of loading affect these 

rheological properties, which is why they are considered viscoelastic in nature. Increasing 

temperature decreases asphalt binder stiffness while increasing the viscoelastic phase angle and 

δ
2

vice versa. Decreasing the rate of loading has the same effect as increasing temperature. SHRP’s 

Asphalt Research Program recommended combinations of the shear modulus and phase angle as 

specification criteria for rutting and fatigue cracking.(6)

SHRP was initiated to increase the life of pavements and decrease life-cycle costs and 

maintenance requirements. Asphalt research focused on delivering two products: a performancebased binder specification and an asphalt aggregate mixture design and analysis system. The 

research was broken into the following contracts:

(7)

• A-001: Improved Asphaltic Materials, Experiment Design, Coordination, and Control of 

Experimental Materials.

• A-002A: Binder Characterization and Evaluation.

• A-003A: Performance-Related Testing and Measure of Asphalt-Aggregate Interaction 

and Mixtures.

• A-003B: Fundamental Properties of Asphalt-Aggregate Interaction Including Adhesion 

and Absorption.

• A-004: Asphalt Modification.

• A-005: Performance Model and Validation of Test Results.

• A-006: Performance-Based Specifications for Asphalt Aggregate Mixtures.

To achieve the desired products, the research was broken into four distinct phases. The first 

phase was conceptualization, identifying candidate physiochemical phenomena in binders and 

mechanical properties of mixtures that govern asphalt pavement performance. The second phase 

was definition, defining the asphalt binder properties that would be validated against laboratory 

accelerated mixture performance tests and, to a lesser degree, with full-scale accelerated 

pavement testing (APT). These activities were considered a first-stage validation. At the same 

time, tests suitable for specifications were developed. This phase was followed by the validation 

phase, during which field performance data were used to complete the first-stage validation of 

binder and mixture properties that were judged to have a strong effect on pavement performance 

in the definition phase. This was considered the second-stage validation. The last stage was 

adoption, where the implementation of binder and mixture specifications begins. Ultimately, the 

third-stage validation would come from Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Specific 

Pavement Study (SPS)-9 test sections.

SHRP contracts A-002A, A-003A, and A-005 had the greatest influence on research and 

recommendations leading to the current asphalt binder PG specifications. Contract A-002A was 

tasked with identifying chemical and physical properties of asphalt binders that were associated 

with performance and developing specification tests for these properties. Contracts A-003A and 

A-005 supported A-002A to provide validation. Contract A-003A developed standard laboratory 

asphalt-aggregate mixture tests based on properties identified in A-002A. Contract A-005 

provided the basis for criteria and limits to refine asphalt binder and mixture specification tests 
3

from field performance. The interaction among contracts is shown graphically in figure 1, which 

is reproduced from the SHRP Asphalt Research Program strategic plan.

(7)

Figure 1. Flowchart. SHRP asphalt strategy.

(7)

SHRP contract A-002A was comprehensive and focused on a molecular microstructural 

chemical model for the asphalt binder, aging and oxidative mechanisms, and physical rheological 

properties that are the subject of this research. SHRP A-367 describes physical rheological 

properties for specification tests and presents why various empirical techniques are inferior to 

fundamental viscoelastic properties, which are the basis for the current Superpave

® PG 

specifications.(6) The primary advantage of fundamental viscoelastic rheological properties of 

asphalt binder is the ability to account for temperature effects, aging effects, shear rate, and 

viscosity effects. 

SHRP A-369 explains why and how the fundamental viscoelastic rheological properties were 

developed and chosen and, importantly, describes limits and criteria for those properties in the 

current practice found in AASHTO T 315.(8,5)

With respect to fatigue cracking, the SHRP researchers responsible for developing specification 

tests were aware of the complicated fundamental fatigue and fracture phenomena associated with 

asphalt cracking. These include stress concentrations found at the leading edge of crack tips and 

A-002A/A-003A

Identify Composition

Quantify Composition 

Develop Physical Tests

Correlation Composition and 

Physical Properties

A-004

Validate tests 

for modified 

binder

A-003A

Validate A-002A 

with simulative 

large scale lab 

tests (Phase 1)

A-005

Develop & 

validate 

models

A-005

Validate A-002A 

with field data 

(Phase 2)

A-001

Develop binder 

specification and 

protocols

A-002A/A-003A

Identify Composition

Quantify Composition 

Develop Physical Tests

Correlation Composition and 

Physical Properties

A-004

Validate tests 

for modified 

binder

A-003A

Validate A-002A 

with simulative 

large scale lab 

tests (Phase 1)

A-005

Develop & 

validate 

models

A-005

Validate A-002A 

with field data 

(Phase 2)

A-001

Develop binder 

specification and 

protocols
4

mathematics regarding the propagation of those cracks as well as the inelastic conditions that 

influence fracture mechanics theories. The researchers identified the presence of plasticity and 

viscoelasticity and the energy dissipation at intermediate temperatures where fatigue cracking is 

assumed the dominant distress. Relationships between fatigue and fracture did not exist because 

the profession lacked a convenient test for asphalt binder fatigue. Fracture was explicitly 

explored with direct tension (DT) fracture tests for low-temperature cracking. Master curves of 

failure stress and failure strain over wide ranges of temperature and strain rate were developed as 

a possible means to extend DT fracture testing from low temperatures (thermal transverse 

cracking) to intermediate temperatures (fatigue, alligator cracking, etc.). However, doing so 

would require a transition from the brittle state at low temperatures to a combined ductile-brittle 

state at warmer temperatures. 

Explicit justification for a practical surrogate for advanced fundamental tests was that fatigue 

tests are too lengthy for practical specifications and fatigue phenomena in the field occur over

a broad range of temperatures and stress levels depending on traffic and location within the 

pavement structure. Fundamental fatigue tests had to be conducted to support the choice of a 

surrogate test. SHRP researchers utilized reduced-scale three-point bending beam geometries 

of composite aluminum metal and asphalt binder. Strain magnitudes of the beam undergoing 

fatigue were between 5,200 and 1,400 microstrain (0.52 and 0.14 percent), and the temperature 

range was -22 to 32 °F (-30 to 0 °C). It is interesting to note that such classical cyclic fatigue 

characterization tests are contemporarily conducted in parallel plate geometry using DSR at more 

intermediate temperatures, as discussed in later sections of this report. Failure was defined as the 

appearance of a crack in the asphalt beam. 

A number of phenomena were confirmed. First, the larger the induced repeated strain in the 

fatigue test, the fewer number of cycles to achieve failure. Second, the ratio of the energy lost 

due to viscoelasticity and fatigue damage in a given cycle compared to the total energy input for

a given cycle remains constant as cycles increase during the fatigue test but increase dramatically 

at the end when damage dominates. An example of this from SHRP research is shown in 

figure 2. The second observation was that energy dissipated is a strong indicator of fatigue 

damage. Analytical closed-form solutions based on dissipated energy were derived to equate 

the number of cycles to the strain level and total dissipated energy for an entire fatigue test.

Experiment and theory matched reasonably well, as shown in figure 3. DSR instruments were 

introduced in the SHRP project, and dissipated energy was related to the parameter |G*|× sin . 

This parameter was ultimately selected as the specification controlling fatigue cracking. 

Justification for the parameter criteria initially set at 435 psi (3 MPa) was made utilizing data 

from the Zaca-Wigmore road test built in the mid to late 1950s to assist the California 

Department of Highways in evaluating penetration binder specifications and durability.(9,10)

Figure 4 shows the data where sections with larger |G*| × sin values exhibited greater amounts 

of cracking. SHRP researchers utilized this data to justify the limit of 435 psi (3 MPa) for |G*| × 

sin . However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Asphalt Expert Task Group

(ETG) suggested increasing the limit to 725 psi (5 MPa), which can be found in the current 

practice specification of AASHTO M 320.

(2)

δ

δ

δ
5

Figure 2. Graph. Dissipated energy during asphalt binder bending beam fatigue.

(8)

Figure 3. Graph. Relationship between strain level and fatigue life in asphalt binder.

(8)
6

Figure 4. Graph. Zaca-Wigmore test road cracking performance and estimated 

binder properties.

(6)

With respect to rutting specifications and criteria, SHRP A-369 proposed that asphalt binders 

exhibit both recoverable and irrecoverable components of viscoelastic deformations and that it is 

the irrecoverable component that contributes to the permanent deformation and rutting observed 

in full-scale pavements.

(8) To explore these phenomena, a unique apparatus and asphalt binder 

sample test configuration was developed. An actuator provided repeated loading with rest 

periods to a piston that penetrated a sample of asphalt binder controlled at a fixed temperature. 

The apparatus measured the recoverable and irrecoverable deformations. The rest period allowed

the recoverable deformations to attenuate from the total deformations, leaving behind a 

permanent or plastic deformation before the next load cycle. The experimental program 

measured these plastic and permanent deformations on a series of asphalt binders, some 

unmodified and some polymer modified. The SHRP research found that large permanent

deformations grew in a nonlinear fashion. More practical indentation tests were explored as an

alternative; however, the material response of interest was not necessarily the plastic 

deformations but the manner in which stresses relax in asphalt binder from a monotonic 

indentation. This characterization was done at cooler-than-ideal high-temperature rutting 

conditions. In other words, the researchers were looking to measure fundamental linear 

viscoelastic relaxation modulus. All previous mechanical characterization instruments were 

abandoned as SHRP research adopted DSRs, which generate dynamic data that can be converted 

to time-domain data and provide the relaxation of interest.

SHRP A-367 indicates that originally, the “viscous component of stiffness” was found not to 

correlate with mixture data.(6) The type of mixture data and quality of the correlation were not 

provided in the final reports. Ultimately, the loss compliance was selected as the ideal 

specification parameter, which could be calculated from the DSR instrument as the shear 

modulus divided by the sine of the phase angle, |G*|/sin . Justification for this parameter shown 

in figure 5 came from personal communication that correlated non-descript wheel tracking tests 

of six unknown mixture data points with loss compliance (|G*|/sin ).

δ

δ
7

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 5. Graph. SHRP justification for the selection of high-temperature rutting 

criteria.(7)

SHRP Binder Parameter Validation with Mixture Characterization

Asphalt binder parameters proposed by the SHRP A-002A contract were tested and validated 

against the extensive and comprehensive laboratory mixture tests conducted by the SHRP 

A-003A contract. SHRP A-404 and SHRP A-515 provide an exhaustive description of the 

various tests explored for fatigue characterization and rutting/permanent deformation.

(11,12)

Ultimately, flexural beam fatigue tests and simple shear testing were selected as the ideal 

laboratory characterization tests. A summary of the comparison between binder properties 

and mixture properties is given in SHRP A-398 and also in a more concise summary by 

Leahy et al.(13,14)

To evaluate the fatigue binder specification, mixtures from eight SHRP core asphalt binders 

(unmodified) and two SHRP core aggregates were tested at two air void levels and repeated 

strain levels. A total of 128 specimens were tested. The experimental design examined the effects 

of binder type, aggregate type, density, and binder-aggregate and binder-density interactions. 

Binder type was found to have the strongest influence on fatigue life, as defined by 50 percent 

reduction in modulus. However, researchers found that other factors were also significant

contributors and could not be considered negligible. Comparisons were made between the 

fatigue life of the mixtures and binders. To eliminate interaction effects from the other variables, 

four scenarios (the combinations of the two aggregates and two density levels) were analyzed. 

Cyclic strain level was averaged. An example of one of the SHRP scatter plots for fatigue life 

versus binder property is shown in figure 6, but figures for dissipated energy and other properties 

were also provided. Each comparison has eight data points, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 

R, was calculated and is given in table 1. (Note that this is not the coefficient of determination,

R2.) The fatigue life, in general, had a good relationship with the logarithmic value of the 

specification |G*| × sin equal to the loss modulus G'', the logarithmic value of the complex 

stiffness |G*|, and the logarithmic value of the storage modulus G' equal to |G*| × cos . For 

δ

δ
8

binders with the same specification parameter |G*| × sin , stiffness could have as much as twice 

the fatigue life depending on the aggregate and density. The SHRP researchers noted that the 

phase angle had little effect and that any of the stiffness relationships could be used. However,

it was recognized that modified asphalt could benefit from the sin term.

RD = Quarried,100 percent crushed aggregate.

RH = Partially crushed river gravel.

Figure 6. Chart. Comparison between SHRP mixture flexural beam fatigue 

and asphalt binder rheology.(13)

δ

δ
9

Table 1. Comparison between SHRP mixture flexural beam fatigue and asphalt binder 

rheology using correlation coefficient, R.

(13)

Mix Property

Flexural 

Stiffness Fatigue Life

Dissipated 

Energy

Aggregate RD, 4 percent air voids

Log (|G*|•sin ) 0.906 -0.535 -0.32

Log |G*| 0.904 -0.474 -0.241

Log G' 0.888 -0.401 -0.149

Log(tan ) -0.564 -0.156 -0.456

Aggregate RD, 7 percent air voids

Log (|G*|•sin ) 0.905 -0.935 -0.672

Log |G*| 0.909 -0.927 -0.622

Log G' 0.897 -0.915 -0.568

Log(tan ) -0.606 0.578 0.062

Aggregate RH, 4 percent air voids

Log (|G*| × sin ) 0.951 -0.951 -0.806

Log |G*| 0.946 -0.945 -0.76

Log G' 0.926 -0.933 -0.707

Log(tan ) -0.571 0.6 0.175

Aggregate RH, 7 percent air voids

Log (|G*| × sin ) 0.952 -0.927 -0.925

Log |G*| 0.935 -0.944 -0.935

Log G' 0.902 -0.952 -0.935

Log(tan ) -0.473 0.753 0.692

RD = Quarried 100 percent crushed aggregate.

RH = Partially crushed river gravel.

SHRP conducted an analysis that expanded upon the mixture effects (i.e., air voids and density). 

The impact of pavement structural configuration (i.e., stiff versus soft or thick versus thin layers) 

was explored, as well. The results of the beam fatigue tests were used to calibrate the generic 

model for fatigue life as a function of the inverse of the tensile strain magnitude. Two scenarios 

were considered: (1) an asphalt concrete (AC) layer on aggregate base over a subgrade and (2) a 

thicker AC layer on a softer subgrade. The fatigue lives of the fictitious pavements predicted 

from the equation were compared against the binder properties. The relationships between binder 

and pavement performance were weaker than the relationships between binder and laboratory 

test fatigue life shown in table 1 and figure 6. In addition, the trends with lab-mix specimens

were opposite the trends with binder. Notably, the generic model for pavement structure fatigue 

life did not include stiffness, as does the current empirical equation in the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 1-37A, Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide

(MEPDG) methodology.(1) The SHRP analysis shows that structural configuration of pavement 

has a significant contribution to overall performance and, depending on the situation, may 

override the choice of asphalt binder.

The approach used with respect to rutting was similar to that used for fatigue characterization. 

Wheel tracking tests and laboratory shear tests were conducted. Sixteen asphalt binders and 

two aggregates were used to make samples at two air void levels for wheel tracking tests. 

Nine asphalt binders and two aggregates were used to make samples at two air void contents for 

the laboratory shear tests. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess the 

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
10

proportional effect of binder type, aggregate type, density, and the interaction between binder

and aggregate. In contrast to the fatigue analysis, there were almost equal contributions from 

aggregate, binder, and binder-aggregate interaction for the wheel tracking tests but less so for 

density. Statistical findings were similar for the laboratory repeated shear testing, except with a 

bit larger error than wheel tracking. As with the fatigue analysis, the laboratory wheel tracking 

and shear tests were compared to the characteristics of the binder only by separating the data into 

the four combinations of the two aggregates and two density levels. Comparative plots and 

correlation calculations of the binder properties against wheel tracking and laboratory repeated 

shear were conducted similar to the fatigue characterization. Typical results from SHRP are 

shown in figure 7. Significant scatter was observed, with inconsistent trends at times being 

positive or negative for a particular scenario of aggregate type, density, and laboratory

characteristics. The SHRP researchers concluded that binder properties can be overridden 

by aggregate properties. One comment from the SHRP researchers was that the tests were 

conducted at the relatively low temperature of 104 °F (40 °C), and higher temperature tests 

could emphasize the effect of binder, as in this Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) research.

Figure 7. Chart. Example of SHRP repeated shear and shear stiffness of mixtures 

compared against asphalt binder rheology.

(13)
11

SHRP Field Validation

SHRP contract A-005 provided more near-term validation of the selected binder specifications

until the results from the LTPP program could yield sufficient data. The research was intended to 

provide documented field performance data to help set criteria to the parameters determined in 

SHPR contract A-003. SHRP A-357 provides empirical validation of the binder specifications

for load-related distresses fatigue cracking and rutting.(15)

SHRP General Pavement Study (GPS) test sites were used by the researchers. Asphalt binder 

from 29 sections was extracted and characterized for comparison. The 29 sections came from

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, 

and Quebec. Two types of pavement performance prediction software, FLEXPASS and Texas 

Flexible Pavement System, were used to calculate predicted rutting and cracking distresses based 

on material properties measured on the mixtures in the laboratory and back-calculated properties

from nondestructive techniques. The ratio of measured to predicted distresses was calculated. 

Ratios larger than 1.0 were categorized as high, and ratios smaller than 1.0 were categorized 

as low. 

The logic for this analysis was to eliminate contributions from supporting layers and emphasize

contributions from the AC layer. Binder |G*| was plotted against binder phase angle, the two 

components of the rutting and fatigue cracking specification parameters. Each point was 

identified with its corresponding high or low ratio of predicted versus measured distress. The 

graph for fatigue cracking in the GPS test sections shows no clear trends, with the high and low

points interspersed among each other (see figure 8). The quality of the scatter plot is similar for 

rutting. The conclusion drawn by SHRP A-005 researchers was that no binder specification by 

itself can explain field performance. 

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

Figure 8. Graph. G* versus sin binder test values for high and low rates 

of fatigue cracking.(13)

δ
12

Post-SHRP Full-Scale Validation of Binder Specification

FHWA APT

FHWA provided APT to validate the newly developed SHRP binder specifications |G*| × sin

and |G*|/sin .

(16–18) Two unmodified asphalts with high, intermediate, and low PG temperature 

grades of 58, 9, and -34 and 64, 17, and -22 were used in a single mix design with 4- and 8-inch 

(100- and 200-mm)-thick asphalt layers, respectively. Test pavements were trafficked by an 

accelerated load facility (ALF) at 50, 66, and 82 °F (10, 19, and 28 °C).

The fatigue experiment was designed to evaluate whether stiffer binders defined by |G*| × sin

and, thus, stiffer mixtures, performed better in thicker asphalt layers while softer, more 

compliant binders defined by lower |G*| × sin and, thus, softer mixtures, provided better fatigue 

cracking resistance in thinner asphalt pavements. The experiment also tested whether there was a 

pessimum temperature for fatigue cracking. In other words, there should be less fatigue cracking 

at temperate cooler and warmer temperatures than at some critical intermediate temperature. 

These fatigue phenomena are partially confirmed in figure 9 and figure 10, where the middle 

test temperature of 66 °F (19 °C) required fewer passes to produce cracks than did 50 or 82 °F 

(10 or 28 °C). However, binder |G*| × sin only partly explained the performance in the thinner 

pavement, where strain control phenomena were believed to dominate. This is not a departure 

from classical pavement engineering. At the intermediate 66 °F (19 °C) temperature for both 

4- and 8-inch (100- and 200-mm)-thick pavements, the binder with the stiffer |G*|•sin

performed better, contrary to the intent of the specification. The researchers suggest that the 

loss compliance used for high-temperature binder specifications, |G*|/sin , is associated with 

stress control fatigue phenomena and |G*| × sin is associated with strain control fatigue 

phenomena and that stress control |G*|/sin should be used to grade fatigue performance for 

thicker pavements.

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 9. Graph. FHWA APT validation of SHRP binder fatigue specification

for 4-inch (100-mm) HMA test sections.

(16)

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ 

100,000

1,000

14,000

50,000

10,000

20,000

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

28C 19C 10C

ALF Test Temperature

Number of ALF Wheel Passes For 

First Crack to Appear At Surface

"Softer" PG 58•9•-34 

"Stiffer" PG64•17•-22 
13

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 10. Graph. FHWA APT validation of SHRP binder fatigue specification

for 8-inch (200-mm) HMA test sections.

(16)

Rutting was evaluated at multiple temperatures between 115 and 169 °F (46 and 76 °C) on 

five asphalt binders. Three binders were unmodified: AC-5, AC-10, and AC-20, with hightemperature grades of PG58, PG64, and PG70, respectively. Two binders, Novophalt and Styrelf, 

were modified asphalts with high-temperature grades of PG76 and PG82. The number of wheel 

passes to achieve 0.8-inch (20-mm) rut depth was used to assess the validity of the parameter 

|G*|/sin . However, the parameter at a slower frequency of 2.25 radians/s in the DSR was 

chosen instead of the standard 10 radians/s because of the slow speed of the FHWA ALF. 

As shown in table 2, binders were characterized at three temperatures, and test lanes were loaded 

at those same temperatures, depending on the stiffness of the binders. For the polymer modified 

asphalts, the rutting was quite low, and thus, power law models were fit to the measured rutting

versus wheel pass data to extrapolate to the 0.8-inch (20-mm) rut depth criteria. A very broad 

range in wheel passes was found and is presented in figure 11 using a semilogarithmic scale. 

 

300,000

25,000

250,000

350,000

150,000

220,000

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

28C 19C 10C

ALF Test Temperature

Number of ALF Wheel Passes For 

First Crack to Appear At Surface

"Softer" PG 58•9•-34 

"Stiffer" PG64•17•-22 

δ
14

Table 2. Post-SHRP rutting binder validation conducted by FHWA.

(18)

Binder

Wheel Passes to 

20-mm 

Rut Depth

Temperature 

(°C)

|G*|/sin at 2.25 

radians/s 

(Pa)

AC-5

(PG58)

192,000 46 4,061

1,950 52 1,557

670 58 664

AC-10

(PG64)

83,000 46 8,865

21,720 52 3,329

1,900 58 1,384

AC-20

(PG70)

161,400 52 6,744

2,740 58 2,702

7,000 64 1,175

Novophalt

(PG76)

6,000,000 58 6,826

340,000 70 1,304

1,900,000 76 642

Styrelf

(PG82)

220,000 58 13,710

98,300 70 4,435

236,000 76 2,381

1 mm = 0.039 inches

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 11. Graph. Post-SHRP rutting binder validation conducted by FHWA.

(18)

δ

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

- 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Binder G*/sin(δ) at 2.25 rad/sec (Pa)

Wheel Passes to 20mm Rut Depth

Unmodified AC Binders

Modified Binders
15

The association between the binder parameter and full-scale rutting was fairly weak. However, 

when considering only the unmodified binders, the trends were correct and reasonable. 

Additional analyses were conducted by fixing the wheel passes and evaluating the association 

with rut depth at a fixed number of wheel passes. Aging of the binders was considered because 

the pavements were tested at different times. Extracted binders were obtained and compared after 

the ALF tests. The alternative analyses did not change any of the conclusions regarding the poor 

association between rutting and the binder parameter in modified asphalts.

LTPP SPS-9 Experiments

LTPP SPS-9 experiments were developed to provide validation of the SHRP asphalt PG binder 

specification and Superpave® volumetric mix design. Three subsections were built in each test 

section: one for the particular agency’s binder and mix design specification, one for the PG 

binder specification and Superpave® volumetric mix design, and one for the Superpave®

volumetric mix design with a PG binder intentionally chosen incorrectly to achieve failure 

sooner and capture binder effects. In 2001, an analysis of the SPS-9 test sections was conducted 

that recognized several caveats.(19) Limitations to the analysis were as follows:

• There were gaps in the distress data record.

• Manually collected distress data excluded automated distress data collection because

there was little correlation between the two types of data.

• Some sections exhibited little to no distress. 

• The database for material properties in the agency sections was incomplete, so most PG 

grades for comparison to the SHRP grades are unknown. 

Twenty-six test sections were built between 1992 and 1998, and the data were analyzed in 2001. 

Low-, medium-, and high-severity cracks were combined, and the standard definition for fatigue

cracking of interconnected cracks within the wheel path was followed. Comparisons among the 

agency design, SHRP PG Superpave®, and SHRP alternate PG sections used the SHRP extentof-distress bins of normal, moderate, and severe distress categorization. 

In total, 78 percent of the 26 sections had no cracking, and 80 percent exhibited nominal rutting. 

Direct comparison of the extent of distress between sections showed that the agency selection 

specification had less rutting but more cracking than the SHRP PG and Superpave® sections. 

Statistical F-tests and t-tests were conducted to evaluate the distresses between the SHRP PG 

Superpave® sections and the SHRP alternate PG sections to determine whether or not there 

were any statistical differences in performance when the incorrect PG binder was used. At a 

95 percent confidence level, no differences were found between the SHRP PG sections and the 

alternate PG sections in rutting, wheel path fatigue cracking, and non-wheel path longitudinal

cracking. When the material properties data were investigated, a reported 18 of the 26 alternate 

sections did not correctly choose the “incorrect” binder specification to produce greater rutting 

and cracking. 
16

Identified Shortcomings with Current Asphalt Binder Specifications

NCHRP 9-10, which was launched in 1996, was a landmark study in response to the growing 

evidence and concerns that SHRP PG binder could not adequately explain performance for 

modified asphalts.(20) Classes of asphalt binder modifiers were identified in practice and research. 

These classes were fillers, extenders, polymer elastomers, polymer plastomers, crumb rubber, 

oxidants, hydrocarbons, process-based, fibers, and antioxidants. Detailed surveys were 

conducted and summarized the extent to which modifiers were used by highway agencies and 

the distresses that were targeted. Contractors and suppliers provided experience in terms of the 

process of modification of simple and complex binders. Complexities arose from issues such 

as size and content of particles (i.e., crumb rubber), long-term stability, strain sensitivity or 

nonlinearity, and cyclic or creep sensitivity.

Laboratory tests on asphalt mixtures were conducted in the NCHRP 9-10 research. Repeated

shear at constant height (RSCH) tests were conducted on identical mix designs with different 

binders of the same high-temperature PG grade. Results are shown in figure 12. More binders 

and mixtures were tested for the comparison between the two parameters, as shown in figure 13. 

The figure shows that |G*|/sin is not a significant controlling parameter. Repeated shear creep 

and recovery tests focusing on the irrecoverable accumulated deformations were explored, 

refined, and recommended as an improved protocol over |G*|/sin by improving the correlation 

between the two mix and binder parameters. 

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 12. Graph. RSCH data from NCHRP 9-10.

(20)

δ

δ
17

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

Figure 13. Graph. Modified binder properties and mixture permanent deformation 

from NCHRP 9-10.

(20)

Laboratory fatigue tests on mixtures were also conducted and compared to the SHRP binder 

specification |G*| × sin . As shown in figure 14, little correlation was found. In a similar 

fashion, cyclic fatigue tests similar to those normally conducted on asphalt mixtures were 

conducted on binder, refined, and recommended as an improved protocol over |G*| × sin . 

This improved the correlation with mixture fatigue tests. 

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

Figure 14. Graph. Modified binder properties and mixture fatigue from NCHRP 9-10.

(20)

δ

δ
18

FHWA conducted a laboratory experiment (internally designated as project 90-07) that used a 

single crude source and a variety of modification techniques and also confirmed that |G*|/sin

and |G*| × sin do not control mixture permanent deformation and fatigue cracking.

A number of other researchers have also identified shortcomings and recommended alternative 

protocols. For example, California researchers suggested eliminating the fatigue cracking 

parameter |G*| × sin , increasing mixture characterization efforts, and exploring the binder creep 

slope parameter used in low-temperature cracking, since fatigue cracking shares similar 

phenomena identified in original SHRP research.(21)

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The extent to which the current Superpave® PG binder specifications characterize the 

contribution of conventional or unmodified asphalt binders to pavement performance has 

been shown to depend on the particular dataset at hand. The current system does not effectively 

characterize the performance of modified asphalt binders. In the interim, State highway agencies 

have developed a variety of localized specifications added to the Superpave

® PG binder 

specifications that can limit innovation and impact performance.

Proposed changes to the PG binder specifications recommended by NCHRP 9-10 are 

available.(20) Alternative candidate specification parameters and alternative protocols for 

performance grading modified and unmodified asphalts are needed. Justification for any 

changes requires valid evidence from full-scale pavement performance.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

TPF-5(019) and SPR-2(174) have been established to study, select, build, and test fullscale accelerated pavement tests to evaluate and validate proposed recommendations to the 

Superpave® binder specification and to provide AASHTO with a binder purchase specification 

that is blind to the type of modification. To achieve this objective, different modified materials 

and configurations were placed in test sections that also investigated other nationally significant 

and complementary research topics, including the following:

• Established and new protocols of the simple performance test (SPT), now known as the 

asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT). Material properties and ranking provide 

critical data to assess modified and unmodified asphalt binders. 

• Limited investigation of performance models incorporated into the NCHRP 1-37A 

MEPDG methodology, with emphasis on the applicability of the models to 

modified materials.(1)

• Detailed data allowing for a case study of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) properties 

measured on pavements with known materials and construction. 

• Performance of new crumb rubber modified asphalt pavements. Although not used in the 

classical overlay rehabilitation technique, the use of crumb rubber modified asphalt was 

utilized in a composite pavement with greater structural capacity. 

δ

δ

δ
19

CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

This chapter describes the asphalt binders selected for the experiment as well as the construction 

and layout of the test lanes. Also described is the framework that was used to quantify the 

strength of the relationships between binder properties, mixture properties, and full-scale 

pavement performance. 

ASPHALT BINDER SELECTION

The asphalt binders and test results from NCHRP 9-10 and NCHRP 90-07 guided the selection 

of binders used in TPF-5(019).(20,22) NCHRP 90-07 was conducted by FHWA and evaluated the 

moisture susceptibility of the modified asphalts in NCHRP 9-10. These experiments considered 

asphalt modification with catalytic air blowing, crumb rubber, elastomeric polymers, and

elastomeric-plastomeric polymers. The overarching strategy of the asphalt binder selection and 

design was to obtain a suite of asphalts with similar or identical high-temperature rutting PG 

(|G*|/sin ) but differing intermediate-temperature fatigue cracking PG (|G*| × sin ). A series 

of premodified preconstruction binders was provided to FHWA from asphalt modifiers and 

suppliers. These were characterized to confirm the larger quantities of the binders that would be 

delivered to the paving contractor for the test lane construction. 

Table 3 and figure 15 describe the constructed lane asphalt binders, modification type, placement 

in the test lanes, and HMA thickness in the study. A control asphalt binder without modification 

(PG70-22) was necessary for experiments of this nature. The air-blown binder was a second 

asphalt binder without polymer modification, a softer asphalt binder that underwent a catalytic 

air blowing process to increase its stiffness. Two styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) elastomeric 

polymer modified binders were used: (1) a typical SBS modified asphalt with approximately 

3 percent linearly grafted (LG) SBS polymer by weight (referred to as SBS-LG) and (2) SBS 64-

40, which used a larger quantity of SBS polymer at approximately 3.5 percent with a softer base 

asphalt binder. Terpolymer elastomeric-plastomeric polymer modified asphalt binder utilized 

2.2 percent reactive terpolymer or three copolymers (DuPontTM Elvaloy®) that react with the 

base asphalt instead of simply mixing and 0.4 percent polyphosphoric acid as a catalyst to enable 

the reaction of the polymer with components of the base asphalt. Two crumb rubber modified 

asphalt binders were included. The crumb rubber terminal blend (CR-TB) modified asphalt 

binder was produced in a process that blends recycled tire crumb rubber (5.5 percent) with new 

SBS rubber (1.8 percent) at asphalt terminals and creates a more homogeneous crumb rubber 

modified asphalt that can be handled without the challenges associated with less homogeneous 

crumb rubber modified asphalt binder. The Arizona wet process crumb rubber modified (CRAZ) asphalt binder was produced from an unmodified asphalt binder and blended with recycled 

tire crumb rubber particles following the Arizona wet process.

δ δ
20

Table 3. Summary of asphalt binder properties and their location in the ALF test lane configuration.

Binder Description PG70-22 CR-AZ PG70-22 PG70-22 Air Blown Terpolymer SBS-LG

SBS 

64-40 CR-TB

FHWA tracking number B6272 B6269 B6267 B6298 B6281 B6289 B6295 B6280 B6286

ALF test lane 1 (bottom) 1 (top) 2 7 8 3 10 6 12 4 11 9 5

Asphalt thickness (mm) 50 50 100 100 150 100 150 100 150 100 150 150 100

PG 70 -22 82 -34 70 -22 70 -22 70 -28 70 -28 70 -28 70 -34 76 -28

Continuous PG 72 -23 86 -34 72 -23 72 -23 74 -28 74 -31 74 -28 71 -38 79 -28

T(°C) when |G*|/sin (ORIG) = 1 kPa 73.2 91.1 72.8 72.1 75.5 78 75.1 71.7 79.5

T(°C) when |G*|/sin (RTFO) = 2.2 kPa 72.3 86.4, 

94.4* 72.9 73.2 74.1 74.5 74.4 71.8 81.4

T(°C) when |G*| × sin (PAV) = 5 MPa 26.7 11.9, 

23.4* 25.4 26.1 22.6 14.3 17.7 8.6 17.9

T(°C) when S(60) (PAV) = 300 MPa -13.5 -27.3 -13.8 -13.5 -18.9 -21.3 -22.7 -28.5 -22.9

T(°C) when m(60) (PAV) = 0.3 -13.3 -24.8 -13.8 -13 -18.3 -24.1 -19.3 -29.5 -17.6

Cracking T (°C) using BBR + DT -20.3 -23.5 -21.8 -26.8 -33.1 -35.2 -41 -31.6

Cracking T (°C) using BBR alone -21.3 -22.2 -22.9 -27.1 -31.1 -33.7 -36 -32.9

Specific gravity 1.03 1.034 1.030 1.025 1.038 1.026 1.015 1.025

1 mm = 0.039 inches

1 kg = 2.202 lb

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

MVR = Material volumetric-flow rate.

ORIG = Original.

RTFO = Rolling thin film oven.

PAV = Pressure-aging vessel.

BBR = Bending beam rheometer.

*Estimated properties, details provided in section entitled, “Arizona Wet Process Crumb Rubber.”

Note: Blank cells indicate tests were not conducted and data are not available.

δ

δ

δ
21

Figure 15. Graph. High-intermediate-low PG grades of ALF binders in the experiment.

ARIZONA WET PROCESS CRUMB RUBBER MODIFIED ASPHALT

A firm in Phoenix, AZ, developed the blending and modification of the CR-AZ asphalt binder. 

An unmodified base binder meeting PG58-22 was used along with recycled crumb rubber 

particles shown in table 4. The blend consisted of 17 percent crumb rubber and 83 percent 

asphalt binder. Table 5 provides the physical properties of the crumb rubber asphalt binder 

blend held at 399 °F (204 °C) at various time intervals up to 24 h to evaluate the storage stability 

of the binder. 

Table 4. Recycled crumb rubber particle size in CR-AZ binder.

Sieve Size

(mm)

Sieve 

Number

Percent 

Passing

Arizona 

Test Method 714 

Gradation Limits(23)

2.36 8 100 100

2.00 10 100 100

1.18 16 98.3 65–100

0.600 30 51.3 20–100

0.300 50 11.9 0–45

0.075 200 0.6 0–5

1 mm = 0.039 inches
22

Table 5. Physical properties of CR-AZ binder during blending.

Test

Minutes of Reaction ASTM D6114 

Type-I Limits(24) 60 90 240 360 1,440

Viscosity, Haake at 177 °C, cP 2,500 2,900 3,100 3,100 2,900 1,500–4,000

Resilience at 25 °C, percent rebound 

(ASTM D5329)(25) 36 — 36 — 41 25 minimum 

Ring and ball softening point, °F 

(ASTM D36)(26) 147.0 150.0 150.0 149.0 149.0 130 minimum

Needle penetration at 4 °C, 

200 g, 60 s, 1/10 cm (ASTM D5)(27) 29 — 30 — 31 15 minimum

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 g = 0.035 oz

1 cm = 0.39 inches 

— Indicates test data were not measured at every point in time.

The size of the crumb rubber particles in the modified asphalt limited the ability to age and test 

the binder in standard instruments for the PG grading system. The unaged crumb rubber asphalt 

binder was successfully tested in the DSR, and the temperature at which it met the specification 

criteria |G*|/sin value of 0.145 psi (1 kPa) at 10 radians/s was 202 °F (94.4 °C). The binder 

could not be successfully aged in the rolling thin film oven (RTFO) and pressure-aging vessel 

(PAV) or tested in the DSR for the high-temperature rutting specification criteria |G*|/sin value 

of 0.32 psi (2.2 kPa) and intermediate-temperature fatigue cracking specification criteria of 

|G*| × sin value of 725 psi (5,000 kPa). 

Research by Shenoy on a variety of binders has shown that RTFO- and PAV-aged PGs can be 

estimated with some degree of accuracy by relying on the unaged asphalt binder properties.(28,29)

The RTFO-aged specification was estimated by adding 11 °F (6 °C) to the temperature at which 

the original unaged binder met a |G*|/sin value of 0.32 psi (2.2 kPa). The PAV-aged 

specification was estimated by adding 11 °F (6 °C) to the temperature at which the original 

unaged binder met a |G*| × sin value of 725 psi (5,000 kPa). The results of the PG grade 

estimation were a continuous high-temperature grade of 194 °F (90.1 °C) (PG82) and an 

intermediate-temperature grade of 74 °F (23.4 °C). 

The CR-AZ binder was characterized a second time in a more comprehensive manner. The 

original unaged binder was tested in the DSR using 0.975-inch (25-mm)-diameter plates but with 

a 0.078-inch (2-mm) gap rather than the standard 0.039-inch (1-mm) gap. The binder did not run 

out from between the plates and could be trimmed satisfactorily. The original high-temperature 

PG was 195.98 °F (91.1 °C), which was similar to the 194.18 °F (90.1 °C) PG determined in the 

earlier characterization. The binder was then aged in an RTFO oven that was tilted backwards to 

the limit of the specification to prevent the binder from coming out of the bottles. The binder did 

not completely coat the bottles. The RTFO-aged binder was then characterized in the DSR using 

0.975-inch (25-mm)-diameter plates with a 0.078-inch (2-mm) gap. The RTFO high-temperature 

PG was 187.52 °F (86.4 °C), which was lower than the estimated value discussed above. The 

binder was then aged in a PAV, degassed, and characterized in a DSR with a 0.312-inch 

(8-mm)-diameter plate and a 0.078-inch (2-mm) gap as well as a BBR. The intermediate PG 

was 53.42 °F (11.9 °C), which was lower than the estimated value discussed above. The low 

temperature PGs from the BBR S-value and m-value were -35.14 and -30.64 °F (-37.3 and 

-34.8 °C), respectively.

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
23

MIX DESIGN AND AGGREGATE

The experiment was designed such that the primary variable among the test lanes was binder 

type, with identical aggregate type and volumetric mix design. The primary mix design of 

the experiment was based on a standard mixture specified by the Virginia Department of 

Transportation—a coarse, dense-graded, Superpave®, 0.487-inch (12.5-mm) nominal maximum 

aggregate gradation. Reclaimed asphalt pavement was excluded from the mix design and 

experiment to eliminate any influence on the experimental binders. A job-mix formula was 

submitted to FHWA by the paving contractor for the Superpave® mixture with the unmodified 

PG70-22 asphalt binder. The optimum asphalt binder content was 5.3 percent by total mass of 

the mixture based on a 4.0 percent design air-void content at 75 gyrations. 

Both coarse and fine aggregate stockpiles were 100 percent crushed stone and did not contain 

any natural sand. The petrography of the aggregate was a diabase (traprock). To reduce the 

potential for moisture damage, 1.0 percent hydrated lime was prescribed in all mixtures. 

Two coarse aggregate stockpiles were used, a No. 78 and No. 68 local designation. Two fine 

aggregate stockpiles were used, a No. 10 screenings and a grade F and G sand designation. 

The grade F and G sand was manufactured sand, not natural quartzite sand. The aggregate 

blending percentages provided by the paving contractor were 16.5 percent No. 68 stockpile, 

36.5 percent No. 78 stockpile, 27.0 percent grade F and G sand stockpile, and 20.0 percent 

No. 10 screenings stockpile. 

NCHRP 90-07 research was completed by FHWA and included an evaluation of optimum 

asphalt content at 75 gyrations at a compaction temperature of 284 °F (140 °C) for a variety of 

modified asphalts.(20) Modifications included terpolymer, ethylene vinyl acetate, SBS-LG, 

unmodified PG70-22, SBS radial grafted, and an ethylene styrene interpolymer. The optimum 

asphalt binder contents at 4.0 percent air void content were 4.4, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.6, and 4.6 percent,

respectively. An air-blown asphalt provided a binder content of 4.8 percent, a chemically 

modified crumb rubber product provided a binder content of 4.9 percent, and a mixture 

containing the unmodified PG70-22 asphalt binder with 0.3 percent polyester fiber by aggregate 

mass provided a significantly higher binder content of 5.4 percent. 

In this study, the asphalt binder content was fixed if it provided air voids within a range of 

3.5–4.5 percent. The study was designed to evaluate effects of asphalt binder properties on 

performance. It was expected that there would be a greater tendency to question whether small 

differences in asphalt binder content confounded the conclusions of the experiment compared 

to small differences in the design air void level.

Large quantities of coarse and fine aggregate from the paving contractor were delivered to 

FHWA. The unmodified PG70-22 binder was used to conduct trial compactions. Binder contents 

of 4.8, 5.3, and 5.8 percent were evaluated. These contents provided air-void levels of 5.9, 5.0, 

and 3.9 percent, respectively. The hydrated lime to be used in the mixture was added to the fine 

aggregate stockpile by the paving contractor. The lime and fine aggregate were mixed together in 

the hot mix drum plant without asphalt. The lime-treated aggregate was then stockpiled. This 

method of addition resulted in the formation of some lime nuggets. It was hypothesized that 

the variability in air voids could be the result of inconsistent samples of the lime-treated fine 

aggregate when batching the aggregates. Compaction tests were performed using samples of the 
24

lime-treated No. 10 aggregate taken directly from the stockpile at the hot mix plant to make sure 

that the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) stockpile was representative of the 

stockpile at the plant. This mixture also provided air voids of 5.9, 5.0, and 3.9 percent at asphalt 

binder contents of 4.8, 5.3, and 5.8 percent, respectively. These tests provided no insight 

concerning the inconsistencies in the air voids and did not rule out the possibility that the 

dispersion of the hydrated lime was part of the problem.

Construction proceeded with the contractor’s mix design. Volumetric data of the production 

mixes are shown in table 6. The air-blown, SBS-LG, and SBS 64-40 mixtures fell within the 

desired air void content range of 3.5–4.5 percent. The CR-TB mixture fell 0.1 percentage points

higher than the desired range at 4.6 percent. The 5.0 percent design air void content of the 

PG70-22 mixture fell outside the desired range by 0.5 percentage points. The fiber mix was 

evaluated with 0.3 percent fiber by weight of aggregate, and air void contents were outside the 

desired range at 5.1 percent. Increasing the binder content in laboratory tests created very erratic 

volumetrics, indicating fibers could be trapping air voids. The weight of the fiber was reduced to 

0.2 percent by weight of aggregate, and the air void content was 4.8 percent. The paving 

contractor needed a tolerance for the amount of polyester fiber to be used, so the allowable range 

was set at 0.2–0.3 percent by mass of aggregate.

Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) of all mixtures met the minimum requirement of 

14.0 percent and were greater than 16.0 percent even if the volumetrics of the mixtures were 

adjusted to a 4.0 percent design air void level. The voids filled with asphalt (VFA) for most of 

the mixtures met the 65 to 75 percent requirement. The only mixture where the VFA deviated 

significantly from the requirement was SBS 64-40, which had a VFA of 78 percent. The VMAs 

and VFAs in table 6 indicate that the aggregate structure provided a high amount of void space, 

which is rich in asphalt binder.
25

Table 6. Laboratory mix design evaluation of volumetrics.

Asphalt Binder Type PG70-22 CR-AZ

Air 

Blown

SBSLG CR-TB Terpolymer FiberSBS 

64-40

Lane

1 (bottom), 

2 and 8

1 

(top)

3 and 

10

4 and 

11 5 6 and 12 7 9

Total binder content, 

percent by mass 5.3 7.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3

Effective binder content, 

percent by mass 5 6.6 5 4.9 5 5 5 4.9

Asphalt binder absorption, 

percent by mass 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4

Effective binder content, 

percent by total volume 12.5 16 12.6 12.7 12.6 12.5 11.9 12.7

Dust, percent passing 

the 75- m sieve 6.3 3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Dust to effective binder content 1.26 0.45 1.26 1.29 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.29

Specific gravity of binder 1.03 1.028 1.026 1.023 1.019 1.024 1.03 1.005

Design air voids, percent 5 5.5 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.9 4.8 3.6

VMA at design air voids, 

percent 17.5 21.5 16.7 16.9 17.3 17.5 18.1 16.3

VFA at design air voids, 

percent 71.2 74.5 75.4 75.2 73.3 72.1 65.9 78.2

Maximum specific gravity 2.704 2.627 2.703 2.700 2.700 2.701 2.705 2.699

Effective specific gravity of 

aggregate 2.975 2.981 2.975 2.971 2.974 2.973 2.976 2.981

Bulk dry specific gravity of 

aggregate 2.947 2.948 2.947 2.947 2.947 2.947 2.934 2.947

1 = 0.039 mil

Gap-Graded Crumb Rubber Mix Design

The CR-AZ mixture was designed according to the Arizona Department of Transportation’s 

asphalt-rubber asphaltic concrete design specifications.(30) Five materials were used: No. 68 

diabase, No. 78 diabase, No. 8P diabase, No. 10 diabase, and hydrated lime. The aggregate 

blending percentages were 32.7 percent No. 68 stockpile, 46.5 percent No. 78 stockpile, 

8.9 percent No. 8P stockpile, and 10.9 percent No. 10 screenings. In addition, 1 percent hydrated 

lime was used. The 75 blow-per-side Marshall Method was used for the mixture design. The 

compaction temperature was 325 °F (163 °C). The volumetric requirements were that the air 

voids had to be between 4.5 and 6.5 percent and the VMA had to be a minimum 19.0 percent. 

Four asphalt binder contents were tried: 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 percent. The optimum asphalt 

binder content was found to be 7.1 percent and may appear lower than typical contents near 

8 percent for this type of mixture. However, the effective volumetric binder content was 

16 percent, and the high specific gravity of the diabase aggregate (2.98) can make gravimetric 

binder contents appear lower. If the aggregate specific gravity was lower (i.e., around 2.7), 

then the gravimetric binder content would have been around 7.8 percent.

PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION

The FWHA Pavement Test Facility (PTF) and two ALFs are used to rapidly collect data on 

pavement performance under conditions in which axle loading and pavement temperature are 

μ

μm
26

controlled. This facility is also used to study the complex interactions among pavement 

structures, construction materials, and axle loads. The primary objective of the PTF is to develop 

and verify new specifications, designs, and test procedures. Previous studies have addressed the 

relationship of tire pressure to pavement performance, the impact of super-single tires on asphalt 

pavement performance, the validation of SHRP binder and mixture specifications, and design 

procedures for ultra-thin white topping concrete overlays. (See references 16–18, 31, and 32.) 

The two ALF machines can run tests on alternative pavement designs (structures or materials) 

with fixed loading configurations or, conversely, on identical pavement designs with alternative 

loading configurations (e.g., by varying tire pressure or axle loading). Each machine is capable 

of applying an average of 35,000 passes per week with a half-axle load ranging from 7,500 to 

19,000 lbf (33 to 84 kN). Each of the PTF’s test lanes is long enough to include two 46- by 14-ft

(14- by 4-m) test sections, and each test section can be divided transversely into two test sites.

As a result, full paving of the 12 test lanes provides sufficient space for a 48-cell experiment. 

The configuration of mixture types in the lanes and layer thickness is shown in figure 16. Each 

pavement lane is 13 ft (4 m) wide and 160 ft (50 m) long and is divided into four test sites. All 

pavement lanes consist of an HMA layer and a dense-graded, crushed aggregate base (CAB) 

course over a uniformly prepared silty clay subgrade categorized as soil classification AASHTO 

A-4. The total thickness of the HMA and CAB layers is 26 inches (660 mm). Lanes 1 through 7 

were constructed with a 4-inch (100-mm)-thick layer of HMA, and lanes 8 through 12 were 

constructed with a 5.8-inch (150-mm)-thick layer.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 16. Illustration. Oblique diagram of the test section’s three-dimensional layout.
27

Trenches were cut in past ALF studies and indicate that total rutting was distributed within the 

asphalt layers and crushed stone layers but did not appear to deform or disturb the subgrade 

layer, as shown in the example in figure 17. The subgrade was not exposed or disturbed in the 

construction of the test lanes, but historical data on gradation are available and are summarized 

in table 7.

(33,34) Neither source provides any liquid limits, plastic limits, or plasticity indices 

or categorizes the subgrade as non-plastic. References 33 and 34 provide additional data, 

as follows:

• California bearing ratio is reported to be 6.7. 

• AASHTO T 99 optimum moisture content and maximum dry densities are reported as 

14.9 percent and 111.9 lb/ft3 (1,792 kg/m3), respectively.(35)

• AASHTO T 180 optimum moisture content and maximum dry densities are reported as 

11.4 percent and 121.6 lb/ft3 (1,984 kg/m3), respectively.(36)

• The specific gravity of the subgrade was found to be 2.840. 

Figure 17. Graph. Pavement layer profile measured from a trench cut in an ALF test 

section from past study.(16)

Table 7. Gradation of AASHTO A-4 subgrade.

Sieve Size 

(mm)

Total Percent Passing

Reference 23 Reference 24

25 100 100

14 97 99

12.5 94 —

9.5 92 97

4.75 87 96

2 83 95

0.425 71 85

0.075 34 47

1 mm = 0.039 inches

— Indicates test data were not measured for every sieve size.
28

The pavement test lanes were constructed in the summer and fall of 2002. The damaged CAB 

was removed. The first shaded area beneath the lanes in figure 16 shows where new CAB was 

placed. The new CAB was tested for gradation, density, moisture content, and surface elevation 

and met all requirements, as shown in table 8. The CAB was compacted with a vibrating steel 

wheel roller to a minimum of 156 lb/ft3 (2,529 kg/m3), which was 95 percent of the maximum 

density. Initially, some of the tests showed that the density was 94 percent of the maximum 

density, but these sections were reworked so that they met the requirement. The average moisture 

content was 5.3 percent. Gradation targets of the CAB are given in table 8.

Table 8. CAB gradation.

Sieve Size 

(mm)

Total 

Percent 

Passing

Tolerance 

(Percent)

Acceptance 

Range 

(Percent)

Design/Spec 

Range (Percent)

50 100 0 100 100

25 95 5 90–100 94–100

9.5 66 9.5 56.5–75.5 63–72

2 35 7 28–42 32–41

0.425 19 4 15–23 14–24

0.075 8 2 6–10 6–12

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Tanker trucks of the experimental asphalt binders were sent to the paving contractor after 

coordination and confirmation of the asphalt binder properties with the producers supplying the 

binder. A blender was delivered to the hot-mix plant for the CR-AZ production, whereas the CRTB was trucked to the hot mix plant from the terminal. The asphalt mixtures were produced in a 

counterflow drum plant located in Sterling, VA, 17 mi (27 km) from the PTF site. After 

transport, trucks unloaded the HMA into a material transfer device (MTD), which fed a rubber 

tire paver. An infrared camera used during construction verified the MTD was effective in 

eliminating temperature segregation. An example is shown in figure 18 and figure 19. The 

numerical image analysis of this particular thermal image taken during October 2002 

construction indicates that the temperature of the mix coming out from the back of the paver was 

about 298–302 °F (148–150 °C) and the coolest parts of the loose mat within view were about 

244–248 °F (118–120 °C). All of the test lanes were constructed in two lifts, each 2 or 3 inches 

(50 or 75 mm) thick, as appropriate. A 13.5-T (12.3-Mg) vibratory roller was used for the 

breakdown, followed by a 10-T (9.1-Mg) static steel roller for the finish rolling. The upper lift 

was placed as soon as the lower lift was cool enough to handle the paver, and no tack coat was 

used between the lifts. 
29

Figure 18. Photo. Conventional photo of hot mix placement from the back of the paver.

Figure 19. Photo. Thermal image of hot mix placement from the back of the paver.

A control strip was constructed in the parking lot before each test pavement was placed. This 

strip was used to determine the appropriate rolling pattern needed to achieve the desired density, 

to check the calibration of the paving contractor’s nuclear density gauge, and to approve each 

HMA by determining its asphalt binder content, aggregate gradation, maximum specific gravity, 

and volumetrics. Density and thickness were checked by sawing rectangular blocks from the 

pavement. The materials had to meet the specifications before the test pavement could be 

constructed. These control strips indicated that the target density could be achieved by four to 

six vibratory passes followed by three to five static passes, depending on the type of mixture. 

The pavements were compacted within a temperature range of 220–302 °F (105–150 °C).

Specification criteria for the HMA are given in table 9. The paving contractor and FHWA 

randomly obtained two samples of each plant-produced mixture from the loaded trucks and 

split them according to AASHTO T 168 and AASHTO T 248.(37,38) The samples were tested for 

binder content, aggregate gradation, and theoretical maximum specific gravity. The target 

gradation and limits for the gap-graded CR-AZ mix design and the dense-graded mix design are 

provided in table 10. Some material was placed and accepted out of specification. The following 

sections describe the construction data of note for each lane. Air void content taken on cores was 
30

measured on the entire core having both lifts. Three cores were taken from the left wheel path,

and three cores were taken from the right wheel path. Cores were not split at the lift boundary 

except for lane 1, where the top lift was the gap-graded CR-AZ mix and the bottom lift was the 

dense-graded PG70-22 mix. Thickness was measured with two techniques: (1) cores were 

measured for thickness and (2) the depth of holes drilled to metal survey plates was measured.

Table 9. HMA specifications.

Material Property Test Method Number of Tests Tolerance

Aggregate 

gradation

AASHTO T 30(39) Three per test 

lane

Target ±3.0 percent for 4.75 mm; 

target ±2.0 percent for 0.600 mm; 

target ±0.7 percent for 0.075 mm

Asphalt binder 

content

AASHTO T 308 ignition 

oven(40)

Three per test 

lane

Target ±0.2 percent

AASHTO T 287 

nuclear(41)

Three per control 

strip

No specification

Maximum 

specific gravity

AASHTO T 209(42) Three per test 

lane

Target ±0.015

Mixture 

volumetrics

AASHTO PP28(43) Three per test 

lane

No specification

In-place density ASTM D2950 nuclear 

density gauge(44)

15 per lift per test 

lane

Target ±1 percent

Air voids 

using cores

AASHTO T 166 and 

ASTM D3203(45,46)

Six per test lane 7.0 ±1 percent

Thickness 

using cores

Federal Lands T 501(47) Six per test lane Target ±10 mm

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Table 10. HMA aggregate gradation targets and limits.

Sieve Size

Gap-Graded CR-AZ Mix 

Design, Percent Passing

Dense-Graded 12.5 mm 

NMAS, Percent Passing

Standard

Metric 

(mm)

Target 

Blend Limits

Target 

Blend Limits

1 inch 25 100 100

3⁄4 inch 19 100 100

1⁄2 inch 12.5 87 94

3/8 inch 9.5 73 85

No. 4 4.75 33 30–36 55 52–58

No. 8 2.36 16 35

No. 16 1.18 11

No. 30 0.6 8 6–10 17 15–19

No. 50 0.3 6 12

No. 100 0.15 5

No. 200 0.075 3 2.3–3.7 6.3 5.6–7.0

NMAS = Nominal maximum aggregate size.

Note: Blank cells indicate test data were not measured at sieve size.
31

Quantitative descriptions of each lane’s construction are as follows:

Lane 1, top, CR-AZ: One sample was taken for gradation. Aggregate gradation was within 

tolerances for the No. 4 (4.75 mm) and No. 30 (0.6 mm) sieves. The No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve 

was 0.1 percentage points higher than the tolerance. Only one ignition oven binder content 

measurement was taken instead of three. The value was 6.7 percent, 0.4 percentage points lower 

than the target of 7.1 percent. One of three maximum specific gravity measurements was outside

the tolerance, resulting in an average outside the tolerance. Two of six cores were outside the air 

void tolerance, but the average air void content was within the tolerance.

Lane 1, bottom, PG70-22: One sample was taken for gradation. Aggregate gradation was within 

all three tolerances for the No. 4, No. 30, and No. 200 (4.75, 0.6, and 0.075 mm) sieves. Only 

one ignition oven binder content measurement was taken instead of three, and it was within the 

target binder content range. All three maximum specific gravity tests were within tolerance. 

Two of six cores were outside the air void tolerance, but the average air void content was within 

tolerance. A total of 4 of 17 drilled holes were outside the thickness tolerance, but the average 

was within tolerance. Two of six cores were outside the thickness tolerance, but the average was 

within tolerance.

Lane 2, PG70-22: One sample was taken for gradation data. The aggregate gradation data 

on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve was 0.8 percentage points lower than tolerance, while the 

No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve was 0.2 percentage points lower than tolerance. Only one ignition 

oven binder content measurement was taken instead of three, and it was within the target 

binder content range. All three maximum specific gravity tests were within tolerance. Two 

of six cores were outside the air void tolerance, but the average air void content was within 

tolerance. A total of 6 of 12 drilled holes indicated thickness outside of tolerance, and average 

thickness was 0.029 inches (0.75 mm) above tolerance. All six cores and average were within 

the thickness tolerance. 

Lane 3, air blown: Two of three samples were above tolerance on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve,

but the average was 1.2 percentage points above tolerance. One of three samples on the No. 30 

(0.6 mm) sieve and on the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve was above tolerance, but the averages were 

within tolerance. One of three ignition oven binder content measurements was outside the range,

resulting in an average air void content outside the tolerance. One of three maximum specific 

gravity tests was below tolerance, but the average maximum specific gravity was within 

tolerance. Four of six cores were outside the air void tolerance, with one high and three low. 

This resulted in an average air void content below tolerance. Only 1 of 12 drilled holes indicated 

thickness outside tolerance, and the average was within tolerance. One of the six cores was 

outside the thickness tolerance, and the average was within tolerance.

Lane 4, SBS-LG: Two gradation samples on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve were outside tolerance. 

One was above and the other below, but the average was within tolerance. All samples on the 

No. 30 and No. 200 (0.6 and 0.075 mm) sieves were within tolerance. One of three ignition oven 

binder content measurements was below tolerance, but the average binder content was within 

tolerance. All three maximum specific gravity measurements were within tolerance. Three cores 

were within tolerance and three cores were below tolerance, resulting in an average air void 
32

content below tolerance. All 12 drilled holes indicated thickness within tolerance. One of 

six cores was outside the thickness tolerance, and the average was within tolerance.

Lane 5, CR-TB: All three gradation samples on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve were above 

tolerance, and the average was 2.1 percentage points above tolerance. All gradation samples on 

the No. 30 and No. 200 (0.6 and 0.075 mm) sieves were within tolerance. One of three ignition 

oven asphalt content measurements was above tolerance, and the average was within tolerance. 

All three maximum specific gravity measurements were within tolerance. Four of six air void 

cores were outside the air void tolerance, with one high and three low. This resulted in an 

average air void content within tolerance. Only 3 of 17 drilled holes indicated thickness outside 

tolerance, but the average was within tolerance. Two of six cores were below the thickness 

tolerance and resulted in an average thickness 0.052 inches (1.33 mm) below tolerance.

Lane 6, terpolymer: One of three gradation samples on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve was above 

tolerance, but the average was within tolerance. All gradation samples on the No. 30 and 

No. 200 (0.6 and 0.075 mm) were within tolerance. Only two measurements were taken for 

binder content. One of two ignition oven binder content measurements was above tolerance, but 

the average binder content was within tolerance. Two of three maximum specific gravity tests 

were taken, and both were within tolerance. Two of six cores were below the air void content 

tolerance, and the average was within tolerance. A total of 5 of 12 drilled holes were out of the 

thickness tolerance, but the average was within tolerance. Three of six cores were within the 

thickness tolerance, and the average was within tolerance. 

Lane 7, fiber: All three gradation samples were within tolerance on all sieves. All three ignition 

oven binder content tests were within tolerance. Corrections were made because fibers were 

affected by the burn-off oven. All three maximum specific gravity measurements were within 

tolerance. All six cores taken were within the air void content tolerance. Ten of 32 drilled holes 

indicated thickness within tolerance. Four of six cores were outside tolerance, and the average 

was 0.097 inches (2.5 mm) above tolerance.

Lane 8, PG70-22: One of three gradation samples on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve was above

tolerance, but the average was within tolerance. All samples on the No. 30 (0.6 mm) sieve were 

within tolerance. The No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve had one of three samples below tolerance, but 

the average was within tolerance. Two of the three binder content measurements were outside 

tolerance, with one high and one low. The average binder content was within tolerance. All 

three maximum specific gravity measurements were within the tolerance level. Five of six cores 

were below the air void tolerance, and the average level was below tolerance. All 12 drilled holes 

and all six cores were within the thickness tolerance. 

Lane 9, SBS-LG: One of three No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve gradation samples was well below 

tolerance, resulting in the average being 0.7 percentage points below tolerance. All three 

gradation samples on the No. 30 (0.6 mm) sieve were within tolerance. All three gradation 

samples on the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve were below tolerance, resulting in an average that was 

0.4 percentage points below tolerance. Two of three binder content measurements were outside 

tolerance, with one high and one low. The average binder content was within tolerance. One of 

three maximum specific gravity tests was above tolerance, with the average within tolerance. All 

six cores had air voids lower than tolerance. Three of 12 drilled holes were outside the thickness 
33

tolerance, and the average was within tolerance. Five of six cores were below the thickness 

tolerance, and the average was 0.163 inches (4.17 mm) below tolerance.

Lane 10, air blown: One of three gradation samples on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve was above 

tolerance, and the average was within tolerance. The No. 30 and No. 200 (0.6 and 0.075 mm) 

sieves had all samples within tolerance. All three binder content measurements were above 

tolerance. All three maximum specific gravity tests were within tolerance. One of six cores was 

within the air void tolerance and contained a mixture of above and below tolerance. The average 

was below tolerance. Only 1 of 12 drilled holes was outside the thickness tolerance, and the 

average was within tolerance. One of six cores was outside tolerance, and the average was 

within tolerance.

Lane 11, SBS-LG: All gradation samples on all sieves were within tolerance. All three binder 

contents were within tolerance. All three maximum specific gravity measurements were within 

tolerance. Five of six cores were below tolerance, and the average was below tolerance. A 

total of 4 of 12 drilled holes were outside the thickness tolerance, and the average was 

within tolerance. One of six cores was outside the thickness tolerance, and the average was 

within tolerance.

Lane 12, terpolymer: All three No. 4 (4.75 mm) gradation samples were above tolerance, 

resulting in an average that was 2.6 percentage points above the tolerance. One of the three 

No. 30 (0.6 mm) sieve samples and No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve samples was above tolerance, 

but the average was within tolerance. All three binder contents were above tolerance. One of 

three maximum specific gravity measurements was outside tolerance, and the average was 

within tolerance. Two cores were within tolerance, and four were below tolerance, with the 

average air void level outside tolerance. All 12 drilled holes and the average were within the 

thickness tolerance. Two of six cores were outside the thickness tolerance, but the average 

was within tolerance.

The overall conclusion regarding the construction of the test lanes was that a very tight tolerance 

was set for the contractor because of the research requirements. The contractor had trouble 

staying within those tight tolerances for all work. When tolerances were exceeded, the average 

values lay on or very near the set specification limits. Some construction was rejected. Lanes 4, 

7, 8, and 11 were removed and replaced (data not included in this report). Ultimately, lane 7 was 

reconstructed twice before being accepted. One reconstruction was due entirely to the wrong 

gradation being delivered. The other lanes that were removed and replaced were due to thickness 

and density. Practicality had to be balanced with the objective of the experiment. FWD analyses 

are given chapter 4. Data for the control strips in the parking lot are not included in this report.

Hydrated Lime Distribution

The hydrated lime was added to the No. 10 screenings aggregate by the paving contractor to 

produce each asphalt mixture. The lime and No. 10 aggregate were mixed together in the hot

mix drum plant without asphalt. The lime-treated aggregate was then stockpiled. This method 

of lime addition resulted in the formation of some lime nuggets, as observed during pavement 

construction. The lime nuggets are shown in figure 20 and figure 21. The actual lime content 

distributed in the pavement test lanes was evaluated. Three 6-inch cores were taken from the end 
34

and middle of lanes 2 and 3. The cores were drilled with a hammer drill to obtain a sample of 

dust containing the components of the asphalt mix. Two different drill bits were used to explore 

the sensitivity of lime content to the size of the dust sample taken. The dust samples were 

analyzed using the method developed in the TFHRC Chemistry Laboratory.(48) The lime content 

was calculated assuming that the mix contained 5.3 percent binder.

Figure 20. Photo. Characteristic lime nuggets indicating less than desired uniform mixing. 

Figure 21. Photo. Relative size of lime nuggets. 

The average lime content for the lane 2 cores was 0.42 percent with a standard deviation of 

0.05 percent. The highest value was 0.53 percent, and the lowest was 0.33 percent. The average 

for dust using the 3/8-inch (9.5-mm) drill was 0.45 percent with a standard deviation of 

0.05 percent. The highest value was 0.53 percent, and the lowest was 0.38 percent. The 5/8-inch 

(16-mm) drill samples gave an average of 0.40 percent lime with a standard deviation of 

0.04 percent and values between 0.45 and 0.33 percent.

The results from lane 3 showed one outlier with a lime level of 1.10 percent compared to the 

average of 0.5 percent. This could be caused by variations in the method. However, since the 

other results were closer together, it is more likely that the drilling contained a higher lime level, 

perhaps an undispersed particle. The average for lane 3 was 0.5 percent, with a standard 

deviation of 0.20 percent. Ignoring the outlier yields an average of 0.45 percent with a standard 

deviation of 0.06 percent. Ignoring the outlier, the average for dust using the 3

/8-inch (9.5-mm) 

drill was 0.48 percent with a standard deviation of 0.01 percent. The highest value was 

0.49 percent, and the lowest was 0.46 percent. The 5

/8-inch (16-mm) drill samples gave an 

average of 0.42 percent, a standard deviation of 0.07 percent, and values between 0.30 and 

0.49 percent.

The detailed analysis of lime in lanes 2 and 3 were compared against samples taken from other 

lanes in table 11. Most tests used hydrochloric acid instead of acetic acid in the procedure, but 
35

that has little consequence on the test results. Single samples from the middle of the lanes were 

taken from lanes 7–10. The conclusion from the lime analysis of all lanes is that all lanes 

contained hydrated lime but at a content that is noticeably less than the target of 1 percent and 

that is different from lane to lane. 

Table 11. Lime contents measured from ALF lane cores.

Lane

Single Test Preliminary Analysis Detailed Analysis 

Lime Content 

Acid Used (Percent)

Lime Content 

(Percent)

Lane 1 Hydrochloric 1.10 —

Lane 2 Hydrochloric 0.44 0.42 ±0.05

Lane 3 Hydrochloric — 0.50 ±0.20

Lane 4 Hydrochloric 0.33 —

Lane 5 Hydrochloric 0.41 —

Lane 6 Hydrochloric 0.49 —

Lane 7, middle Acetic 0.12 —

Lane 7, end Acetic 0.12 —

Lane 7 Hydrochloric – —

Lane 8, middle Acetic 0.15 —

Lane 8, end Acetic 0.15 —

Lane 8 Hydrochloric 0.30 —

Lane 9, middle Acetic 0.61 —

Lane 9, end Acetic 0.49 —

Lane 9 Hydrochloric 0.52 —

Lane 10, middle Acetic 0.47 —

Lane 10, end Acetic 0.49 —

Lane 10 Hydrochloric 0.87 —

Lane 11 Hydrochloric 0.41 —

Lane 12 Hydrochloric 0.54 —

— Indicates that test data were not measured.

37

CHAPTER 3. ALF LOADING CONDITIONS, FULL-SCALE PERFORMANCE,

AND ANALYTICAL PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Each ALF test lane can be divided into four quadrants, or sites, as shown in figure 16. FWD 

testing conducted before placing the asphalt layer and described in subsequent sections indicated 

variations in unbound layer modulus in sites 1 and 2. General mechanistic-empirical knowledge 

is that fatigue cracking responses are associated with tensile asphalt strains and can be more 

influenced by variations in underlying layer properties than can rutting. Therefore, accelerated 

loading for rutting was conducted in sites 1 and 2, farthest from the parking lot and where the 

paver began laying the mat. Fatigue loading was conducted in sites 3 and 4, closest to the 

parking lot, which allowed a longer distance for the paver to place material.

Wheel and Tire Characteristics

Previous FHWA research illustrated that a wide-base 425 type tire, the kind used in this study,

induces greater damage than conventional dual tires.(31) The tires used provide a time-saving

advantage in accelerated loading. In addition, the simplicity of a single wheel has advantages in 

primary response mechanistic-empirical analyses. Different tire inflation pressures and wheel 

loads were used for rutting and fatigue loading. Fatigue loading utilized a 16,000-lbf (71-kN)

wheel load and 120-psi (827-kPa) tire inflation pressure. For rutting, the wheel load and tire 

inflation pressure were 10,000 lbf (44 kN) and 100 psi (689 kPa), respectively.

The imprint of the tire was measured for the 16,000-lbf (71-kN) wheel load and 120-psi 

(827-kPa) tire inflation pressure condition and is shown in figure 22. The effective contact area 

was between 110.8 and 117.9 inches2 (0.0715 and 0.0761 m2

), which was about 80 to 85 percent 

of the uniformly loaded circular contact area and resulted in an effective contact stress between

150 and 141 psi (1,032 and 971 kPa).

Figure 22. Illustration. Diagram of 425 tire imprint.
38

Lateral wheel wander of the ALF transverse position is programmable. Three standard deviation 

tables are available: zero wander, 1.74 inches (50 mm), and 5.25 inches (133 mm). Load 

applications for rutting did not utilize any wander, and the fatigue loading utilized the 5.25-inch 

(133-mm) standard deviation table. The tables consist of 500 lateral position points randomly

normally distributed. The maximum lateral position of the 5.25-inch (133-mm) standard 

deviation table is ±14 inches (356 mm), for a total range of 28 inches (711 mm). When taking 

into consideration the width of the 425 tire, the transverse extent of the loaded area was 

44.6 inches (1,133 mm).

Temperature Control

APT experiments must balance practicality with sufficient control on experimental variables. 

Temperature of the asphalt pavement layers was controlled to the greatest practical extent. 

Radiant heaters mounted along the length of the ALF were linked to temperature controllers 

and embedded thermocouples. The target temperatures chosen for rutting and fatigue loading 

were 147 and 66 °F (64 and 19 °C), respectively. These temperatures were chosen based on 

the PG temperatures of the variety of asphalt binders. 

In the thinner 4-inch (100-mm)-thick pavements, thermocouples were placed at the surface and 

at depths of 0.78, 1.9, and 3.7 inches (20, 50, and 95 mm). In the thicker 5.8-inch (150-mm)-

thick pavements, thermocouples were installed at the surface and at depths of 0.78, 2.9, and 

5.6 inches (20, 75, and 145 mm). The thermocouples at the 0.78-inch (20-mm) depth were 

connected to the closed loop temperature controllers and radiant heaters. Temperature did 

fluctuate mildly from hourly temperature variations and seasonal variations. Generally, when 

warming the pavements for 147 °F (64 °C) rutting, the pavement was cooler than the target 

temperature with depth. The average temperatures at the bottom of the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 

150-mm) lanes were 144 and 142 °F (62 and 61 °C), respectively. A typical standard deviation 

at each depth was 2.1 °F (1.2 °C). When the pavement was warmed to keep an intermediate 

temperature of 66 °F (19 °C) for fatigue cracking, there was a slight warming trend with depth,

and the average temperature at the bottom of the 4-inch (100-mm) pavements was 70 °F (21 °C)

with a standard deviation of about 2.9 °F (1.6 °C) at various depths. 

MEASURED RUTTING

Rutting was measured at the center of the wheel path without wander. Rut depth was quantified 

by the change in the thickness of the asphalt layer due to permanent deformation. The layer 

deformation measurement assembly (LDMA) installed in the asphalt is shown in figure 23. The 

aluminum plate was installed on top of the CAB before placing the asphalt layers, and holes 

were drilled through the asphalt layer to the plates after construction. Seven LDMAs were 

installed per test site.
39

Figure 23. Illustration. LDMA used to measure rut depth.

In addition to the LDMA, rod and level surveys were taken on top of the LDMA to quantify total

rutting at the surface. The rut depth of the underlying base and subgrade was then calculated as 

the difference between the total rod-and-level rut depth and the LDMA asphalt rut depth. 

Rut depths from the 147 °F (64 °C) tests on the 4-inch (100-mm)-thick lanes are provided in 

table 12 and figure 24. Rut depths from the 165 °F (74 °C) tests on the 4-inch (100-mm)-thick 

lanes are provided in table 13 and in figure 25. Rut depths from the 147 °F (64 °C) tests on the 

5.8-inch (150-mm)-thick lanes are provided in table 14 and in figure 26. Rut depths from the 

113 °F (45 °C) tests on 5.8-inch (150-mm)-thick lanes are provided in table 15 and in figure 27. 

Table 12. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C).

Lane 1, 

CR-AZ/PG70-22

Lane 2,

PG70-22

Lane 3, 

Air Blown

Lane 4, 

SBS-LG

Lane 5, 

CR-TB

Lane 6, 

Terpolymer

Lane 7, 

Fibers

Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm)

500 5.83 500 6.27 500 5.36 500 4.88 500 4.66 500 6.62 500 5.23

1,000 6.79 1,000 7.36 1,000 6.66 1,000 5.88 1,000 4.96 1,000 8.01 1,000 6.10

5,000 9.41 2,000 8.71 2,000 7.88 2,000 6.53 2,000 5.75 2,000 9.41 2,000 6.79

10,000 10.28 5,000 9.54 4,100 9.27 3,000 7.23 5,000 6.49 5,000 11.36 5,000 8.49

25,000 11.63 10,000 10.54 10,000 10.49 5,000 8.49 10,000 7.84 10,000 14.24 10,000 9.36

50,000 13.02 25,000 12.19 15,000 11.06 10,000 9.84 25,000 8.36 15,000 14.76 25,000 10.54

53,100 13.02 50,000 13.72 20,000 11.93 25,000 10.93 50,000 9.06 20,000 15.50 50,000 11.02

— — — — 25,000 12.58 35,000 11.67 — — 25,000 15.99* 75,000 11.63

— — — — 30,000 12.89 50,000 12.80 — — — — 100,000 11.84

— — — — — — — — — — — — 125,000 12.50

1 mm = 0.039 inches

— Indicates test data were not taken because loading had ended.

*Extrapolated.
40

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 24. Graph. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C).

Table 13. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 165 °F (74 °C).

Lane 2,

PG70-22

Lane 3, Air 

Blown

Lane 4,

SBS-LG

Lane 5,

CR-TB

Lane 6,

Terpolymer

Lane 7,

Fiber

Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm)

500 4.18 500 6.57 500 4.18 500 2.79 500 7.97 500 5.14

1,000 5.49 1,000 7.49 1,000 4.88 1,000 3.35 1,000 9.49 1,000 6.62

3,000 7.18 2,000 9.06 2,000 5.40 3,000 4.79 2,000 10.89 2,000 7.32

5,000 7.88 3,000 9.71 3,000 5.66 5,000 5.27 3,000 12.37 3,000 7.36

10,000 10.54 5,000 11.06 5,000 5.97 10,000 5.75 5,000 14.24 5,000 8.19

15,000 11.50 10,000 11.76 7,500 6.27 15,000 5.70 10,000 15.46 7,500 8.67

— — — — 10,000 6.49 20,000 5.97 — — 10,000 8.97

— — — — 15,000 7.01 25,000 8.01 — — 15,000 9.54

— — — — 25,000 7.97 — — — — 25,000 10.28

— — — — 50,000 8.84 — — — — 50,000 11.10

— — — — 75,000 9.62 — — — — 75,000 11.58

— — — — 100,000 10.49 — — — — 100,000 12.10

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Indicates test data were not taken because loading had ended.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Load Passes

Rut Depth (mm)

Lane 1, CR-AZ / Control 70-22

Lane 2, Control 70-22

Lane 3, Air Blown

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 7, Fiber
41

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 25. Graph. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 165 °F (74 °C). 

Table 14. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C).

Lane 8, 

PG70-22

Lane 9,

Replicate 1, 

SBS 64-40

Lane 9, 

Replicate 2, 

SBS 64-40

Lane 10, 

Air Blown

Lane 11, 

SBS-LG

Lane 12, 

Terpolymer

Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm)

500 6.97 500 5.53 1,000 6.44 500 5.62 500 6.23 500 6.05

1,000 8.32 1,000 6.31 5,000 9.45 1,000 6.71 1,000 7.27 1,000 6.92

5,000 11.10 2,000 8.06 10,000 11.15 2,000 7.32 5,000 9.19 2,000 7.36

10,000 12.67 5,000 9.60 25,000 15.11 5,000 9.19 10,000 10.58 5,000 8.62

25,000 14.11 10,000 11.26 50,000 20.86 10,000 11.32 25,000 12.63 10,000 9.93

40,000 15.68 25,000 16.22 — — 25,000 13.85 50,000 13.93 25,000 11.15

— — 50,000 21.73 — — 45,000 16.37 — — 50,000 12.19

— — — — — — — — — — 75,000 13.63

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Indicates test data were not measured because loading had ended.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Load Passes

Rut Depth (mm)

Lane 2, Control 70-22

Lane 3, Air Blown

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 7, Fiber
42

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 26. Graph. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C).

Table 15. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 113 °F (45 °C).

Lane 8, PG70-22 Lane 10, Air Blown Lane 11, SBS-LG

Passes

Rut Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut Depth 

(mm)

500 2.39 1,000 1.79 500 2.44

1,000 3.44 5,000 3.05 1,000 2.70

5,000 4.83 10,000 3.79 5,000 3.74

10,000 4.53 25,000 5.01 10,000 4.31

25,000 5.18 50,000 5.88 25,000 4.53

50,000 5.57 75,000 6.27 50,000 4.83

75,000 5.62 108,000 7.18 75,000 4.96

100,000 6.27 125,000 7.53 100,000 5.05

132,250 6.84 149,200 7.84 125,000 5.05

150,000 7.18 175,000 8.10 150,000 5.36

175,000 7.36 200,000 8.45 175,000 5.36

200,000 7.58 225,000 8.71 200,000 5.70

225,000 7.97 250,000 8.84 235,000 5.79

— — 275,000 9.01 250,000 6.01

— — 300,000 9.27 275,000 6.18

— — — — 300,000 6.14

1 mm = 0.039 inches

— Indicates test data were not measured because loading had ended.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Load Passes 

Rut Depth (mm)

Lane 8, Control 70-22

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (1)

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (2)

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG

Lane 12, Terpolymer
43

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 27. Graph. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 113 °F (45 °C).

The 147 °F (64 °C) rut tests were the primary rut tests in both thicknesses. The tests began 

between June and December 2003 and ended between June 2003 and January 2004, except for 

the first replicate of lane 9 SBS 64-40, which was tested in November 2002. A statistical f-test 

and t-test based on the average and standard deviation of rutting between the two replicate tests 

in lane 9 SBS 64-40 indicated the construction provided statistically equivalent rutting. The 

rutting performance of all lanes was ranked at 25,000 passes for the primary 147 °F (64 °C) tests

with the standard deviation from the seven points of measure, as shown in table 16 and figure 28.

Statistical f-tests and t-tests at 95 percent significance were conducted, and the results in table 17

indicate that all lanes provided the same performance statistically except the CR-TB section in 

lane 5, which was only similar to the fiber section in lane 7. The terpolymer section in lane 6 had 

similarities with its next two closest ranked sections, air blown in lane 3 and PG70-22 in lane 2. 

Table 16. Ranked rut depth of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) and 25,000 passes.

Lane

Average Rut 

Depth (mm)

Standard 

Deviation Rut 

Depth (mm)

Lane 5, CR-TB 8.4 0.72

Lane 7, fiber 10.5 1.67

Lane 4, SBS-LG 10.9 0.78

Lane 1, CR-AZ/

PG70-22 11.6 1.47

Lane 2, PG70-22 12.2 1.79

Lane 3, air blown 12.6 1.76

Lane 6, terpolymer 16.0 3.19

1 mm = 0.039 inches

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

Load Passes

Rut Depth (mm)

Lane 8, Control 70-22

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG
44

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 28. Graph. Ranked rut depth of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C)

and 25,000 passes.

Table 17. Statistical comparison of rut depth of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) 

and 25,000 passes. 

CR-TB Fiber SBS-LG

CR-AZ/ 

PG70-22 PG70-22

Air 

Blown Terpolymer

CR-TB • = ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Fiber • = = = = ≠

SBS-LG • = = = ≠

CR-AZ/

PG70-22 • = = ≠

PG70-22 • = =

Air Blown • =

Terpolymer •

• Trivial self-comparison.

= Statistically equal in rutting at 25,000 passes.

≠ Statistically not equal in rutting at 25,000 passes.

The rutting performance of the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes was analyzed with the same 

methodology. The rutting performance of all lanes was ranked at 25,000 passes for the primary 

147 °F (64 °C) tests with the standard deviation from the seven points of measure, as shown in 

table 18 and figure 29. Statistical f-test and t-test results in table 19 indicate that all lanes 

provided the same performance except the extreme best and worst performers, terpolymer in 

lane 12 and the second SBS 64-40 replicate in lane 9. The relative extreme difference in ranked 

performance of the two 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) terpolymer sections is an anomaly 

and is discussed later in this report. Table 20 summarizes the effect of thickness on rutting at 

147 °F (64 °C) and compares the average and standard deviation of rutting measured in sections 

that had the same binder at two thicknesses. Essentially all of the binders rutted the same when 

placed at 4 and 5.8 inches (100 and 150 mm), except the terpolymer section.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

CR-TB Fiber SBS-LG CR-AZ /

Control

Control Air Blown Terpolymer

Lane 5 Lane 7 Lane 4 Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 6

Rut Depth at 25,000 Passes (mm)
45

Table 18. Ranked rut depth of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) and 25,000 passes.

Lane

Average Rut 

Depth (mm)

Standard 

Deviation Rut 

Depth (mm)

Lane 12, terpolymer 11.1 2.79

Lane 11, SBS-LG 12.6 1.23

Lane 10, air blown 13.8 2.29

Lane 8, PG70-22 14.1 2.14

Lane 9 SBS 64-40 (1) 15.1 3.84

SBS 64-40 (2) 17.3 8.00

1 mm = 0.039 inches

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 29. Graph. Ranked rut depth of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C)

and 25,000 passes.

Table 19. Statistical comparison of rut depth of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C) 

and 25,000 passes. 

Terpolymer SBS-LG Air Blown PG70-22

SBS 

64-40 (1)

SBS 

64-40 (2)

Terpolymer • = = = = ≠

SBS-LG • = = = =

Air Blown • = = =

PG70-22 • = =

SBS 64-40 (1) • =

SBS 64-40 (2) •

• Trivial self-comparison.

= Statistically equal in rutting at 25,000 passes.

≠ Statistically not equal in rutting at 25,000 passes.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Terpolymer SBS-LG Air Blown Control SBS 64-40 (1) SBS 64-40 (2)

Lane 12 Lane 11 Lane 10 Lane 8 Lane 9

Rut Depth at 25,000 Passes (mm)
46

Table 20. Cross comparison of rutting in 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) lanes 

at 25,000 passes.

Lane

100 mm Lanes 150 mm Lanes

Statistically 

Equal

Rut Depth 

(mm)

Standard 

Deviation (mm)

Rut Depth 

(mm)

Standard 

Deviation (mm)

PG70-22 12.2 1.8 14.1 2.1 Yes

Air blown 12.6 1.8 13.8 2.3 Yes

SBS-LG 10.9 0.8 12.6 1.2 No

Terpolymer 16.0 3.2 11.1 2.8 No

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Later in the experiment, rutting tests at 165 and 113 °F (74 and 45 °C) were conducted on select 

lanes. Although rarely encountered for extended periods of time in the field, the 165 °F (74 °C) 

rutting temperature provided full-scale rutting performance at the critical or specification 

temperatures determined by binder rheological tests. The 113 °F (45 °C) rutting temperature 

provided more realistic conditions for mechanistic-empirical pavement performance prediction 

analysis. The pavements had undergone some amount of aging between the primary tests at 

147 °F (64 °C) and the supplementary tests at 165 and 113 °F (74 and 45 °C). The 165 °F 

(74 °C) rutting tests on the 4-inch (100-mm) sections began between September and November 

2005 and ended between October and November 2005. The terpolymer and air blown sections 

rutted faster at 165 °F (74 °C) than they did at 147 °F (64 °C). The 113 °F (45 °C) tests on the 

5.8-inch (150-mm) sections began between August and October 2006 and ended between 

October 2006 and January 2007.

Overall, the effect of changing temperature (and unknown replicate and aging effects) tended to 

create larger differences between the lanes’ rutting than measured at 147 °F (64 °C). The ranking 

was essentially the same at 165 and 147 °F (74 and 64 °C), except that the average rutting of 

fiber in lane 7 and SBS-LG in lane 4 changed rank positions. The control section exhibited 

slightly less rutting at 165 °F (74 °C) but eventually rutted slightly more than at 147 °F (64 °C). 

The SBS-LG section had considerably less rutting at 165 °F (74 °C) than at 147 °F (64 °C). The 

CR-TB section also had less rutting at 165 °F (74 °C) than at 147 °F (64 °C). The fiber section 

rutting was nearly identical at 165 °F (74 °C) and 147 °F (64 °C). The rutting in the air-blown 

and terpolymer sections was greater at 165 °F (74 °C) than at 147 °F (64 °C). At 113 °F (45 °C), 

the rutting was considerably less than at 147 °F (64 °C), and thus, the differences between the 

sections were considerably less as well. The average ranking between the control, air-blown, and 

SBS-LG sections was unchanged, with the modified asphalt performing better than the 

unmodified control and air-blown binder. 

Transverse Profile and Densification

Although not utilized in any calculations or quantification in this report, a laser transverse 

profiler was available to characterize the shape of the rut depth surface. Typical results are 

shown in figure 30. There was a characteristic upheaval hump on the sides of the wheel path. 

Exploratory cores were taken from lane 8 and lane 10. Four cores were taken from the center of 

the wheel path and four cores were taken from the humps. The air void content was calculated 

using AASHTO T 166 and compared to cores taken from outside the loaded area in the local 

vicinity of the other cores.(45) The results indicated the rutting increased the density in both the 
47

upheaval humps and the wheel path. The air void content of the wheel path decreased about 

1.5 percent while the air void content of the humps decreased about 0.5 percent. 

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 30. Graph. Surface profile taken in transverse position across the wheel path of a 

typical zero wander ALF rut. 

MEASURED FATIGUE CRACKING

Accelerated loading to generate fatigue cracking can take upwards of an order of magnitude 

more passes than rutting. For perspective, the amount of time to complete 100,000 passes is more 

than a month, while 10,000 passes takes approximately 5 days. Machine relocations, setup, 

temperature equilibration, mechanical maintenance, and data collection stops add to the 

schedule. The ALF devices were stopped at regular intervals for both pavement performance 

assessment and maintenance. Stops were more frequent earlier in loading to observe immediate 

changes in rutting or rapid cracking and then were gradually timed farther apart, stopping for

machine lubrication. 

In January 2003, a shake-down fatigue test was conducted in one of the sites in lane 1 (CR-AZ/

PG70-22). The tire pressure was 110 psi (758 kPa), and the wheel load was 14,000 lbf (62 kN).

The section did not exhibit any fatigue cracks after 102,000 passes. Thus, the wheel load and tire 

pressure were increased. The primary fatigue cracking loading for the thinner, 4-inch (100-mm)

sections began between February and December 2004, except for lane 7 (fiber), which began in 

March 2005. Loading for the thicker, 5.8-inch (150-mm) sections took much longer and had to 

skip periods during the summer. Two ALFs were used side by side as much as possible. The 

terpolymer section began in March 2005, but final loading was not complete until July 2006. The 

air-blown and control sections began in December 2005. Final loading for the air-blown section 

was completed in May 2006, and final loading for the control section was not complete until 

March 2008. The SBS-LG and SBS 64-40 sections began loading in January 2007. Final loading 

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Transverse Distance

Deflection (mm)
48

for the SBS-LG section was not complete until June 2008, and loading of the SBS 64-40 section

ended in July 2007. 

Photographs of typical cracked surfaces are shown in figure 31. Cracks were manually traced 

onto clear Mylar® plastic sheets as they formed at the surface of the pavements. Different color 

pens were used to correspond to the number of load repetitions. Two approaches were used to 

process the data. One was to measure the total crack length, and the other was to measure the 

percentage of area cracked in the loaded area, about 3.4 ft (1 m) wide and 33 ft (10 m) long. A 

cracked area was considered when individual cracks had grown and met each other, forming a 

network of cracks. The loaded area was divided into 1- by 1-ft (30- by 30-cm) units to quantify 

the percent cracked area.

Figure 31. Photo. Typical cracking pattern in loaded ALF wheel paths.

An analysis by Qi et al. found that fatigue cracks begin as small longitudinal cracks.(49) A 

simplified classification criteria was used to categorize cracks as longitudinal or transverse using 

a 45-degree orientation line. Cracks began as longitudinal, and as distributed cracking increased, 

the orientation became less longitudinal. For example, the ratio of longitudinal to transverse 

cracks for early loading was as high as 9, but after a significant amount of cracking had occurred

toward the end of loading, the ratio was typically around 3. The apparent dominance of 

longitudinal cracks could be because a single tire was used instead of a dual tire and also because 

the transverse strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer was tensile while the longitudinal strain 

transitions from compression to tension and then back to tension as the wheel passes. Repeated 

tensile-only transverse strains causing longitudinal cracking could be more damaging than any 

healing from mixed tensile and compressive strains in the other orientation.

Fatigue cracking results at 66 °F (19 °C) for the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes are shown in table 21

and table 22 and graphically in figure 32 and figure 33. Fatigue cracking results at 66 °F (19 °C)

for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes are shown in table 23 and table 24 and graphically in figure 34

and figure 35.
Table 21. Cumulative crack length in 4-inch (100-mm) fatigue crack sections.

Lane 1, 

CR-AZ/PG70-22

Lane 2, 

PG70-22

Lane 3, 

Air Blown

Lane 4, 

SBS-LG

Lane 5, 

CR-TB

Lane 6, 

Terpolymer

Lane 7, 

Fiber

Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m)

0 0.0 25,000 0.0 5,000 0.0 125,000 0.0 25,000 0.0 75,000 0.0 200,000 0.0

125,000 0.0 35,000 14.3 10,000 0.8 150,000 2.0 26,000 0.1 100,000 9.2 225,000 4.0

150,000 0.0 50,000 31.5 25,000 13.6 175,000 9.0 35,000 1.5 125,000 13.7 250,000 8.0

175,000 0.0 75,000 56.5 50,000 52.5 200,000 21.5 50,000 2.0 150,000 33.1 275,000 9.0

201,000 0.0 92,100 81.4 75,000 86.5 225,000 32.0 65,000 11.3 175,000 50.0 300,000 15.2

225,000 0.0 100,000 90.6 93,500 108.6 250,000 39.5 75,000 13.6 200,000 66.3 — —

250,000 0.0 — — — — 275,000 56.1 100,000 24.9 — — — —

275,000 0.0 — — — — 300,000 59.8 — — — — — —

375,000 0.0 — — — — — — — — — — — —

1 m = 3.28 ft 

— Indicates test data were not measured because loading had ended.

Table 22. Percent cracked area in 4-inch (100-mm) fatigue crack sections.

Lane 1,

CR-AZ/PG70-22

Lane 2,

PG70-22

Lane 3,

Air Blown

Lane 4,

SBS-LG

Lane 5,

CR-TB

Lane 6,

Terpolymer Lane 7, Fiber

Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area

0 0.0 25,000 0.0 5,000 0.0 125,000 0.0 25,000 0.0 75,000 0.0 200,000 0.0

125,000 0.0 35,000 17.7 10,000 1.0 150,000 1.1 26,000 0.0 100,000 12.5 225,000 7.3

150,000 0.0 50,000 38.5 25,000 15.6 175,000 7.3 35,000 1.0 125,000 14.6 250,000 9.4

175,000 0.0 75,000 65.6 50,000 42.7 200,000 20.8 50,000 2.1 150,000 30.2 275,000 10.4

201,000 0.0 92,100 90.6 75,000 69.8 225,000 31.3 65,000 16.7 175,000 43.8 300,000 14.6

225,000 0.0 100,000 100.0 93,500 78.1 250,000 37.5 75,000 18.8 200,000 59.4 — —

250,000 0.0 — — — — 275,000 54.2 100,000 41.7 — — — —

275,000 0.0 — — — — 300,000 57.3 — — — — — —

375,000 0.0 — — — — — — — — — — — —

—Indicates test data were not measured because loading had ended.

49
50

1 m = 3.28 ft

Figure 32. Graph. Cumulative crack length versus ALF passes in 4-inch (100-mm)

66 °F (19 °C) fatigue loaded sections.

Figure 33. Graph. Percent cracked area versus ALF passes in 4-inch (100-mm) 

66 °F (19 °C) fatigue loaded sections.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 

Cumulative Crack Length (m)

Load Passes

Lane 1, CR-AZ / Control

Lane 2, Control

Lane 3, Air Blown

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 7, Fiber

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 

% Cracked Area

Load Passes

Lane 1, CR-AZ / Control

Lane 2, Control

Lane 3, Air Blown

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 7, Fiber
51

Table 23. Cumulative crack length in 5.8-inch (150-mm) fatigue crack sections.

Lane 8, 

PG70-22

Lane 9, 

SBS 64-40

Lane 10, 

Air Blown

Lane 11, 

SBS-LG

Lane 12, 

Terpolymer

Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m) Passes

Crack 

Length 

(m)

300,000 0.00 150,000 0.00 75,000 0.00 50,000 0.00 225,000 0.00

325,000 1.00 250,000 0.00 100,000 0.25 125,000 0.00 275,000 0.00

425,000 3.00 340,000 0.00 125,000 7.49 200,000 0.00 400,000 0.00

— — 350,000 1.93 160,000 12.42 310,000 0.00 — —

— — 400,000 4.88 175,000 17.75 673,000 0.00 — —

— — 425,000 6.71 200,000 25.81 — — — —

— — — — 250,000 32.18 — — — —

— — — — 275,000 36.02 — — — —

— — — — 300,000 41.78 — — — —

— — — — 325,000 46.05 — — — —

— — — — 350,000 50.37 — — — —

— — — — 375,000 52.83 — — — —

1 m = 3.28 ft 

— Indicates test data were not measured because loading had ended.

Table 24. Percent cracked area in 5.8- inch (150-mm) fatigue crack sections.

Lane 8

PG70-22

Lane 9

SBS 64-40

Lane 10

Air Blown

Lane 11

SBS-LG

Lane 12

Terpolymer

Passes

Percent

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area Passes

Percent 

Cracked 

Area

300,000 0.00 150,000 0.00 100,000 0.00 50,000 0.00 225,000 0.00

325,000 1.04 250,000 0.00 125,000 10.42 125,000 0.00 275,000 0.00

425,000 3.13 340,000 0.00 160,000 11.46 200,000 0.00 400,000 0.00

— — 350,000 1.04 175,000 15.63 673,000 0.00 — —

— — 400,000 9.38 200,000 27.08 — — — —

— — 425,000 11.46 250,000 34.38 — — — —

— — — — 275,000 35.42 — — — —

— — — — 300,000 37.50 — — — —

— — — — 325,000 39.58 — — — —

— — — — 350,000 45.83 — — — —

— — — — 375,000 50.00 — — — —

— Test data were not measured because loading had ended.
52

1 m = 3.28 ft

Figure 34. Graph. Cumulative crack length versus ALF passes in 5.8-inch (150-mm)

66 °F (19 °C) fatigue loaded sections. 

Figure 35. Graph. Percent cracked area versus ALF passes in 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

66 °F (19 °C) fatigue loaded sections. 

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 

Cumulative Crack Length (m)

Load Passes

Lane 8, Control

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG (No Cracking)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (No Cracking)

Interpolated Cycles Surface Initiation

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 

% Cracked Area

Load Passes

Lane 8, Control

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG (No Cracking)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (No Cracking)

Interpolated Cycles Surface Initiation
53

Unlike the rutting performance, there was a more separated variation in the fatigue cracking 

performance. There is a nearly identical quantitative relationship between the two measures of 

fatigue cracking; both quantify and rank the performance of the different sections the same. 

Sections that exhibited surface cracks sooner also developed cracks faster. No cracking was 

observed for the composite pavement in lane 1 with gap-graded CR-AZ above the dense-graded

PG70-22 mixture. Lane 7 (fiber) was very resistant to fatigue cracking and had the least cracking 

of all the 4-inch (100-mm) sections exhibiting fatigue cracks at the surface. Overall, less 

cracking and more load passes were required to achieve fatigue crack initiation in the 5.8-inch 

(150 mm) sections than in the thinner 4-inch (100-mm) sections. Lane 10, with air blown binder,

exhibited the largest amount of cracking, as it did in the 4-inch (100-mm) section. The fatigue 

cracking response of the SBS 64-40 and the PG70-22 binder were intermixed. The lane 8

PG70-22 section had a lower fatigue cracking response curve but achieved surface cracks sooner 

than lane 9 with SBS 64-40. Cores taken from the PG70-22 section to exhume strain gauges 

showed delamination at the lift boundary, as shown in figure 36. Lane 11 (SBS-LG) and lane 12

(terpolymer) did not exhibit any surface crack initiation. Cores were also taken from lanes 11 

and 12 to look for subsurface bottom-up fatigue cracking that may have initiated but did not 

propagate through. None of the cores from either lane 11 or 12 indicated that cracking had 

begun. Some delamination was observed in the cores from lane 11 but less than the cores from 

lane 8.

Figure 36. Photo. Cores from lane 8 (PG70-22).

The slope of cracking with passes is plotted against the number of cycles to surface crack 

initiation in figure 37, which shows two different relationships depending on the thickness of the 

asphalt. The relationship for the thinner, 4-inch (100-mm) lanes has more points and is better 

defined than the three points from the thicker, 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes. In order to build a 

complete set of rankings for all lanes, extrapolations of this relationship were used to estimate 

the number of cycles to a 25 percent cracked area and 82 ft (25 m) of cumulative crack length for 

lanes 1, 11, and 12, which did not exhibit sufficient cracking. The number of cycles to surface 
54

crack initiation was taken as the maximum amount of passes applied because the use of any other 

criteria would be too speculative. Extrapolations from linear regression were used for lanes 7, 8, 

and 9, for which cracking data were available but not taken to the extent of 25 percent cracked 

area or 82 ft (25 m) of crack length. The process was fairly straightforward to complete the 

ranked set for the thinner, 4-inch (100-mm) sections for lane 1. Extrapolations for lanes 11 and 

12 were more challenging. Nondestructive seismic evaluation of damage is discussed in chapter 

4 and corroborates that lane 11, having received more passes, likely exhibits less damage than 

lane 12, which received fewer passes. However, when the extrapolated relationship in figure 37

was used along with the maximum passes for lane 11, a comparable number of passes to 

25 percent cracked area and 82 ft (25 m) of cracked length were found with lane 9 (SBS 64-40). 

This is because of the crisscrossed lane 8 and 9 curves and was not accepted because lane 9 

exhibited surface cracks, while cores from lane 11 did not show any cracking. Therefore, the 

slope estimated from figure 37 was taken at only 20 percent of the extrapolated value. Recall that 

the primary motivation is to obtain a rank order, for which this process was deemed satisfactory. 

The complete ranking of number of cycles to 25 percent cracked area and 82 ft (25 m) of crack 

length criteria with the estimations and extrapolations are presented in table 25 and table 26 and 

shown in figure 38 through figure 43.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 37. Graph. Crack length developed per load cycle at the point 

of surface crack initiation.

0

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

0.0008

0.001

0.0012

0.0014

0.0016

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

Crack Length per Load Cycle

Cycles to Surface Crack Initiation

100 mm - Crack Length

100 mm - Cracked Area

150 mm - Crack Length

150 mm - Cracked Area
55

Table 25. Ranked fatigue cracking of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C).

Lane

Load Passes to 

Surface Crack 

Initiation

Load Passes 

to 82 ft (25 m) 

Cumulative Crack

Load Passes 

to 25 Percent

Cracked Area

Lane 3, air blown 6,648 32,336 33,654

Lane 2, PG70-22 22,728 44,311 40,250

Lane 5, CR-TB 40,178 100,297 81,818

Lane 6, terpolymer 79,915 139,583 141,667

Lane 4, SBS-LG 140,857 208,349 210,000

Lane 7, fiber 185,484 375,516 379,032

Lane 1, CR-AZ/PG70-22 > 375,000 541,405 525,075

Table 26. Ranked fatigue cracking of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C).

Lane

Load Passes to 

Surface Crack 

Initiation

Load Passes 

to 82 ft (25 m) 

Cumulative Crack

Load Passes 

to 25 Percent 

Cracked Area

Lane 10, air blown 80,984 197,496 195,455

Lane 8, PG70-22 291,667 1,385,417 1,341,667

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 336,326 675,602 516,091

Lane 12, terpolymer > 400000 4,704,085 3,285,555

Lane 11, SBS-LG > 673000 9,390,351 6,682,329

1 m = 3.28 ft

Figure 38. Graph. Cumulative crack length of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes with interpolated 

and extrapolated curves.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 

Cumulative Crack Length (m)

Load Passes

Lane 1, CR-AZ / Control

Lane 1, CR-AZ/Control (extrapolated)

Lane 2, Control

Lane 3, Air Blown

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 7, Fiber

Lane 7, Fiber (extrapolated)

Ranked Cycles to 25 m Crack Length
56

Figure 39. Graph. Percent cracked area of 4-inch (100-mm) lanes with interpolated 

and extrapolated curves. 

1 m = 3.28 ft

Figure 40. Graph. Arithmetic scale plot of cumulative crack length of 5.8-inch (150-mm)

lanes with interpolated and extrapolated curves.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 

% Cracked Area

Load Passes

Lane 1, CR-AZ / Control

Lane 1, CR-AZ/Control (extrapolated)

Lane 2, Control

Lane 3, Air Blown

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 7, Fiber

Lane 7, Fiber (extrapolated)

Cycles to 25% Cracked Area

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

100,000 2,100,000 4,100,000 6,100,000 8,100,000 10,100,000 12,100,000 

Cumulative Crack Length (m)

Load Passes

Lane 8, Control

Lane 8, Control (extrapolated)

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (extrapolated)

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG (estimated)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (estimated)

Cycles to 25 m cumulative crack length
57

1 m = 3.28 ft

Figure 41. Graph. Semilog scale plot of cumulative crack length of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes 

with interpolated and extrapolated curves. 

Figure 42. Graph. Arithmetic scale plot of percent cracked area of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes 

with interpolated and extrapolated curves.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 

Cumulative Crack Length (m)

Load Passes

Lane 8, Control

Lane 8, Control (extrapolated)

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (extrapolated)

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG (estimated)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (estimated)

Cycles to 25 m cumulative crack length

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

100,000 1,100,000 2,100,000 3,100,000 4,100,000 5,100,000 6,100,000 7,100,000 

% Cracked Area

Load Passes

Lane 8, Control

Lane 8, Control (extrapolated)

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (extrapolated)

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG (Estimated)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (Estimated)

Cycles to 25% Cracked Area
58

Figure 43. Graph. Semilog scale plot of percent cracked area of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes 

with interpolated and extrapolated curves. 

Bottom-Up Cracking Evaluation 

Cores taken from the loaded area of the fatigue loaded sections were examined to confirm that 

cracks were initiating and then propagating from the bottom of the asphalt layer to the top. 

Figure 44 shows X-ray computed tomography images of a core taken from a fatigue cracking 

section. Crack width was larger at the bottom and became thinner toward the surface. Cores from 

lane 1, with composite pavement of gap-graded CR-AZ above dense graded PG70-22 mix, are 

shown in figure 45 and indicate that cracks began at the bottom and propagated through the 

dense-graded PG70-22 mixture, ultimately being arrested or slowed by the CR-AZ layer. 

Figure 44. Photo. X-ray computed tomography image slices of an ALF core.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 

% Cracked Area

Load Passes

Lane 8, Control

Lane 8, Control (extrapolated)

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (extrapolated)

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG (Estimated)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (Estimated)

Cycles to 25% Cracked Area
59

Figure 45. Photo. Cores taken from lane 1.

Rutting in Fatigue Sections

Rutting occurred and was measured in the fatigue loading sections. The data show smaller rut 

depth magnitude between 0.16 and 0.32 inches (4 and 8 mm) due to lateral wander and unknown 

aging effects. Figure 46 and table 27 show the rutting measured in the 4-inch (100-mm)-thick 

sections during the 66 °F (19 °C) fatigue test. Lane 5 (CR-TB), which performed best during the 

high-temperature 147 and 165 °F (64 and 74 °C) tests, had the largest and fastest rutting. The 

other lanes tended to exhibit almost identical behavior up until about 50,000 cycles and then 

began to diverge. In lane 3 (air blown), rutting increased very rapidly. Lane 4 (SBS-LG)

exhibited the best rutting, and lane 6 (terpolymer), which exhibited the worst rutting during the 

high-temperature tests, was a moderate performer. All of the lanes began the fatigue test during 

the same year, after about 2 years of aging, but some began early in February while others began 

in December. 
60

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 46. Graph. Rut depths for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C).

Table 27. Rut depth in 4-inch (100-mm) fatigue crack sections.

Lane 1, CR-AZ/ 

PG70-22

Lane 2, 

PG70-22

Lane 3, 

Air Blown

Lane 4, 

SBS-LG

Lane 5, 

CR-TB

Lane 6, 

Terpolymer

Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm)

500 1.4 1,000 1.4 500 1.7 1,000 1.6 500 4.1 500 1.8

1,000 1.7 5,000 2.4 1,000 2.3 5,000 2.5 1,000 5.2 1,000 2.4

5,000 2.7 10,000 2.8 5,000 2.6 10,000 2.9 5,000 6.9 5,000 3.3

10,000 3.1 25,000 3.1 10,000 3.4 25,000 3.7 10,000 7.1 10,000 3.7

25,000 3.7 50,000 4.4 25,000 3.4 50,000 4.1 25,000 7.7 19,400 4.1

50,000 4.4 75,000 5.2 50,000 4.5 75,000 4.5 50,000 8.2 50,000 4.7

75,000 5.1 100,000 6.4 75,000 9.6 100,000 4.8 75,000 8.9 75,000 5.6

100,000 5.4 — — 93,500 10.6 126,200 5.2 100,000 10.1 96,530 6.6

125,000 5.7 — — — — 150,000 5.8 — — 150,000 9.9

150,000 6.0 — — — — 175,000 6.3 — — 175,000 10.2

175,000 6.4 — — — — 200,000 6.9 — — 200,000 10.5

200,000 6.5 — — — — 250,000 8.6 — — — —

225,000 6.7 — — — — — — — — — —

250,000 7.3 — — — — — — — — — —

275,000 6.8 — — — — — — — — — —

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Indicates test data were not measured because loading had ended.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

ALF Passes

Rut Depth, mm

Lane 1, CR-AZ / Control, March 2004

Lane 2, Control, October 2004

Lane 3, Air Blown, December 2004

Lane 4, SBS-LG, October 2004

Lane 5, CR-TB, February 2004

Lane 6, Terpolymer, December 2004
61

Figure 47 and table 28 show the rutting measured in the 5.8-inch (150-mm)-thick sections during 

the 66 °F (19 °C) fatigue tests. Lane 9 (SBS 64-40), which exhibited the largest amount of 

rutting during the high-temperature tests at 147 °F (64 °C), provided moderate performance 

under the intermediate temperatures and wander conditions. It is unknown whether this was due 

to lane 9 being tested in 2007 rather than with the others in 2005. Lane 11 (SBS-LG) was also 

tested in 2007, 2 years after the other lanes, and exhibited the best rutting performance. Lane 10

(air blown) clearly performed worst in terms of rutting under the high-temperature zero wander 

conditions and the intermediate-temperature lateral wander conditions.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 47. Graph. Rut depths for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 66 °F (19 °C).
62

Table 28. Rut depth in 5.8-inch (150-mm) fatigue crack sections.

Lane 8, 

PG70-22

Lane 9, 

SBS 64-40

Lane 10, 

Air Blown

Lane 11, 

SBS-LG

Lane 12, 

Terpolymer

Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm) Passes

Rut 

Depth 

(mm)

1,000 0.83 1,000 1.48 1,000 1.00 1,000 1.13 500 0.78

5,000 1.26 10,000 4.14 5,000 2.35 10,000 1.61 1,000 1.26

10,000 2.00 25,000 4.57 10,000 2.96 25,000 1.18 5,000 1.48

25,000 2.61 50,000 4.40 25,000 4.01 50,000 2.13 10,000 1.87

50,000 3.40 75,000 4.83 50,000 5.05 75,000 2.39 25,000 2.35

75,000 3.66 100,000 4.40 75,000 5.79 100,000 2.53 50,000 2.79

107,000 3.88 125,000 4.53 100,000 6.27 125,000 2.74 100,000 3.18

125,000 5.62 150,000 4.62 125,000 7.45 150,000 2.74 100,000 3.27

150,000 4.66 175,000 4.66 150,000 7.53 175,000 2.87 125,000 3.48

175,000 5.23 200,000 4.92 175,000 8.32 200,000 2.96 150,000 3.88

203,000 5.44 225,000 5.40 200,000 8.93 225,000 2.96 175,000 3.66

225,000 5.75 250,000 5.40 230,000 9.01 250,000 3.09 200,000 3.79

250,000 5.79 275,000 5.23 250,000 9.36 275,000 3.31 225,000 3.83

275,000 6.01 300,000 5.49 275,000 9.71 300,000 3.31 250,000 4.22

300,000 6.31 325,000 5.31 300,000 9.67 310,000 3.44 300,000 4.75

325,000 6.40 350,000 5.57 325,000 9.75 310,000 3.53 325,000 5.05

350,000 6.18 375,000 5.57 350,000 9.97 350,000 3.83 350,000 5.27

375,000 6.27 400,000 5.75 375,000 10.15 375,000 3.83 375,000 5.27

400,000 6.53 475,000 6.23 — — 400,000 3.83 400,000 5.36

425,000 6.79 — — — — 425,000 3.83 — —

450,000 6.97 — — — — 450,000 3.83 — —

475,000 7.66 — — — — 500,000 3.79 — —

— — — — — — 575,000 3.79 — —

— — — — — — 600,000 3.88 — —

— — — — — — 625,000 4.09 — —

— — — — — — 650,000 4.22 — —

— — — — — — 673,600 4.22 — —

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Test data were not measured because loading had ended.

Anomalous Rutting Performance of Lane 6

A review of the 147 °F (64 °C) rutting performance of the terpolymer sections in figure 24 and 

figure 26 shows the rutting in 4-inch (100-mm) lane 6 was significantly larger than other lanes of 

this thickness. However, the rutting performance of 5.8-inch (150-mm) lane 12 was the smallest 

and best of that thickness. The rutting performance of 4-inch (100-mm) lane 6 terpolymer 

appears to be an anomaly and warrants discussion. Earlier research indicated that it is possible to 

improve laboratory fatigue and permanent deformation performance with this modifier.

(50)
63

The performance of the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lane 12 terpolymer is more in line with expectations,

and there does not appear to be enough evidence to suspect anomalous performance in that lane. 

Youtcheff et al. published an investigation of the performance of 11 modified asphalts in the 

2004 Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Conference.(50) The rut resistance was measured using the 

French pavement rut tester (PRT) and simple shear tester (SST) RSCH, and fatigue was 

characterized using four-point bending beam fatigue. Moisture damage and permanent 

deformation were evaluated using Hamburg wheel tracking (HWT). A list of the binders, 

polymer content, Superpave® PG, and zero shear viscosity (ZSV) are provided in table 29, where 

terpolymer polymer modifier is also designated by the DuPontTM trade name Elvaloy®. The 

performance of the mixtures in the French PRT is given in table 29. The terpolymer performed 

well with smaller rut depth at a given numbers of cycles with some statistical similarities 

compared to other mixtures. The permanent deformation performance in the SST RSCH is 

provided in table 30, which shows the terpolymer modified mixture again performed above other 

binders with some statistical similarities compared to other mixtures. Table 31 lists the fatigue 

performance in strain-controlled flexural beam fatigue tests, showing the terpolymer modified 

binder having the best performance at both strain levels. HWT rut depth curves in the paper also 

show terpolymer having the smallest rut depth at all cycles.(50)

Table 29. Unmodified and modified binders studied by Youtcheff et al.

(50)

Name of Asphalt

Polymer

Content 

(percent) PG

ZSV 58 °C

(Pa·s)

ZSV 70 °C

(Pa·s)

Unmodified PG64

Unmodified PG70-22

0

0

64-28

70-22

903

1,666

183

327

Air-blown asphalt 0.0 70-28 3,268 530

Ethylene terpolymer (Elvaloy®) 2.2 76-28 6,642 1,514

SBS linear grafted 3.75 70-28 2,539 490

SBS linear 3.75 70-28 2,088 399

SBS radial grafted 3.25 70-28 2,078 397

Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) 5.5 64/70-28 7,552 240

EVA grafted 5.5 70-28 7,267 496

Ethylene styrene interpolymer (ESI) 5.0 76-28 2,688 625

Chemically modified crumb rubber 

asphalt (CMCRA) 5.0 76-28 4,304 766

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32
64

Table 30. French PRT rutting performance of binders studied by Youtcheff et al.(50)

Asphalt Binder

or Mixture

Designation

DSR after RTFO Aging

French PRT after 2 h 

of STOA

High-Temperature 

PG (°C)

|G*|/sin at 70 °C (Pa) Rut Depth at 70 °C (percent)

10.0 radians/s 0.9 radians/s 6,000 Passes 20,000 Passes

Elvaloy® 77 4,110 753 6.5 7.9

Air blown 74 3,870 439 6.8 9.0

CMCRA 76 4,510 566 6.8 9.7

EVA 69 1,910 203 7.1 9.4

SBS radial grafted 71 2,680 312 7.4 8.9

EVA grafted 74 3,440 394 7.5 10.4

ESI 76 4,030 500 7.6 9.2

SBS linear grafted 72 2,880 361 8.2 10.3

PG70-22 71 2,640 260 8.3 10.6

SBS linear 72 2,710 309 8.5 10.5

PG64-28 67 1,570 151 12.1 16.0

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

STOA = Short-term oven aging.

Table 31. Flexural beam fatigue performance of binders studied by Youtcheff et al.(50)

Asphalt Mixture

Number of Cycles to Failure Interpolated 

Actual Fatigue Data |G*|sin at

19 °C, 10 

radians/s (MPa)

At 1,000 

microstrains

At 500 

microstrains

Elvaloy® 97,389 498,993 1.46

SBS linear grafted 9,911 323,479 1.95

SBS radial grafted 12,372 278,558 1.93

SBS linear 8,774 163,332 1.91

ESI 10,301 135,311 0.61

EVA 7,147 130,817 1.01

Air-blown 7,614 101,436 1.61

CMCRA 4,158 64,751 2.55

EVA grafted 7,183 51,709 1.36

PG64-28 5,323 37,885 2.53

PG70-22 3,144 15,877 2.31

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 MPa = 145 psi

The circumstances of the construction were explored, and a forensic investigation was conducted 

to avoid any unsubstantiated speculation about the causes of the poor performance. First, both 

lanes 6 and 12 were constructed on the same date from the same run of plant production. The 

weather on the day of construction and all relevant preceding days was very good, without any

notable rainfall or cold weather. This likely eliminates the possibility that the aggregate 

stockpiles were saturated when the mix was produced. Chemically speaking, there is no reason to 

suspect negative interaction of hydrated lime with the terpolymer modifier. The ranking of the 

rut depths at 165 °F (74 °C) from tests several years after the 147 °F (64 °C) rutting tests was 

nearly identical; lane 6 had the worst rutting at both points in time. This indicates that the 

δ

δ
65

contributing factor to the poor performance is permanent and cannot be linked to any sort 

of chemical curing of the modifier or to other transient phenomena. Confusingly, the rut 

performance of 4-inch (100-mm) lane 6 terpolymer at 66 °F (19 °C) was an intermediate 

performer among the 4-inch (100-mm) sections. This weakly suggests that there could be a 

high-temperature sensitivity of the mixture in lane 6. 

In 2008, cores were taken from lanes 6 and 12. The binder was extracted using trichloroethylene 

(TCE). The continuous high-temperature PG grade and multiple stress creep and recovery 

(MSCR) were measured on the extracted binder and compared against RTFO-aged material. 

Results are summarized in table 32 and indicate that the extracted material is quite different from 

the original material when inspecting MSCR. The high-temperature PG grades are similar, and 

the appearance of the discolored aggregate after solvent extraction and marked loss of elasticity 

suggests that the polymer was not adequately removed from the binder extracted from the field 

cores. It is important to note that all other unmodified and modified asphalt from this experiment 

was extracted using TCE without any concerns or discolored aggregate. Nonetheless, both 

properties of extracted binder from lanes 6 and 12 are fairly comparable, indicating the binder is 

not substantially different and suggesting that the binder is likely not the cause of the poor 

performance observed in lane 6.

Table 32. Stiffness and MSCR of RTFO and extracted terpolymer binder.

Continuous High-Temperature PG

RTFO 

Binder

Lane 6 

Extracted

Lane 12 

Extracted

74.5 74.8 71.4

58 °C

100 Pa JNR, kPa-1 — 0.228 0.422

Percent recovery — 31 26

3,200 Pa JNR, kPa-1 — 0.247 0.47

Percent recovery — 26 19

64 °C

100 Pa JNR, kPa-1 0.291 0.624 0.903

Percent recovery 69 21 19

3,200 Pa JNR, kPa-1 0.362 0.736 1.074

Percent recovery 63 12 8

70 °C

100 Pa JNR, kPa-1 0.508 1.985 2.182

Percent recovery 67 11 11

3,200 Pa JNR, kPa-1 0.643 2.455 2.763

Percent recovery 57 0 0

76 °C

100 Pa JNR, kPa-1 — 4.654 5.181

Percent recovery — 5 4

3,200 Pa JNR, kPa-1 — 5.956 6.701

Percent recovery — 0 0

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi 

— Indicates test were not performed at these temperatures for the RTFO binder.

JNR = Non-recovered compliance.

The average FWD back-calculated modulus of CAB across all lanes was 11,890 psi (82 MPa).

The base modulus calculated in lane 6 for site 1 (147 °F (64 °C) rutting), site 2 (165 °F (74 °C)

rutting), site 3 (66 °F (19 °C) fatigue), and site 4 were 8,700; 9,280; 7,395; and 11,600 psi (60, 

64, 51, and 80 MPa), respectively. Although site 3 had a low modulus, the modulus in sites 1 and 
66

2 were not dramatically softer than other lanes and sites. For example, the stiffness of the four 

sites in lane 3 (air blown) were 7,975; 7,830; 7,395; and 8,845 psi (55, 54, 51, and 61 MPa). 

Again, this lane was unmodified asphalt and did not experience rutting of the magnitude 

observed in lane 6. 

Figure 48 shows a schematic layout of where cores were taken after construction and for a 

second set of forensic cores. The air void contents of the six cores taken after construction at 

stations 23, 80, and 139 using saturated surface dry (SSD) AASHTO T 166 of the 4-inch 

(100-mm) lane 6 were 6.6, 5.5, 7.2, 6.4, 7.0, and 5.8 percent for an average of 6.42 percent and a 

standard deviation of 0.67 percent.(45) When more cores were taken later from lane 6, the average 

air void content was 7.6 percent. This was not the largest air void content of the 4-inch (100-mm) 

sections. The highest average air void content was lane 2, where the average air void content of 

the six post-construction cores was 7.8 percent with a standard deviation of 0.86 percent. When 

more cores were taken from lane 2 over time, the average air void content was 8.0 percent. This 

lane was unmodified asphalt and did not experience rutting of the magnitude observed in lane 6. 

The average air void content of the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lane 12 terpolymer was 5.9 percent with a 

standard deviation of 0.91 percent. 

Figure 48. Illustration. Schematic layout of ALF lane construction. 
67

FHWA collaborated with a polymer manufacturer and an asphalt modifying company and 

supplier, who supplied the terpolymer and modified binder for the experiment, to explore a 

second set of forensic cores from lane 2 (4 inches (100 mm), PG70-22), lane 6 (4 inches 

(100 mm), terpolymer), and lane 12 (5.8 inches (150 mm), terpolymer). It was suggested to 

quantify differences between air void content measured by means of SSD (AASHTO T 166) and 

CoreLok® (AASHTO T 331).(45,51) Three cores were taken along the centerline of each lane in 

the rutting sections between sites 1 and 2 at stations 34, 46, and 58. Three cores from each lane 

were also taken from the fatigue cracking sections between sites 3 and 4 at stations 100, 112, and 

124, for a total of 18 cores. The results of FHWA’s tests are shown in table 33.

Table 33. FHWA forensic test results for lane 2, 6, and 12 air void content and water 

absorption from SSD and CoreLok®.

Core Location

AASHTO T 166(45)

(SSD)

Air Void (percent)

AASHTO T 331(51)

(CoreLok®) Air 

Void (percent)

Difference in 

Air Void 

(percent)

AASHTO T 166(45)

Water Absorption 

(percent)

Lane 2, 

4-inch 

(100- mm) 

PG70-22

Station 34 9.0 9.9 0.9 2.02

Station 46 6.4 7.1 0.7 0.45

Station 58 6.7 7.3 0.5 0.88

Station 100 6.4 6.9 0.5 0.72

Station 112 6.1 6.8 0.6 0.55

Station 124 6.6 7.3 0.7 0.71

Average 6.9 7.5 0.7 0.9

Lane 6, 

4-inch 

(100- mm) 

terpolymer

Station 34 7.5 8.4 1.0 2.39

Station 46 7.9 8.6 0.7 2.53

Station 58 8.1 8.8 0.7 2.99

Station 100 8.2 8.9 0.7 2.95

Station 112 7.2 7.9 0.7 2.03

Station 124 7.6 8.1 0.5 2.02

Average 7.7 8.5 0.7 2.5

Lane 12,

5.8-inch 

(150-mm)

terpolymer

Station 34 5.2 6.2 1.0 0.98

Station 46 5.4 5.8 0.4 0.95

Station 58 5.1 5.7 0.7 0.72

Station 100 3.7 4.7 1.0 0.37

Station 112 3.5 4.2 0.6 0.26

Station 124 4.0 4.5 0.5 0.35

Average 4.5 5.2 0.7 0.6

A comparison of the historical SSD air void contents previously described with the second set of 

forensic cores showed variation but fairly comparable air void contents, with lane 2 having 8 and 

6.9 percent, lane 6 having 7.6 and 7.7 percent, and lane 12 having 5.9 and 4.5 percent. As 

expected, CoreLok® resulted in a larger air void content of 0.7 percent more air voids for all 

three lanes in the second set of forensic cores. By far, the largest indicator of differences between 

the anomalous performing lane 6 and better performing lane 12 lay in the water absorption. 

Lane 6 exhibited over four times larger water absorption than lane 12. Part of that difference may 

lie in the differences in air void content. However, the air void contents of lanes 2 and 6 were 

more similar, and the water absorption was still notably higher in lane 6. 
68

Cores from stations 34, 46, and 58 were sent to an asphalt modifying company and supplier for 

independent testing. Cores from stations 100, 112, and 124 were sent to the FHWA Mobile 

Asphalt Materials Testing Laboratory (MAMTL) for bulk specific gravity testing using both 

conventional SSD and CoreLok®. The AASHTO T 166 air void content tests on the whole cores 

were repeated, and the cores were cut into the top and bottom lifts and measured again.(45) In 

addition to specific gravity and air void content determination, the individual lifts were tested in 

a National Center for Asphalt Technology ignition oven to obtain the aggregates so the particle 

size distribution could be quantified. The air void content, binder content, and water absorption 

results are shown in table 34, and the extracted aggregate gradations are summarized in table 35

and shown graphically in figure 49. 

Table 34. MAMTL forensic test results for lane 2, 6, and 12 air void content, binder 

content, and water absorption from SSD and CoreLok®.

Lane and 

Station Location

Air Void (percent) AASHTO T 166(45)

Water Absorption 

(percent)

MAMTL 

Binder 

Content 

(percent)

TFHRC MAMTL

AASHTO 

T 166(45) CoreLok®

AASHTO 

T 166(45) CoreLok® TFHRC MAMTL

Lane 2-100' 

CL

Whole core 6.4 6.9 6.9 — 0.72 0.79 —

Top lift — — 7.5 8.9 — 1.00 5.5

Bottom lift — — 5.7 5.9 — 0.24 5.6

Lane 2-112' 

CL

Whole core 6.1 6.8 6.7 — 0.55 0.74 —

Top lift — — 7.5 8.9 — 1.02 5.4

Bottom lift — — 5.8 6.3 — 0.42 5.4

Lane 2-124' 

CL

Whole core 6.6 7.3 6.9 — 0.71 0.73 —

Top lift — — 7.9 9.3 — 1.57 5.4

Bottom lift — — 5.8 5.7 — 0.17 5.7

Lane 6-112' 

CL

Whole core 7.2 7.9 7.6 — 2.03 2.51 —

Top lift — — 8.2 9.6 — 3.26 5.5

Bottom lift — — 6.7 6.9 — 1.52 5.9

Lane 6-124' 

CL

Whole core 7.6 8.1 8.1 — 2.02 3.05 —

Top lift — — 8.6 9.8 — 3.42 5.5

Bottom lift — — 6.9 6.9 — 1.69 5.6

Lane 12-S4-

100'

Whole core 3.7 4.7 3.8 — 0.37 0.47 —

Top lift — — 4.8 5.3 — 0.98 5.5

Bottom lift — — 2.0 2.6 — 0.07 5.8

Lane 12-S4-

112'

Whole core 3.5 4.2 3.5 — 0.26 0.23 —

Top lift — — 3.8 4.4 — 0.44 5.5

Bottom lift — — 3.1 5.7 — 0.10 5.9

Lane 12-S4-

124'

Whole core 4.0 4.5 4.2 — 0.35 0.34 —

Top lift — — 4.6 5.0 — 0.52 5.5

Bottom lift — — 3.3 3.2 — 0.10 5.8

— Indicates test data were not measured.

CL = Center line of wheel path.

S4 = Site 4 of test lane.
69

Table 35. MAMTL forensic test results for lane 2, 6, and 12 extracted aggregate gradation.

Sieve Size

Lane 2, Total 

Percent Passing

Lane 6, Total 

Percent Passing

Lane 12, Total 

Percent Passing Limits

Std. (mm) Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Upper Lower

1 inch 25 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

3/4 inch 19 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

1/2 inch 12.5 95.3 0.8 96.5 0.5 96.2 0.5

3/8 inch 9.5 85.1 1.0 89.0 0.7 88.3 1.9

No. 4 4.75 55.9 1.8 61.7 1.2 61.7 2.6 58 52

No. 8 2.36 36.0 0.9 39.5 1.2 40.6 1.9

No. 16 1.18 25.2 0.6 27.5 0.8 28.7 1.3

No. 30 0.600 18.5 0.4 20.1 0.6 21.4 1.0 19 15

No. 50 0.300 13.7 0.3 14.8 0.5 16.0 0.8

No. 100 0.150 9.9 0.2 10.7 0.4 11.8 0.6

No. 200 0.075 6.8 0.1 7.4 0.4 8.3 0.4 7 5.6

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Note: Blank cells indicate there were no gradation limits at the particular sieve size.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 49. Graph. Particle size distribution of extracted aggregate for lanes 2, 6, and 12. 

Rutting in Unbound Layers 

The rutting in the asphalt layers was calculated as a percentage of the total surface rutting. The 

differences in this percentage were evaluated to explore how temperature and wheel wander 

influence the distribution of permanent deformations in the unbound layers and AC layers. The 

percentage of total rutting in the asphalt layers for the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) lanes 

at 147 °F (64 °C) and the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 165 °F (74 °C) without wander was, on 

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Percent Passing (%)

Sive Size (mm) ^ 0.45

Lane 2 Control 100 mm

Lane 12 Terpolymer 150 mm

Lane 6 Terpolymer 100 mm

Target
70

average, 54 percent with a standard deviation of 17 percent. When the temperature was dropped 

to 113 °F (45 °C) for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes without wander, the percentage of total rutting 

in the asphalt layer was, on average, 51 percent with a standard deviation of 18 percent. When 

the temperature was 66 °F (19 °C) with wheel wander, the percentage of rutting in the 4- and 

5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) asphalt layers was, on average, 31 percent with a standard deviation 

of 9 percent. The combination of lower temperatures and wheel wander appears to increase 

rutting in the unbound layers and decrease rutting in the asphalt layers.

NUMERICAL AND STATISTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LAYOUT AND 

PERFORMANCE

This APT experiment was designed with mixtures having identical aggregate and identical mix 

design with different asphalt binders to allow comparisons to be made between full-scale fatigue

cracking and rutting performance and binder specification parameters. The experiment also 

contains pavement configurations having different thicknesses and stiffnesses (by varying the 

binder) that allow mechanistic-empirical pavement performance models to be evaluated. 

Comparisons can be made between measured performance, material property inputs, and 

design and analysis model outputs that can predict relative and absolute performance.

However, in this experimental design, the initiative of one aspect of the experiment impacts 

the numerical and statistical strengths of another initiative. A divided subset of pavement test 

sections by thickness (4 and 5.8 inches (100 and 150 mm)) and the presence of unique types 

of mixtures and pavements sections (CR-AZ/PG70-22, fiber, CR-TB, and SBS 64-40) that do not 

have counterparts with a different thickness affect the conditioning of the binder-only variable 

dataset and the pavement thickness variable dataset. In other words, a statistically sufficient 

number of data points having only one variable among them are ideal. A total of 12 data points,

which correlates to the number of test lanes, is a relatively good number. However, all 12 data 

points cannot be used for every type of performance comparison, as illustrated in figure 50. 

Figure 50. Diagram. Numerical tree of subsets of available comparative data points.
71

ALF PTF can accommodate 12 lanes, but 7 of the lanes are 4 inches (100 mm) thick, and 5 lanes

are 5.8 inches (150 mm) thick. The data from these two sets cannot be easily combined for direct 

comparison of binder properties against full-scale ALF performance or laboratory mix tests 

because thickness and constructed density of those lanes confound the binder type variable. The 

lane 7 fiber mixture cannot be characterized by means of binder tests because the scale of the 

fibers relative to the size of binder-test specimens is too large for a representative sample. 

However, the performance of this lane can be utilized for comparisons between laboratory tests 

on asphalt-aggregate mixtures and full-scale ALF performance. The performance of lane 6 

(terpolymer) must be taken with some caution. As shown in the previous section, it had the worst 

performance of the 4-inch (100-mm) sections but the best performance of 5.8-inch (150-mm)

sections, and this poor performance was not within reasonable expectations based on historical 

binder and mixture tests on the materials. Lane 1 (CR-AZ/PG70-22) is a composite section, 

which excludes the data from being part of the direct comparison between binder properties and 

full-scale performance. Naturally, this creates numerical and statistical challenges when it comes 

to sufficient justification to claim one binder specification parameter is any stronger or weaker 

than another.

ANALYTICAL PLAN: HOW WILL ONE CANDIDATE BINDER SPECIFICATION 

PARAMETER BE COMPARED AGAINST ANOTHER?

A variety of comparisons and quantitative techniques were used to compare candidate binder 

specification parameters against mixture performance and full-scale pavement performance. 

More than one technique summarized in the list below was used because a large number of data 

points were not available for making comparisons and judging the strength of various material 

properties against others. Ultimately, the different techniques were combined into a single 

composite score for simplified cross comparison. The techniques are as follows:

• Proportional relationship (+) or inverse relationship (–) compared to expected direction.

o Basic linear regression slope (arithmetic, semilog, or log-log, as necessary).

o Kendall’s tau measure of association score, -1 < < +1.

• ANOVA significance of the regression slope, t-statistic, and p-value.

• Significance of the Kendall’s tau association, test for independence.

• Coefficient of determination, R2

, and correlation coefficient, R.

• Composite score consisting of contributions from the above characteristics.

First, the direction of the relationship in either the inverse direction or proportional direction was

tested and compared against the direction expected for a particular set of binder parameters and 

pavement performance quantity. For example, an inverse relationship would be expected for 

two variables such as amount of cracking in the field versus number of cycles to reach failure in 

the laboratory. Conversely, a proportional relationship would be expected for two variables such 

as rut depth at a fixed number of passes versus permanent strain at a fixed number of cycles in 

τK
72

the laboratory. The direction of the relationship can be quantified by the linear regression slope, 

correlation coefficient, and the score calculated by the Kendall’s tau measure of association. 

The Kendall’s tau measure of association is a distribution-free, or non-parametric, rankcorrelation parameter.

(52,53) The parameter is better suited to small datasets than is the correlation 

coefficient, R, or the coefficient of determination, R2, which are more appropriate for larger 

datasets. The score is calculated from paired data. The sets of pairs are ranked in increasing 

order by one of the columns of values. Calculations are based on concordant and discordant 

observations in the column of data that was not sorted in rank order. All values below the first 

row are compared to the value in the first row. If the particular value is greater than the first row 

value, it is considered a concordant observation. Likewise, if the particular value is less than 

the first row value, it is considered a discordant value. The process is then repeated, but all 

observations are made relative to the second row value, then to the third row, and so on until the 

next to last row. The Kendall’s tau score is calculated as shown in figure 51. 

Figure 51. Equation. Kendall’s tau.

Where: 

NC = Total number of concordant observations.

ND = Total number of discordant observations.

n = Total number of data points.

The numerical range of Kendall’s tau is between -1 and +1, where a +1 score indicates perfect 

agreement or ranking between two datasets and a -1 score indicates perfect disagreement or 

opposite ranking. A score of 0 indicates complete lack of correspondence or complete 

independence of one dataset from the other. An advantage of the Kendall’s tau parameter is that 

its magnitude cannot be dominated by isolated data points. The coefficient of determination, R2, 

can increase (or decrease) rapidly depending on the location of a single data point and artificially 

suggest a high (or low) degree of correlation even when there are very few data points in a 

particular set. 

Another advantage of the Kendall’s tau parameter is that the statistical significance of the 

ranking can be evaluated with a statistical test for the independence of the two datasets based on 

the NC – ND score and the number of paired data points. The null hypothesis, Ho, of the test is 

that the two datasets are independent of each other and have no correlation. When a single-sided 

test is used, the alternative hypothesis, Ha, is that the two variables have a correlation greater or 

less than zero. The basis for the statistics of the Kendall’s tau test for independence comes from 

the fact that for a given number of data points, there are a fixed number of ranking permutations 

where there are more possible outcomes with a near-zero score. If Ho is rejected depending on 

the chosen level of significance in a two-sided test, the correlation of the two sets can be taken as 

something other than zero. In other words, if more data points were available, some correlation

might be expected.

2

( −1)

− = n nN N

K

C D τ
73

A Kendall’s tau analysis example is given in table 36 and figure 52 with fictitious data. R2 is 

0.686, and the slope is -28.686. The magnitude of this value is primarily due to the two data 

points toward the lower left side increasing the calculated correlation. The Kendall’s tau score is 

relatively low at -0.2, and the NC – ND score is -3. For n = 6 data points, there are 16 possible 

NC – ND scores: -15, -13, -11, -9, -7, -5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15. Similar to a 

symmetrical normal or Gaussian distribution, there is a greater probability of rank-scores closer 

to zero and less probability of scores toward the tails, as shown in figure 53, which was 

reproduced from tables in the literature.

(50) The cumulative probability from +1 to +15 is 0.5,

and the cumulative probability from -1 to -15 is also 0.5. The single-sided test for either no 

correlation versus positive (or negative) correlation uses only half of the distribution. As

illustrated in figure 54, the cumulative probability or proportion of rankings from -3 to the limit

of -15 is 0.36, or 36 percent. It can be concluded that the ranking is only significant at a level 

of 64 percent (i.e., 100 – 36 percent), whereas statistical significance is customarily judged 

at 95 percent. 

Table 36. Illustration of the calculation of Kendall’s tau measure of association 

rank-correlation parameter.

Row

Data 

X

Data

Y

Row A Row B Row C Row D Row E

C? D? C? D? C? D? C? D? C? D?

A 0.035 12.360 — — — — — — — — — —

B 0.125 18.437  — — — — — — — —

C 0.152 18.468   — — — — — —

D 0.231 19.329    — — — —

E 0.447 5.723     — —

F 0.628 0.748     

N 6

NC 6

ND 9

NC – ND -3

-0.2

— Indicates comparison is not used in the mathematics.

C = Concordant; D = Discordant.

Σ

Σ

τK
74

Figure 52. Graph. Fictitious data with linear regression fit for Kendall’s tau rank 

correlation example.

Figure 53. Graph. Possible permutations of rankings for Kendall’s tau.(52)

y = -28.686x + 20.247

R2 = 0.6858

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Data "X"

Data "Y"

-11, 0.028

-9, 0.068

-7, 0.136

-5, 0.235

-3, 0.36

1, 0.5

3, 0.36

5, 0.235

7, 0.136

9, 0.068

11, 0.028

-1, 0.5

13, 0.0083 -13, 0.0083

-15, 0.0014 15, 0.0014

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

-15-13-11

-9-7-5-3-1

13

57

9

111315

NC - ND Score specifically for n = 6 scenario

Proportion of Kendall Tau Rankings
75

Figure 54. Graph. Continuous area-under-the-curve interpretation for Kendall’s tau.(52)

The ANOVA significance of the regression, or p-value, provides an estimate of the probability 

that that the slope of the regression curve is not zero or a completely random set of data. The 

t-statistic can be calculated from the data using figure 55.

Figure 55. Equation. t-statistic.

Where:

x1 = Fit slope coefficient from regression.

Xi = Individual x-values.

= Average of x-values.

Yi = Individual y-values.

= Predicted y-value.

n = Number of data points.

The p-value probability is calculated from the statistical t-distribution using two tails and n – 2 

degrees of freedom. The significance is 1 minus the probability p-value.

Single Composite Score

Each of the individual characteristics described is provided for the various comparisons between 

binder properties against full-scale ALF performance as well as for binder properties against 

laboratory characterization performance test results. A qualitative composite score can also be 

calculated considering the variety of statistical measures. While Kendall’s tau score ranges 

between -1 and +1, the absolute value ranges between 0 and 1. This is also true for the 

correlation coefficient, R. The statistical significance (probability) of the Kendall’s tau score,

and the statistical significance (probability) of the regression both range between 0 and 1. 

Therefore, these four parameters can be added together and normalized. Sets of these four scores 

individually ranging between 0 and 1 can be added together and then divided by the number of 

scores, yielding a single composite score ranging between 0 and 1 that represents the comparison 

Probability

0.36

Probability

0.5

-15 -3 +1 +15

tstat = 

x1

�∑�Y�i – Yi�

2

n – 2

�∑(Xi – X�)2

�
76

between the binder candidate parameters against the full-scale ALF performance and the binder 

candidate parameters against the laboratory performance tests. 

Illustration of the Numerical and Statistical Challenges

A dataset that is familiar and generally accepted by most pavement engineers is the Witczak 

predictive model for dynamic modulus. This dataset is used to illustrate the variety of statistical

measures used to evaluate the candidate binder parameters and mixture characterization tests in 

light of the full-scale ALF rutting and fatigue performance. The |E*| predictive model has been

recently reformulated and recalibrated by Bari.

(54) There are 7,400 data points of measured and 

correspondingly predicted dynamic modulus |E*| shown in log-log scale in figure 56 and in 

arithmetic scale in figure 57. The slope of the regression is 0.964, which is close to the line of 

equality, with an intercept of 213,624 psi (1,473 MPa). The R2 value of the fit is 0.90 for the loglog data and 0.80 for the arithmetic data. The ratio of the standard error to the standard deviation 

of observed values SE/SY is 0.32 for the log-log data and 0.45 for the arithmetic data.

Figure 56. Graph. Log-log plot of measured versus predicted dynamic modulus data points 

from calibrated Witczak predictive equation.(54)
77

Figure 57. Graph. Arithmetic plot of measured versus predicted dynamic modulus data 

points from calibrated Witczak predictive equation.(54)

An algorithm was written in MATLAB to conduct four Monte Carlo simulations with 

20,000 runs each. Groups of 12 random data points were selected from the entire dataset and 

again from the third quartile only. This was repeated, but only five random data points were 

selected from the entire dataset and again from the third quartile. The paired measured and 

predicted data were ranked in order by measured |E*| and quartiles calculated on the distribution 

of modulus. The maximum measured dynamic modulus was 8,644,879 psi (59,604 MPa), and 

the minimum measured dynamic modulus was 10,497 psi (72.4 MPa). The divisions between the 

first, second, third, and fourth quartiles were 150,297; 666,911; and 2,133,279 psi (1,036; 4,598;

and 14,708 MPa). Each quartile had about 1,850 data points. Random points from the entire 

dataset having a wide range in moduli provided a qualitative analogy to the wide range of good 

to poor fatigue performance of the various ALF sections. Random points were taken from the 

third quartile as a qualitative analogy to the rutting performance of the ALF sections where the 

experimental results produced less diverse rutting performance than fatigue. Sets of 12 data 

points were used to make a qualitative connection to the 12 ALF lanes. Sets of five data points 

were used to make a qualitative connection to the small datasets that are comparisons typical of 

those in this report. In both figure 56 and figure 57, the darker grey points are the entire dataset 

and the lighter grey points are the third quartile of the data. Graphical examples of 12 random 

points taken from the data are also shown in the figures.

Kendall’s tau parameter, correlation coefficient, significance of the Kendall’s tau parameter,

and regression p-value were calculated for each of the 20,000 random selections of data 

points. Then, the frequency of the different values was calculated. The results of the Monte 

Carlo statistical analyses are shown in table 37 through table 40. The numbers in the first 
78

column are the edges of the bins used to sort the Monte Carlo values and calculate the 

frequency distribution.

Table 37. Distribution of Kendall’s tau parameter from Monte Carlo simulations.

Kendall’s Tau 

Coefficient

12 Points 5 Points

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent

-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

-0.9 0.00 0.00 — —

-0.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23

-0.7 0.00 0.00 — —

-0.6 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.73

-0.5 0.00 0.00 — —

-0.4 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.02

-0.3 0.00 0.04 — —

-0.2 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.04

-0.1 0.00 0.33 — —

0 0.00 0.77 0.39 9.45

0.1 0.00 3.11 — —

0.2 0.01 5.29 1.62 16.07

0.3 0.08 9.81 — —

0.4 0.32 20.59 5.89 22.94

0.5 1.87 20.51 — —

0.6 13.18 18.83 17.69 24.63

0.7 32.21 15.58 — —

0.8 39.65 4.10 39.47 18.96

0.9 12.51 0.89 — —

1 0.17 0.06 34.58 6.88

— Indicates that Kendall’s tau coefficient does not exist when five data points are used.
79

Table 38. Distribution R from Monte Carlo simulations.

R

12 Points 5 Points

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

-0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

-0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

-0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

-0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

-0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

-0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0

-0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4

-0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.7

0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.3

0.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.6

0.2 0.0 2.2 0.2 3.3

0.3 0.0 3.8 0.2 4.4

0.4 0.0 7.2 0.3 5.2

0.5 0.0 11.2 0.7 6.7

0.6 0.1 16.3 1.2 8.8

0.7 1.1 21.0 2.5 11.1

0.8 6.0 20.9 5.9 14.3

0.9 28.3 13.1 15.4 16.7

1 64.5 2.3 73.4 18.0

Table 39. Distribution of significance of Kendall’s tau from Monte Carlo simulations.

Kendall’s Tau 

Significance

12 Points 5 Points

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.4 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00

0.5 0.00 2.03 0.39 8.85

0.6 0.00 2.61 1.70 19.28

0.7 0.00 4.03 5.90 23.18

0.8 0.01 13.81 17.70 23.74

0.9 60.98 73.28 74.05 24.47

1 39.01 3.84 0.25 0.49
80

Table 40. Distribution of regression significance (1 – p-value) from Monte Carlo 

simulations.

Regression 

Significance 

(1 – p-value)

12 Points 5 Points

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

Entire Dataset

(percent)

Third Quartile

(percent)

0 0 0 0 0

0.1 0 1 0 4

0.2 0 1 0 4

0.3 0 1 0 4

0.4 0 1 0 5

0.5 0 1 0 5

0.6 0 2 1 6

0.7 0 3 1 8

0.8 0 6 2 12

0.9 0 11 7 17

1 100 74 88 34

Several observations can be made. The distributions of the Kendall’s tau score and correlation 

coefficient in table 37 and table 38 can be used to interpret the ability of the random sampling to 

capture the correct (positive) relationship of the true, underlying data. This is essentially the goal 

of this ALF experiment. The frequencies are summed from -1 to 0 to calculate the likelihood of 

detecting an incorrect direction of the relationship. Based on the Kendall’s tau score for

the following four scenarios: 12 points, all data; 12 points, third quartile; 5 points, all data; and 

5 points, third quartile, the likelihoods were 0.00, 1.24, 0.75, and 10.53 percent, respectively. 

Based on the correlation coefficient, the likelihoods were 0.0, 1.1, 0.2, and 8.8 percent. 

Naturally, the worst-case scenario happens when few data points are taken from data having 

a lot of variation relative to the range in values, that is, five data points from the third quartile.

The distributions of the statistical significance calculated from the simulations are given in 

table 39 for the Kendall’s tau parameter and in table 40 for the regression significance, which 

is 1 – p-value. It is customary to choose whether to accept or reject at a 95 percent level of 

significance. Instead, this analysis calculated levels of significance based on the data, which were 

sometimes larger than 95 percent but most times less than 95 percent. For the same set of data, 

the Kendall’s tau significance tended to be less than the regression significance. Kendall’s tau 

significance also tended to be less skewed than the regression significance. This is probably 

because datasets rarely have very high degrees of rank correlation. However, although there are 

fewer instances of the highest rank correlation from the Kendall’s tau significance, there appears

to be more instances of intermediate to intermediate-high rank correlations. It is clear that the 

best-case scenario of 12 points taken from the entire dataset guarantees the best likelihood of 

yielding strong relationships indicative of the true, underlying dataset. In the other extreme, 

using five data points from a dataset with a lot a variation significantly reduces the likelihood 

of capturing a meaningful relationship. For this scenario, a mediocre significance level of 

70 percent instead of the customary 95 percent may be assumed. In this case, this mediocre 

level of significance occurs with a likelihood of 71 and 72 percent from both the Kendall’s tau 

parameter and regression significance calculated when the values from 0.7 to 1 are summed for 

the scenario of five data points from the third quartile. Although this significance is mediocre, it 

at least occurs in the majority of the instances.
81

The intent of this exercise was to provide a qualitative frame of reference for comprehension of 

the numerical and statistical condition of the datasets in this ALF experiment. Obviously, it is 

impractical to prepare 30, 300, or 3,000 ALF lanes to identify both the overall population trend 

and spread in the data that the 12 or 5 lanes are trying to detect. This type of data will never be 

known. This exercise should also indicate that there are risks to using too few data points but that 

a less-than-ideal statistical score does not mean there is no underlying relationship at all.

83

CHAPTER 4. MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF ALF TEST LANES

INTRODUCTION

Mechanistic-empirical analyses of the ALF test lanes were completed for several reasons. The 

first was to ascertain whether or not construction variability of the HMA and unbound base and 

subgrade layers influenced the rankings of the measured performance, with the exclusion of 

lane 6 rutting, as described in chapter 3. The second purpose was to assess the absolute 

predictive and relative ranking capabilities of mechanistic-empirical pavement performance

prediction models within the NCHRP 1-37A MEPDG methodology.(1)

The following three different types of MEPDG analyses were conducted:

• As-Built: Material property inputs for the MEPDG were assembled as faithfully to the 

as-constructed conditions as possible. These properties include variations in the thickness 

of the HMA layers, linear elastic moduli of the unbound CAB and subgrade layers, 

dynamic modulus of the HMA, air void content, and other HMA volumetrics.

• As-Built with Average Unbound Layer Moduli: As the description indicates, this 

analysis was the same as the as-built scenario except the stiffness of the unbound base 

and subgrade was fixed across all lanes and sites. This analysis provided insight as to the 

likelihood that the variation in unbound layer moduli as measured by FWD influenced 

rutting and fatigue cracking performance when the results were compared to the 

as-built results. 

• As-Designed: In addition to fixing the moduli of the unbound base and subgrade across 

all lanes and sites, the HMA dynamic moduli input to the MEPDG was from labproduced samples where the volumetrics of the HMA were fixed at 7 percent air voids. 

This eliminated the influence of compaction to potentially override effects from binder 

type. In addition, the thickness of the HMA layers was exactly either 4 or 5.8 inches 

(100 or 150 mm).

Fully parametric sensitivity studies that could evaluate the influence of individual aspects of 

construction on performance (e.g., the influence of only HMA layer thickness compared to the 

ideal 4- or 5.8-inch (100- or 150-mm) design thickness) were not conducted.

It must be recognized that TPF-5(019) includes polymer-modified asphalts that are central to 

the design of the experiments. However, not by design, the LTPP database used to provide the 

national calibration of NCHRP 1-37A and subsequent versions of the MEPDG did not include a 

large number of polymer modified asphalt data points. Accurate performance predictions are not 

necessarily guaranteed or expected.

FWD ANALYSIS OF UNBOUND LAYER MODULI

Central to any mechanistic-empirical pavement analysis are linear elastic material properties

assumed to represent the pavement layers. A series of FWD tests were conducted after the CAB

reconstruction was complete and again after the AC layers were placed. The locations of FWD 
84

testing were at the midpoint of each pair of survey plates at the centerline of the ALF wheel path. 

Since 8 survey plates were installed in each of the 4 test sites, a total of 7 locations were 

measured by FWD for each site and 28 for each lane. At each location, load levels of 6,000, 

9,000, 12,000, and 16,000 lbf (27, 40, 52, and 70 kN) were targeted. Three replicates were 

recorded at each load level. This resulted in a total of 12 tests at each location, 84 tests for each 

test site, and 4,032 tests for all pavement sections. All FWD tests were performed by a Dynatest®

2000 unit with a neoprene-padded load plate 11.8 inches (0.3 m) in diameter. The sensors were 

spaced at distances of 0, 8, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 60, and -12 inches (0, 0.203, 0.305, 0.457, 0.610, 

0.914, 1.219, 1.524, and -0.305 m) from the center of load plate.

Composite Modulus on CAB

The composite modulus calculated using only the center deflection sensor and stress offers a 

means to quickly quantify the variability of the granular base construction without elaborate 

back-calculation routines. This does not represent realistic engineering properties of the different 

layers. Figure 58 shows the variation in composite modulus, with stiffer responses toward lanes 1 

and 2 in the lower station numbers (sites 1 and 2) and a mild variation in modulus elsewhere. 

Two locations with extreme differences were chosen to explore the variation with a backcalculation scenario that assumed bedrock and saturated subgrade. The back of lane 2 (sites 1 

and 2) had a stiff response while lane 11 had a softer response. The back-calculated modulus of 

CAB was 16,099 and 11,168 psi (111 and 77 MPa) from lanes 2 and 11, respectively. The backcalculated modulus of the subgrade was 9,572 and 7,251 psi (66 and 50 MPa) from lanes 2 and 

11, respectively. 

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

Figure 58. Graph. Variation in composite modulus from FWD on top of CAB.

These specific moduli and overall variation in composite modulus were held for consideration 

until a more thorough back-calculation of the pavement layers was completed after construction 

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Lane

1

Lane

2

Lane

3

Lane

4

Lane

5

Lane

6

Lane

7

Lane

8

Lane

9

Lane

10

Lane

11

Lane

12

Composite Modulus (kPa)

Sites 1 and 2 (Back)

Sites 3 and 4 (Front)
85

of the AC layers. The CAB was exposed to loss or gain of moisture that could contribute to 

variations in the stiffness. Variations of stiffness could also be due to magnification of true 

variations in stiffness without the presence of a generally stiffer AC layer above. Furthermore, 

root mean square error (RMSE) of the deflection basins fit during these back-calculations was 

rather large, between 8 and 22 percent.

Back-Calculated Modulus of Pavement Structure

Another series of FWD tests was conducted after the AC layers were placed. Pavement 

temperature at the mid-depth of the asphalt layer was measured during the FWD tests using a 

thermometer inserted in a hole drilled in each asphalt layer and filled with oil. The pavement 

temperature was recorded at the beginning and end of each site. The structural configuration in 

figure 16 provided a starting point for trial configurations that were used to determine a suitable 

scheme for the back-calculation. The depth to bedrock of the locality was reported between 25 

and 30 ft (7.5 to 9 m) based on observations during construction of geotechnical test pits nearby. 

Saturated subgrade layers can influence back-calculation computations by mimicking a stiff 

layer. This was considered in trial configurations as follows: 

• Case 1 was a four-layer system with fixed modulus bedrock and a variable modulus 

single subgrade layer without saturation.

• Case 2 was a five-layer system having fixed modulus bedrock and a fixed modulus 

saturated subgrade.

• Case 3 was a four-layer system without bedrock but a fixed modulus semi-infinite

saturated subgrade and a variable modulus subgrade.

The depth to bedrock used in the analysis was 25 ft (7.62 m). When a saturated subgrade layer 

was placed above the bedrock, 30 percent of the total subgrade layer, or 6.99 ft (2.13 m), was 

assumed saturated while the other 70 percent, or 15.8 ft (4.83 m), was not a fixed subgrade 

modulus. Bedrock modulus was assumed fixed at 507,632 psi (3,500 MPa), and the saturated

subgrade modulus was fixed at 50,763 psi (350 MPa). The full set of stations in lanes 2 and 11 

were analyzed using the EVERCALC back-calculation software.(55) Results from the backcalculation are shown in figure 59 and figure 60. The analysis indicates that both four-layer 

systems produced nearly identical modulus. The five-layer system calculated moduli for the 

base, which is stiffer than both four-layer systems, and also calculates softer subgrade layers. 

All layer configuration cases calculated modulus that varies along the length of the stationing 

and is similar in magnitude. Sometimes the base is stiffer than the subgrade, and sometimes 

the subgrade is stiffer than the CAB. 
86

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 59. Graph. FWD back-calculated CAB modulus from various trial layer 

configurations.

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 60. Graph. FWD back-calculated subgrade modulus from various trial layer 

configurations. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

34 38 42 46 50 54 58 102 106 110 114 118 122 126

Station

Crushed Aggregate Base Modulus, MPa

L2 - 4Layer w/ Bedrock & w/o Saturated Subgrade

L2 - 5Layer w/ Bedrock & w/ Saturated Subgrade

L2- 4Layer w/o Bedrock & w/ Saturated SG

L11 - 4Layer w/ Bedrock & w/o Saturated Subgrade

L11 - 5Layer w/ Bedrock & w/ Saturated Subgrade

L11 - 4Layer w/o Bedrock & w/ Saturated SG

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

34 38 42 46 50 54 58 102 106 110 114 118 122 126

Station

Subgrade Modulus, MPa

L2 - 4Layer w/ Bedrock & w/o Saturated Subgrade

L2 - 5Layer w/ Bedrock & w/ Saturated Subgrade

L2- 4Layer w/o Bedrock & w/ Saturated SG

L11 - 4Layer w/ Bedrock & w/o Saturated Subgrade

L11 - 5Layer w/ Bedrock & w/ Saturated Subgrade

L11 - 4Layer w/o Bedrock & w/ Saturated SG
87

These exploratory analyses of the two lanes helped determine the layer configuration and backcalculation scheme for the remaining sites. The bedrock depth and modulus as well as saturated 

subgrade depth and modulus were implemented in all subsequent back-calculations. FWD data 

were taken at all 4 sites of all 12 lanes so that variations in stiffness could be accounted for in the 

mechanistic-empirical pavement analyses, but as a matter of practicality, only the center station

of each site was back-calculated for subsequent analyses. Two back-calculation programs were 

used to analyze the same set of data for a more diverse analysis, since optimization algorithms 

can be different from software to software. The two software packages used were EVERCALC 

and MODCOMP/MODTAG. Seed modulus for the asphalt layers was determined by 

interpolating measured indirect tension (IDT) resilient modulus measured on lab-compacted,

plant-produced mixtures at 50, 68, 86, and 104 °F (10, 20, 30, and 40 °C). This is shown 

schematically in figure 61. 

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 61. Graph. Variation of IDT resilient modulus with temperature.

Back-calculated moduli of the asphalt layers are summarized in table 41, back-calculated moduli 

of the base layers are summarized in table 42, and back-calculated moduli of the subgrade layers 

are summarized in table 43. In each table, the values from EVERCALC and MODCOMP/

MODTAG are provided along with the percent difference relative to the EVERCALC values. 

The back-calculated HMA modulus was at most 69 percent larger or 32 percent smaller than the 

seed value, but there was no bias to the back-calculated HMA modulus relative to the seed

modulus, which fluctuated between larger and smaller.

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Temperature (oC)

IDT Resilient Modulus (psi)

CR-AZ, L1

CR-TB, L5

Fiber, L7

Control, L8&2

SBS 64-40, L9

Air Blown, L10&3

SBS-LG, L11&4

Terpolymer, L12&6
88

Table 41. Modulus back-calculation results for the HMA layers.

Lane Site

HMA 

Temperature 

(°C)

EVERCALC

(MPa)

MODTAG/ 

MODCOMP (MPa)

Percent

Difference

2

1 11.1 14,000 15,625 -10

2 11.1 14,000 16,050 -13

3 11.7 12,470 14,000 -11

4 11.7 9,139 9,948 -8

3

1 11.7 7,169 6,805 5

2 11.7 9,637 8,805 9

3 11.7 6,662 5,855 14

4 13.3 7,931 8,093 -2

4

1 12.8 9,491 8,088 17

2 12.8 6,668 6,280 6

3 11.3 8,193 7,125 15

4 12.8 7,604 7,975 -5

5

1 26.5 3,132 3,318 -6

2 27.2 2,781 3,033 -8

3 29.3 2,456 2,818 -13

4 29.3 3,199 3,630 -12

6

1 8.7 12,914 12,600 2

2 9.3 9,537 9,740 -2

3 9.8 8,782 10,165 -14

4 11.7 7,802 9,600 -19

8

1 10.0 11,850 14,950 -21

2 13.9 9,247 11,350 -19

3 10.4 7,808 9,803 -20

4 14.1 7,100 9,220 -23

9

1 28.1 1,235 1,733 -29

2 26.1 1,091 1,418 -23

3 26.1 999 1,420 -30

4 26.7 942 1,290 -27

10

1 13.3 8,789 9,453 -7

2 13.0 9,950 12,175 -18

3 13.0 5,965 6,968 -14

4 13.9 5,821 6,825 -15

11

1 13.9 5,455 5,735 -5

2 13.9 6,748 6,875 -2

3 13.3 4,380 6,068 -28

4 13.3 5,074 6,965 -27

12

1 13.0 4,617 5,633 -18

2 12.2 4,976 5,200 -4

3 12.0 5,173 6,913 -25

4 12.0 4,452 4,715 -6

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 MPa = 145 psi
89

Table 42. Modulus back-calculation results for the CAB.

Lane Site

EVERCALC

(MPa)

MODTAG/ 

MODCOMP (MPa)

Percent

Difference

2

1 92 90 2

2 74 66 11

3 68 57 19

4 70 64 10

3

1 55 60 -8

2 54 62 -12

3 51 59 -14

4 61 59 4

4

1 59 71 -16

2 56 59 -4

3 61 70 -14

4 54 51 7

5

1 56 53 5

2 62 57 9

3 54 48 11

4 60 54 11

6

1 60 64 -5

2 64 63 2

3 51 41 23

4 80 63 27

8

1 114 55 105

2 114 66 73

3 143 91 58

4 110 56 95

9

1 66 45 45

2 60 47 27

3 63 45 41

4 74 55 36

10

1 79 66 20

2 88 46 93

3 98 71 38

4 107 76 41

11

1 100 90 11

2 99 94 5

3 134 78 70

4 125 70 79

12

1 96 66 45

2 118 107 10

3 129 78 65

4 134 120 12

Minimum 51 41 -16

Maximum 143 120 105

Average 82 66 26

Std. deviation 28 17 —

COV (percent) 34 26 —

1 MPa = 145 psi

— Indicates that data were not provided because they were not relevant.

COV = Coefficient of variation.
90

Table 43. Modulus back-calculation results for the subgrade.

Lane Site

EVERCALC

(MPa)

MODTAG/ 

MODCOMP (MPa)

Percent

Difference

2

1 80 75 7

2 69 68 2

3 79 81 -1

4 72 71 1

3

1 71 65 8

2 68 62 9

3 62 57 9

4 65 62 4

4

1 72 65 11

2 66 63 5

3 67 61 10

4 64 62 2

5

1 62 61 2

2 69 68 1

3 57 57 0

4 61 61 0

6

1 73 68 7

2 79 75 5

3 60 63 -4

4 72 76 -6

8

1 96 113 -15

2 81 90 -10

3 91 99 -8

4 84 99 -15

9

1 65 71 -8

2 66 69 -5

3 72 80 -10

4 76 83 -8

10

1 79 78 1

2 81 93 -13

3 91 95 -4

4 97 102 -5

11

1 85 83 3

2 84 80 5

3 99 111 -11

4 97 111 -13

12

1 83 88 -6

2 80 79 1

3 96 107 -10

4 92 92 1

Minimum 57 57 -15

Maximum 99 113 11

Average 77 79 -1

Std. Deviation 12 16 —

COV (percent) 15 21 —

1 MPa = 145 psi 

— Indicates that data were not provided because they were not relevant.

COV = Coefficient of variation.
91

Base and subgrade modulus have notable variation across all 48 sites in the 12 ALF lanes. The 

coefficients of variation (COVs) of the base modulus from the two back-calculation software 

programs were 34 and 26 percent, and the COVs of the subgrade were 15 and 21 percent from 

EVERCALC and MODCOMP/MODTAG, respectively. The average base modulus was 

11,893 psi (82 MPa) from EVERCALC and 9,572 psi (66 MPa) from MODCOMP/MODTAG. 

The average subgrade modulus was 11,168 psi (77 MPa) from EVERCALC and 11,458 psi 

(79 MPa) from MODCOMP/MODTAG. Overall, EVERCALC calculated moduli of the base 

and subgrade that tended to be closer to one another and MODCOMP/MODTAG calculated base 

moduli that tended to be less stiff than the subgrade. The maximum and minimum RMSE 

reported from the EVERCALC back-calculation were 3.5 and 0.8 percent, with an average and 

standard deviation of 1.5 and 0.65 percent. The average RMSE from MODCOMP/MODTAG 

was larger, about 4.01 percent.

Evaluation of Effective Loading Frequency from FWD

The back-calculated HMA moduli in table 41 at the particular temperatures of the FWD 

measurement were overlaid onto the fit dynamic modulus master curves |E*| (see next section). 

The mixes from the thicker 5.8-inch (150-mm) HMA lanes were used because the construction 

allowed tall enough cores to be taken for laboratory measurements of axial modulus. Timetemperature superposition was used to calculate a reduced frequency based on the measured 

temperature and assumed input effective frequency of the FWD measurement. Then, the input 

frequency was adjusted and optimized to find the best agreement between the fit master curve 

of the field mix cores and the FWD modulus back-calculation. The overall effective frequency 

of the FWD pulses was about 8.2 Hz. Figure 62 through figure 66 illustrate how the measured 

FWD moduli compare to the direct measurement of the cores’ dynamic modulus for each mix. 

There is notable scatter because both the back-calculated moduli from EVERCALC and 

MODCOMP/MODTAG were used, but the relationship appears reasonable when the values 

are viewed in the inlaid log-log scale figure. When each individual mix/lane was optimized, the 

effective frequencies ranged between about 4 and 16 Hz.
92

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 62. Graph. Lane 8 PG70-22 asphalt mixture dynamic modulus.

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 63. Graph. Lane 9 SBS 64-40 asphalt mixture dynamic modulus.

-

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

12,000 

14,000 

16,000 

18,000 

10 100 1000

|E*| (Mpa)

Reduced Frequency

Lane 8 Direct Measure on Core (4.8% A.V.)

Lane 8 LPLC @ 7% A.V.

FWD

1 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1E-08 0.0001 1 10000

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

2,000 

1 10

|E*| (Mpa)

Reduced Frequency

Lane 9 Direct Measure on Core (5.2% A.V.)

Lane 9 LPLC @ 7% A.V.

FWD

1 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1E-08 0.00001 0.01 10 1000010000000
93

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 64. Graph. Lane 10 air-blown asphalt mixture dynamic modulus.

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 65. Graph. Lane 11 SBS-LG asphalt mixture dynamic modulus. 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

8,000 

9,000 

10,000 

11,000 

10 100 1000

|E*| (Mpa)

Reduced Frequency

Lane 10 Direct Measure on 3.9% A.V. Core

Lane 10 LPLC @ 7% A.V.

Lane 10 FWD

1 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1E-08 0.0001 1 10000

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

8,000 

9,000 

10,000 

11,000 

10 100 1000

|E*| (Mpa)

Reduced Frequency

Lane 11 Direct Measure on Core (5.2% A.V.)

Lane 11 LPLC @ 7% A.V.

Lane 11 FWD

1 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1E-08 0.00001 0.01 10 1000010000000
94

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 66. Graph. Lane 12 terpolymer asphalt mixture dynamic modulus.

Assessment of Unbound Layer FWD Back-Calculation with Multiple Depth Deflectometers

The reasonableness of the back-calculated moduli of the unbound base and subgrade was 

checked against vertical deflections measured from within the pavement structure (as opposed to 

only the surface deflections from FWD) using multiple depth deflectometers (MDDs). Two 

MDDs were installed in lane 4 (4-inch (100-mm) SBS-LG) and lane 11 (5.8-inch (150-mm)

SBS-LG), for a total of four MMDs. Each MDD has linear variable differential transformers 

(LVDTs) to measure the deformation between the MDD head box at the surface and the LVDT 

anchors at different pavement depths. The LVDT anchors were installed at the top of the CAB 

layer, in the middle of the CAB, and at the top of the subgrade. The bottom of the MDDs were 

anchored 10 ft (3 m) below the pavement surface. A schematic of an MDD is shown in figure 67.

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

8,000 

9,000 

10,000 

11,000 

10 100 1000

|E*| (Mpa)

Reduced Frequency

Lane 12 Direct Measure on Core (4.5% A.V.%)

Lane12 LPLC @ 7% A.V.

Lane 12 FWD

1 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1E-08 0.0001 1 10000
95

Courtesy of CTL Group

Figure 67. Illustration. Vertical pavement cross section showing anchor points and 

measurement locations of MDD.

MDD responses were measured by both FWD loading and ALF rolling wheel loading. FWD 

response to impact loading was measured before ALF loads were applied at three locations for 

each set of MDDs: directly above the MDD and 12 and 24 inches (300 and 600 mm) offset from 

the MDD. During testing, the pavement temperature was measured at the surface by a handheld 

non-contact infrared device and at the middle of the HMA layer by a thermometer in a drilled 

hole filled with oil. The temperature of the FWD measurements was 66 °F (19 °C). The FWD 

load magnitudes were 9,000, 12,000, and 16,000 lbf (40, 53, and 70 kN). In contrast to the FWD 

loading, the ALF wheel loading was under fixed load and varying temperature. The ALF wheel 

load was 10,000 lbf (44 kN), and the temperatures were 50, 66, 82, and 147 °F (10, 19, 28, and 

64 °C). The locations of the ALF wheel load relative to the MDD were directly above and offset 

at 8 and 12 inches (200 and 300 mm).

A schematic of the forward-calculation scheme based on back-calculation showing the various 

depths, thicknesses, and stiffness is provided in figure 68. Two different moduli for each layer 

were used in the layered elastic predictions representing practical and typical variation in 

modulus. The HMA moduli were taken from the laboratory-measured dynamic modulus |E*| 

master curves from cores or estimates of cores at frequencies of 5 and 15 Hz to cover the 

range of effective FWD frequencies identified in the previous section (8 Hz). The two moduli 

chosen for the unbound layer properties were taken from the extreme softest and stiffest 

back-calculated moduli of each lane in table 42 and table 43, whether from EVERCALC or 

MODCOMP/MODTAG.
96

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 MPa = 145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 68. Illustration. Layout of lanes 4 and 11 pavement layer configuration for forwardcalculation scheme of MDD instrumentation response.

The measured and predicted MDD deformations from FWD loading are shown in table 44

and table 45 as well as in figure 69 and figure 70. Overall, the two MDD measurements 

have some variability, but the general trends of smaller deformations deeper in the pavement, 

farther away from the load, and with smaller loads is captured. The error bars on the predicted 

MDD deformations represent the standard deviation about the average of the eight different 

combinations of moduli for the pavement layers used in the predictions. The predicted 

deformations appear to be less sensitive to modulus than the measured variation in MDD 

response. The variability in the measured MDD deformations does not appear to be 

unreasonable given the variability in the back-calculated moduli within and between lanes, 

as shown in table 42 and table 43. 
97

Table 44. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 4 during FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C).

Load 

(kN)

Offset 

(mm)

Top of CAB Mid of CAB Top of Subgrade

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev.

40

0 0.96 0.85 0.79 0.066 0.60 0.44 0.47 0.034 0.42 0.18 0.31 0.022

300 0.55 0.40 0.53 0.042 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.027 0.31 0.23 0.28 0.020

600 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.022 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.018 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.016

53

0 1.31 1.16 1.05 0.088 0.81 0.68 0.63 0.045 0.60 0.43 0.41 0.030

300 0.72 0.44 0.70 0.056 0.59 0.36 0.51 0.036 0.45 0.24 0.37 0.027

600 0.34 0.33 0.37 0.030 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.024 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.021

70

0 1.77 1.33 1.39 0.116 1.16 0.84 0.83 0.059 0.83 0.55 0.55 0.039

300 0.96 0.55 0.93 0.074 0.81 0.45 0.68 0.048 0.62 0.29 0.49 0.035

600 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.039 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.032 0.38 0.40 0.36 0.027

1 kN = 225 lbf

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Table 45. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 11 during FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C).

Load 

(kN)

Offset 

(mm)

Top of CAB Mid of CAB Top of Subgrade

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev.

40

0 0.47 0.38 0.42 0.024 0.33 0.34 0.29 0.012 0.29 0.40 0.22 0.008

300 0.38 0.27 0.32 0.013 0.35 0.26 0.25 0.009 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.007

600 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.006 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.005 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.005

53

0 0.64 0.53 0.56 0.031 0.46 0.48 0.39 0.016 0.38 0.56 0.29 0.010

300 0.48 0.38 0.42 0.017 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.012 0.35 0.36 0.26 0.009

600 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.008 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.007 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.006

70

0 0.87 0.70 0.75 0.042 0.68 0.63 0.52 0.021 0.55 0.74 0.39 0.014

300 0.67 0.52 0.57 0.023 0.60 0.52 0.45 0.016 0.48 0.50 0.35 0.012

600 0.36 0.29 0.36 0.010 0.35 0.28 0.32 0.009 0.34 0.29 0.28 0.008

1 kN = 225 lbf

1 mm = 0.039 inches
98

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 69. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 4 during FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

70 kN

Top of SG

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

70 kN

Midof CAB

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

70 kN

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

53 kN

Top of SG

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

53 kN

Midof CAB

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

53 kN

Top of CAB

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

40 kN

Top of SG

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

40 kN

Mid of CAB

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

40 kN

Top of CAB
99

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 70. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 11 during FWD loading at 66 °F (19 °C). 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

40 kN

Top of SG

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

40 kN

Mid of CAB

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

40 kN

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

53 kN

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

53 kN

Mid of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

53kN

Top of SG

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

70 kN

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

70 kN

Mid of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 200 400 600

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

70 kN

Top of SG
100

In terms of predicted accuracy, the deformations in lane 4 are better overall than in lane 11. The 

predictions at all depths, offsets, and load levels are within an agreeable range of the measured 

deformations in lane 11. The far-field response at 23 inches (600 mm) lateral offset is predicted 

quite well in lanes 4 and 11 at all depths, which suggests that the deeper back-calculated moduli,

fixed modulus of the hard bottom, and weather-affected subgrade are reasonable. The deeper 

deformations toward the center of the load in lane 11 are not predicted as accurately and suggest 

the pavement structure layer is softer than what was simulated from the back-calculations.

The measured and predicted MDD deformations from ALF wheel loading are shown in table 46

and table 47 as well as in figure 70 through figure 73. Overall, the trends are quite similar to the 

FWD loading with respect to lane 4 being better predicted than lane 11 and the far-field 

responses being predicted well. There is less accuracy in the predicted values, and the measured 

MDD deflections appear to be a bit more erratic than with FWD loading. Based on this analysis, 

the back-calculated moduli across the ALF sites are reasonable given that the focus of the 

experiment was in the HMA layers (not the unbound layers) and the vertical deformation at 

the bottom of the CAB was always captured well.

Table 46. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 4 during ALF rolling wheel loading 

at 10,000 lbf (44 kN).

Temp. 

(°C)

Offset

(mm)

Top of CAB Middle of CAB Top of Subgrade

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev.

10

0 0.82 0.57 0.76 0.05 0.57 0.37 0.48 0.03 0.44 0.24 0.32 0.02

200 0.59 0.55 0.63 0.05 0.47 0.37 0.44 0.03 0.29 0.28 0.31 0.02

300 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.04 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.02

19

0 0.87 0.63 0.89 0.07 0.64 0.42 0.53 0.04 0.39 0.27 0.35 0.02

200 0.68 0.56 0.71 0.05 0.45 0.40 0.48 0.03 0.37 0.27 0.33 0.02

300 0.51 0.52 0.59 0.04 0.39 0.38 0.43 0.03 0.31 0.26 0.31 0.02

28

0 0.98 0.90 1.06 0.10 0.73 0.61 0.58 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.37 0.03

200 0.70 0.79 0.80 0.07 0.50 0.56 0.52 0.04 0.40 0.44 0.34 0.03

300 0.53 0.67 0.62 0.05 0.44 0.50 0.46 0.03 0.34 0.39 0.32 0.02

64

0 1.23 1.21 1.92 0.21 0.83 0.82 0.79 0.06 0.52 0.56 0.44 0.03

200 0.86 0.98 1.02 0.10 0.66 0.68 0.65 0.05 0.46 0.50 0.41 0.03

300 0.68 0.73 0.64 0.06 0.55 0.50 0.53 0.04 0.41 0.35 0.37 0.03

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 mm = 0.039 inches
101

Table 47. MDD peak deflections in mm for lane 11 during ALF rolling wheel loading 

at 10,000 lbf (44 kN).

Temp. 

(°C)

Offset 

(mm)

Top of CAB Middle of CAB Top of Subgrade

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

MDD-1 MDD-2

Layered Elastic 

Predicted

Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev. Average

Std. 

Dev.

10

0 0.94 0.51 0.58 0.02 0.65 0.51 0.37 0.01 0.42 0.53 0.26 0.01

200 0.64 0.45 0.48 0.02 0.49 0.45 0.34 0.01 0.39 0.45 0.25 0.01

300 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.01 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.35 0.23 0.01

19

0 1.03 0.65 0.67 0.04 0.65 0.62 0.40 0.01 0.42 0.68 0.27 0.01

200 0.64 0.57 0.53 0.02 0.50 0.57 0.36 0.01 0.38 0.58 0.26 0.01

300 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.37 0.43 0.32 0.01 0.35 0.43 0.24 0.01

28

0 1.24 0.83 0.80 0.05 0.86 0.77 0.44 0.02 0.54 0.89 0.29 0.01

200 0.93 0.69 0.59 0.03 0.75 0.70 0.39 0.01 0.54 0.73 0.27 0.01

300 0.49 0.57 0.45 0.02 0.51 0.58 0.34 0.01 0.40 0.58 0.25 0.01

64

0 2.31 1.84 1.34 0.06 1.68 1.21 0.57 0.02 1.21 1.96 0.35 0.01

200 1.41 1.31 0.71 0.03 1.30 1.03 0.48 0.01 1.25 1.19 0.32 0.01

300 0.53 0.76 0.46 0.01 0.81 0.77 0.39 0.01 0.81 0.63 0.29 0.01

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 mm = 0.039 inches
102

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 71. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 4 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 50 and 66 °F (10 and 19 °C).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

10oC

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

10oC

Middle of CAB

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

10oC

Topof SG

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

19oC

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

19oC

Mid of CAB

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

19oC

Top of SG
103

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 72. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 4 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 82 and 147 °F (28 and 64 °C). 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

28oC

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

28oC

Middle of CAB

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

28oC

Top of SG

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

64oC

Top of CAB

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

64oC

Midle of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

64oC

Top of SG
104

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 73. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 11 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 50 and 66 °F (10 and 19 °C).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

10oC

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

10oC

Middle of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

10oC

Topof SG

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

19oC

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

19oC

Mid of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

19oC

Top of SG
105

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 74. Graph. Measured and predicted MDD peak deflection data for lane 11 ALF 

rolling wheel peak deflections at 82 and 147 °F (28 and 64 °C). 

Seasonal Monitoring of Pavement Sections with FWD

Lanes 4 and 11 were monitored over 26 months as part of a focused seasonal monitoring

program using only FWD loading. At least one test per month was conducted, and, at times, a 

separate test was carried out before or after heavy rainstorms or periods of wet weather. The data 

were analyzed to determine the sensor offset location that indicated there was little to no change 

in deflection regardless of the season or weather characteristics. The variation in deflection 

throughout the year was evident at the sensor at 24 inches (61 cm), while the sensor at 36 inches

(91 cm) was essentially unaffected. This indicates that the depth to a saturated subgrade that can 

be said to be unaffected by weather was shallower than assumed. 

DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF ASPHALT LAYER MODULUS

IDT Resilient Modulus of Asphalt

As described in the previous section, resilient modulus of the HMA mixtures was measured in 

IDT. Plant-produced mixture sampled during construction was compacted to 7 percent air voids 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

28oC

Top of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

28oC

Middle of CAB

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

28oC

Top of SG

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

Layered Elastic Prediction

Multi Depth Deflectometer

64oC

Top of CAB

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

64oC

Midle of CAB

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 100 200 300

Vertical Deflection (mm)

Transverse Distance (mm)

64oC

Top of SG
106

and tested at 50, 68, 86, and 104 °F (10, 20, 30, and 40 °C). Results are shown in table 48 and 

figure 61.

Table 48. IDT resilient modulus of plant produced material.

Lane/Mixture

IDT Resilient Modulus (psi)

10 °C 20 °C 30 °C 40 °C

Lane 1, CR-AZ 1,167,298 498,752 305,418 112,158

Lane 5, CR-TB 1,292,216 562,813 245,616 215,253

Lane 7, fiber 1,928,210 944,047 506,297 195,421

Lanes 8 and 2, PG70-22 1,656,403 811,647 355,733 241,517

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 516,065 197,292 93,501 59,914

Lanes 10 and 3, air blown 1,517,831 902,838 269,850 157,291

Lanes 11 and 4, SBS-LG 1,087,988 460,965 231,473 78,880

Lanes 12 and 6, terpolymer 1,021,153 418,016 237,114 90,983

1 psi = 6.89 kPa

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Dynamic Modulus of Field Cores and Plant- and Laboratory-Produced Mixtures

The companion database for the research project contains the individual replicate data 

for dynamic modulus and phase angles for the field cores and the plant- and laboratoryproduced mixtures.

Field Cores

Field cores with a diameter of 4 inches (100 mm) were taken from the thicker 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

sections in lanes 8 through 12 in 2003, about 1 year after construction. Field cores had a rough

bottom from the interface with the CAB. This rough portion was trimmed smooth to create 

samples that were shorter than the 5.8-inch (150-mm) height specified by the AMPT protocol.(56)

The air void contents of these cores are given in table 49. Only the three tallest samples of the 

cores were selected for |E*|. The heights of those samples were typically between 4.3 and 

4.5 inches (110 and 115 mm). Nonetheless, these samples provided an opportunity to measure 

the as-constructed modulus of the test sections. The samples were fitted with gauge points glued 

over the center 2.9-inch (75-mm) portion of the sample and were characterized for |E*| using 

spacers in the AMPT to accommodate the slightly shorter samples.

Table 49. Air void content of field cores for dynamic modulus.

Lane Binder

Average Air Void 

Content (percent)

8 PG70-22 4.8

9 SBS 64-40 5.2

10 Air blown 3.9

11 SBS-LG 5.2

12 Terpolymer 4.5

The temperatures at which the specimens were characterized deviated slightly from the standard 

temperatures of 40, 70, 100, and 130 °F (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4 °C) in the protocol. Instead, 

the ALF field cores were characterized at 66, 88, 115, and 136 °F (19, 31, 46, and 58 °C) at 
107

frequencies of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, and 20 Hz. The low-temperature features of the AMPT were 

malfunctioning at the time the data were collected. The dynamic modulus |E*| master curves 

of the field cores are shown in figure 75 in log-log scale to highlight the variation in the low 

modulus region and in figure 76 in semilog scale to highlight the variation in the stiffer moduli. 

Only the range of measured values is shown; the master curves are not extrapolated in any way. 

Several observations can be made regarding the stiffness variation with temperature and 

frequency of the mixtures in their field density conditions. 

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 75. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for field cores versus reduced frequency

in log-log scale. 

10

100

1000

10000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

Lane 8, Control

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG

Lane 12, Terpolymer
108

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 76. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for field cores versus reduced frequency in 

semilog scale.

In the extreme high-temperature low-frequency region where rutting was primarily induced, the

lane 12 terpolymer and lane 9 SBS 64-40 mixtures had the lowest and similar stiffness. Lane 9

(SBS 64-40) had the overall lowest stiffness of all mixtures. The lane 8 PG70-22 and lane 11 

SBS-LG mixtures had the next highest stiffness in the high-temperature low-frequency region of 

the master curve. The stiffest mixture in the extreme high-temperature low-frequency region of 

the master curve is the lane 10 air-blown mixture. 

In the intermediate 66 °F (19 °C) temperature region, which is shown in the right portion of the 

curves in figure 75 and figure 76, the stiffest mixture was found in lane 8 (PG70-22) followed 

closely by lane 10 (air blown). The softest mixture was found in lane 9 (SBS 64-40). Lane 12

(terpolymer) and lane 11 (SBS-LG) were similar and had a stiffness between the extremes. 

Plant-Produced Mixtures

Loose mixture was sampled in pails during construction and compacted to a target density of 

7 percent. The average air void content of the specimens tested is shown in table 50. The lane 7 

fiber and lane 1 CR-AZ mixtures were not tested. The plant-produced mixtures were tested at the 

same temperatures and frequencies at which the field cores were tested: 66, 88, 115, and 136 °F 

(19, 31, 46, and 58 °C) at frequencies of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, and 20 Hz. The low-temperature 

features of the AMPT were malfunctioning at the time the data were collected. The dynamic 

modulus |E*| master curves of the plant-produced mixtures are shown in figure 77 in log scale to 

highlight the variation in the low modulus region and in figure 78 in semilog scale to highlight 

the variation in the stiffer moduli. Only the range of measured values is shown; the master curves 

are not extrapolated in any way.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

Lane 8, Control

Lane 9, SBS 64-40

Lane 10, Air Blown

Lane 11, SBS-LG

Lane 12, Terpolymer
109

Table 50. Air void content of plant-produced mixture for dynamic modulus.

Lane Binder

Average Air Void 

Content (percent)

2 and 8 PG70-22 6.8

3 and 10 Air blown 6.2

4 and 11 SBS-LG 6.8

5 CR-TB 7.0

6 and 12 Terpolymer 6.0

9 SBS 64-40 6.5

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 77. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for plant-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in log-log scale.

10

100

1000

10000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

Lane 2 & 8, Control

Lane 3 & 10, Air Blown

Lane 4 & 11, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6 & 12, Terpolymer

Lane 9, SBS 64-40
110

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 78. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for plant-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in semilog scale.

There appears to be less variation in stiffness of the plant-produced mixtures than was observed 

in the field cores in the extreme high-temperature low-frequency region. In this region, lane 5 

CR-TB is the stiffest mixture followed by lanes 3 and 10 (air blown) and lanes 2 and 8 (PG70-

22), which appear to be nearly identical to lanes 6 and 12 (terpolymer), and then lanes 4 and 11 

(SBS-LG). Similar to the field cores, the lane 9 SBS 64-40 is the softest mixture.

Despite differences in air void content, the order of the mixtures’ moduli at the intermediate

temperature range on the left side of the figure is not very different from that of the field cores. 

The stiffer mixtures are lanes 2 and 8 (PG70-22), lanes 3 and 10 (air blown), and lane 5 

(CR-TB). Intermediate stiffness mixtures are lanes 6 and 12 (terpolymer) and lanes 4 and 11 

(SBS-LG). The softest mixture is again lane 9 (SBS 64-40).

Lab-Produced Mixtures

Like the plant-produced mixture, the lab-produced mixtures were fabricated to a target density 

of 7 percent air voids. The average air void content of the lab-produced mixtures is shown in 

table 51. The lane 7 fiber and lane 1 CR-AZ mixtures were also tested. The low-temperature 

features of the AMPT were operating properly, and data were collected at 39 °F (4 °C) for 

all mixtures.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

Lane 2 & 8, Control

Lane 3 & 10, Air Blown

Lane 4 & 11, SBS-LG

Lane 5, CR-TB

Lane 6 & 12, Terpolymer

Lane 9, SBS 64-40
111

Table 51. Air void content of lab-produced mixture for dynamic modulus.

Lane Binder

Average Air Void 

Content (percent)

1 top CR-AZ —

2 and 8 PG70-22 7.0

3 and 10 Air blown 6.8

4 and 11 SBS-LG 7.1

5 CR-TB 6.7

6 and 12 Terpolymer 6.7

7 Fiber —

9 SBS 64-40 7.4

— Indicates the mixture was not lab produced for this

experiment.

Figure 79 and figure 80 show the lab-produced dynamic modulus master curves in log-log and 

semilog scale, respectively. The two stiffest mixtures in the low-frequency high-temperature 

range of the master curve at the left side are air blown and CR-TB. The two softest mixtures 

were SBS 64-40 and CR-AZ. Intermediate stiffness mixtures in the high-temperature lowfrequency region were terpolymer, PG70-22, SBS-LG, and fiber. The logarithmic scale 

emphasizes differences between the mixtures, but their moduli were not extremely different 

in this range. 

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 79. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for lab-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in log-log scale.

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

Control

Air Blown

CR-TB

Fiber

SBS 64-40

SBS LG

CR-AZ

Terpolymer
112

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 80. Graph. |E*| dynamic modulus for lab-produced mixtures versus reduced 

frequency in semilog scale. 

In the intermediate- and low-temperature high-frequency range, the mixtures are more different 

from one another, as seen more clearly in semilog scale. There are distinct clusters of mixtures 

where the PG70-22 binder, fiber, and air blown are stiffest. The softest mixture is SBS 64-40. 

The remaining mixtures, CR-AZ, CR-TB, SBS-LG, and terpolymer, all have similar stiffness. 

The phase angle master curves from the dynamic modulus tests for the lab-produced mixtures are 

shown in figure 81. At the left side of the curve in the high-temperature low-frequency region, 

the mixtures with the more elastic or lowest phase angles are SBS 64-40, SBS-LG, and 

terpolymer while the mixtures with the more viscous or highest phase angles are PG70-22, 

fiber, CR-TB, CR-AZ, and air blown.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Dynamic Modulus (MPa)

Control

Air Blown

CR-TB

Fiber

SBS 64-40

SBS LG

CR-AZ

Terpolymer
113

Figure 81. Graph. Curves fit to phase angle measured during dynamic modulus test versus 

reduced frequency.

The plant-produced laboratory-compacted dynamic modulus and laboratory-batched dynamic 

modulus are comparable for the PG70-22, air-blown, and SBS-LG mixtures, whereas the plantproduced SBS 64-40, terpolymer, and CR-TB mixtures are stiffer than lab-batched. Cores from 

the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lane 8 PG70-22 and lane 9 SBS 64-40 sections were stiffer than labbatched materials but were also more dense. The 5.8-inch (150-mm) lane 10 air-blown cores 

were less stiff than the lab-produced samples, which were more dense than the cores. Cores from 

the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lane 11 SBS-LG and lane 12 terpolymer sections exhibited comparable 

stiffness to the lab-batched materials, but the cores were also more dense. 

MEPDG AND STANDALONE ANALYSES OF ALF PAVEMENTS

Several unintended consequences of various features within the MEPDG software would not 

allow the most faithful simulation of the ALF loading. A surrogate for the MEPDG was utilized 

that enabled features implemented within the MEPDG to be adjusted or turned off completely. 

Although it would have been desirable to use the MEPDG specifically, a standalone version of 

the MEPDG developed by Thyagarajan et al. was implemented within Microsoft Excel®.

(57) The 

MEPDG standalone software was developed to conduct independent analyses for comparison 

with MEPDG predictions for the purpose of analyzing the consequences of assuming constant 

tire pressure and constant tire contact area in the MEPDG for strain computations. The software 

was validated to ensure the predictions of the MEPDG without any chosen adjustments could be 

reproduced. An example of valid reproduction of the MEPDG is shown in figure 82.

(57)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Reduced Frequency (Hz)

Phase Angle (degrees)

Control

Air Blown

CR-TB

Fiber

SBS 64-40

SBS LG

CR-AZ

Terpolymer
114

1 inch = 25.4 mm

Figure 82. Graph. Rut depth versus pavement age from MEPDG and standalone 

application.

ALF Wheel and Tire

The MEPDG offers a special axle configuration option for users to customize and define the

number of contact areas, the size of contact area, the wheel load, and the inflation pressure. 

Pressure is uniform and circular in shape. The ALF’s 425 super-single tire was simulated using 

the custom axle configuration for rutting with a wheel load of 10,000 lbf (44 kN) and tire 

inflation pressure of 100 psi (689 kPa). Fatigue loading utilized 16,000 lbf (71 kN) wheel load 

and 120 psi (827 kPa) inflation pressure. 

Wheel wander can also be prescribed with the custom axle configuration by specifying the 

standard deviation of an ideal normal Gaussian distribution of wheel wander. Zero wheel wander 

was input for rutting, and the same standard deviation of 5.25 inches (133 mm) programmed into 

the ALF mechanical loading was used for fatigue.

Another caveat of the special axle configuration wheel loading is that the number of passes per 

month of the special axle must be input. However, many times, the ALF loading was completed 

within a month. Naturally, this creates scenarios where there would be very few output data 

points when ALF loading was simulated faithfully. Instead, approximately 58 data points, 

or 58 months, were assumed to provide sufficient resolution for all predicted distresses. 

Therefore, fatigue was programmed to have 5,208 passes per month over 58 months for a 

total of 302,064 passes. Rutting was programmed to have 700 passes per month over 58 months 

for a total of 40,600 passes. 

A final caveat associated with the custom axle configuration option is that a representative 

frequency must be specified for all depths. The speed of the tire induces a stress pulse that is 

distributed within the pavement structure. The net effect is that effective load time gets longer 

with depth; that is, frequency of the load become smaller with depth. This feature within the 

normal load spectra portion of the MEPDG appears not to have been implemented in the custom 

axle configuration option. A frequency of 10 Hz was arbitrarily chosen as representative for all 

depths for the ALF wheel speed of 11 mi/h (18 km/h). This was considered conservative given 

an analysis of the ALF tire and speed using the empirical Odemark technique within the MEPDG

that determined effective load pulse time and frequency at the top surface to be 18 Hz and the 

frequency at the bottom of the HMA layers to be 9.1 and 7.3 Hz for 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 

150-mm) sections, respectively, using HMA moduli typical for rutting.(1) When wheel load and 

moduli typical for fatigue were used in the Odemark technique, the frequency at the top surface 
115

was 15 Hz, but the frequency at the bottom of the HMA layers was found to be 4.2 and 3.1 Hz 

for 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) sections, respectively.

ALF Temperature and Aging

The MEPDG was developed to analyze pavement designs over a realistic lifetime and therefore 

considers seasonal and daily variations in temperature and moisture. The Enhanced Integrated 

Climatic Model (EICM) supplies the MEPDG with an input file that contains a complex 

statistical record of temperature variations throughout the depth of the pavement at various 

times of day, month, and year. This feature is then used to adjust the moduli of various pavement 

layers to simulate seasonal effects on pavement mechanics.

The controlled temperatures of the ALF challenged the EICM feature of the MEPDG. Controlled 

temperatures were simulated by formatting an EICM text input file that forced temperature at 

all depths and all times of the year to be constant. However, the consequence of the forced 

temperature for rutting within the MEPDG was that higher temperatures applied over the 

programmed 58 months artificially stimulated the Global Aging System Model in the MEPDG to 

increase the stiffness of the HMA layers over time to emulate oxidative aging and hardening. 

Figure 83 shows an example of this increase in stiffness of the HMA layer from one of the early 

runs of the MEPDG.

1 psi = 6.89 kPa

Figure 83. Graph. Asphalt modulus versus pavement age from early run of MEPDG.

Circumventing and eliminating this excessive stiffening behavior within the framework of the 

MEPDG was attempted by inputting binder viscosity temperature susceptibility parameters, 

which govern age hardening and have a very low slope. This was unsuccessful and produced 

erroneous results. The standalone MEPDG surrogate in Microsoft Excel® allowed the stiffening 

of the modulus with time caused by the Global Aging System Model to be turned off.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60

Pavement Age (month)

Modulus (psi)

AC1(1) h=0.5

AC1(2) h=0.5

AC1(3) h=1.0

AC1(4) h=1.0

AC1(5) h=1.0
116

Other Caveats of the MEPDG and Standalone

To validate the standalone application for ALF conditions, the distresses predicted over the 

design period in site 1 (147 °F (64 °C) rutting at 10,000 lbf (44 kN)) of lane 2 were compared 

with the values predicted by the MEPDG. The aged modulus computed by the MEPDG over the 

period was used in the standalone application. The bottom-up fatigue cracking and HMA rutting 

predicted by both the MEPDG and the standalone application compared well. For efficiency in 

all other sites and lanes, the distress predicted by the standalone application at the first month of 

the design period was compared with the MEPDG predictions. In the first month, both the 

MEPDG and standalone analyses used the same HMA modulus.

The distresses (both HMA rutting and bottom-up fatigue cracking) predicted by the standalone 

application in the first month in site 1 (147 °F (64 °C) rutting at 10,000 lbf (44 kN)) and site 2 

(165 °F (74 °C) rutting at 10,000 lbf (44 kN)) of all the lanes compared well with the MEPDG 

predictions. In site 3 (66 °F (19 °C) fatigue at 16,000 lbf (71 kN)) of all the lanes, the HMA 

rutting predicted by the standalone application in the first month was higher than the MEPDG 

predictions. However, the bottom-up fatigue cracking predicted by both analyses matched well. 

The possible reason behind this may be the heavy load used in site 3. For the given tire inflation 

pressure (120 psi (827 kPa)), the heavy load corresponds to wider tire contact area. The 

particular implementation of the layered elastic analysis program JULEA used in MEPDG 

analyses has some difficulties computing the strain levels in the top of the HMA layer under 

these conditions. This is not to say JULEA is incorrect, rather, what was computed from the 

output was likely incorrect. The MEPDG extrapolates the strain computed at the surface and at 

the depth of 0.148 inches (3.76 mm) multiplied by the contact radius to compute strain levels 

within this region. The strain computed in this region corresponds to a tensile strain instead of 

compression that causes rutting. The HMA rutting model has a depth correction factor kz which 

is mostly negative for the top HMA layer (0.5 inches (13 mm) thick). The standalone application 

computes the HMA rutting when the product of the correction factor and the strain response is 

positive. This prevents numerical error while solving the HMA rutting model. The heavy load 

in site 3 increased the compressive strain at the top sublayer, and, along with the negative 

correction factor, this resulted in high rutting at the top sublayer. This might be the reason for the 

high rutting predicted by the standalone application when compared to the MEPDG predictions. 

The possible solution to this was to change the rutting computation procedure in the standalone

application, which may result in no rutting in the top sublayer. Of course, this is only an issue 

when rutting in the 66 °F (19 °C) fatigue sections is compared and evaluated.

HMA Dynamic Modulus Input to MEPDG

Reflecting As-Built HMA Layer Conditions with Dynamic Modulus |E*| Input

Construction data in chapter 2 showed all 12 ALF lanes were not constructed with identical 

density. The thinner 4-inch (100-mm) sections in lanes 1–7 were compacted to a slightly less 

dense state than the mixtures in the thicker 5.8-inch (150-mm) sections in lanes 8–12. Also, 

there was variation in density within the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) sections. 

Ideally, the in situ material for all 12 lanes would be directly characterized for dynamic modulus 

|E*| and input into the MEPDG. This was possible for lanes 8–12, as discussed in the previous 

section. Advantages to this approach are that the effect of field compaction is directly taken into 
117

consideration and that it accounts for HMA plant production rather than ideal laboratory 

batching and compaction (see lime nugget distribution in chapter 2). A number of researchers 

have found gyratory-compacted HMA mixtures exhibit stiffer and stronger material properties 

than field compaction. (See references 58–62.) However, the nominal 4-inch (100-mm) thickness 

of lanes 1–7 prevented cores taken from the ALF pavements to be reasonably characterized in 

standard |E*| protocols. 

The as-built HMA dynamic modulus |E*| input for the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes was estimated as 

follows. For lane 2 (PG70-22), lane 3 (air blown), lane 4 (SBS-LG), and lane 6 (terpolymer), 

the difference in air void content between 5.8-inch (150-mm) field cores and the density of 

the mixture of interest in the 4-inch (100-mm) test section was determined. Then, a density 

correction factor was used to adjust the known modulus at a given air void content to a softer or 

stiffer modulus at a slightly different air void content. For lane 5 (CR-TB), the difference in air 

void content between the lab-compacted plant-produced materials and the density of the test lane 

was determined. Then, the correction factor was applied to adjust the stiffness of the lab sample 

to the field conditions. Modulus alone cannot explain the notably better cracking performance 

of lane 1 (CR-AZ) and lane 7 (fiber) compared to the other mixtures in the 4-inch (100-mm) 

sections. In addition, the less modest dynamic modulus |E*| of the gap-graded CR-AZ mixture is 

more likely a reflection of the tests being ran without confinement as well as different volumetric 

properties compared to the other dense graded mixtures. The repeated load permanent

deformation flow number test did use confinement.

A density correction factor for HMA dynamic modulus used in the described procedure 

was generated using the Witczak and Hirsch predictive equations for dynamic modulus.(1,63)

The variations in air void content, VMA, and VFA properties of the HMA mixtures from 

construction data were collected as inputs to the two predictive equations. A reference condition 

of 5 percent air voids was chosen. The predicted moduli from the equations for a wide range of 

binder viscosity input for the Witczak model and binder |G*| input for the Hirsch model were 

used to generate the ratio of modulus across all temperatures. It was observed that for every 

1 percent increase or decrease in air void content there was a corresponding 5.69 percent

decrease or increase in stiffness. The slope of the fit line in figure 84 is 0.0569.
118

Figure 84. Graph. Ratio between predicted dynamic modulus at various air void contents 

relative to a reference condition.

MEPDG |E*| Input Formatting

The MEPDG can import measured |E*| dynamic modulus at temperatures and frequencies 

determined by the user. The MEPDG then conducts the time and temperature shifting and 

assembles dynamic modulus master curves. However, the MEPDG requires dynamic modulus at

temperatures equal or colder than 14 °F (-10 °C). Also, the MEPDG cannot accept moduli softer 

than 10,000 psi (69 MPa) (very high temperatures and low frequencies). The raw data and master 

curves shown in figure 75 through figure 80 did not have data at temperatures as cold as required 

by the MEPDG and contained isolated moduli that were softer than 10,000 psi (69 MPa). The 

low-temperature data were synthesized by fitting a Hirsch predictive model for dynamic modulus 

using the volumetric properties of the mixtures and measured binder |G*| dynamic shear moduli. 

Very low-temperature dynamic moduli were calculated assuming limiting binder moduli of 

290,000 psi (2 GPa). Predicted dynamic moduli at 10 °F (-12 °C) were input along with the 

measured |E*| data into the MEPDG. An example of the extrapolation and limiting low modulus 

is shown in figure 85.

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Air Void Content (%)

Dynamic Modulus Ratio |E*| 

Witczak Model

Hirsch Model

Correction Factor, 0.056 slope
119

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 85. Graph. Extrapolated dynamic modulus in log scale versus reduced frequency.

The combined measured and low-temperature extrapolated |E*| dynamic moduli were assembled 

and imported into the MEPDG for temperature scenarios of 66, 113, 147, and 165 °F (19, 45, 64, 

and 74 °C). Then, the moduli from the first month of the MEPDG was selected and input to the 

standalone application for a fixed modulus that does not age and stiffen with time. These moduli 

for the HMA layers are summarized in table 52. Although the temperature was designed to be 

fixed with depth and time using modified input files from the EICM, moduli from the MEPDG 

did vary slightly with depth. The moduli reported in table 52 are the average of all sublayers in 

the HMA. The typical variation of moduli from top to bottom was 6 percent for the 4-inch 

(100-mm) lanes at 147 and 165 °F (64 and 74 °C), 16 percent for the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes at 

66 °F (19 °C), 9 percent for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 147 °F (64 °C), 17 percent for the 

5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 113 °F (45 °C), and 17 percent for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes at 

66 °F (19 °C).

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1.E-08 1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08

Reduced Freq. (Hz)

|E*| (MPa)

Average, |E*| Mpa

Sigmoid Fit, |E*| Mpa

MEPDG Extrapolation Example

"Clipped"
120

Table 52. First-month modulus from MEPDG used in standalone program.

Lane Site

Temperature 

(°C)

As-Built HMA 

Modulus (psi)

As-Designed HMA 

Modulus (psi)

2; PG70-22

1 64 25,294 42,099

2 74 14,596 22,379

3 19 1,019,332 1,235,002

3; air blown

1 64 35,633 54,837

2 74 20,229 30,687

3 19 811,735 947,703

4; SBS-LG

1 64 23,070 26,881

2 74 14,315 17,035

3 19 716,739 711,956

5; CR-TB

1 64 50,716 37,358

2 74 27,040 21,552

3 19 855,027 718,840

6; terpolymer

1 64 17,579 21,721

2 74 11,764 14,822

3 19 647,964 654,057

8; PG70-22

1 64 26,684 41,723

2 45 117,266 176,840

3 19 1,078,588 1,225,775

9; SBS 64-40 1 64 17,643 16,314

3 19 371,394 298,872

10; air blown

1 64 40,874 54,427

2 45 146,546 182,274

3 19 925,573 941,817

11; SBS-LG

1 64 25,200 26,682

2 45 91,866 88,306

3 19 780,127 703,421

12; terpolymer

1 64 20,107 21,541

2 45 74,043 67,062

3 19 744,576 640,028

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 psi = 6.89 kPa

It was recognized that high-temperature ALF rutting at 147 and 165 °F (64 and 74 °C) was 

predicted with MEPDG models using dynamic modulus master curves that were generated from 

physical test data where the highest temperature was only 136 °F (58 °C). This created some 

concern that material properties were being extrapolated beyond the range of what was 

physically measured. However, time-temperature superposition was used to create the dynamic 

modulus master curves. Time-temperature superposition allows temperature effects and rate 

effects (time, frequency) to be interchanged. In other words, the dynamic modulus at a cooler 

temperature and given frequency is equivalent to the dynamic modulus at a warmer temperature 

and higher frequency; temperature and rate effects are inversely related. Table 53 shows an 

example of the dynamic modulus master curve data from the high-temperature portion of the 

control lab-produced mixture. The non-reduced frequencies and corresponding temperatures are 

provided in the left portion of the table and correspond to the individual reduced frequencies 

(at a 66 °F (19 °C) reference temperature) and dynamic modulus counterpart in the right side of 

the table. The nearest equivalent dynamic modulus from temperatures and frequencies of 147 °F 

(64 °C) at 10 Hz and 165 °F (74 °C) at 10 Hz are equivalently the dynamic modulus at 136 °F 

(58 °C) at frequencies near 5 and 1 Hz, respectively. The equivalent computed frequencies at 
121

136 °F (58 °C) are 3.4 and 0.65 Hz for identical modulus at 147 °F (64 °C) at 10 Hz and 165 °F 

(74 °C), respectively.

Table 53. Example of equivalent |E*| temperatures and frequencies using 

time-temperature superposition.

Temperature

(°C)

Frequency

(Hz)

Reduced 

Frequency (Hz)

|E*|

MPa psi

58 20 3.09E-03 492 71,323

58 10 1.55E-03 360 52,157

64 20 1.06E-03 303 43,906

58 5 7.73E-04 263 38,179

64 10 5.28E-04 222 32,205

64 5 2.64E-04 164 23,774

74 20 2.07E-04 148 21,424

58 1 1.55E-04 131 18,932

74 10 1.04E-04 111 16,030

58 0.5 7.73E-05 98 14,240

64 1 5.28E-05 84 12,244

74 5 5.18E-05 84 12,153

64 0.5 2.64E-05 65 9,420

58 0.1 1.55E-05 54 7,784

74 1 1.04E-05 47 6,791

64 0.1 5.28E-06 38 5,474

74* 0.5* 5.18E-06* 38* 5,442*

74* 0.1* 1.04E-06* 24* 3,489*

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

*Extrapolation beyond laboratory measured conditions.

Quantifying Cracking

Predicted cracking quantified by the MEPDG and measured under the ALF are different in 

nature. ALF measures percent cracking within the boundary of the area loaded by the single tire. 

With wheel wander, the dimensions of the ALF loaded area were 3.7 by 33 ft (1.13 by 10.05 m), 

equaling 122.6 ft2 (11.4 m2). The percent ALF cracking is calculated using figure 86.

Figure 86. Equation. ALF cracking.

The equivalent MEPDG cracking for the same amount of ALF cracking can be calculated 

assuming two loaded areas within a standard lane width of 12 ft (3.66 m), as shown in figure 87.

Figure 87. Equation. Equivalent MEPDG cracking.

A factor of 0.31 is used to adjust the ALF cracking to what is comparable with MEPDG. It is

calculated by dividing the two reference areas, 122.6 ft2 (11.4 m

2

) divided by 120.7 ft2 (36.8 m

2

).
122

PRIMARY STRAIN RESPONSE OF PAVEMENTS 

Strain gauges were installed in one of the four sites of each lane. Figure 88 is schematic of the 

strain gauge layout and orientation. An evaluation of the measured strain gauge response against 

that predicted by the linearly elastic mechanistic material properties provides a qualitative 

assessment of those assigned linear elastic properties. It must be recognized that the strain gauge

measured responses cannot be taken as true since the presence of the gauge embedded within the 

HMA layer and circumstances of installation and orientation can affect the response. However, 

strain gauges can provide reality checks on the layered elastic mechanistic pavement models and 

chosen material property inputs.

1 ft = 0.305 m

1 inch = 25.4 mm

Figure 88. Illustration. Layout of an ALF test site with strain gauges.

Strain gauge responses were measured before any fatigue or rutting loading began. HMA tensile 

strains were measured under a variety of temperatures, wheel loads, and transverse wheel offsets. 

The series of tests that was closest to the ALF fatigue loading conditions and corresponding 

MEPDG standalone output (66 °F (19 °C) and 16,000 lbf (70 kN)) were strain measurements 

controlled at 66 °F (19 °C) at 14,500 lbf (64 kN). Figure 89 and table 54 compare the measured 

HMA tensile strains against layered elastic MEPDG predicted strains from the as-built scenario 

where the HMA thickness and unbound layer moduli as well as HMA moduli were adjusted at 

each lane and site. When multiple transverse or longitudinal strain gauges survived construction,

the average strain is provided along with the standard deviation, represented by error bars. The 

line of equality is included in the figure, and all data points lie above the line, which indicates the 

predicted strains using the larger 16,000-lbf (70-kN) wheel loads are still smaller than the 

measured strains from the 14,500-lb (64 kN) wheel load. However, there is a strong ranking and 

relationship. For the relationship between predicted strains and measured transverse strains, the 

slope is positive with a value of 1.41 and the Kendall’s tau score is +0.6. The significance of 
123

Kendall’s tau score and ANOVA significance of the regression are very good at 99 and 

97 percent, respectively. The R2 value is 0.47. For the relationship between predicted strains and 

measured longitudinal strains, the slope is positive with a value of 1.27, and Kendall’s tau score 

is also +0.6. The significance of Kendall’s tau score and ANOVA significance of the regression 

are very good, both at 99 percent. The R2 value is 0.65.

Table 54. Measured and predicted HMA tensile strains.

Lane

14.5 kip Measured HMA 

Tensile Strain ( )

16 kip Predicted 

MEPDG 

Transverse Longitudinal Standalone ( )

2, PG70-22 496 493 397

3, Air blown 689 622 578

4, SBS-LG 976 862 633

5, CR-TB 1,524 1,080 549

6, Terpolymer 927 1,038 624

7, Fiber 539 550 —

8, PG70-22 476 370 268

9, SBS 64-40 1,042 926 614

10, Air blown 488 426 271

11, SBS-LG 600 565 272

12, Terpolymer 690 671 304

1 kip = 4.45 kN 

— Indicates the simulation was not performed for lane 7.

Figure 89. Graph. Measured HMA tensile strain versus predicted HMA tensile strain.

The strain gauges were monitored during fatigue loading to detect the accumulation of fatigue 

damage that ideally would be registered by an increase in strain to reflect reduction in modulus. 

A typical example of the strain gauge response is provided from lane 3 (air blown) in figure 90, 

which shows a small increase in the strain during the early loading, as would be expected. 

με

με

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

16 kip MEPDG As-Built Predicted Microstrain

14.5 kip Measured Microstrain

14.5 kip Longitudinal

14.5 kip Transverse

Line of Equality
124

Counterintuitively, the strain decreases after this point. The interpretation of this response is that 

these particular types of embedded strain gauges are only reliable to assess the initial undamaged 

properties of HMA layers. It is hypothesized that as the HMA becomes damaged the gauge loses 

strength and the ability to remain anchored and embedded in the material and registers smaller 

strains than are actually occurring. 

Figure 90. Graph. Lane 3 measured tensile strain versus number of ALF passes. 

Measured Reduction of Modulus

Nondestructive pavement evaluation was conducted during fatigue loading of lane 8 (PG70-22) 

and lane 10 (air blown). A portable seismic pavement analyzer (PSPA) was used to assess 

changes in the HMA modulus as fatigue loading accumulated. Theoretically, small microscopic 

cracks, or microcracks, develop and grow in the material, thereby reducing the modulus to the 

point where larger macrocracks localize and then propagate through the material and manifest as 

alligator fatigue cracks observed on the surface. Measurements were made in four locations in 

the center of the wheel path in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. 

Results from lanes 8 and 10 are shown in figure 91 and figure 92, respectively, with the 

measured seismic modulus on the left axis and the measured ALF cracking on the right axis.

There is variability in the measured modulus, but a trend shows the modulus reducing with more 

and more passes until, ultimately, fatigue cracks can be observed on the surface. There appears to 

be no difference between modulus measured in the longitudinal and transverse directions. After 

fatigue cracks reach the surface, the PSPA-measured modulus becomes very erratic, especially in 

the large amount of cracking observed in lane 10.

-

400

800

1,200

1,600

2,000

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,00

0

ALF Loading Passes

Tensile Strain, microstrain

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Cracked Area (%)

Longitudinal Gauge 1

Longitudinal Gauge 3

Longitudinal Gauge 5

Transverse Gauge 2

Transverse Gauge 4

Percent Cracked Area
125

1 GPa = 145,000 psi

Figure 91. Graph. Lane 8 in situ measured HMA modulus with seismic analysis versus 

number of ALF passes.

1 GPa = 145,000 psi

Figure 92. Graph. Lane 10 in situ measured HMA modulus with seismic analysis versus 

number of ALF passes.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

ALF Load Passes (x1000)

AC Modulus (GPa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% Cracked Area

Longitudinal PSPA Modulus Transverse PSPA Modulus % Cracked Area

Lane 8, PG 70-22 Control

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

ALF Load Passes (x1000)

AC Modulus (GPa)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% Cracked Area

Longitudinal PSPA Modulus Transverse PSPA Modulus % Cracked Area

Lane10, Air Blown
126

Evaluation of Damage in Uncracked Lanes 11 and 12

PSPA tests were conducted in the loaded area of site 3 and the unloaded area of site 4 to assess 

whether reduction in modulus could confirm the estimated ranking of the fatigue cracking 

performance for lanes 11 and 12, as described in chapter 3. The average and standard deviation 

of PSPA modulus was measured at four locations along the wheel path, each repeated three 

times. The moduli are plotted in figure 93 and figure 94. The moduli from unloaded site 4 

correspond to zero ALF passes while the moduli from loaded site 3 correspond to the maximum 

passes each lane received: 400,000 passes for lane 12 and 673,000 passes for lane 11. A 

statistical analysis indicates there are no significant differences between the moduli measured at 

zero passes and 673,000 passes for lane 11 (SBS-LG) while lane 12 (terpolymer) showed the 

modulus at 400,000 passes was statistically smaller than at zero passes. This suggests that the 

lane 11 SBS-LG is more resistant to fatigue damage than the lane 12 terpolymer.

1 ksi = 6.89 kPa

Figure 93. Graph. Lane 11 measured seismic modulus versus number of ALF passes. 

-

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

(100,000) - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 

PSPA Modulus (ksi)

ALF Passes

Lane 11 SBS-LG
127

1 ksi = 6.89 kPa

Figure 94. Graph. Lane 12 measured seismic modulus versus number of ALF passes.

PREDICTED PERFORMANCE FROM MEPDG STANDALONE PROGRAM 

Influence of Construction Variability on Rutting

All predicted performance from the MEPDG standalone in this report is at a 50 percent 

reliability level rather than the customary 98 percent reliability. The magnitude of rutting 

predicted by the MEPDG standalone program was significantly larger than what was produced 

by ALF. Rut depths on the order of 2 to 5 inches (51 to 127 mm) are typical, as seen in the 

example given in figure 95 for the 147 °F (64 °C) as-built simulations. However, it is unfair 

to compare the predictive competencies of the nationally calibrated MEPDG against the 

extreme heavy wheel loads and zero wander or channeled rutting. The empirical rutting distress 

model used by the MEPDG is given in figure 96. It is likely the temperature term, , and 

high-temperature input of the ALF conditions are major contributors to high amounts of 

calculated rutting.

-

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

(100,000) - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 

PSPA Modulus (ksi)

ALF Passes

Lane 12 Terpolymer

T k2βr2
128

1 inch = 25.4 mm

Figure 95. Graph. Predicted curves of rutting from the MEPDG versus number of ALF 

passes at 147 °F (64 °C).

Figure 96. Equation. Empirical rutting distress model used by MEPDG.

Where:

r

p

ε

ε = Ratio of vertical plastic strain to vertical recoverable elastic strain.

kZ = Depth correction factor.

T = Temperature, °F.

N = Number of load passes.

Several other noteworthy observations are in regards to the predicted and measured rutting. The 

ranking of the MEPDG predicted rutting does not change regardless of the amount of cycles. The 

predicted curves do not crisscross, as observed in some of the measured data given in figure 24

through figure 27, figure 46, and figure 47. This is due to the fact that a single curve fit empirical

power law (figure 96) is adjusted up or down by the dynamic modulus |E*| input via the 

recoverable strain term, r ε . In other words, the correlation of MEPDG-predicted rutting is 

directly linked to the stiffness of the material inputs. This is not a criticism of the MEPDG, just a 

consequence of the nationally calibrated coefficients. However, this was justified in NCHRP 

9-19, which showed that, generally, stiffer pavement ruts less.

(64)

Site 1 - 64o

C As-Built HMA Rutting

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

ALF Passes

Rut Depth (inch)

Lane 6, Terpolymer

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 (150mm)

Lane 12, Terpolymer (150mm)

Lane 4, SBS-LG

Lane 2, Control

Lane 11, SBS-LG (150mm)

Lane 8, Control (150mm)

Lane 3, Air Blown (150mm)

Lane 10, Air Blown (150mm)

Lane 5, CRTB
129

Table 55 through table 58 show the predicted rutting from the MEPDG standalone for three 

scenarios each at 147, 165, 113, and 66 °F (64, 74, 45, and 19 °C). As previously described, the 

as-built scenario was the most faithful to the conditions of the ALF and considered the variation 

in HMA thickness, differences in HMA stiffness and density, and variation in unbound base and 

subgrade stiffness. The as-built with average unbound layer modulus scenario fixed the modulus 

of the unbound base and subgrade for all lanes at the average value. The as-designed scenario 

fixed the unbound layer moduli of all lanes, used the ideal 4- or 5.8-inch (100- or 150-mm) 

thickness of the HMA layers, and used the lab-produced HMA |E*| at a single fixed air void 

content of 7 percent.

Table 55. Predicted 147 °F (64 °C) (40,600 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone.

Location

As-Built

As-Built with Average 

Unbound Layer Modulus As-Designed

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

Lane 5, CR-TB, 100 mm 1.87 1 1.84 1 2.50 5

Lane 10, air blown, 150 mm 2.06 2 2.06 2 1.40 1

Lane 3, air blown, 100 mm 2.60 3 2.70 3 1.67 2

Lane 8, PG70-22, 150 mm 3.43 4 3.47 4 2.00 3

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150 mm 3.80 5 3.60 5 3.40 6

Lane 2, PG70-22, 100 mm 3.96 6 3.88 6 2.20 4

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100 mm 4.20 7 4.26 7 3.60 7

Lane 12, terpolymer, 150 mm 5.00 8 4.80 8 4.40 8

Lane 9, SBS 64-40, 150 mm 5.50 9 5.65 9 6.08 10

Lane 6, terpolymer, 100 mm 5.70 10 5.86 10 4.60 9

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Table 56. Predicted 166 °F (74 °C) (40,600 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone.

Location

As-Built

As-Built with Average 

Unbound Layer Modulus As-Designed

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

Lane 5, CR-TB, 100 mm 4.20 1 4.30 1 5.50 3

Lane 3, air blown, 100 mm 5.75 2 5.90 2 3.70 1

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100 mm 8.30 3 8.50 3 7.15 4

Lane 2, PG70-22, 100 mm 8.40 4 8.60 4 5.30 2

Lane 6, terpolymer, 100 mm 10.70 5 10.90 5 8.30 5

1 mm = 0.039 inches
130

Table 57. Predicted 113 °F (45 °C) (302,064 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone.

Location

As-Built

As-Built with Average 

Unbound Layer Modulus As-Designed

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

Lane 10, air blown, 150 mm 0.74 1 0.73 1 0.55 1

Lane 8, PG70-22, 150 mm 0.97 2 0.97 2 0.58 2

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150 mm 1.38 3 1.30 3 1.37 3

Lane 12, terpolymer, 150 mm 1.85 4 1.77 4 1.98 4

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Table 58. Predicted 66 °F (19 °C) (302,064 passes) rutting from MEPDG standalone.

Location

As-Built

As-Built with Average 

Unbound Layer Modulus As-Designed

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Rut Depth 

(inches) Ranking

Lane 8, PG70-22, 150 mm 0.040 1 0.040 1 0.030 1

Lane 10, air blown, 150 mm 0.040 2 0.040 2 0.040 2

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150 mm 0.040 3 0.045 3 0.050 3

Lane 12, terpolymer, 150 mm 0.050 4 0.060 4 0.060 4

Lane 2, PG70-22, 100 mm 0.100 5 0.100 5 0.110 5

Lane 9, SBS 64-40, 150 mm 0.110 6 0.100 6 0.110 6

Lane 5, CR-TB, 100 mm 0.160 7 0.140 7 0.150 8

Lane 3, air blown, 100 mm 0.170 8 0.150 8 0.130 7

Lane 6, terpolymer, 100 mm 0.170 9 0.150 9 0.170 10

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100 mm 0.200 10 0.180 10 0.160 9

1 mm = 0.039 inches

A comparison between the relative ranking of the predicted rutting from the as-built and as-built 

with average unbound layer modulus scenarios provides insight as to the likelihood that the 

variation in unbound layer moduli influenced the measured rutting. This is important because the 

strength of binder properties and mixture properties to account for rutting performance is 

assessed by comparisons against the ALF performance. The identical rankings between these 

two scenarios for all rutting temperatures indicate that the variation in unbound layer moduli did 

not negatively impact the measured rutting performance of the ALF. 

A comparison of the relative rankings between the predicted rutting from the as-built with 

average unbound layer modulus and as-designed scenarios provides insight as to the likelihood 

that the variation in HMA stiffness and density influenced the measured rutting. Again, this is 

important because the strength of binder properties and mixture properties to account for rutting 

performance is assessed by comparisons against the ALF performance. There is mild variation in 

the relative ranking between these scenarios, quantified with the Kendall’s tau score and 

significance. The Kendall’s tau scores are +0.73, +0.4, +1.0, and +0.91 for 147, 165, 113, and 

66 °F (64, 74, 45, and 19 °C), respectively. The statistical significance was 99.9, 76, 100, and 

91 percent, respectively. Overall, this suggests that the variation in HMA density and stiffness 
131

had a weak effect on the measured performance, except at 165 °F (74 °C). This could in part be 

because there were fewer data points at 165 °F (74 °C). Nonetheless, it must be recognized that 

the predicted rutting was impractically large for the three highest temperatures without lateral 

wheel wander.

Influence of Construction Variability on Fatigue Cracking

Predicted bottom-up fatigue cracking from the MEPDG standalone program is shown in 

figure 97 through figure 99 for the three different scenarios. Ranked predicted fatigue cracking 

is shown in table 58. The shape of the predicted cracking curve is smooth and continuously 

increasing from the beginning at zero passes. This is a marked difference from the measured 

pattern of cracking where no fatigue cracks are registered until they reach the surface and then 

increase in an almost linear fashion. Again, this is merely an observation, not a criticism of the 

nationally calibrated MEPDG. Unlike predicted rutting, the fatigue cracking curves from the 

different mixtures and lanes can crisscross. 

Figure 97. Graph. Percent fatigue cracking predicted from MEPDG standalone program 

for the as-built scenario.

Site 3 19oC As-Built HMA Fatigue

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000

Number of Passes

Percent Cracking

Lane 6, Terpolymer, 100mm 

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100mm 

Lane 5, CRTB, 100mm 

Lane 3, Air Blown, 100mm 

Lane 9, SBS 64-40, 150mm 

Lane 2, Control, 100mm 

Lane 12, Terpolymer, 150mm 

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150mm 

Lane 10, Air Blown, 150mm 

Lane 8, Control, 150mm 
132

Figure 98. Graph. Percent fatigue cracking predicted from MEPDG standalone program 

for the as-built with average unbound layer modulus scenario. 

Figure 99. Graph. Percent fatigue cracking predicted from MEPDG standalone program 

for the as-designed scenario.

Site 3 19o

C As-Built + As-Des. Unbound HMA Fatigue

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000

Number of Passes

Percent Cracking

Lane 6, Terpolymer, 100mm 

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100mm 

Lane 5, CRTB, 100mm 

Lane 3, Air Blown, 100mm 

Lane 9, SBS 64-40, 150mm 

Lane 2, Control, 100mm 

Lane 12, Terpolymer, 150mm 

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150mm 

Lane 10, Air Blown, 150mm 

Lane 8, Control, 150mm 

Site 3, 19o

C As-Designed HMA Fatigue Cracking

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000

Number of Passes

Percent Cracking

Lane 6, Terpolymer, 100mm 

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100mm 

Lane 5, CRTB, 100mm 

Lane 3, Air Blown, 100mm 

Lane 9, SBS 64-40, 150mm 

Lane 2, Control, 100mm 

Lane 12, Terpolymer, 150mm 

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150mm 

Lane 10, Air Blown, 150mm 

Lane 8, Control, 150mm 
133

Table 59. Predicted 66 °F (19 °C) (302,064 passes) fatigue cracking from MEPDG 

standalone.

Location

As-Built

As-Built with Average 

Unbound Layer Modulus As-Designed

MEPDG

Standalone

Cracking 

(percent) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Cracking 

(percent) Ranking

MEPDG

Standalone

Cracking 

(percent) Ranking

Lane 11, SBS-LG, 150 mm 1.30 1 2.74 3 6.57 3

Lane 10, air blown, 150 mm 1.53 2 2.11 2 4.20 2

Lane 8, PG70-22, 150 mm 1.56 3 1.50 1 2.76 1

Lane 12, terpolymer, 150 mm 1.68 4 3.25 4 7.70 4

Lane 9, SBS 64-40, 150 mm 6.64 5 4.90 5 18.60 6

Lane 2, PG70-22, 100 mm 25.50 6 22.50 8 14.50 5

Lane 3, air blown, 100 mm 30.40 7 17.70 6 20.50 7

Lane 5, CR-TB, 100 mm 30.90 8 19.30 7 27.20 8

Lane 6, terpolymer, 100 mm 42.20 9 26.30 9 30.40 10

Lane 4, SBS-LG, 100 mm 42.50 10 31.50 10 27.60 9

1 mm = 0.039 inches

The same analysis used for the predicted rut depth ranking of the three scenarios was conducted 

on the predicted fatigue from the MEPDG standalone. A comparison of the relative rankings 

between the predicted fatigue from the as-built and as-built with average unbound layer modulus 

scenarios provides insight as to the likelihood that the variation in unbound layer moduli 

influenced the measured cracking. Again, this is important because the strength of binder and 

mixture properties to account for fatigue performance is assessed by comparisons against the 

ALF performance. Kendall’s tau score is +0.78, and the statistical significance is over 

99.9 percent. This suggests the variation in unbound layer stiffness had a weak effect on the 

measured performance.

The comparison of fatigue cracking between the as-built with average unbound layer modulus 

and as-designed scenarios was repeated to evaluate the impacts that variations in HMA thickness 

and stiffness (density) may have had on the measured fatigue. Kendall’s tau score is +0.82, and

the statistical significance is over 99.9 percent. This suggests the variation in unbound layer 

stiffness had a weak effect on the measured performance.

The above comparisons combined the data from both the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) 

sections. However, the predicted fatigue cracking in the thicker, 5.8-inch (150-mm) sections was 

always much less than the thinner, 4-inch (100-mm) sections, and this could numerically mask 

an important comparison. Thus, the variation in ranking within the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 

150-mm) sections was analyzed separately, which utilized a more direct comparison of ranking 

between the as-built and as-designed 4-inch (100-mm) sections and between the as-built and asdesigned 5.8-inch (150-mm) sections. For the 4-inch (100-mm) sections, Kendall’s tau score is 

+0.8, and the statistical significance is 95.8 percent. For the 150-mm sections, Kendall’s tau 

score is +0.4, and the statistical significance is 75.8 percent. Overall, this indicates that 

construction variation had less of an influence on performance than unbound layer stiffness and a 

minor influence on the measured fatigue cracking. When these values are considered in light of 
134

the actual, wider differences in measured fatigue cracking under the ALF, the ranking of the 

sections may not have changed significantly if constructed at the ideal density and thickness.

Assessment of MEPDG Predictive Capability

As previously stated, it is unfair to expect a high degree of predictive accuracy of the MEPDG 

for the ALF test sections because the MEPDG uses a national calibration, the national calibration 

is based almost entirely on HMA mixtures having unmodified asphalt binders, and the heavy 

wheel loads and intense number of cycles challenge the calibration that took place under more 

natural traffic. Only the relative order of measured versus predicted distress is compared rather 

than absolute predictive capability, and the analysis should not be taken as a weakness or 

negative departure from the intended use of the MEPDG. As the name suggests, the MEPDG is 

meant to provide design guidance to practitioners. As implementation proceeds, the primary 

utilization of the MEPDG will be to understand relative changes in performance due to the 

consequences of changing a particular layer’s material, stiffness, thickness, etc.

Rutting

MEPDG standalone rutting was compared against measured rutting at all temperatures, and all 

4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) data points were combined. The rut depths at a fixed number 

of load cycles under the ALF and calculated by the MEPDG standalone were directly compared 

against one another. The number of cycles at which the measured and predicted rutting were 

compared depended on the temperature of the test and thickness of the HMA layer. At 66 °F 

(19 °C), where lateral wheel wander was utilized for fatigue cracking, the rutting was compared 

at 100,000 cycles for the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes and at 300,000 cycles for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes. At 113, 147, and 165 °F (45, 64, and 74 °C), the rutting was compared at 200,000, 25,000, 

and 10,000 cycles, respectively. The average measured rutting for these comparisons was 

0.4 inches (9.8 mm). The minimum and maximum measured rutting were 0.1 and 0.7 inches

(3.3 and 17.3 mm). 

The as-built with average unbound layers scenario was not considered. Two extreme simulation

scenarios were considered, as-built and as-designed, and are shown in figure 100 and figure 101,

respectively. It is clear that the rutting from higher temperatures without lateral wheel wander 

was over-predicted, while the rutting from the 66 °F (19 °C) intermediate temperature with 

lateral wheel wander was under-predicted. As noted previously, large impractical rutting does 

not necessarily detract from the MEPDG because of the calibration and ALF conditions.

Regardless of which simulation scenario is considered, the MEPDG does account for different 

amounts of rutting at different temperatures and cycles. There is a positive proportional 

relationship between measured and predicted rutting. Kendall’s tau parameters from as-built and 

as-designed inputs were +0.50 and +0.46, respectively. The significance of the regression from 

as-built and as-designed inputs were 99.99 percent (a p-value of 0.001 percent) and 99.9 percent 

(a p-value of 0.010 percent), respectively. R from as-built and as-designed inputs were +0.71 and 

+0.66, respectively. R2 from as-built and as-designed scenarios were 0.51 and 0.43, respectively. 
135

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 100. Graph. Measured ALF rutting versus MEPDG standalone-predicted rutting 

for the as-built scenario.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 101. Graph. Measured ALF rutting versus MEPDG standalone-predicted rutting 

for the as-designed scenario.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

MEPDG Stand Alone Predicted Rutting (mm)

ALF Measured Rutting (mm)

64C 100mm & 150mm

74C 100mm & 150mm

45C 150mm

19C 100mm

19C 150mm

Line of Equality As-Built Simulation

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

MEPDG Stand Alone Predicted Rutting (mm)

ALF Measured Rutting (mm)

64C 100mm & 150mm

74C 100mm & 150mm

45C 150mm

19C 100mm

19C 150mm

As-Designed Simulation Line of Equality
136

The measured and predicted rut data at each temperature were assessed without the presence 

of other temperature data to artificially improve the statistics. Table 60 provides the different 

techniques’ statistical measures, where the general trend is that the as-built simulations provide 

slightly better results than the as-designed scenarios. However, regardless of as-built or asdesigned, the individual temperature data indicate poor ranking, where Kendall’s tau is quite low 

but with a very mediocre significance and the data at 165 °F (74 °C) are essentially too few and 

too poor to draw any meaningful conclusions. For the same reasons, the three data points from 

113 °F (45 °C) were omitted.

Table 60. Statistical analysis of measured and predicted rutting at different temperatures

Scenario

Temperature

(°C) Slope

Regression 

Significance 

(1 – p-value)

Kendall’s 

Tau

Kendall’s Tau 

Significance

(percent) R R2

As-built

inputs

19* +0.71 47.1 +0.07 56.9 +0.22 0.05

64* +0.05 94.6 +0.34 89.0 +0.59 0.35

74** +0.08 75.8 +0.60 88.3 +0.64 0.41

As-designed

inputs

19* +0.15 8.6 +0.11 63.0 +0.04 0.00

64* +0.04 87.7 +0.24 77.9 +0.49 0.24

74** +0.04 28.7 0 40.8 +0.22 0.05

*n = 10.

**n = 5.

In summary, the MEPDG model is valid and able to account for differences in rutting between 

different temperatures and cycles. The statistics are very weak but suggest that the MEPDG is 

sensitive to the type of inputs being as-designed or as-built. The statistics from the as-built 

predictions are slightly stronger than the statistics from the as-designed scenarios. However, the 

analysis indicates the predictive capabilities of the current national calibration and corresponding 

mechanistic-empirical models are poor and cannot distinguish between the performance due only 

to asphalt binder at particular temperatures and load levels.

Fatigue Cracking

Predicted fatigue cracking distress is computed from two models within the MEPDG. First, a 

mechanistic-empirical model predicts the number of cycles to fatigue cracking failure (NF) 

that is a function of the modulus of the HMA at a particular time and the tensile strain from 

a particular axle load (see figure 102).(1) The amount of fatigue cracking distress (percent 

cracked area) reported by the MEPDG is then computed using an empirical model and Miner’s 

Law to consider accumulated damage from the NF equation for different combinations of 

traffic and environmental conditions.
137

( ) 4 3

0.00432 1 1

1

k k

T F E N C k 



 



 = ε

Figure 102. Equation. Cycles to fatigue cracking failure.

Where:

( ) 



 





+ −

=















 − + =

=

− AC

M

h

b a

b

e

k

V V

V M

C

11.02 3.49

1

1

0.003602 0.000398

1

4.84 0.69

10

T ε = HMA tensile strain (mm/mm or inch/inch).

E = HMA modulus (psi).

Va = Air void content (percent).

Vb = Effective volume of binder (percent).

hAC = Thickness of HMA (inches).

Two methods were used to assess the predictive capability of the MEPDG. Standard output of 

percent cracked area from the MEPDG standalone was directly compared to the cracked area 

from ALF. The number of ALF cycles to achieve 25 percent cracked area, which is equivalent 

to 7.75 percent MEPDG cracked area, was compared to the predicted number of cycles to 

7.75 percent cracked area. Also, the internal mechanistic-empirical NF model was evaluated 

by comparing the number of ALF cycles to initiate surface cracks and calculated number of 

cycles to failure computed from the known strains in table 54 and known |E*| dynamic moduli 

in table 52.

Measured fatigue cracking data in chapter 3 clearly show that many more cycles were required 

to induce fatigue cracking in the thicker 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes than in the thinner 4-inch 

(100-mm) lanes and that additional analyses using extrapolation and interpolation were needed to 

develop a complete set of ranked performance to common criteria. The comparison between 

measured and predicted number of cycles to 7.75 percent cracked area is shown in arithmetic 

scale in figure 103 and in log-log scale in figure 104 to highlight the fatigue cracking data points 

from the 4-inch (100-mm) sections. Unlike predicted rutting, the measured and fatigue cracking 

data points are scattered above and below the line of equality for both the 4- and 5.8-inch (100-

and 150-mm) sections. The predicted fatigue cracking is still qualitatively inaccurate but not as 

impractical as the predicted rutting. Also unlike rutting, the trends become negative instead of 

proportionally positive when a smaller data subset is evaluated. Smaller sets of temperature data 

were evaluated in rutting, and smaller sets of thickness were evaluated in fatigue.
138

Figure 103. Graph. Predicted cycles to 7.75 percent cracked area from MEPDG 

in arithmetic scale versus measured number of cycles. 

Figure 104. Graph. Predicted cycles to 7.75 percent cracked area from MEPDG 

in log scale versus measured number of cycles.

-

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

1,800,000 

2,000,000 

- 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 

MEPDG Number of Cycles to 7.75% Cracking

Number of Cycles to 7.75% Cracking (Measured 25% ALF Cracking)

Measured vs. As-Built Measured vs. As Built + Average Unbound

Measured vs. As-Designed Line of Equality

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

LOG of MEPDG Cycles to 7.75% Cracking

LOG Cycles to 7.75% Cracking (Measured 25% ALF Cracking)

Measured vs. As-Built Measured vs. As Built + Average Unbound

Measured vs. As-Designed Line of Equality

150mm Thick Lanes

100mm Thick Lanes
139

Figure 105 shows the measured number of cycles to achieve surface cracking plotted against 

the mechanistic-empirical number of cycles to failure computed from figure 102. Although 

unexpected, the data are distributed on either side of the line of equality. The overall relationship 

is proportionally positive. The data points from the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm)-thick 

pavements are not identified in the figure, but data from the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes are in the 

lower left side, similar to figure 104.

Figure 105. Graph. Predicted cycles to failure from MEPDG equation in arithmetic scale 

versus measured number of cycles to surface crack initiation.

Table 61 contains the statistical measures for the various comparisons of ALF performance with 

MEPDG cracking output and the internal mechanistic-empirical model for number of cycles to 

failure. The trends are essentially very weak but go in the correct direction when data from both 

4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150–mm) lanes are considered together. The regression slope, 

Kendall’s tau, and correlation coefficient are all positive, but the statistical significance is 

smaller than conventionally desired, such as above 90 percent. The trends appear to get weaker 

as the simulation scenario diverges from as-built to as-designed. However, when only the 4-inch 

(100-mm) lanes are considered (where the dataset is more complete than the 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes), the comparisons are worse in both cases of cracking output and number of cycles to 

failure. Although the strength of the relationships between measured and predicted is stronger,

the direction of the relationship is now inverse and not reasonable.

-

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 

NF MEPDG Internal Model

Measured Cycles to Surface Crack Initiation

As-Built HMA Modulus As-Designed HMA Modulus Line of Equality
140

Table 61. Statistical analysis of measured and predicted fatigue cracking.

Source Scenario Slope

Regression 

Significance 

(1 – p-value)

Kendall’s 

Tau

Kendall’s Tau 

Significance

(percent) R R2

MEPDG 

standalone 

output

AB* +0.24 98 0.42 95 0.71 0.50

ABAV* +0.10 76 0.33 89 0.41 0.17

AD* +0.03 54 0.33 89 0.27 0.07

AB, 100 mm** -0.22 95 -0.60 88 -0.88 0.77

ABAV, 100 mm** -0.41 96 -0.80 96 -0.90 0.80

AD, 100 mm** -0.35 80 -0.60 88 -0.69 0.48

NF equation

AB* 0.19 44 0.33 89 0.21 0.05

AD* 0.25 61 0.33 89 0.30 0.09

AB, 100 mm** -0.51 79 -0.40 76 -0.68 0.46

AD, 100 mm** -0.38 79 -0.40 76 -0.68 0.46

1 mm = 0.039 inches

*n = 10

**n = 5

Note: AB = As-built, ABAV = As-built HMA with average unbound layers, and AD = As-designed.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter considered a number of comparisons to answer the following two questions:

• Was it likely that construction variability influenced rutting and fatigue cracking ranking?

• How accurate are the MEPDG models and national calibration?

The change in the predicted rutting and fatigue cracking ranking among the different binders and 

thickness was assessed for as-built, as-built with average unbound layers, and as-designed 

scenarios. As-built inputs were faithful to the actual construction of the ALF lanes. As-built with 

average unbound layer inputs allowed only the impact of HMA construction to be assessed. Asdesigned inputs allowed the impacts of both HMA and unbound layer stiffness variability to be 

assessed. With regards to rutting, the ranking analysis indicates that the unbound layer properties 

did not have any significant influence on rutting. Analyses also indicated a very weak influence 

of HMA thickness and density (stiffness) on rutting. When this is considered in light of the 

statistical similarities of the measured rutting, the construction variability is of little to no 

concern. With respect to fatigue cracking, the same comparisons between the different scenarios 

indicate that HMA density (stiffness) has less influence over fatigue cracking than the unbound 

layer modulus. However, considering that the measured fatigue cracking performance had wide 

differences in crack initiation and propagation, construction variability is believed to only have a 

very weak influence on the ranked performance. The notable exception to this is the anomalous 

rutting performance of lane 6 terpolymer described in chapter 3.

Based on these analyses, when fatigue is compared to laboratory tests on mixture performance 

and binder parameters, the 4-inch (100-mm) sections are to be compared separately from the 

5.8-inch (150-mm) sections. This is because the 5.8-inch (150-mm) sections had fewer overall 

data points (five) and even fewer data points where sections exhibited cracking (three). 

Therefore, these sections can be used as qualitative check of rankings observed from the 4-inch 
141

(100-mm) cracking performance. When rutting is evaluated, all 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 

150-mm) data points can be considered together since HMA thickness had less influence on 

rutting than cracking. However, the same division of data between the 4- and 5.8-inch (100 and 

150-mm) ALF performance will be used to assess the laboratory mixture performance tests and 

binder parameters.

To summarize the evaluation of MEPDG predictive accuracy, the MEPDG seems to be able to 

tell differences between ALF performance when dissimilar conditions are combined together, 

such as different temperatures for rutting or different thickness for fatigue cracking. However, 

the MEPDG does not appear to differentiate between mixtures having only binder as the primary 

variable at a particular temperature or thickness. Some of this inaccuracy was expected because 

the ALF conditions were fairly extreme and polymer modified asphalts had very little 

representation in the national calibration. Finally, although both fatigue and rutting predictions 

were poor, the MEPDG seems to predict more practical fatigue cracking performance for the 

ALF conditions than the very impractical predicted rut depth.

143

CHAPTER 5. CANDIDATE BINDER PARAMETERS

INTRODUCTION

As identified in chapter 1, the primary motivation for this research was to identify candidate 

binder parameters to replace the current Superpave® PG specifications, with special emphasis on 

fatigue cracking. This chapter describes the development background of various parameters that 

were identified and gives examples and the quantitative ranking of the ALF binders included in 

the study. 

FATIGUE CRACKING

Superpave® Intermediate Temperature

ALF binder test results from the standard specification test (AASHTO T 315) using DSR to 

control fatigue cracking at the intermediate temperature range is provided in table 62.

(5) Both the 

specification temperature and the loss modulus at the fixed ALF loading temperature of 66 °F 

(19 °C) are provided. The unmodified asphalt is the stiffest, and SBS 64-40 modified binder is 

the softest, with the SBS-LG, CR-TB, and terpolymer modified binders in between.

Table 62. ALF binder standard Superpave® intermediate specification parameters.

Binder

|G*|sin Value at 19 °C, 

10 radians/s, 0.4 Percent Strain, 

PAV (Pa)

Temperature at |G*|sin = 5 MPa, 

10 radians/s, 0.4 Percent Strain, 

PAV (°C)

PG70-22 12,100,000 26.0

Air blown 6,810,000 22.6

SBS-LG 4,060,000 18.1

CR-TB 4,210,000 17.9

Terpolymer 2,610,000 14.3

CR-AZ — 11.9

SBS 64-40 1,761,800 8.6

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

— Indicates data were not measured.

Superpave® Low-Temperature DT and BBR

Low-temperature failure stress and strain (brittle fracture) from the ALF binders measured in the 

standard specification test (AASHTO T 314) using the DT test are provided in table 63 along 

with the BBR creep m-values (AASHTO T 313).(4,3) Failure stress has much less of a trend with 

temperature than failure strain, and thus failure strains are shown graphically in figure 106, 

where two of the binders’ failure strains were extrapolated to a common temperature of -11 °F 

(-24 °C). The rankings of the binders’ failure strains from smallest to largest are PG70-22, air 

blown, terpolymer, CR-TB, SBS-LG, and SBS 64-40. The creep m-values show the PG70-22, 

air-blown, SBS-LG, and CR-TB binders have very similar response, while the terpolymer and 

SBS 64-40 binders have a notably larger, more compliant response (see figure 107).

δ δ
144

Table 63. Low-temperature failure stress, failure strain, and creep m-value.

Binder

DT + BBR

Critical 

Temp. (°C)

Continuous 

Low Temp. 

Grade (°C)

DT and BBR Test Results

Category -6 °C -12 °C -18 °C -24 °C -30 °C -36 °C

PG70-22 -22.4 -23

Failure strain (%) 7.00 1.61 0.60 0.30* — —

Failure stress (MPa) 6.35 5.00 4.38 — — —

m-value — 0.326 0.302 — — —

Air blown -27.1 -28

Failure strain (%) — 4.12 1.29 0.55 — —

Failure stress (MPa) — 4.43 4.89 4.76 — —

m-value — 0.330 0.307 0.244 — —

SBS-LG -33.7 -28

Failure strain (%) — — — 1.75 — —

Failure stress (MPa) — — — 6.99 — —

m-value — — 0.311 0.267 — —

CR-TB -32.9 -28

Failure strain (%) — — 3.91 1.36 — —

Failure stress (MPa) — — 4.88 5.74 — —

m-value — 0.328 0.315 0.259 — —

Terpolymer -31.1 -31

Failure strain (%) — — 6.63 1.03 — —

Failure stress (MPa) — — 5.42 5.88 — —

m-value — — 0.370 0.306 — —

SBS 64-40 -36.0 -38

Failure strain (%) — — — 3.00* 1.44 0.75

Failure stress (MPa) — — — — 6.56 6.17

m-value — — 0.399 0.353 0.301 —

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 MPa = 145 psi 

— Indicates data were not measured.

*Semilog extrapolation.

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 106. Graph. Failure strain of ALF binders in the low-temperature DT test versus 

temperature.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

-42 -36 -30 -24 -18 -12 -6 0

Failure Strain (%)

Temperature (oC)

Control

Air Blown

SBS-LG

CR-TB

Terpolymer

SBS 64-40
145

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 107. Graph. BBR creep m-value of ALF binders versus temperature.

Time Sweep and Stress Sweep

Multiple cycle oscillatory fatigue tests are a classical technique. Such tests impose repeated 

stresses and strains below the material’s single-cycle strength limit, and the net effect is that 

damage accumulates, causing the modulus to decrease and the material to ultimately fail. This 

characterization technique in the DSR was identified in NCHRP 9-10 research for further 

exploration and implementation as an asphalt binder fatigue parameter.(20)

Martono and Bahia conducted stress sweep and time sweep fatigue testing on the ALF binders in 

the DSR.(65) Time sweeps are cyclic tests where the imposed oscillatory strain amplitude is fixed 

throughout the test and fatigue damage is exhibited as the resultant peak-to-peak stresses 

decrease and, thus, the modulus decreases. A drawback to the time sweep is that it can require 

many cycles and a significant amount of time before fatigue failure can be reached, which is not 

ideal for routine specification testing. As the name suggests, a stress sweep consists of multiple 

cycles of imposed stress magnitude causing the resultant cyclic strain to increase and the 

modulus to decrease. A special variation of stress sweep fatigue testing was developed by 

Martono and Bahia as a faster alternative to the time sweep.(65) Instead of fixing the stress 

amplitude during the test, the stress was exponentially increased to bring failure sooner. A 

schematic of the two tests is shown in figure 108. 

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10

BBR Creep m-value

Temperature, oC

Control

Air Blown

SBS LG

CR TB

Terpolymer

SBS 64-40
146

Figure 108. Graph. Typical observations during stress sweep and time sweep tests.

Martono and Bahia conducted time sweeps at three strain levels at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz.(65)

The results are summarized in table 64. The binder was RTFO-aged only and was not PAV-aged 

because the ALF sections were trafficked at a relatively early age. Strain levels between 3 and 

9 percent are relatively large and not within the linear viscoelastic range that was estimated to 

represent the magnitude of strain likely to be encountered at the micromechanical level. The 

point of failure was defined as when the modulus decreased to 50 percent of the initial 

(undamaged) modulus. The data indicated some strain sensitivity of fatigue ranking. The ranking 

of the unmodified binders does not change: air blown performs better than the PG70-22 binder. 

The CR-TB binder exhibits better performance than terpolymer at the 3 percent strain level,

but terpolymer is better at larger strain levels. Also, SBS-LG exhibits superior performance 

above all binders at all strain levels. 

Table 64. Summary of time sweeps from Martono and Bahia.

(65)

Binder

Percent

Strain

Beginning of Test Conditions at Failure Number of 

Cycles to 

Failure, NF

(x 1,000)

|G*| 

(MPa)

Phase 

Angle 

(degrees)

|G*| 

(MPa)

Phase 

Angle 

(degrees)

PG70-22

3 23.11 45.46 12.73 46.97 49.63

5 18.16 50.28 9.35 51.51 11.77

7 15.54 53.67 7.65 54.68 4.64

Air blown

3 12.71 44.99 6.48 46.75 108.97

5 10.57 49.06 5.46 51.1 26.02

7 9.36 51.94 4.87 54.18 10.12

SBS LG

5 6.05 49.41 3.02 57.05 1167.1

7 4.99 52.5 2.5 58.58 236.48

9 4.32 54.95 2.16 59.76 71.16

CR-TB

3 5.35 54.21 2.85 55.45 845.43

5 4.37 57 2.24 58.03 51.73

7 3.66 59.1 2.11 60.13 12.63

Terpolymer

3 6.25 50.5 3.29 53.62 532.63

5 5.82 52.74 3.47 55.74 158.67

7 5.17 55.46 3.16 57.79 45.68

1 MPa = 145 psi
147

The stress sweeps conducted by Martono and Bahia were also conducted at 66 °F (19 °C) and 

10 Hz.(65) The imposed stress increased from 0.145 to 290 psi (1 to 2,000 kPa) in 8 percent 

increments. Failure was defined as the point where the maximum value calculated by the 

parameter in figure 109 was reached. Results are shown in table 65.

initial

N

G

N G

*

× *

Figure 109. Equation. Stress sweep parameter.

Table 65. Summary of stress sweeps from Martono and Bahia.

(65)

Binder

Beginning of Test Point of Failure

|G*| 

(MPa)

Phase 

Angle 

(degrees)

Stress 

(MPa)

Strain 

(percent)

|G*| 

(MPa)

Phase 

Angle 

(degrees)

Number of Cycles 

to Failure, NF

(x 1,000)

Terpolymer 6.92 47.3 0.33 10.14 3.46 58.87 6.35

CR-TB 5.02 52.07 0.39 16.5 2.51 63.1 6.49

SBS LG 8.9 40.64 0.39 9.17 4.45 54.15 6.5

Air blown 15.22 41.65 0.68 9.11 7.64 54.2 7.09

PG70-22 25.3 41.41 1.05 8.5 12.65 55.63 7.57

1 MPa = 145 psi

Large Strain Time Sweep Surrogate

Shenoy proposed the use of a strain sweep test in order to establish an intermediate-temperature 

specification parameter.(66) The procedure relied exclusively on the generation of strain sweep 

data on RTFO-aged binders. The following procedure was used for determining the 

intermediate-temperature specification parameter:

(66)

1. Using a frequency of oscillations of 10 radians/s, strain sweeps were run at three of four 

temperatures chosen from 50, 66, 77, and 82 °F (10, 19, 25, and 28 °C), depending on the 

stiffness level of the binder. For softer binders, 50, 66, and 77 °F (10, 19, and 25 °C) were 

used, and for stiffer binders, 66, 77, and 82 °F (19, 25, and 28 °C) were used. For all ALF 

binders in the study, 66, 77, and 82 °F (19, 25, and 28 °C) were used. The percent strains 

were chosen from 0.01 to 100 percent, with 10 points per decade with log increase. The 

sampling time was 3 s for one data point per strain level.

2. The values of the complex modulus |G*| at the strain level of 25 percent at each of the 

three temperatures were used in order to calculate the temperature Te (°C) at which the 

complex modulus |G*s| would have a value of 145 psi (1 MPa), as shown figure 110.

τ γ
148

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 110. Graph. Complex shear modulus and temperature during 25 percent 

controlled strain test.

3. The values of the loss modulus G''s = |G*|sin s at the strain level of 25 percent at each of the 

three temperatures were used in order to calculate the value of the loss modulus G''s at the 

temperature Te (°C), as shown in figure 111.

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 111. Graph. Loss modulus and temperature during 25 percent controlled strain test.

4. The intermediate-temperature specification TIS was then calculated as Te (G''s /|G*s|) or 

Te sin s and was used for ranking the binders in terms of their expected fatigue performance.

Test results on the ALF binders are provided in table 66. 

δ

δ
149

Table 66. Shenoy’s large strain intermediate stiffness and temperature.

Binder

|G*|sin

19 °C, 10 radians/s, 

25 Percent Strain, RTFO (Pa)

TEsin s

TE at |G*s| = 1 MPa, 10 radians/s, 

25 Percent Strain, RTFO (°C)

PG70-22 3,940,000 28.1

Air blown 2,390,000 24.8

CR-TB 1,280,000 19.1

SBS-LG 1,360,000 19.2

Terpolymer 910,000 16.8

SBS 64-40 489,000 11.3

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Critical Tip Opening Displacement and Essential Work of Fracture

Queen’s University researchers proposed evaluation of the energy needed for fracturing 

ductile materials to get a measure of the fatigue and crack resistance behavior of asphalt 

binders.(67) The essential work of fracture (EWF) approach has a history of application in the 

failure characterization of ductile materials such as plastics, certain metals, and composite 

materials.(68–70) Prior to the development of the EWF method, the fracture resistance of 

viscoplastic materials was largely evaluated by using laborious techniques requiring explicit 

measurements of a crack advancing through material. There had been many attempts to evaluate 

the work required to create new surfaces in intact material (i.e., cracking). The work necessary to 

pull apart a prenotched elastoplastic specimen is assumed to be divided in two parts: essential 

work performed in the local region of the advancing crack creating two surfaces and nonessential work away from the local region of cracking/tearing associated with ductility, 

plasticity, and yielding.

(69)

The experimental determination of the essential and non-essential work of fracture involves 

the following steps. First, total work of fracture is determined in simple DT tests of similar 

specimens with different ligament lengths. Double edged notched tension (DENT) samples were 

used in the characterization of ALF following a protocol developed in Ontario Ministry of 

Transportation Test Method LS-299.(71) Figure 112 is a schematic of the sample in the DENT test 

defining ligament length, and figure 113 shows the test samples in a computer-controlled forceductility instrument. Figure 114 provides an example of raw force versus displacement data after 

a DENT test using three ligament lengths and two replicates for each ligament. The ALF binders 

were PAV-aged instead of only RTFO-aged. The test temperature was 77 °F (25 °C), and the 

extension rate was 4 inches/min (100 mm/min). Ligament lengths were 0.2, 0.4, and 0.58 inches 

(5, 10, and 15 mm). The areas underneath the force versus displacement curves in figure 114

represent the total work of fracture. These values divided by the sectional area of each 

corresponding ligament (0.2, 0.4, and 0.58 inches (5, 10, and 15 mm) multiplied by 0.25 inches 

(6.5 mm) representing the sample thickness) represent the total specific work of fracture. Second, 

the values of the specific fracture energies are plotted on a graph versus the ligament lengths. A 

straight line results when total specific work of fracture, Wf, is plotted against ligament length, as 

shown in figure 115.

δ δ
150

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 112. Illustration. Plan view drawing of DENT test specimen design. 

Figure 113. Photo. DENT test specimens loaded in ductilometer.

1 N = 0.225 lbf

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 114. Graph. Typical raw data from DENT test. 
151

1 J/m2 = 0.0685 lb-ft/ft2

1 m = 3.28 ft

Figure 115. Graph. Total work of fracture versus ligament length.

Some background on the mathematics is provided for clarity. The EWF, We, is proportional to 

the fracture area (i.e., ligament length, l, multiplied by thickness, B), while the non-essential or 

plastic work, Wp, is proportional to the volume of the plastic zone. This is fracture area (l × B) 

multiplied by ligament length, multiplied with factor . The factor depends on the shape of the 

plastic zone. Because the ligament length has major importance in determining the extent of 

plastic deformation, it is distinctly incorporated as l × and multiplied with the surface area to 

express the volume dependence of the plastic work of fracture, Wp. The rather simple 

mathematical expression for the total work of fracture, Wf, is as shown in figure 116.

Figure 116. Equation. Total work of fracture.

Where:

Wf = Total work of fracture.

We = EWF.

Wp = Total plastic work of fracture.

l = Ligament length.

B = Thickness.

we = Specific essential work of fracture .

wp = Specific work of fracture.

The parameter is determined considering the degree to which the sample geometry follows 

plane-strain or plane-stress conditions. In this scenario, is calculated as shown in figure 117.

Figure 117. Equation. DENT beta parameter.

y = 524263x + 6492.6

R2

 = 0.9675

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016

L(m)

Wt(j/m2)

β β

β

Wf = We + Wp = lBwe + βl2Bwp

β

β
152

Where:

h = Height of an assumed elliptic shape of the plastic zone.

L = Ligament length.

Using a linear fitting procedure similar to the one employed for the EWF analysis, the calculated 

critical tip opening displacement (CTOD), , is the ultimate elongation for a zero ligament 

length, which represents the strain tolerance in the vicinity of a crack. In this study, the tensile 

yield stress was approximated with the net section stress (peak load divided by the sectional 

area) for the smallest ligament length (0.2 inches (5 mm)). This allowed an approximate CTOD

to be calculated from the ratio between the essential work and the net section stress, as shown in 

figure 118.

Figure 118. Equation. Approximate CTOD. 

EWF and CTOD test results on the ALF binders are provided in table 67 along with the yield 

stress at the smallest ligament length (0.2 inches (5 mm)). The polymer modified binders have 

the largest CTOD, and the unmodified binders have the lowest. There is a general trend of rank 

in EWF, but this is not the case for the yield stress. The EWF and CTOD testing methodologies

were carried out on mixtures under different conditions, as discussed in the next chapter. 

Furthermore, the results from an Ontario Ministry of Transportation field test will be 

discussed in light of the statistical comparison methodologies in chapter 7.

Table 67. Ranked test results by CTOD with EWF and yield stress.

Binder

EWF

(kJ/m2)

Yield Stress 

(kPa)

Calculated 

CTOD (mm)

SBS 64-40 4.4 102 43.1

CR-AZ 10.6 249 42.6

SBS-LG 1.02 43 24.0

Terpolymer 0.85 54 15.7

CR-TB 0.60 71 8.5

PG70-22 0.97 129 7.5

Air blown 0.70 103 6.8

1 kJ = 23,730 lb-ft2/s2

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Yield Energy

Johnson et al. suggested the use of the yield energy to identify the relative performance of 

asphalt binders.(72) The method involves the evaluation of the amount of energy to cause yielding 

in the asphalt binder. PAV-aged binder is tested in the DSR using the 0.3-inch (8-mm) parallel 

plate with a 0.08-inch (2-mm) gap. The sample is subjected to monotonic shear using a constant 

shear rate until peak strength is achieved and the sample yields. At the temperature of interest, a 

constant shear rate of 1 percent strain per second is used, and the test is continued until the 

material achieves 3,600 percent strain in 60 min. The shear stress and the shear strain percent are 

recorded at a sampling rate of one data point every 2 s. A typical plot of the shear stress versus 

shear strain is shown in figure 119. The ranked results are shown in table 68.

δ

δ = We/σ
153

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

Figure 119. Graph. Typical raw data measured during monotonic binder strength test 

for yield energy.

Table 68. Ranked results of yield energy on ALF binders.

Binder

Yield Energy, RTFO-Aged, 

66 °F (19 °C), 

0.0075 radians/s (MPa)

Terpolymer* 2.393

SBS-LG* 1.921

CR-TB* 1.759

PG70-22* 0.342

Air blown* 0.231

SBS 64-40** 0.0157

1 MPa = 145 psi

*Reported by Johnson et al.(72)

**Tested at FHWA’s TFHRC.

RUTTING/PERMANENT DEFORMATION BINDER PARAMETERS 

As described in chapter 3, the rutting performance of the ALF lanes was not very diverse. 

Although there were quantifiable differences in the mean rutting, the variability reduced the 

significance of those differences to a point where many lanes were statistically equivalent despite 

different asphalt binders. This challenges the development of meaningful relationships and 

comparisons between binder properties. For completeness and clarity, descriptions and test 

results from high-temperature binder candidate specification tests are detailed in this report, 

including the MSCR method, which was recently implemented in AASHTO TP 70 and table 3 of 

AASHTO M 320, Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder.

(73,2)
154

Superpave® High Temperature—Standard and Modified

ALF binder test results from the standard specification test (AASHTO T 315) using the DSR 

to control rutting at the high temperature range are provided in table 69.

(5) Both the specification 

temperature and the stiffness at the fixed ALF loading temperature of 147 °F (64 °C) are 

provided. In addition, an alternative set of criteria with a frequency of oscillation at 0.25 

radians/s rather than 10 radians/s and a stiffness of 0.0073 psi (50 Pa) instead of 0.31 psi 

(2.2 kPa) is provided to focus on softer ends of the stiffness spectrum and highlight binder 

modification benefits. The ranking is a bit different from parameters where the modified and 

unmodified binders are intermingled, and the ranking is different depending on the frequency 

of oscillation.

Table 69. ALF binder standard and modified Superpave® intermediate specification 

parameters.

Binder

|G*|/sin value 

64 °C, 10 radians/s

(Pa)

Temperature at 

|G*|/sinδ = 2.2 kPa, 

10 radians/s (°C)

|G*|/sin value 

64 °C, 0.25 radians/s

(Pa)

Temperature at

|G*|/sin = 50 Pa 

0.25 radians/s

(°C)

CR-AZ — 86.4 — —

CR-TB 12,846 82.2 952 89.8

Air blown 10,851 76.9 412 79.2

PG70-22 6,903 73.6 233 75.5

SBS-LG 6,321 74.7 367 80.8

Terpolymer 5,359 74.6 388 85.6

SBS 64-40 5,192 73.9 454 84.6

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

— Indicates data were not collected.

Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery

D’Angelo and Dongré extended the NCHRP 9-10 binder creep and recovery characterization

approach and suggested a further refined high-temperature binder specification through the use 

of an MSCR test.(20,74,75) The idea behind the approach suggested by D’Angelo and Dongré is to 

get the nonrecovered compliance as a measure for the high-temperature specification as it relates 

to the binder contributions in the roadway permanent deformation.(75) The test introduces stress 

sensitivity and a recoverable strain response along with the nonrecoverable response, that is, an 

alternative to elastic recovery specifications (ASTM D5976, AASHTO T 51).(76,77)

Before being refined and adopted by AASHTO, early versions of the protocol consisted of 

applying creep loads beginning with 0.0036 psi (0.025 kPa) for a 1-s duration followed by a 9-s 

recovery period for 10 cycles in the DSR. This was followed with doubling the creep load to 

0.0073 psi (0.050 kPa) for a 1-s duration followed by a 9-s recovery period for 10 cycles, and 

continuing by doubling the load each time until 0.46 psi (3.2 kPa) and until much a higher load 

of 3.71 psi (25.6 kPa).(74,75) This process is shown graphically in figure 120 in semilog scale. 

Figure 121 and figure 122 illustrate how the strain grows with each cycle then recovers with 

some irrecoverable portion before the next cycle of stress is applied. The accumulated strain after 

each creep and recovery cycle for the 10 cycles is divided by the imposed stress ( 0) to produce 

δ δ δ

σ
155

compliance, as shown in figure 123. The nonrecovered compliance at the end of each group of 

stresses is then determined, as shown in filled circles in figure 123. 

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

Figure 120. Graph. Typical applied binder shear stresses during MSCR test.

Figure 121. Graph. Measured raw strain data during MSCR test.

0.00E+00

5.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.50E+00

2.00E+00

2.50E+00

3.00E+00

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strain (%)

Time (s)
156

Figure 122. Graph. Measured raw strain data during entire MSCR test. 

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

Figure 123. Graph. Creep compliance variation during MSCR test where strain is 

normalized by applied stress.

The results for the ALF binders are provided in table 70 for creep stress levels of 0.0072, 0.058, 

and 0.46 psi (50, 400, and 3,200 Pa), although other stresses between and above these values 

were used in the test. Overall, the ranking of the materials’ response is the same for these stress 

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

0 400 800 1200

Strain (%)

Time (s)

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

0.003

0 400 800 1200

Total Compliance [1/Pa]

Time (s)
157

levels. The polymer modified asphalts have the best performance, and the unmodified binders 

have the worst. 

Table 70. Ranked MSCR nonrecovered compliance.

Binder

Nonrecovered Compliance (1/MPa)

50 Pa 400 Pa 3,200 Pa

SBS 64-40 0.93 1.07 1.17

CR-TB 1.12 1.20 1.40

SBS-LG 1.65 1.76 2.33

Terpolymer 2.99 3.40 3.98

Air blown 4.99 5.73 6.38

PG70-22 9.47 11.30 12.33

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

Oscillatory-Based Nonrecoverable Stiffness (1/Compliance)

In 2001, Shenoy began developing a parameter |G*|/(1–(1/tan sin )) that essentially provides 

the same measured nonrecoverable response as MSCR, since the parameter itself is, by 

definition, the inverse of the nonrecovered compliance. (See references 78–81.) The high 

specification temperature THS (°C) has been specified by Shenoy as the temperature at which 

the term |G*|/(1–(1/tanδsinδ)) takes a value of 0.007 psi (50 Pa) for RTFO-aged binders at 

= 0.25 radians/s.(79) This is in contrast to the Superpave® high-temperature specification that 

is taken at a somewhat stiffer condition, faster frequency, and greater sensitivity to phase angle 

than sin .

Shenoy showed that the unrecovered strain in a binder that is periodically subjected to an applied 

stress could be estimated directly from the DSR frequency sweep test data.(78) An expression for 

percent unrecovered strain was derived by Shenoy, as shown in figure 124.

(78)

% | *| tan sin γ

σ

δ δ unr G = − 



 



 100

1 0 1

Figure 124. Equation. Derived estimate of percent unrecovered strain.

To minimize the unrecovered (or permanent) strain, the equation in figure 125, the inverse of the 

nonrecovered compliance, Percent unr/100 0, needs to be maximized.

| *|

tan sin

G

1

1 − 



 



 δ δ

Figure 125. Equation. Derived estimate of unrecovered compliance.

The Shenoy parameter |G*|/(1–(1/tan sin )) was thus suggested as a refinement to the 

Superpave® specification parameter for performance grading of asphalts.(78) This parameter is 

more sensitive to changes in than the parameter |G*|/sin . This is an important requirement 

conceptually because the refined parameter is sought for capturing the rutting behavior of 

polymer modified asphalts that are known to exhibit enhanced elasticity, which is illustrated in 

figure 126, comparing the behavior against the standard Superpave® high-temperature parameter. 

δ δ

ω

δ

γ σ

δ δ

δ δ
158

The two highlighted data points represent the values at 147 °F (64 °C), where there is less 

separation between the two binders than with the oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance 

parameters shown in figure 127.

Figure 126. Graph. Standard high-temperature Superpave® rutting parameter in log scale 

versus reduced frequency in log scale.

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

1.00E+09

1.00E-08 1.00E-05 1.00E-02 1.00E+01 1.00E+04

and

Reduced Frequency (rad/sec)

Standard Superpave Parameters

Control Measured |G*|/sin(d)

CR-TB Measured |G*|/sin(d)

sinδ

| G*|
159

Figure 127. Graph. Oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance rutting parameter in log 

scale versus reduced frequency in log scale.

It was shown during the derivation of the Shenoy parameter |G*|/(1–(1/tan sin )) that the term 

(1 ‒ (1/tan sin )) tends to be zero at equal to about 52 degrees.(78) Hence, the parameter is 

rendered invalid at values of less than 52 degrees. During the course of the development of 

this parameter and the further development of the new criterion, when a host of binders were 

considered, it was found that less than 52 degrees was encountered in less than 1 percent of 

the total number of data points analyzed.(78,79) Since the |G*|/(1 ‒ (1/tan sin )) value is picked 

up at = 0.25 radians/s, it is virtually impossible (or rather the chances are very remote) to 

encounter less than 52 degrees. Even so, if one has to safeguard against any adverse situation 

and be prepared for the 0.1 percent chance, then one can use the fact that |G*|/(sin )

9 (i.e., sin

raised to the ninth power) is a close enough approximation, as proven earlier.(78) The parameter 

|G*|/(sin )

9 can thus be used for less than 52 degrees. An if/then clause for the calculation 

using the formula “IF ( >55, |G*|/(1 – (1/tan sin )), |G*|/(sinδ)

9

)” in the Microsoft Excel®

column does the job. Note that the cutoff value is taken to be 55 rather than 52 to be 

conservative. Using |G*|/(sin )

9 as the refined parameter for all values of instead of |G*|/(1–

(1/tan sin )) is not appropriate because |G*|/(sin )

9 does not have any fundamental basis, while 

the parameter |G*|/(1 – (1/tan sin )) was derived using fundamental considerations. Figure 128

illustrates how a temperature grade in degrees Celsius can be determined using the Shenoy 

parameter with a recommended criterion of 0.0073 psi (50 Pa) in the same fashion as a 

temperature grade is determined with the current |G*|/sin parameter.

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

1.00E+09

1.00E-08 1.00E-05 1.00E-02 1.00E+01 1.00E+04

and

Reduced Frequency (rad/sec)

CR-TB |G*|/[1-1/tan(d)sin(d)]

Control |G*|/[1-1/tan(d)sin(d)]

Modified Trigonometric Parameters

tanδ sinδ

1 1

| *|

−

G

δ δ

δ δ δ

δ

δ

δ δ

ω

δ

δ δ

δ δ

δ δ δ

δ δ

δ δ δ

δ δ

δ
160

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 128. Graph. Oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance rutting parameter in 

arithmetic scale versus temperature in log scale.

An alternative criterion was also suggested by Shenoy.(79,80) First an equi-stiffness temperature 

TE (°C) was defined as the temperature when |G*| takes a value of 0.0073 psi (50 Pa) for the 

RTFO-aged binder at = 0.25 radians/s, thereby taking care of the rheological contribution 

coming from one portion of the term |G*|/(1–(1/tan sin )). The contribution from the other 

portion was incorporated by dividing the equi-stiffness temperature TE (°C) by (1 – (1/tan sin )) 

using values at TE (°C). This resulted in the high specification temperature THS (°C) being 

defined as TE/(1 – (1/tan sin )). The sensitivity of the term 1/(1 – (1/tan sin )) compared to 

1/sin is shown in figure 129. The increased sensitivity of the term 1/(1 – (1/tan sin )) to 

helps capture the elastic contribution of the modified asphalts in an enhanced manner compared 

to the term 1/sin . 

Figure 129. Graph. Trigonometric functions for the standard high-temperature 

Superpave® rutting parameters and oscillatory-based non-recovered compliance.

The ranked ALF binder properties from this technique are provided in table 71 for both the 

stiffness at the fixed temperature of 147 °F (64 °C) and the effective temperature. As previously 

described, the inverse of the modified trigonometric parameters is an estimate of the 

nonrecovered compliance derived from the theory. Figure 130 shows nonrecovered compliance 

from MSCR measurement with the nonrecovered compliance from the frequency sweep 

ω

δ δ

δ δ

δ

δ δ δ δ

δ δ δ δ

δ
161

measurement. Although the two parameters are not numerically identical, they exhibit a very 

strong relationship.

Table 71. Ranked oscillatory-based nonrecovered compliance.

Binder

|G*|/(1-(1/tan sin )) at 

64 °C, 0.25 radians/s, 

RTFO (Pa)

TE/ (1–(1/tan sin )) 

(°C)

CR-TB 2,053 89.0

SBS 64-40 1,729 83.8

Terpolymer 783 86.8

SBS-LG 605 81.2

Air blown 459 79.4

PG70-22 247 75.6

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 130. Graph. Measured nonrecovered compliance from MSCR test versus 

nonrecovered compliance estimated from shear modulus and phase angle from DSR 

frequency sweep.

Low and Zero Shear Viscosity

Rowe et al. suggested the use of the ZSV 0 as the high-temperature specification parameter.(82)

ZSV, by definition, is the viscosity at which there is no deformation. The method involves the 

determination of the relaxation spectra and using the asymptote to estimate the ZSV. ZSV or 

δ δ

δ δ

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

MSCR Nonrecovered compliance [1/MPa]

Nonrecovered Compliance Estimated from DSR Frequency Sweep [1/MPa] 

MSCR 50 Pa

MSCR 400 Pa

MSCR 3200 Pa

| *|

tan sin

1 1

G

δ δ −

η
162

steady-state viscosity was defined as the loss modulus divided by the frequency as frequency 

approaches zero, as shown in figure 131 and figure 132.

Figure 131. Equation. ZSV.

Figure 132. Graph. Complex viscosity in log scale versus frequency in log scale.

In the case of unmodified binder, a plateau develops when a master curve of dynamic viscosity 

versus reduced frequency is plotted, and ZSV is well defined by the asymptote. In the case of 

modified binders, no such plateau develops, as shown in figure 133, which compares the 

behavior measured from the unmodified PG70-22 binder and the modified CR-TB binder. When 

ZSV cannot be determined using the asymptote, RHEA ZSVTM software helps obtain a good 

approximation of ZSV. 

1 

10 

100 

1,000 

10,000 

100,000 

1,000,000 

10,000,000 

100,000,000 

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Complex Viscosity η" (Pa-s)

Frequency (radians/sec)

7oC

31oC

19oC

58oC

64oC

70oC

82oC

25oC

40oC
163

Figure 133. Graph. Complex viscosity in log scale versus frequency in log scale.

Dongré et al. suggested the use of low shear viscosity (LSV) at a fixed frequency of 

0.01 radians/s as the high-temperature specification parameter, as shown in figure 133 for the 

unmodified binder.(83,84) This parameter could be obtained directly from the experiment and did 

not need separate software for calculation as in the case of ZSV. The ZSV and LSV test results 

on the ALF binders are provided in table 72. 

Table 72. Ranked ZSV and LSV.

Binder ZSV (Pa-s) LSV (Pa-s)

CR-TB 9,302 7,183

SBS 64-40 7,791 7,660

SBS-LG 4,814 3,364

Terpolymer 2,974 2,470

Air blown 1,981 2,455

PG70-22 978 1,034

Material Volumetric Flow Rate

As a quick and easy method, Shenoy suggested the possibility of using the material’s volumetricflow rate (MVR) as a high-temperature PG specification.(85,86) MVR is defined as the volume of 

the material (in milliliters or cubic centimeters) that is extruded in 10 min through a die of 

specific diameter and length by applying pressure through static weight load (L) under 

prescribed temperature conditions.

The MVR is determined through a closely defined flow measurement device (FMD) (see 

figure 134). This equipment is borrowed from the polymer industry, where it is routinely used to 

measure the melt flow index of polymers for purposes such as determining the suitability of 

polymer for blow injection molding. The equipment is less costly than by about a factor of 10 

compared to dynamic shear rheometers. The cylinder of the FMD is made of hardened steel and 

is fitted with heaters, insulated, and controlled for operation at the required temperature. The 

heating device is capable of maintaining the temperature at 0.4 inches (10 mm) above the die to 
164

within 0.4 °F (0.2 °C) of the desired temperature during the test. The temperature of the barrel 

from 0.4 to 2.9 inches (10 to 75 mm) above the top of the die is maintained within ±1 percent of 

the set temperature (°C) in strict compliance with ASTM D1238.(87) The piston is made of steel,

and the diameter of its head is 0.0029 ±0.00058 inches (0.075 ±0.015 mm) less than that of the 

internal diameter of the cylinder, which is 0.37 inches (9.5 mm). Extrusion of the material is 

done through a die made of hardened steel with an internal diameter of 0.0817 ±0.0002 inches 

(2.095 ±0.005 mm).

Figure 134. Illustration. Key components of an FMD for determination of MVR. 

MVR can be effectively used in determining the PG high-temperature specification. The method 

is straightforward, fast, and accurate. The high specification temperature THS (°C) has been 

specified by Shenoy as the temperature at which MVR takes a value of 50 cc/10 min for unaged 

binders when the imposed load on the sample forced out of a capillary is 2.697 lb (1.225 kg), as 

shown in figure 135.

(85)

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Figure 135. Graph. MVR versus temperature. 

MVR is easy to determine, and FMD that is used for the generation of MVR data is a relatively 

simple, inexpensive piece of equipment that can be carried from place to place because of its 

light weight. It neither needs arrangements for air pressure nor requires a circulating water bath 

to maintain a constant temperature environment. Since this equipment was originally built for 

taking polymer melt data at high temperatures (257–572 °F (125–300 °C)), it has an excellent 

temperature control system with variations of about 0.2 °F (0.1°C), especially in the temperature 

LOAD

PISTON BARREL

HEATER AND

INSULATION DIE

OPTICAL EYE

ASPHALT
165

range applicable to paving asphalts. It was found that MVR data generated from the FMD were 

highly reproducible.

Because FMD is relatively inexpensive, the operational costs are low, the MVR data generation 

requires minimal training, the output has low level of variability, no calibration is needed, and 

the equipment is portable, it merits its use at paving sites or refineries. The actual time for data

generation is also very low. All this makes MVR an attractive parameter to be used for routine 

quality control as well as for new product development of asphalt binders and would serve as an 

excellent purchase guide specification for the users and producers of paving asphalts.

MVR and corresponding temperature grading of the ALF binders is provided in table 73. 

The unmodified binders have a high flow rate, but the softest, SBS 64-40, has the highest rate. 

The other polymer modified binders have the lowest rates, with SBS-LG and CR-TB having 

the smallest.

Table 73. Ranked MVR and temperature grade from FMD.

Binder

MVR at 64 °C, 1.225 kg

(cc/10 min)

Temperature at 50 cc/10 min, 

1.225 kg (°C)

SBS-LG 4.0 77.2

CR-TB 4.4 80.6

Terpolymer 6.1 81.2

PG70-22 11.7 73.5

Air blown 14.6 74.8

SBS 64-40 19.1 77.0

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 kg = 2.202 lb

167

CHAPTER 6. MIXTURE PERFORMANCE TESTS

INTRODUCTION 

A variety of material characterization tests were conducted on ALF cores, plant-produced 

mixtures, and laboratory-produced mixtures. This chapter describes both established 

characterization tests and methodologies that are undergoing development for future 

applications. Some tests provide a mechanistic engineering property, while others are an 

empirical qualitative assessment. 

The mixture performance is primarily used in chapter 7 to accompany comparisons between 

binder properties and full-scale ALF performance. These cross-comparisons help capture the 

degree to which candidate binder parameters (discussed in chapter 5) can discriminate 

superiority or inferiority in expected performance. In contrast to comparisons between binder 

properties and full-scale ALF performance, these mixture characterization tests circumvent any 

influence from less-controlled construction and environmental/climatic variables present at ALF, 

essentially leveling the playing field by specifically emphasizing the binders’ contribution in a 

laboratory setting. Characterization of lab-produced mixtures provides more direct comparison 

to binder variables, especially when the air void content of the mixtures is a common fixed 

value. Characterization of core provides a more direct evaluation of mixture effects on the 

ALF performance.

The strengths of the various mixture characterization tests are evaluated at the end of this chapter 

using the statistical techniques described in chapter 3. Composite scores are calculated by 

comparing the laboratory results against the ALF rutting and cracking performance.

MIXTURE TESTS FOR RUTTING

HWT

HWT (AASHTO T 324) is a high-temperature, wet submerged test where a steel wheel is 

reciprocated over surfaces of HMA specimens to evaluate moisture damage and stripping of 

asphalt binder from the aggregate.(88) This pavement distress is outside the scope of this research. 

However, the test can also assess the permanent deformation characteristics via the rutting that 

is induced.

Plant-produced mixtures sampled during construction were compacted in a linear kneading 

compactor to produce slabs 12 inches (320 mm) long by 10 inches (260 mm) wide and 3 inches 

(80 mm) thick and having an air void content of 7 percent ±0.5 percent. The water temperature 

was brought to 147 °F (64 °C), the same temperature as the primary ALF rutting, instead of the 

cooler temperatures around 104–122 °F (40–50 °C) usually imposed in the test. Typical 

performance measured in the test is provided in figure 136, where rut depth is measured at 

individual numbers of cycles. Three replicates were tested, but a fourth was tested for the 

mixture from lane 6 to achieve a comparison to its corresponding mix in lane 12, and a fourth 

was tested for lane 8. The ALF mixtures’ performance is quantified by the number of cycles to 

achieve a 0.4-inch (10-mm) rut depth and is shown in table 74 and figure 137. There are no clear 

trends in terms of modified and unmodified binders. Performance of the same mixtures placed in 
168

different lane thickness is, for the most part, comparable except for the control binder in lanes 2 

and 8. Extracted binder contents of those tested specimens were explored between the two lanes 

and revealed no significant differences to raise concern. Additional HWT tests were conducted 

on laboratory-prepared materials with 0, 1 (job mix formula), and 1.5 percent hydrated lime 

to explore the effect of lime distribution and content given the aggregate stockpile dispersion 

problems described in table 11. The laboratory mixture with 0 percent lime exhibited 

5,975 cycles to a 0.4-inch (10-mm) rut, similar to lane 8. The laboratory mixtures with 1.5 

and 1.0 percent lime took 15,530 and 12,190 cycles to a 0.4-inch (10-mm) rut, respectively. 

This suggests that hydrated lime content in lane 8 was less than targeted, which is corroborated 

by table 11, where the measured lime content was less in lane 8 than in lane 2. The hypothesized 

net effect is that the lower lime content made the mix vulnerable to poorer than expected 

performance in this wet stripping test and possibly explains the discrepancy in table 74

and figure 137.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 136. Graph. HWT rut depth versus wheel tracking cycles. 

Table 74. HWT performance of ALF mixtures.

Binder

Average Number of Passes to Reach 10-mm Rut Depth at 64 °C

HMA from 100-mm ALF Sections HMA from 150-mm ALF Sections

Average

Standard 

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation

CR-AZ 9,843 816 — —

PG70-22 20,347 6,140 5,937 367

Air blown 14,900 2,025 14,092 1,983

SBS-LG 8,790 1,709 9,870 1,814

CR-TB 12,593 2,525 — —

Terpolymer 9,277 2,738 6,977 934

Fiber 7,017 2,373 — —

SBS 64-40 — — 5,137 483

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 mm = 0.039 inches

— Indicates test data were not measured.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Rut Depth (mm)

Wheel Tracking Cycles
169

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 137. Graph. HWT test cycles to 4-inch (10-mm) rut depth for plant-produced 

mixtures. 

French PRT

French PRT is a high-temperature dry wheel tracking test that uses a pneumatic wheel inflated 

to 87 psi (600 kPa) to reciprocate over slab specimens 20 inches (500 mm) long, 7 inches 

(180 mm) wide, and 4 or 2 inches (100 or 50 mm) thick. This methodology is used during

the French mix design to evaluate mixtures subjected to heavy traffic; mixtures that incorporate 

materials that tend to lead to rutting, such as some natural sands; and mixtures that have 

no performance history. It is also used for quality control purposes during construction 

(see figure 138).

Figure 138. Photo. Pneumatic wheel in French PRT and rutted test specimen. 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

CR-AZ Control Air Blown SBS-LG CR-TB Terpolymer Fiber SBS 64-40

Number of Cycles to 10mm Rut Depth

100 mm HMA Sections

150 mm HMA Sections
170

Plant-produced ALF mixtures were compacted to 4-inch (100-mm)-thick slabs at a target air 

void content of 7 percent ±0.5 percent. The test temperature was 165 °F (74 °C), and the rut 

depth was manually measured on the surface at 15 locations and averaged. Measurements were 

taken at 6,000, 20,000, and 60,000 cycles. Two replicate slabs were tested, and the results are 

summarized in table 75 and figure 139.

Table 75. Rut depths from French PRT.

Binder

Rut Depth at 60,000 Passes at 74 °C

HMA from 100-mm ALF Sections HMA from 150-mm ALF Sections

Average (mm)

Standard 

Deviation (mm) Average (mm)

Standard 

Deviation (mm)

CR-AZ 8.20 0.57 — —

CR-AZ composite 14.30 0.99 — —

Control (CR-AZ) 8.20 0.14 — —

PG70-22 8.55 1.39 11.13 1.26

Air blown 8.00 0.42 8.20 1.84

SBS-LG 13.55 0.92 11.70 0.85

CR-TB 6.90 0.57 — —

Terpolymer >20 — >20 —

Fiber 15.10 1.70 — —

SBS 64-40 — — >20 —

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Indicates test data were not measured.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 139. Graph. Rut depth at 60,000 passes in French PRT for plant-produced 

mixtures.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

CR-AZ CR-AZ 

Composite

Control 

(CR-AZ)

Control Air Blown SBS-LG CR-TB Terpolymer Fiber SBS 64-40

French PRT Rut Depth at 60,000 Cycles [mm]

100mm HMA Sections

150mm HMA Sections
171

In general, variability was low. Like HWT, there is no clear trend with respect to modified and 

unmodified asphalt binders. The soft SBS 64-40 mixture and the terpolymer mixtures from both 

lanes exceeded the measurable rut depth of 0.8 inches (20 mm) at 60,000 cycles. The thickness 

of the slabs in this test allowed for composite slabs to reflect the structure of lane 1 CR-AZ/

PG70-22 in contrast to the thinner slabs in HWT, which do not allow composite slabs to be 

tested. The slabs with the lane 1 CR-AZ asphalt mixture on top of the PG70-22 mixture provided 

an average rut depth of 0.558 inches (14.3 mm). When tested by itself, the CR-AZ mixture 

provided a rut depth of 0.32 inches (8.2 mm). In contrast to the HWT performance, the control 

mixtures from lanes 2 and 8 were comparable, which strengthens the discussion that lime content 

differences were captured by the wet HWT. Although the lane 1 control mixture (underneath 

CR-AZ at ALF) was not tested by the French PRT at a slab thickness of 4 inches (100 mm), the 

same mixture from lane 2 only had a rut depth of 0.33 inches (8.6 mm). It was speculated that the 

higher rut depth for the two-layer system was the result of pockets of air voids being trapped 

between the two layers and of the discontinuity in aggregate structure. 

SST RSCH

165 °F (74 °C) SST RSCH Lab-Compacted Plant-Produced Mix

RSCH tests were conducted in an SST, and permanent shear strain at 165 °F (74 °C) was 

measured following AASHTO TP 7-94.(89) A pulsed, haversine shear stress at a level of 10 psi

(69.5 kPa) was applied to the test specimens from the horizontal actuator while the vertical 

actuator applied compression (or tension) to keep the height of the test sample constant. Plantproduced mix sampled from trucks during construction was compacted to 5.26-inch (135-mm)-

tall specimens using the Superpave® gyratory compactor. Two specimens 2 inches (50 mm) tall 

were cut from each gyratory sample, and the target air void content of the final cut samples 

was 7 percent ±0.5 percent. The loading time was 0.1 s and the rest time was 0.6 s to allow 

recoverable strains to attenuate and thereby allow the nonrecoverable or permanent shear strain 

to be measured. The permanent shear strain grows nonlinearly, as shown in figure 140, which 

illustrates typical data from a less resistant lane 3 (air blown) and a more resistant lane 5 

(CR-TB). Five replicates were tested. The tests were carried out until the shear strain limit 

of the machine was reached or 5,000 cycles. 
172

Figure 140. Graph. Permanent shear strain in SST RSCH test versus number of load 

cycles.

The performance of the ALF mixtures is quantified in table 76 and figure 141 by the number of 

cycles to reach 20,000 microstrains, equivalent to 2 percent strain. Variability was not consistent 

and could be either high or low. There is a general trend that the polymer modified binders 

perform better than the unmodified binders, except the gap-graded CR-AZ mixture. SBS-LG, 

PG70-22, air-blown, and terpolymer mixtures were placed in both the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 

150-mm) thickness, and the laboratory performance of these mixtures is comparable, except for 

the terpolymer mixtures. The SST RSCH laboratory performance of lane 6 terpolymer is better 

than that of lane 12. This is opposite the French PRT, where the performance was comparable 

and poor.

Table 76. SST RSCH cycles to 2 percent permanent shear strain.

Binder

SST RSCH Cycles to Reach 2 Percent 

Permanent Shear Strain

100-mm HMA 150-mm HMA

Average

Standard 

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation

CR-AZ 189 93 — —

PG70-22 747 239 604 115

Air blown 537 59 520 39

SBS-LG 1212 324 1908 938

CR-TB 2089 734 — —

Terpolymer 3141 1857 1642 365

Fiber 353 60 — —

SBS 64-40 — — 765 825

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Indicates tests were not performed.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Permanent Shear Strain [micro strain]

SST Shear Cycles

Air Blown Replicates

CR-TB Replicates
173

Figure 141. Graph. SST RSCH cycles to 2 percent permanent shear strain rut 

for plant-produced mixtures. 

147 °F (64 °C) SST RSCH ALF Cores

A full set of field cores from the thicker 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF sections was taken in 2006, 

excluding lane 12 because ALF machines were located on top of the lane at the time. The field 

cores were split into top and bottom lifts and characterized at 147 °F (64 °C) rather than the 

165 °F (74 °C) used for plant-produced mixtures. Three replicates were tested, but some lanes 

and lifts had only two replicates. Plots of the average permanent shear strain curves from the 

tests for the top and bottom lifts are shown in figure 142 and figure 143, respectively. As 

expected, there was little variation in the performance of these mixtures, but the general ranking 

was the same between top and bottom lifts. Table 77 and figure 144 show the average and 

standard deviation of number of cycles to 2 percent strain (20,000 microstrain) and the 

microstrain at 200 cycles.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

CR-AZ Control Air Blown SBS-LG CR-TB Terpolymer Fiber SBS 64-40

Number of RSCH Cycles to 2% Permanent Strain

100 mm HMA Sections

150 mm HMA Sections
174

Figure 142. Graph. Permanent shear strain in SST RSCH test for top lifts versus 

number of load cycles.

Figure 143. Graph. Permanent shear strain in SST RSCH test for bottom lifts 

versus number of load cycles.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Permanent Shear Strain (Micro Strain)

Number of SST Cycles

Lane 8 Control Top

Lane 9 SBS 64-40 Top

Lane 10 Air Blown Top

Lane 11 Terpolymer Top

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Permanent Shear Strain (Micro Strain)

Number of SST Cycles

Lane 8 Control Bottom

Lane 9 SBS 64-40 Bottom

Lane 10 Air Blown Bottom

Lane 11 Terpolymer Bottom
175

Table 77. Summary of SST RSCH ALF core performance.

Mix and Lane

Number 

of

Replicates

Permanent Shear Strain at 

200 Cycles (microstrain)

Number of Cycles to 20,000 

Permanent Shear Microstrain

Average

Standard 

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 Top 2 16,145 106 457 25

Bottom 3 16,243 362 456 49

Lane 11, SBS-LG Top 3 20,160 1,552 196 47

Bottom 3 17,003 2,407 343 192

Lane 10, Air blown Top 3 20,110 3,152 197 126

Bottom 3 20,243 3,357 195 82

Lane 8, PG70-22 Top 3 20,840 4,693 180 116

Bottom 2 23,210 3,323 138 61

Figure 144. Graph. Permanent shear strain and number of cycles to 20,000 microstrain.

On average, the best performer was the SBS 64-40 lane, followed by the SBS-LG lane. The 

two unmodified binders, air blown and PG70-22, had the worst performance. However, the 

differences in the mean performance are reduced by the variability of the test, which is 

qualitatively the same as the full-scale ALF rutting performance.

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

-28000 600

-24000

-20000

-16000

-12000

-8000

-4000

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

24000

28000

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Lane 9 SBS 64-40 Lane 11 SBS-LG Lane 10 Air Blown Lane 8 Control

Number of Cycles to 20,000 Permanent Micro Strain

Permanent Shear Strain at 20,000 Cycles (micro strain)

Strain Cycles
176

Dynamic Modulus |E*| and Phase Angle

Refer to chapter 4 section, “Direct Measurement of Asphalt Layer Modulus,” for a discussion 

of dynamic modulus measured on field cores, plant-produced mixtures, and laboratoryproduced mixtures.

The dynamic modulus and phase angle from the plant-produced mixtures, lab-produced 

mixtures, and field cores are summarized at 66 and 136 °F (19 and 58 °C) both at 0.1 and 10 Hz. 

The 136 °F (58 °C) data are provided in this section, and the data at 66 °F (19 °C) pertaining to 

the ALF fatigue cracking tests are in the following section. Only cores from the thicker 5.8-inch 

(150-mm) lanes could be taken, and the plant-produced fiber mix was no longer available, so 

only the lab-produced mix is represented. Recall from chapter 4 that the effective frequency of 

the ALF wheel at various depths and temperatures was between 18 and 3.1 Hz. Although 136 °F 

(58 °C) was the highest practical temperature for dynamic modulus and is less than the 147 °F 

(64 °C) ALF rutting test, time-temperature superposition enables the behavior of the materials to 

be evaluated (see discussion of table 53 in chapter 4).

Cores are always softer than plant-produced and lab-produced mixtures, even though they are 

more dense (see table 78 and the discussion on compaction effects in chapter 4). The dynamic 

modulus and phase angle at 136 °F (58 °C) for 10 and 0.1 Hz are shown in table 79 and table 80,

respectively. There is no clear trend where plant-produced mixtures are more or less stiff than 

their lab-produced counterparts. 

Table 78. Air void content of dynamic modulus specimens.

Dynamic Modulus Specimens

Air Void 

Content 

(percent)

Plant-produced samples 7.0 ±0.5

Lab-produced samples 7.0 ±0.5

Cores

Lane 8, PG70-22 5.1

Lane 9, SBS 64-40 5.2

Lane 10, air blown 3.9

Lane 11, SBS-LG 5.3

Lane 12, terpolymer 4.5
177

Table 79. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 136 °F (58 °C) and 10 Hz.

Binder Specimen Type

|E*| (MPa) Phase Angle (degrees) |E*| × sin

Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev.

PG70-22

Lab-produced 360 16 36.3 0.5 609 33

Plant-produced 303 23 36.7 0.6 508 46

Core, lane 8 225 11 36.9 1.1 375 26

Fiber Lab-produced 351 28 38.9 1.0 559 35

Air blown

Lab-produced 437 20 33.2 0.2 800 39

Plant-produced 420 28 33.7 0.8 758 57

Core, lane 10 346 61 34.3 0.6 615 116

CR-TB Lab-produced 300 3 31.4 0.4 577 11

Plant-produced 271 9 32.4 0.6 505 23

SBS-LG

Lab-produced 209 33 31.9 2.5 400 87

Plant-produced 223 — 31.3 — 430 —

Core, lane 11 209 19 33.3 0.9 381 41

CR-AZ Lab-produced 208 19 37.8 3.1 340 48

Plant-produced 262 49 35.1 1.6 457 100

Terpolymer

Lab-produced 168 3 28.9 0.7 348 2

Plant-produced 197 18 34.0 0.6 352 33

Core, lane 12 160 12 34.5 0.1 282 21

SBS 64-40

Lab-produced 123 5 27.0 1.2 270 14

Plant-produced 140 17 31.0 1.2 273 43

Core, lane 9 132 21 32.5 1.6 247 51

1 MPa = 145 psi

— Indicates only one replicate was available and standard deviation cannot be provided.

Table 80. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 136 °F (58 °C) and 0.1 Hz.

Binder Specimen Type

|E*| (MPa) Phase Angle (degrees) |E*|×sin

Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev.

PG70-22

Lab-produced 59 2 23.4 0.8 149 10

Plant-produced 52 6 24.9 0.4 123 15

Core, lane 8 44 2 21.5 1.1 121 12

Fiber Lab-produced 46 8 29.1 1.2 95 18

Air blown

Lab-produced 80 2 24.2 0.3 194 3

Plant-produced 67 6 26.6 0.8 150 18

Core, lane 10 58 19 26.4 2.2 134 50

CR-TB Lab-produced 71 3 23.1 0.6 181 11

Plant-produced 62 4 23.3 1.9 159 23

SBS-LG

Lab-produced 64 13 19.7 1.9 194 54

Plant-produced 47 — 21.3 — 130 —

Core, lane 11 50 7 22.3 1.0 132 22

CR-AZ Lab-produced 41 6 28.1 2.2 88 16

Plant-produced 44 6 25.9 8.1 108 29

Terpolymer

Lab-produced 65 3 17.6 0.8 214 17

Plant-produced 54 5 23.2 1.0 138 14

Core, lane 12 36 2 25.2 1.0 84 6

SBS 64-40

Lab-produced 44 4 18.2 0.9 142 21

Plant-produced 47 12 23.1 6.5 130 55

Core, lane 9 39 10 22.4 1.9 105 37

1 MPa = 145 psi

— Indicates only one replicate was available and standard deviation cannot be provided .

δ

δ
178

Similar to the binder high-temperature Superpave® PG parameter, |E*|/sin was calculated. The 

modulus-only data at 10 and 0.1 Hz are plotted in figure 145 and figure 146, respectively, which 

show more variation in stiffness at 10 Hz than at 0.1 Hz. At 10 Hz, the ranking of the |E*| 

stiffness and |E*|/sin are essentially the same whether plant-produced, lab-produced, or field 

cores, while the error bars representing one standard deviation diminish the differences in mean 

stiffness. At 0.1 Hz, there is less variation in both |E*| stiffness and |E*|/sin , and ranking tends 

to become less apparent. This is the region of the dynamic modulus master curve that begins 

to flatten out at high temperatures and low frequencies. Dividing by sin at both frequencies 

tends to normalize the stiffness and diminish the differences between the mixtures, as shown in 

figure 147 and figure 148.

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 145. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 136 °F (58 °C) and 10 Hz.

δ

δ

δ

δ

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*| Dynamic Modulus 58C & 10Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes
179

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 146. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 136 °F (58 °C) and 0.1 Hz. 

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 147. Graph. |E*|/sin at 136 °F (58 °C) and 10 Hz. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*| Dynamic Modulus 58C & 0.1Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*|/Sin(d) 58C & 10Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes

δ
180

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 148. Graph. |E*|/sin at 136 °F (58 °C) and 0.1 Hz.

Flow Number 

Particular attention was paid to evaluating the performance of the ALF mixtures in AMPT 

(formerly SPT). This includes both dynamic modulus |E*| and flow number tests. AMPT was 

developed, in part, to overcome the challenges associated with the SST (cost of equipment, 

required expertise of technicians, pavement design framework, etc.), which was the 

recommended performance test equipment for the Superpave® system coming out of the SHRP 

research program. A further benefit of the flow number test is the application of the test results in 

mechanistic-empirical performance prediction of rutting using methodologies similar to those in 

the contemporary NCHRP 9-30A, Calibration of Rutting Models for HMA Structural and Mix 

Design.

(90)

Like RSCH, the flow number test is a pulsed cyclic load and recovery test where the permanent 

strains are measured, but the loading is triaxial compression cycles repeatedly applied to

cylindrical test specimens. Idealized behavior in the flow number test is shown in figure 149. 

Depending on the test conditions, the behavior can exhibit deformation in three regions. The first 

region is characterized by a large increase in permanent strain, the second region exhibits near 

linear growth of permanent strain, and the final region is marked by an inflection point and 

exhibits a more pronounced instability or tertiary flow.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*|/Sin(d) 58C & 0.1Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes

δ
181

Figure 149. Graph. Permanent axial strain growth in flow number test. 

A different strategy from empirical wheel tracking and SST RSCH was taken in the materials 

and methods for the flow number characterization. As shown in the previous sections, plantproduced mixtures introduced a degree of uncertainty in the laboratory performance due to the 

lime distribution and production variability. Thus, laboratory-produced specimens were 

characterized in the flow number test. Also, two groups of specimens were fabricated to allow 

for both binder comparison and constructed lane comparison where the as-built density was 

reflected. One group was fabricated to a target air void content of 7 percent ±0.5 percent. The 

second group was fabricated to the average as-built air void content of each corresponding lane. 

An overview of the air void content experimental design is provided in table 81. The test 

temperature for the flow number test was trivially set to 147 °F (64 °C), the same temperature 

as the primary ALF rutting test in the experiment and, essentially, the upper limit for temperature 

in AMPT.

Cycle Number or Time

Permanent Axial Strain

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3 

Flow Number 

or Flow Time
182

Table 81. Summary of AMPT flow number test conditions.

Binder Type

Corresponding 

Test Lane

Air Void Content 

(percent)

Triaxial Stress

Confining Pressure,

kPa (psi)

Deviator Stress, 

kPa (psi)

PG70-22

PG70-22 + fiber

Air blown

CR-TB

SBS-LG

SBS 64-40

Terpolymer

General 7.00 69 (10) 523 (76)

PG70-22 100-mm lane 2 8.00

69 (10) 827 (120)

Air blown 100-mm lane 3 5.75

SBS-LG 100-mm lane 4 8.00 and 5.50

CR-TB 100-mm lane 5 7.75 and 5.25

Terpolymer 100-mm lane 6 7.60

PG70-22 + fiber 100-mm lane 7 8.00

PG70-22 150-mm lane 8 5.00

6.9 (1)

and 69 kPa (10)

207 (30)

and 827 (120)

SBS 64-40 150-mm lane 9 4.14

Air blown 150-mm lane 10 5.50

SBS-LG 150-mm lane 11 5.43

Terpolymer 150-mm lane 12 5.85

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Less guidance and application for the flow number test is in practice compared to the established 

dynamic modulus |E*| stiffness characterization test. As a consequence, the flow number test has 

been performed with a lack of consensus on stress state and temperature. However, the FHWA 

Asphalt Mixtures ETG organized a group from industry, agencies, and academia to develop

further guidance, an ongoing process at the time this report was written. Depending on the choice 

of the triaxial stress state and temperature, the flow number test could last a very long time, even 

without the occurrence of the tertiary flow. Therefore, understanding the mechanism of 

permanent deformation in asphalt materials and determining the factors that influence the 

outcomes of the flow number test is an important priority for the research community. 

Recently, Gibson et al. developed a more complete understanding of the mechanism of 

permanent deformation in AC and provided mechanistic-based recommendations for appropriate 

triaxial stress states for the flow number test.(91) Fully mechanistic, constitutive material models 

for viscoplasticity (time- and temperature-dependent permanent strains) were used to assess 

multiaxial stress states that are induced within asphalt layers under truck tires to identify critical 

locations that yield significantly more deformation than others. Some locations had stress states 

with larger equivalent deviator stress, which would tend produce larger permanent strains, but 

equivalent confining stresses in those regions were also larger and tended to reduce the amount 

of permanent strain from the corresponding deviator stress. Conversely, some locations had 

smaller equivalent deviator stresses that would produce smaller permanent strains but also had 

smaller equivalent confining stresses, thereby increasing the amount of permanent strains due to 

the corresponding deviator stress. The analysis yielded a critical location under the edge of tires a 

few inches deep, as shown in figure 150. 
183

Figure 150. Illustration. Calculated volumetric permanent strains in a vertical cross 

sectional plane in the direction of vehicle travel.

A representative equivalent triaxial compression stress state in this region was found to be 10 psi 

(69 kPa) confinement and 76 psi (523 kPa) axial deviator stress. This stress state was used in the 

first group of ALF mixtures, with the same 7 percent air void content for all binders, but did not 

produce a flow number (tertiary flow inflection) within 20,000 cycles. The deviator stress was 

increased to 120 psi (827 kPa) for the second group of ALF mixtures fabricated to the as-built 

density of their corresponding lanes in hopes of producing tertiary flow but did not. In addition, 

the five ALF mixtures prepared for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) HMA sections were tested with a 

second stress state that was essentially unconfined but with less deviator stress based on 

estimates from the analysis previously described. Unconfined tests are more convenient given 

that latex rubber membranes around the specimens are not needed. Gibson et al. includes more 

discussion on specialty radial strain measurement equipment used in experiments that required a 

very small (1 psi (7 kPa)) positive confining stress in the essentially unconfined test.(91)

Regardless, all tests produced usable permanent deformation curves, even though tertiary flow 

was only observed in a few mixtures. 

Three replicates were tested at each condition. Plots of the average permanent deformation 

curves for the different mixtures and stress states are provided in figure 151 through figure 153. 

These data are further reduced in table 82, which quantifies the permanent strain at a fixed 

number of cycles depending on the test conditions, shown graphically in figure 154 through 

figure 156.
184

Figure 151. Graph. Axial permanent strain versus number of cycles for mixes with 

7 percent air void content, 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement, and 76 psi (523 kPa) axial deviator 

stress. 

Figure 152. Graph. Axial permanent strain versus number of cycles for mixes with as-built 

air void content, 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement, and 120 psi (827 kPa) axial deviator stress. 
185

Figure 153. Graph. Axial permanent strain versus number of cycles for mixes with as-built 

air void content, 1 psi (6.9 kPa) confinement, and 30 psi (207 kPa) axial deviator stress.

Table 82. AMPT flow number performance.

Binder

Permanent Strain at 

20,000 Cycles, 7 Percent 

Air Void Content Permanent Strain at 5,000 Cycles Fabricated to As-Built Air Void Content

69 kPa confinement/

523 kPa axial deviator 

stress

69 kPa confinement/827 kPa axial deviator stress

6.9 kPa confinement/

207 kPa axial deviator stress

100-mm ALF Sections 150-mm ALF Sections 150-mm ALF Sections (only)

Average

Standard

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation

PG70-22 49,303 6,450 64,340 12,196 49,615 10,355 20,138 2,470

Air blown 33,741 3,782 40,260 8,804 36,576 7,249 12,391 566

SBS-LG 30,421 3,890

49,773 6,761

30,429 2,228 28,814 6,639 10,274 2,070

CR-TB 38,420 12,662

44,071 2,736

19,965 2,001 — — — —

Terpolymer 22,145 2,741 39,096 9,748 21,504 1,767 7,209 603

Fiber 34,061 1,713 45,558 3,192 — — — —

SBS 64-40 46,210 3,477 — — 25,076 13,960 7,365 3,610

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches 

— Indicates tests were not performed.
186

Figure 154. Graph. Permanent axial microstrain at 20,000 cycles for ALF mixtures with 

7 percent air voids at 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement and 76 psi (523 kPa) axial deviator stress. 

Figure 155. Graph. Permanent axial microstrain at 5,000 cycles for 4-inch (100-mm) 

ALF mixtures with as-built air void content at 10 psi (69 kPa) confinement and 

120 psi (827 kPa) axial deviator stress. 
187

Figure 156. Graph. Permanent axial microstrain at 5,000 cycles for 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

ALF mixtures with as-built air void content.

The permanent deformation performance for the ALF mixtures fabricated to a common 7 percent

air void content are ranked in figure 154 from best (terpolymer) to worst (control) along with the 

standard deviation error bars. Just like the mean ALF rut depth with variability reported in 

chapter 3, there are quantifiable differences in the average permanent deformation, but the 

variability reduces the significance of the order of average rut depth. 

Mechanistic-Empirical Rutting Performance Prediction Using Flow Number Curves

The mixture-specific flow number characterization tests were used to refine excessively large rut 

depth predictions by the MEPDG in chapter 4 to explore any benefits that would be provided 

over the globally calibrated mechanistic-empirical models that rely only on dynamic modulus. 

The approach taken for the ALF mixtures follows the framework that is being developed in 

NCHRP 9-30A, although it is not identical given the larger dataset being used for calibration that 

includes some necessary adjustment factors that are outside the scope of this section.(90)

Power law models were fit to the permanent strain curves measured under the different flow 

number test conditions. These coefficients allow the lab-measured properties of each mixture 

to be represented in the MEPDG empirical rutting model shown in figure 157. 

Figure 157. Equation. MEPDG empirical rutting model.

Where:

kz = Depth correction function that adjusts rutting depending on model’s computation.

T = Temperature.

N = Number of passes for a particular vehicle.

k1, k2, k3 = Calibration constants.

1 2 3 10k k k

z

r

p = k T N

ε

ε
188

Elastic recoverable strain, R, from mechanistic primary response calculations in the MEPDG is 

used to compute a corresponding plastic irrecoverable strain, P, by means of the ratio between 

these two strains in figure 157 rearranged in figure 158.

Figure 158. Equation. Plastic irrecoverable strain.

First, the strain ratio, which can be found specifically from laboratory tests, is equated to the 

same ratio that is used in the MEPDG (see figure 159). Figure 160 illustrates how the power law 

form that represents the laboratory flow number test is substituted for P in figure 159.

Figure 159. Equation. Equivalence assumed between laboratory performance and MEPDG 

mechanistic-empirical model formulation.

Figure 160. Equation. Equating laboratory test power law permanent deformation 

parameters with MEPDG mechanistic-empirical model formulation.

Next, it is necessary to produce the equivalent laboratory-based recoverable strain from the lab 

test in figure 160 using the dynamic modulus master curves of the mixtures and the deviator 

stresses applied in the flow number tests, as shown in figure 161.

Figure 161. Equation. Derivation of recoverable strain for MEDPG mechanistic-empirical 

permanent deformation model based on applied stress in flow number test and dynamic 

modulus. 

The dynamic modulus of HMA is sensitive to confining pressure as well as to other variables. 

Thus, the unconfined dynamic modulus would not be entirely appropriate to use in figure 161

when the confined flow number tests are being used in this approach. Kim et al. quantified the 

sensitivity of dynamic modulus to confining pressure, as shown in figure 162, where modulus 

increases in the high-temperature, low-frequency region of the dynamic modulus master 

curve.(92) Based on this data, it was assumed that dynamic modulus increases by a factor of 2 

at 147 °F (64 °C) and frequency is equivalent to the load pulse in the flow number test.

ε

ε

1 2 3 10k k k ε p = ε r × kz T N

ε

r MEPDG

p

LabTest r

p





 



  =



 





ε

ε

ε

ε

1 2 3 10k k k

z

LabTest r

b

k T N aN  =



 





ε

| E*| r

σ

ε =
189

1 MPa = 145 psi

Figure 162. Graph. Dynamic modulus versus reduced frequency.(92)

The depth correction factor kz in figure 160 was ignored in the following derivations, and 

the elastic recoverable strain term determined from the laboratory flow number tests was 

incorporated into the modified power law multiplier term a', as shown in figure 163.

Figure 163. Equation. Equating laboratory test power law permanent deformation 

parameters with MEPDG mechanistic-empirical model formulation (continued from 

figure 160).

From figure 163, it can be determined that the exponent on the power law b fit to the flow 

number data can be used as k3 in the MEPDG. The temperature term was also left alone in this 

approach because laboratory tests were only conducted at 147 °F (64 °C), and the value k2 = 

1.506 in the MEPDG was calibrated with more temperature conditions. Finally, the value for k1

was determined using the modified power law multiplier a', k2, and the temperature of the flow 

number test in degrees Fahrenheit, as illustrated in figure 164.

Figure 164. Equation. Derivation of k1 term for MEPDG mechanistic-empirical model for 

rutting based on laboratory test conditions

Table 83 shows all of the power law coefficients fit to flow numbers, modulus, and strain values 

used to determine the mixture specific k1 and k3 for the MEPDG, shown in table 84.

( ) 1 2 3 ' 10k k k

LabTest z

b a N = k T N















 =1 1.506

' log TFNa k
190

Table 83. Modulus, recoverable strain, and permanent strain curve power law coefficients 

for mix-specific MEPDG rutting predictions

Mix

64 °C 

Modulus 

(kPa)

Recoverable Strain

(microstrain)

Power Law Coefficients Fit to Flow Number Data

69/827 kPa 6.9/207 kPa

6.9 kPa 

Confinement

69 kPa 

Confinement a b a b

Lane 2 180,594 1,146 2,290 1329.9 0.446 — —

Lane 3 253,465 817 1,631 2920.7 0.309 — —

Lane 4 164,323 1,260 2,516 3106.6 0.265 — —

Lane 5 365,015 567 1,133 2730.9 0.320 — —

Lane 6 125,926 1,644 3,284 4181.0 0.253 — —

Lane 8 192,150 1,077 2,152 2228.4 0.358 803.9968 0.385196

Lane 9 125,802 1,645 3,287 3463.6 0.258 1638.743 0.225394

Lane 10 293,289 706 1,410 2464.8 0.323 551.3707 0.397649

Lane 11 181,215 1,142 2,282 3920.9 0.226 1568.197 0.219232

Lane 12 145,914 1,419 2,834 4565.6 0.185 2500.387 0.144622

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 kPa = 0.145 psi 

— Indicates tests were not conducted.

Table 84. Mixture-specific MEPDG rutting model coefficients.

Mix

Coefficients determined from

69/827 kPa tests

Coefficients determined from

6.9/207 kPa tests

k1 k2 k3 k1 k2 k3

Lane 2 -3.620 1.5606 0.4465 — — —

Lane 3 -3.130 1.5606 0.3093 — — —

Lane 4 -3.293 1.5606 0.2651 — — —

Lane 5 -3.001 1.5606 0.3196 — — —

Lane 6 -3.279 1.5606 0.2530 — — —

Lane 8 -3.366 1.5606 0.3580 -3.508 1.5606 0.385

Lane 9 -3.362 1.5606 0.2582 -3.383 1.5606 0.225

Lane 10 -3.140 1.5606 0.3226 -3.4917 1.5606 0.398

Lane 11 -3.148 1.5606 0.2262 -3.247 1.5606 0.219

Lane 12 -3.176 1.5606 0.1853 -3.138 1.5606 0.145

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

— Indicates tests were not conducted

Note: MEPDG global calibration values: k1 = -3.354 , k2 = 1.506, and k3 = 0.479.

The same standalone version of the MEPDG described in chapter 4 was used to compute the rut 

depths of the ALF lanes using the mixture-specific coefficients calibrated to the laboratory flow 

number tests. The rut depths for the following conditions were predicted:

• 147 °F (64 °C) rutting in all lanes, no wheel wander.

• 165 °F (74 °C) rutting in the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes, no wheel wander.

• 113 °F (45 °C) rutting in 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes, no wheel wander.

• 66 °F (19 °C) rutting that occurred during fatigue testing in all lanes with wheel wander.
191

Figure 165 illustrates the best and worst rut depth predictions of the 4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes 

using 10 psi (69 kPa) confined flow number tests. Figure 166 illustrates the best and worst rut 

depth predictions of the 5.8-inch (150 mm) ALF lanes using 1 psi (6.9 kPa) confined flow 

number tests. The magnitudes of the predicted rutting at 147 °F (64 °C) are significantly 

improved when compared to the predicted values in figure 82 from the MEPDG using global 

calibrations. Most predictions at 147 °F (64 °C) match well, and only one in figure 165 was 

mediocre. The rutting predictions of the 113 °F (45 °C) ALF tests are shown in figure 167 and 

were all under-predicted by about one-half. Predictions of the 66 °F (19 °C) rut depths were 

much smaller than the measured values and predictions of the 165 °F (74 °C) rut depths were 

much larger. Figure 168 and figure 169 are cross-plots of measured versus predicted rutting at 

two distinct passes: one point during the beginning of loading and one toward the end of loading. 

Predictions from all temperatures using the 10 and 1 psi (69 and 6.9 kPa) flow number data are 

shown in figure 168 and figure 169, respectively. These figures illustrate that more practical, less 

confined flow number tests can provide comparable predictions to more confined tests so long as 

the deviator stresses are adjusted accordingly. Rut depth predictions at temperatures warmer than 

the laboratory characterization were over-predicted and vice-versa. These results also suggest 

rutting predictions using the framework previously described could be improved using flow 

number tests at more than one temperature to better capture the temperature term. Nonetheless, 

this analysis illustrates the value of using mixture-specific inputs in the MEPDG rutting 

framework that NCHRP 9-30A is pursuing.(90)

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 165. Graph. Rut depth versus number of ALF passes for best and worst 

4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Rut Depth, mm

ALF Passes

Lane2-Measured

Lane2-Predicted

Lane4-Measured

Lane4-Predicted
192

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 166. Graph. Rut depth versus number of ALF passes for best and worst 

5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF lanes.

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 167. Graph. Rut depth versus number of ALF passes for 113 °F (45 °C) ALF tests.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000

Rut Depth, mm

ALF Passes

Lane8-Measured

Lane8-Predicted

Lane10-Measured

Lane10-Predicted

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

Rut Depth, mm

ALF Passes

Lane8-Measured

Lane8-Predicted

Lane10-Measured

Lane10-Predicted

Lane11-Measured

Lane11-Predicted
193

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 168. Graph. Predicted rutting in log scale versus measured rutting in log scale using 

10 psi (69 kPa) confined flow number test data at 147 °F (64 °C).

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 169. Graph. Predicted rutting in log scale versus measured rutting in log scale using 

1 psi (6.9 kPa) confined flow number test data at 147 °F (64 °C).

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1 10 100

Predicted Rut Depth, mm

Measured Rut Depth, mm

74C

64C

45C

19C

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1 10 100

Predicted Rut Depth, mm

Measured Rut Depth, mm

64C

45C

19C
194

MIXTURE TESTS FOR FATIGUE CRACKING

Texas Transportation Institute Overlay Tester

Zhou et al. described a characterization methodology developed at the Texas Transportation 

Institute (TTI) originally intended to characterize the reflection crack resistance of HMA overlay

composite specimens capable of including geosynthetic.(93) A schematic of the overlay tester 

(OT) is shown in figure 1701, where an HMA specimen is bonded between a fixed plate and 

moveable plate with a 0.08-inch (2-mm) gap that opens and closes to simulate the movements of 

underlying joints or cracks. The opening and closing is computer-controlled in a cyclic manner 

where the magnitude of the opening displacement is 0.025 inches (0.63 mm) in a triangular 

waveform lasting 10 s and then repeated. In addition to characterizing reflection crack resistance, 

Zhou et al. proposed that the methodology can potentially be used to screen mixtures for fatigue 

crack resistance.(93)

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 170. Illustration. Side view of OT showing fixed and moveable horizontal plates.(93)

ALF cores were taken from the 4-inch (100-mm) test sections and shared with TTI staff for 

OT characterization in early 2006. The number of cycles to fully propagate a crack through the 

field cores was measured at 66 °F (19 °C) and a cyclic opening displacement of 0.019 inches 

(0.48 mm). The results provided in table 85 show polymer modified binders are more resistant 

than unmodified binders. The fiber mixture was eventually tested and required 110 cycles to 

failure, which is inconsistent with the fatigue-resistant performance under ALF. This is 

perplexing but is also corroborated by axial cyclic fatigue tests not being able to reflect the 

beneficial aspects of the fiber modification but still being able to capture the fatigue resistance 

from polymer modification.

Table 85. ALF 4-inch (100-mm) field core performance in TTI OT.

(93)

Binder

Number of Cycles to Full 

Fracture in TTI OT

Lane 2, PG70-22 60

Lane 3, air blown 80

Lane 4, SBS-LG 1,890

Lane 5, CR-TB 890

Lane 6, terpolymer 1,120

 

 1Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply Transportation 

Research Board, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
195

IDT Strength—ALF Cores

Following construction, 5.8-inch (150-mm) diameter field cores were taken from locations far 

apart from one another within each lane and trimmed to a sample 2 inches (50 mm) thick, except 

the CR-AZ mixture from the top of lane 1. The samples were tested for IDT strength following 

AASHTO T 322 at 66 °F (19 °C), and results are presented in table 86.

(94) There is larger 

variation in IDT strength due to the presence of the different binders but less variation in 

failure strain. 

Table 86. IDT strength test results, post-construction (incomplete dataset).

Mix and Binder

IDT Strength (kPa) Failure Tensile Strain (microstrain)

Replicates Avg. Std. Dev. Replicates Avg. Std. Dev.

Lane 1 top CR-AZ 1,241 402 — 821 593 980 1,817 — 1,398 592

Lane 1 bottom PG70-22 284 — — 284 — 1,621 — — 1,621 —

Lane 2 PG70-22 — — — — — — — — — —

Lane 3 Air blown — — — — — — — — — —

Lane 4 SBS-LG 1,127 — — 1,127 — 1,184 — — 1,184 —

Lane 5 CR-TB 906 860 1,008 925 76 — 1,623 2244 1,933 439

Lane 6 Terpolymer 821 — — 821 — 1,242 — — 1,242 —

Lane 7 Fiber 1,251 1,279 1,395 1,308 76 1,932 2,151 1666 1,916 243

Lane 8 PG70-22 1,242 1,299 1,241 1,261 33 1,912 2,163 1869 1,981 159

Lane 9 SBS 64-40 554 496 604 551 54 1,544 1,516 1219 1,426 180

Lane 10 Air blown 797 968 1,073 946 139 1,586 1,319 1694 1,533 193

Lane 11 SBS-LG 1,071 899 — 985 122 1,504 1,560 — 1,532 40

Lane 12 Terpolymer 865 875 — 870 7 1,335 1,292 — 1,313 30

1 kPa = 0.145 psi 

— Indicates tests were not conducted.

The post-construction data were incomplete, so a more complete round of coring and testing was 

executed toward the end of the full-scale ALF fatigue cracking loading. Three cores were taken 

from every lane, and the bottom lift was trimmed to approximately 2 inches (50 mm). Table 87

presents the IDT strength and air void content so more clear comparisons can be made across 

lane types having the same binder but different density and thickness. The data are plotted in 

figure 171. 
196

Table 87. IDT strength test results and air void content, bottom lift only (2006 complete 

dataset).

Mix and Binder

100-mm HMA Sections 150-mm HMA Sections

IDT Strength (kPa)

Air Void Content 

(percent) IDT Strength (kPa)

Air Void Content 

(percent)

Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev.

SBS 64-40 — — — — 512 29 3.73 0.37

CR-AZ (top) 670 25 5.49 0.37 — — — —

Air blown 762 32 6.35 0.12 928 21 4.02 0.42

Terpolymer 762 20 7.12 0.28 783 23 4.64 0.18

SBS-LG 827 41 6.15 0.90 876 71 4.56 1.65

CR-TB 867 35 5.22 0.09 — — — —

PG70-22 (bottom, CR-AZ) 959 31 5.06 0.53 — — — —

Fiber 988 37 7.20 0.03 — — — —

PG70-22 1,152 87 8.04 0.19 956 76 4.41 0.12

1 mm = 0.039 inches

1 kPa = 0.145 psi 

— Indicates tests were not conducted.

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

Figure 171. Graph. IDT strength and corresponding air void content. 

Dynamic Modulus |E*| and Phase Angle

The dynamic modulus and phase angle from the plant-produced mixtures, lab-produced 

mixtures, and field cores are summarized at key temperature and frequency conditions of 66 and 

136 °F (19 and 58 °C) both at 0.1 and 10 Hz. The 66 °F (19 °C) data are provided in this section, 

and the data at 136 °F (58 °C) pertaining to the ALF rutting tests are in the previous section. 

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-1400 10

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

SBS 64-40 CR-AZ (Top) Air Blown Terpolymer SBS-LG CR-TB Control 

(Bott. 

CR-AZ)

Fiber Control

Air Void Content (%)

IDT Strength (kPa)

100 mm HMA Sections 150 mm HMA Sections
197

Only cores from the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes could be taken and plant-produced fiber mix was 

no longer available, so only lab-produced mix is represented. Recall from chapter 4 that the 

effective frequency of the ALF wheel at various depth and temperatures was found between 

18 and 3.1 Hz. The temperature of these laboratory tests matched the 66 °F (19 °C) ALF fatigue 

cracking test.

The dynamic modulus and phase angle at 66 °F (19 °C) for 10 and 0.1 Hz are shown in table 88

and table 89, respectively. Contrary to the 136 °F (58 °C) tests, there is no strong trend as to the 

denser cores being softer or stiffer than the gyratory-compacted specimens. There is also no 

strong trend where plant-produced mixtures are more or less stiff than the lab-produced 

counterparts. The |E*|×sin is calculated similar to the binder intermediate Superpave® PG 

specification parameter. The modulus-only data at 10 and 0.1 Hz are plotted in figure 172 and 

figure 173 respectively, with both showing variation in stiffness. The |E*|/sin loss modulus data 

at 10 and 0.1 Hz are plotted in figure 174 and figure 175. The ranking of the |E*| stiffness and 

|E*|/sin are essentially the same whether plant-produced, lab-produced, or field cores, while the 

error bars representing one standard deviation diminish the differences in mean stiffness. 

Multiplying by sin at both frequencies tends to normalize the stiffness and diminish the 

differences between the mixtures.

Table 88. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz.

Binder Specimen Type

|E*| (MPa) Phase Angle (degrees) |E*|×sin

Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev.

PG70-22

Lab-produced 7,847 515 19.4 0.4 2,605 134

Plant-produced 7,226 635 19.8 0.4 2,447 174

Core, lane 8 6,531 208 23.4 0.2 2,593 98

Fiber Lab-produced 7,864 428 19.3 0.0 2,601 138

Air blown

Lab-produced 6,561 842 20.2 0.4 2,265 262

Plant-produced 6,518 697 20.5 0.2 2,279 224

Core, lane 10 6,068 1101 22.4 0.2 2,313 424

CR-TB Lab-produced 4,536 162 22.1 0.2 1,708 47

Plant-produced 4,347 74 23.9 1.0 1,759 52

SBS-LG

Lab-produced 4,467 113 25.4 0.7 1,912 33

Plant-produced 3,591 1406 27.6 4.1 1,463 525

Core, lane 11 4,766 579 25.2 0.4 2,028 217

CR-AZ Lab-produced 4,251 424 28.1 1.4 1,996 123

Plant-produced 4,168 327 23.7 0.5 1,675 101

Terpolymer

Lab-produced 3,726 217 29.6 0.4 1,839 84

Plant-produced 4,126 378 26.5 0.3 1,843 155

Core, lane 12 4,268 231 29.2 1.1 2,078 74

SBS 64-40

Lab-produced 1,723 216 32.9 1.6 931 86

Plant-produced 2,694 133 30.6 0.2 1,371 61

Core, lane 9 2,355 99 32.0 0.2 1,247 53

1 MPa = 145 psi

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
198

Table 89. Dynamic modulus and phase angle at 66 °F (19 °C) and 0.1 Hz.

Binder Specimen Type

|E*| (MPa) Phase Angle (degrees) |E*|×sin

Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev. Average Std. Dev.

PG70-22

Lab-produced 2,211 171 31.0 0.5 1,140 72

Plant-produced 2,059 152 31.0 0.3 1,059 69

Core, lane 8 1,553 20 34.4 1.0 878 31

Fiber Lab-produced 2,271 89 31.7 0.4 1,192 48

Air blown

Lab-produced 1,997 188 27.9 0.3 936 81

Plant-produced 1,927 182 29.0 0.1 934 87

Core, lane 10 1,709 348 29.0 0.6 827 158

CR-TB Lab-produced 1,353 30 27.8 0.0 630 14

Plant-produced 1,202 68 30.3 1.0 605 17

SBS-LG

Lab-produced 962 62 31.9 0.9 508 22

Plant-produced 789 368 31.7 1.0 361 197

Core, lane 11 1,096 133 33.0 0.6 596 63

CR-AZ Lab-produced 1,022 129 32.8 1.6 553 77

Plant-produced 1,060 99 31.2 1.0 548 39

Terpolymer

Lab-produced 660 58 31.7 0.2 347 29

Plant-produced 931 106 30.8 0.3 477 51

Core, lane 12 795 104 34.8 0.7 453 51

SBS 64-40

Lab-produced 324 36 30.7 0.6 165 18

Plant-produced 516 30 31.2 0.2 268 15

Core, lane 9 478 31 31.7 0.7 251 14

1 MPa = 145 psi

1 MPa = 145 psi 

Figure 172. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz. 

δ

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*| Dynamic Modulus 19C & 10Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes
199

1 MPa = 145 psi 

Figure 173. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| at 66 °F (19 °C) and 0.1 Hz. 

1 MPa = 145 psi 

Figure 174. Graph. |E*|sin at 66 °F (19 °C) and 10 Hz. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*| Dynamic Modulus 19C & 0.1Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*|xSin(d) 19C & 10Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes

δ
200

1 MPa = 145 psi 

Figure 175. Graph. |E*|sin at 66 °F (19 °C) and 0.1 Hz. 

Axial Cyclic Fatigue

Few conventional flexural beam fatigue tests (AASHTO TP 8) were conducted before equipment 

malfunctions forced the laboratory to pursue alternate methodologies.(95) Several research tasks 

within NCHRP 9-19 developed advanced, fully mechanistic models for AC, giving a 

comprehensive description of permanent deformation and cracking.(96) A large portion of the 

NCHRP 9-19 advanced models’ framework was based on viscoelastic continuum damage 

(VECD) theories that describe the manner in which small microcracks develop, coalesce, and 

grow into macrocracks.(97,98) Research has shown contemporary VECD for asphalt offers several 

advantages.(92) The primary advantage is the utilization of a single damage characteristic curve, 

which can be calibrated using less effort in the laboratory than classical beam fatigue tests. 

VECD test specimens can be fabricated in the Superpave® gyratory compactor. Once the damage 

characteristic curve is found, it can theoretically be used to describe the damage and cracking 

response at any temperature and under any generalized inputs whether stress-control or straincontrol, cyclic or monotonic, or random. The reader is encouraged to explore the literature cited 

in this section to observe the predictive capabilities that show that the theory and experimental 

evidence agree quite well.

Rigorously complete VECD has been used to develop methodologies for multiple cycle fatigue 

tests with the advantages previously described but with more practicality from less mathematical

and computational overhead and decreased laboratory characterization burden. (See references 

92, 96, 97, and 99–103.) Another significant advantage of this approach is the characteristics of 

the specimen geometry, stresses, strains, and temperatures make it able to be integrated into 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Control 70-

22

Fiber Air Blown CR-TB SBS-LG CR-AZ Terpolymer SBS 64-40

|E*|xSin(d) 19C & 0.1Hz [Mpa]

Lab Produced

Plant Produced

Core 150 mm Lanes

δ
201

AMPT equipment already implemented in the broader community for dynamic modulus and 

flow number performance tests.

(101)

The ALF mixtures were characterized using axial DT-compression push-pull fatigue 

characterization tests on laboratory-produced specimens fabricated in the gyratory compactor 

at 7.0 percent ±0.5 percent air void content. The test temperature was 66 °F (19 °C). More 

details can be found in Kutay et al., but the cylindrical test specimens were a standard 5.8-inch 

(150-mm) height and a smaller 3-inch (75-mm) diameter.

(100) This gave a narrower aspect ratio 

because the specimens were bonded at the ends to metal platens to avoid end effects caused by 

the complex stress states near the fixed ends (see figure 176). LVDTs were mounted on the 

specimen over the center portion, where the axial stress is essentially one dimension, simple 

uniaxial. Subsequent research found this specimen geometry was not necessary and standard 

AMPT-size specimens are acceptable. The equipment used to conduct the test was a universal 

load frame because AMPT equipment was not readily available at the time. Fixtures and grips 

are required to connect the test specimen to the load frame, effectively eliminating eccentricity to 

avoid a torque or stress moment in the test specimen, thereby providing uniaxial stress conditions 

in the center portion (see figure 177).

Figure 176. Photo. Gyratory-compacted specimen and core test specimen with tension 

platens glued to each end. 
202

Figure 177. Photo. Instrumented tension mounted in universal test machine. 

Two types of sinusoidal loading at 10 Hz were used: stress control and actuator strain control. 

The stress-controlled tests applied a zero-mean stress where the magnitude of the applied peak 

stress (in both tension and compression states) was 88 psi (610 kPa) or peak-to-peak 177 psi 

(1,220 kPa). The average predicted tensile stresses at the bottom of the ALF HMA were 312.2 

and 208.4 psi (2,153 and 1,437 kPa) for the 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) ALF lanes,

respectively. It may be inferred that the actual tensile stresses were larger. However, the applied 

stress level in the laboratory provided reasonable test duration and was of a relevant order of 

magnitude. Table 90 summarizes the initial strains measured in the stress-controlled tests. 

Healing characteristics of the modified and unmodified binders were also characterized in the 

stress-controlled tests. Rest periods of 10 and 30 min were allowed at the 1,000th and 6,000th 

cycles, respectively. After that, the loading continued until failure. The analysis clearly showed 

that healing characteristics of polymer modified binders such as the SBS-LG, terpolymer, and 

CR-TB were more pronounced (better) than those of PG70-22, air blown, and fiber. The polymer 

modified binders regained more stiffness after the rest period than the unmodified binders.

Table 90. Initial strain levels of ALF mixtures in stress-controlled fatigue tests.

Mixture

Initial LVDT Strain in StressControl Tests (microstrain)

Fiber 93

SBS-LG 208

Terpolymer 265

CR-TB 202

PG70-22 105

Air blown 124

SBS 64-40 722

During the displacement-controlled tests, the strain level at the actuator or the platen-to-platen 

strain was controlled instead of the on-specimen mounted LVDT strain ( lvdt). This was chosen 

because the actuator may easily become unstable and apply very high loads for a fraction of a 

second, possibly damaging the specimen and other LVDTs if the test was controlled by an 

ε
203

on-specimen LVDT that became dislodged. The strain level at the actuator ( act) was selected 

such that the initial LVDT strain ( lvdt) on the specimen was 300 microstrain for each mixture. 

The values of act were based on the strain ratios (Rε = act/ lvdt) computed during the stresscontrolled tests, which were run before the strain-controlled tests. It was observed during the 

stress-controlled tests that Rε ranged from 1 to 3 for the different asphalt mixtures. However, the 

ratio (Rε) was consistent among the three replicates of each mixture. As a result of act-controlled 

tests, the LVDT strains ( lvdt) actually increased during testing. Therefore, the tests were not 

truly strain-controlled. Consequently, comparing the number of cycles to failure (Nf) may not be 

an accurate comparison between the specimens, since they were not tested at exactly the same 

strain level throughout the test. On the other hand, the accuracy of analysis based on VECD was 

not compromised as a result of not running truly strain-controlled tests.

Figure 178 and figure 179 illustrate typical loss in dynamic modulus and changes in phase angle 

measured during the stress-controlled and actuator strain-controlled fatigue tests, respectively. In 

general, the fatigue curves of both stress- and strain-controlled tests exhibit similar change with 

increasing loading cycles, where a decrease in modulus and an increase in phase angle are seen 

until the localization of damage into a large macrocrack and complete failure. Reduction in 

modulus and increases in phase angle are associated with damage and microcracking due to 

fatigue. Rest periods and healing are seen in the stress-controlled tests, where modulus increases 

and phase angle decreases at those prescribed cycles. When the localization occurs in a stresscontrolled tests, the modulus decreases sharply and the specimen breaks apart immediately. After 

localization occurs in an actuator strain-controlled test, the specimen rarely breaks apart and the 

test continues at a very low |E*|. Therefore, the selection of point of failure is slightly more 

difficult in strain-controlled than in stress-controlled tests.

1 MPa = 145 psi 

Figure 178. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| and phase angle versus number of fatigue cycles 

during a stress-controlled fatigue test.

ε

ε

ε ε ε

ε

ε
204

1 MPa = 145 psi 

Figure 179. Graph. Dynamic modulus |E*| and phase angle versus number of fatigue cycles 

during a strain-controlled fatigue test.

Several different fatigue failure criteria were identified based on historical asphalt fatigue 

research summarized by Kutay et al.(100) The simplest definition of failure is the point where 

half of the initial modulus is lost. Other methodologies consider dissipated energy lost due to 

damage. The energy ratio (R) in figure 180 and dissipated energy ratio (DER) in figure 181

(from figure 182) quantify the manner in which fatigue damage is dissipated from cycle to 

cycle in such fatigue tests. This is similar to the foundation for the Superpave® intermediatetemperature fatigue cracking parameter, |G*|×sin , described in chapter 1.

Figure 180. Equation. Energy ratio.

Figure 181. Equation. DER.

Figure 182. Equation. Calculation of dissipated energy from phase angle, stress, and strain.

Where:

N = Number of cycles.

Winitial = Dissipated strain energy computed at the first cycle.

WN = Dissipated strain energy computed at cycle N.

WN+1 = Dissipated strain energy computed at cycle N+1. o

N = Peak stress measured at the Nth cycle. o

N = Peak strain measured at the Nth cycle.

N = Phase angle measured at the Nth cycle.

δ

R = Winitial * N

WN

DER = WN+1 – WN

WN

WN = π σ0

N ε0N sin(φN)

σ

ε

φ
205

In stress-controlled tests, the failure point is defined when R is at its peak value. However, in 

strain-controlled tests, the R versus N relationship is linear, and the failure point is defined when 

the curve sharply deviates from a linear line. The failure point based on the DER is taken where 

the DER sharply increases from a plateau value. 

When stress and strain of viscoelastic materials, such as AC, are plotted together, an ovalshaped hysteresis loop is observed due to the phase lag between stress and strain. The area within 

this hysteresis loop is proportional to the dissipated strain energy. Fatigue failure was also 

identified by quantifying the quality of the hysteresis loop. In specimens with growing damage 

microcracking (no macrocracks), the hysteresis loop changes but is still smooth. However, when 

a fracture or macrocrack has occurred, the shape of the hysteresis loop becomes distorted. The 

standard error from best-fit curves to the measured sinusoidal stress and strain was calculated 

and failure was taken as the point where this value jumps from the baseline during the test.

Table 91 summarizes the fatigue life of the ALF mixtures based on the various definitions of 

failure in both the stress-controlled and actuator strain-controlled tests. Failure from the different 

criteria is generally close to each other under stress-controlled tests, and the ranking does not 

change with different criteria. However, there was a wider variation in fatigue life from the

strain-controlled tests, and the 50 percent reduction in |E*| criterion in general showed failure 

occurring sooner than the energy ratios and hysteresis loop distortion. Stiff mixtures performed 

better in stress-controlled tests and softer mixtures performed better in strain-controlled tests. 

The softest mixture, SBS 64-40, failed very fast in stress-controlled tests. In strain control, the 

SBS 64-40 mixture lost modulus very early but then exhibited a nearly flat curve, which resulted 

in no discernable trends for the energy ratios or hysteresis loops. In stiff mixtures, initial 

observed strains resulting from the applied load level in the stress-controlled tests were much 

lower than the initial 300 microstrain that was used in the actuator strain-controlled tests (see 

table 90). As a result, the number of cycles to failure for the stiff mixtures in stress-controlled 

tests was much higher than in strain-controlled tests. Conversely, initial strains at the soft 

mixtures resulting from the same load level were much higher than those of stiff mixtures; as a 

result, they failed quickly at the stress-controlled tests. Most importantly, table 91 shows a 

reversal in ranking depending on the mode of control, which is similar to what was observed in 

the binder tests described in chapter 5. 

Table 91. Number of cycles to fatigue failure from different failure criteria.

Mixture

Energy Ratio

Dissipated Energy 

Ratio

Hysteresis Loop 

Distortion 50 Percent Modulus Reduction

Control

ACT

Control Control

ACT

Control Control

ACT

Control Control

ACT

Control

Control

VECD

SBS 64-40 900 N/A 883 N/A 833 N/A 370 33,100 5,071,587

Terpolymer 3,893 128,250 4,659 133,450 5,243 127,800 2,660 88,500 1,333,521

CR-TB 5,560 31,434 6,659 31,068 6,933 31,601 2,510 6,168 59,655

SBS LG 4,893 14,500 5,942 13,567 8,393 13,367 4,333 1,875 167,880

Air blown 18,093 3,050 17,926 2,675 23,093 2,833 15,760 2,150 11,855

Fiber 50,593 1,063 60,093 1,000 63,926 1,000 44,426 1,000 25,119

PG70-22 25,093 750 28,260 688 31,426 563 24,593 438 12,589

N/A = Not available.

σ ε σ ε σ ε σ ε ε
206

The last column in table 91 provides the fatigue life using VECD principles based on damage 

characteristic curves to compute fatigue life idealized in truly strain-controlled conditions (see 

details in Kutay et al.).

(100) This methodology provides a correction for the transient on-specimen 

strains in the actuator strain-controlled tests. In other words, the VECD approach allows a 

somewhat faster but significantly more practical actuator strain-controlled test to determine 

the inherent fatigue properties, which are then used to predict the fatigue life as if the test was 

conducted in strain control over the center portion of the test specimen. The ranking between

the actuator strain-controlled tests and the VECD true strain-controlled computations changes 

slightly, but the unmodified binders are still less fatigue-resistant than the modified binders. 

For the group mixes in the 4-inch (100-mm)-thick ALF lanes, the fiber mix is better than the 

control binder and the air blown mixture is the worst performer. The terpolymer binder is still 

the best but with significantly larger fatigue life, and the SBS-LG binder is now better than the 

CR-TB binder. 

The laboratory performance of the fiber mixture is particularly perplexing in both stress- and 

strain-controlled testing and does not reflect the high level of fatigue cracking resistance 

observed in ALF. This is also corroborated by the TTI OT. In stress-controlled testing, the 

performance closer to the stiffer unmodified binders exhibited better fatigue resistance. In 

strain-controlled testing, the fiber mixture performed worse, like the unmodified binders. 

Additional research is needed to explain why this performance is not captured in the laboratory.

Mixture EWF and Calculated CTOD

Asphalt mixtures can be characterized using the same methodologies as binder for EWF and 

CTOD properties because of the relative simplicity of the specimen geometry and loading. 

DENT specimens were 4.41 inches tall by 3.31 inches wide by 2.02 inches thick (113 mm tall by 

85 mm wide by 52 mm thick) and cut from Superpave® gyratory compactor specimens made to 

7 percent ±0.5 percent air void content. The ligament lengths were between 4 and 1.4 inches 

(100 and 35 mm). Figure 183 shows a test specimen. The temperature and displacement rates

were 66 °F (19 °C) at 0.02 inches/min (0.5 mm/min).
207

Figure 183. Photo. Asphalt mixture DENT specimen for EWF and CTOD characterization. 

Tests were conducted at five ligament lengths, each with two replicates. An example of the 

fracture energy dependence on ligament length from the air-blown mixture is shown in 

figure 184, which is comparable to the binder characteristic plotted in figure 115. Mixtures with 

modified asphalt binders indicate better performance than unmodified binders for both EWF and 

CTOD. The fiber mixture was tested, but the fracture energy results at the different ligament 

lengths were very erratic. The overall repeatability of the test on mixtures is less than desirable 

for an implementable, routine test. At least 10 specimens have to be tested for a reliable number,

although there is a trade-off between number of replicates and number of ligament lengths. 

Nonetheless, the relevance of the binder-based version of EWF and CTOD tests is reinforced 

because there is an agreeable ranking between the binder properties and mixture properties, as 

shown in table 92. Binder EWF is about 10 times that of mixture, and binder CTOD is about 

20 times that of mixture.
208

1 kJ/m2 = 23,730 lb-ft2/s2

1 mm = 0.0309 inches

Figure 184. Graph. Fracture energy versus ligament length from mixture DENT testing. 

Table 92. EWF and CTOD properties of asphalt aggregate mixtures.

Mixture

EWF (kJ/m2) CTOD (mm)

Binder Mix Binder Mix

SBS-LG 10.8 1.02 24.0 1.25

Terpolymer 4.70 0.85 15.7 1.14

CR-TB 4.40 0.60 8.5 0.57

PG70-22 7.90 0.97 7.5 0.71

Air blown 7.80 0.70 6.8 0.55

1 kJ/m2 = 23,730 lb-ft2/s2

1 mm = 0.039 inches

EVALUATION OF MIXTURE TESTS’ ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE 

PERFORMANCE 

The performance of the ALF mixtures in the laboratory are compared to the full-scale ALF 

performance using the composite statistical scoring outlined in chapter 3. Mixture tests that 

have the strongest indicator of ALF performance (highest correct composite score) are identified 

so as to narrow down one test for permanent deformation and fatigue cracking for use in 

chapter 7, where the individual binder parameters are compared against both full-scale ALF 

performance and laboratory mixture performance. 

Rutting and Permanent Deformation

Comparisons for rutting are particularly challenging given the similarities in rut depth of the 

ALF lanes and the notable anomalous performance of lane 6 (terpolymer). Table 93 lists the

laboratory tests and conditions that are compared to ALF rut depth at 25,000 passes and also 

identifies whether the trend should be proportional or inverse.
209

Table 93. Rutting comparisons made between laboratory and full scale ALF performance.

Test Criteria Conditions

Expected 

Trend

HWT 64 °C; number of passes to 10-mm rut depth Plant-produced mix Inverse

French PRT 74 °C; rut depth at 60,000 passes Plant-produced mix Proportional

SST RSCH

74 °C; number of cycles to 2 percent 

permanent strain Plant-produced mix Inverse

64 °C; permanent shear strain at 200 cycles

Cores (top) from lanes 150-mm thick Proportional

Cores (bottom) from lanes 150-mm thick Proportional

64 °C; Number of cycles to 2 percent 

permanent shear strain

Cores (top) from lanes 150-mm thick Inverse

Cores (bottom) from lanes 150 mm thick Inverse

Dynamic 

modulus, 

|E*|

58 °C, 10 Hz

Lab-produced

Proportional

Plant-produced

Cores

58 °C, 0.1 Hz

Lab-produced

Plant-produced

Cores

|E*|/sin 58 °C, 10 Hz

Lab-produced

Proportional

Plant-produced

Cores

58 °C, 0.1 Hz

Lab-produced

Plant-produced

Cores

Flow 

number

64 °C; Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles; 

fixed air voids 69/523 kPa Lab-produced Proportional

64 °C; permanent strain at 5,000 cycles; 

ALF air voids 69/827 kPa Lab-produced Proportional

64 °C; permanent strain at 5,000 cycles; 

ALF air voids 6.9/207 kPa Lab-produced Proportional

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 mm = 0.039 inches

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

The composite statistical score in figure 185 is computed for each laboratory-ALF comparison.

Figure 185. Equation. Composite statistical score.

Where:

pRegression = Significance of regression slope.

|τKendall| = Absolute value of Kendall’s tau parameter.

pKendall = Significance of Kendall’s tau parameter.

|R| = Absolute value of correlation coefficient.

Results from this analysis are provided in table 94 for rutting comparisons in the 4-inch 

(100-mm) lanes including lane 6 (terpolymer), in table 95 for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes excluding 

lane 6, and in table 96 for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes. In addition to the composite score, the 

direction of the trend is compared to the expected. The tests are sorted based on whether they 

first capture the correct trend direction and then again based on the composite statistical score. 

The individual components of the composite statistical score are provided for clarity.

δ
210

Table 94. Statistical comparison of laboratory permanent deformation tests and 

ALF rutting for 4-inch (100-mm) lanes, including lane 6 terpolymer.

Laboratory Test

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ 

(percent) R

Expected 

Trend 

Direction

Correct 

Trend 

Direction

Composite 

Score

French PRT 88 0.14 55 0.60 Proportional Yes 0.54

69/827 kPa flow number ALF voids 

(higher density SBS-LG and CR-TB) 56 0.20 64 0.40 Proportional Yes 0.45

|E*| 10 Hz lab-produced 46 -0.05 50 -0.28 Inverse Yes 0.32

|E*|/sin 10 Hz lab-produced 40 -0.05 50 -0.24 Inverse Yes 0.30

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz plant-produced 33 -0.07 50 -0.23 Inverse Yes 0.28

|E*|/sin 10 Hz plant-produced 31 0.07 50 -0.21 Inverse Yes 0.27

|E*| 0.1 Hz plant-produced 13 0.20 64 -0.09 Inverse Yes 0.27

|E*| 10 Hz plant-produced 22 0.07 50 -0.15 Inverse Yes 0.23

|E*| 0.1 Hz lab-produced 16 0.14 61 0.09 Inverse No 0.25

HWT 5 0.24 72 0.03 Inverse No 0.26

69/827 kPa flow number ALF voids 

(lower density SBS-LG and CR-TB) 28 -0.20 64 -0.19 Proportional No 0.33

74 °C SST RSCH plant-produced 60 0.05 50 0.38 Inverse No 0.38

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz lab-produced 56 0.33 81 0.35 Inverse No 0.51

69/523 kPa flow number fixed voids 67 -0.47 86 -0.49 Proportional No 0.62

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Table 95. Statistical comparison of laboratory permanent deformation tests and 

ALF rutting for 4-inch (100–mm) lanes, excluding lane 6 terpolymer 

Laboratory Test

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ 

(percent) R

Expected 

Trend 

Direction

Correct 

Trend 

Direction

Composite 

Score

74 °C SST RSCH plant-produced 92 -0.33 77% -0.76 Inverse Yes 0.70

69/827 kPa flow number ALF voids 

(higher density SBS-LG & CR-TB) 83 0.40 76% 0.72 Proportional Yes 0.68

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz plant-produced 60 -0.20 59% -0.50 Inverse Yes 0.47

69/827 kPa flow number ALF voids 

(lower density SBS-LG & CR-TB) 38 0.20 59 0.30 Proportional Yes 0.37

|E*| 0.1 Hz plant-produced 16 0.20 59 -0.12 Inverse Yes 0.27

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz lab-produced 10 0.07 50 -0.07 Inverse Yes 0.19

|E*| 0.1 Hz lab-produced 4 0.07 50 -0.02 Inverse Yes 0.16

French PRT 11 -0.14 72 -0.07 Proportional No 0.26

69/523 kPa flow number fixed voids 21 -0.20 59 0.17 Proportional No 0.29

|E*|/sin 10 Hz lab-produced 34 0.20 64 0.23 Inverse No 0.35

|E*| 10 Hz lab-produced 46 0.33 77 0.32 Inverse No 0.47

HWT 57 0.47 86 0.40 Inverse No 0.57

|E*|/sin 10 Hz plant-produced 52 0.60 88 0.42 Inverse No 0.61

|E*| 10 Hz plant-produced 63 0.60 88 0.52 Inverse No 0.66

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
211

Table 96. Statistical comparison of laboratory permanent deformation tests and ALF 

rutting for 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes

Laboratory Test

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ 

(percent) R

Expected 

Trend 

Direction

Correct 

Trend 

Direction

Composite 

Score

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz lab-produced 96 -1.00 99 -0.89 Inverse Yes 0.96

69/523 kPa flow number fixed voids 94 0.80 96 0.86 Proportional Yes 0.89

|E*| 0.1 Hz lab-produced 67 -0.60 88 -0.55 Inverse Yes 0.68

74 °C SST RSCH plant-produced 81 -0.20 59 -0.70 Inverse Yes 0.58

|E*| 10 Hz lab-produced 56 -0.20 59 -0.46 Inverse Yes 0.45

69/827 kPa flow number ALF voids 32 0.40 76 0.25 Proportional Yes 0.43

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz plant produced 30 -0.40 76 -0.24 Inverse Yes 0.42

HWT 30 -0.40 76 -0.24 Inverse Yes 0.42

|E*| 0.1 Hz plant-produced 20 -0.40 76 -0.16 Inverse Yes 0.38

6.9/210 kPa flow number ALF voids 18 0.40 76 0.14 Proportional Yes 0.37

|E*|/sin 10 Hz core 7 -0.20 59 -0.05 Inverse Yes 0.23

|E*| 10 Hz plant produced 10 0.00 41 -0.08 Inverse Yes 0.15

|E*|/sin 10 Hz plant produced 9 0.00 41 -0.07 Inverse Yes 0.14

|E*| 10 Hz core 8 0.00 41 -0.07 Inverse Yes 0.14

|E*|/sin 10 Hz lab produced 1 0.00 41 0.00 Inverse Yes 0.10

|E*| 0.1 core 8 0.00 41 0.06 Inverse No 0.14

French PRT 1 -0.20 59 0.01 Proportional No 0.20

64 °C SST RSCH bottom core, strain 

at 20,000 cycles 22 0.00 38 -0.22 Proportional No 0.21

|E*|/sin 0.1 Hz core 33 0.00 41 0.26 Inverse No 0.25

64 °C SST RSHC bottom core, cycles 

to 2 percent strain 46 0.00 38 0.46 Inverse No 0.33

64 °C SST RSCH top core, strain at 

20,000 cycles 85 -0.33 63 -0.85 Proportional No 0.66

64 °C SST RSCH top core, cycles to 

2 percent strain 88 0.33 63 0.88 Inverse No 0.68

1 kPa = 0.145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Overall, the trends are quite weak, which is not unexpected given the similarities of the ALF 

rutting. HWT is not a strong indicator in any of the comparisons. The French PRT exhibits the 

strongest relationship for the thinner 4-inch (100-mm) lanes including lane 6 (terpolymer), but 

the test falls out of favor when that point is excluded and again when rutting in the thicker, 

5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes is considered. Opposite the French PRT, the higher temperature SST 

RSCH tests on plant-produced mix is not a favorable test based on rutting in the thinner, 4-inch 

(100-mm) lanes with lane 6, but is one of the strongest when that point is excluded and again 

when compared to the thicker, 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes. Surprisingly, the cores from the 

5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes tested in SST RSCH are very weak in discriminating rutting 

performance in the 5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes. The abilities of dynamic modulus |E*| and |E*|/sin

are interspersed in all of the comparisons whether at high or low frequencies or from cores, 

plant-produced, or lab-produced mixtures. The flow number test more consistently appears with 

higher scores in all three comparisons depending on the air voids and triaxial stress state. The 

strengths of the binder parameters in chapter 5 will be compared to the full-scale ALF rutting and 

the performance from the flow number tests.

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
212

Finally, it is possible that some of the tests that the analysis identified as poor discriminators may 

be good indicators because the performance is masked by the limited number of data points and 

the low diversity in rutting (see discussion in “Numerical and Statistical Consequences of Layout 

and Construction” section in chapter 3). 

Cracking and Fatigue

The same analysis procedures to rank tests that capture rutting were followed for the laboratory 

tests to identify fatigue cracking. Table 97 lists the laboratory tests and conditions that are 

compared to the number of ALF cycles to achieve 25 percent cracked area. DENT testing on 

fiber mix gave erratic results for EWF and CTOD. Thus, the fiber tests results are removed 

from the comparisons with axial fatigue tests, which is not unreasonable given the perplexing 

performance of the mixtures in TTI OT and axial cyclic fatigue in stress- and strain-control 

previously discussed. Lane 6 (terpolymer) was not removed as there was no justification that 

fatigue cracking suffered from the same effects as rutting given the observed fatigue 

performance and the fact that bottom-up fatigue cracking did not initiate in upper layers that 

had density and water absorption deficiencies, as discussed in chapter 3.

Table 97. Fatigue cracking comparisons made between laboratory and 

full-scale ALF performance.

Test Criteria Conditions Expected Trend

TTI OT 19 °C; cycles to complete fracture Cores Proportional

IDT strength 19 °C; strength Cores* Proportional

|E*|sin

19 °C – 10 Hz

Lab-produced

Inverse

Plant-produced

Cores

19 °C – 0.1 Hz

Lab-produced

Plant-produced

Cores

Axial fatigue 

push-pull 

stress-control

19 °C; Nf energy ratio Lab-produced

Proportional 19 °C; Nf dissipated energy ratio Lab-produced

19 °C; Nf hysteresis loop Lab-produced

19 °C; Nf 50 percent modulus Lab-produced

Axial fatigue 

push-pull 

strain-control

19 °C; Nf energy ratio Lab-produced

Proportional

19 °C; Nf dissipated energy ratio Lab-produced

19 °C; Nf hysteresis loop Lab-produced

19 °C; Nf 50 percent modulus Lab-produced

19 °C VECD; Nf 50 percent 

modulus Lab-produced

Mixture 

DENT testing

EWF Lab-produced Proportional CTOD Lab-produced

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

*Only complete dataset from later field cores in table 87 were used.

The results from the statistical scoring related to 4-inch (100-mm)-thick ALF fatigue cracking 

are shown in table 98. The TTI OT and DENT testing for CTOD agree well with the measured 

fatigue cracking with the two highest scores. The loss modulus |E*|sin of the plant-produced 

mixtures were also identified as fairly strong, but the lab-produced counterparts are weak. IDT 

strength of the mixtures did not provide any meaningful discrimination of fatigue cracking. Of 

δ

δ
213

all the axial fatigue tests, the strain-controlled number of cycles to 50 percent reduction in 

modulus using VECD was the strongest, while the stress-controlled parameters exhibited the 

wrong trends.

Table 98. Statistical comparison of laboratory fatigue cracking tests and ALF fatigue, 

4-inch (100-mm) lanes.

Laboratory Test

1-pReg

(percent)

1-p

(percent) R

Expected 

Trend 

Direction

Correct 

Trend 

Direction

Composite 

Score

TTI OT 100 0.80 96 0.99 Proportional Yes 0.94

CTOD 95 0.80 96 0.87 Proportional Yes 0.89

|E*|sin 10 Hz plant-produced 78 -0.60 93 -0.59 Inverse Yes 0.73

|E*|sin 0.1Hz plant-produced 70 -0.60 93 -0.51 Inverse Yes 0.68

Axial fatigue, strain-control 

50 percent modulus red + VECD 46 0.80 96 0.37 Proportional Yes 0.65

EWF 54 0.40 76 0.44 Proportional Yes 0.53

Axial fatigue, strain-control 

energy ratio 45 0.40 76 0.36 Proportional Yes 0.49

Axial fatigue, strain-control

hysteresis loop quality 44 0.40 76 0.35 Proportional Yes 0.49

Axial fatigue, strain-control

dissipated energy ratio 44 0.40 76 0.35 Proportional Yes 0.49

Axial fatigue, strain control

50 percent modulus red 34 0.20 59 0.27 Proportional Yes 0.35

|E*|sin 0.1 Hz lab-produced 21 -0.14 61 -0.13 Inverse Yes 0.27

|E*|sin 10 Hz lab-produced 1 0.05 50 0.00 Inverse No 0.14

IDT strength 68 -0.14 73 -0.41 Proportional No 0.49

Axial fatigue, stress-control 

50 percent modulus red 85 -0.20 59 -0.74 Proportional No 0.60

Axial fatigue, stress-control

hysteresis loop quality 87 -0.40 76 -0.77 Proportional No 0.70

Axial fatigue, stress control

dissipated energy ratio 87 -0.60 88 -0.77 Proportional No 0.78

Axial fatigue, stress control

energy ratio 90 -0.60 88 -0.81 Proportional No 0.80

The results from the statistical scoring related to 5.8-inch (150-mm)-thick ALF fatigue cracking 

are shown in table 99, and the results are somewhat similar. However, it must be recognized that 

two of the five data points rely on estimates and extrapolation of the ALF fatigue cracking 

measurements, which also introduced very large order-of-magnitude numbers. This, in addition 

to one less available data point creates a much harsher statistical environment than the 4-inch 

(100-mm) ALF fatigue cracking performance. DENT testing for CTOD and EWF agree best 

with the measured fatigue cracking and did not contain SBS 64-40 tests. The loss modulus 

|E*|sin of the plant-produced mixtures was also identified as correct and somewhat stronger of 

the group, but the cores and lab-produced counterparts are weak. The stress-controlled axial 

fatigue tests all exhibited the wrong directions, but the strain-controlled tests were mostly correct 

in the direction of the relationship. SBS 64-40 was notably softer than other mixtures and 

exhibited fatigue cracking under the ALF but exhibited some of the best laboratory performance 

in strain-control using VECD. When this point was taken out of the statistical comparison, the 

strain-controlled VECD tests exhibited strengths.

τK

τK

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
214

Table 99. Statistical comparison of laboratory fatigue cracking tests and ALF fatigue, 

5.8-inch (150-mm) lanes.

Laboratory Test

1-pReg

(percent)

1-p

(percent) R

Expected 

Trend 

Direction

Correct 

Trend 

Direction

Composite 

Score

CTOD 94 1.00 96 0.94 Proportional Yes 0.96

EWF 67 0.67 83 0.67 Proportional Yes 0.71

Axial fatigue, strain-control, 50 percent 

modulus red + VECD (SBS 64-40 

removed) 24 0.67 83 0.24 Proportional Yes 0.49

|E*|sin 0.1Hz plant-produced 60 -0.20 59 -0.49 Inverse Yes 0.47

|E*|sin 10 Hz plant-produced 59 -0.20 59 -0.49 Inverse Yes 0.47

Axial fatigue, strain-control energy ratio 22 0.33 63 0.22 Proportional Yes 0.35

Axial fatigue, strain-control hysteresis 

loop quality 21 0.33 63 0.21 Proportional Yes 0.35

Axial fatigue, strain-control DER 21 0.33 63 0.21 Proportional Yes 0.35

IDT strength 23 0.00 41 0.18 Proportional Yes 0.20

Axial fatigue, strain-control, 50 percent 

modulus red (SBS 64-40 removed) 13 0.00 38 0.13 Proportional Yes 0.16

Axial fatigue, strain-control, 50 percent 

modulus red 10 0.00 41 0.08 Proportional Yes 0.15

|E*|sin 10 Hz cores 3 -0.20 59 0.02 Inverse No* 0.21

|E*|sin 0.1 Hz cores 17 0.00 41 -0.14 Inverse No** 0.18

|E*|sin 0.1 Hz lab-produced 37 0.00 41 -0.29 Inverse No** 0.27

Axial fatigue, stress-control hysteresis 

loop quality 46 0.00 41 -0.37 Proportional No** 0.31

Axial fatigue, stress-control DER 48 0.00 41 -0.39 Proportional No** 0.32

Axial fatigue, stress-control

50 percent modulus red 51 0.00 41 -0.41 Proportional No** 0.33

Axial fatigue, stress-control energy ratio 53 0.00 41 -0.43 Proportional No** 0.34

Axial fatigue, strain-control, 50 percent 

modulus red + VECD 39 0.20 59 -0.31 Proportional No** 0.37

|E*|sin 10 Hz lab-produced 1 0.00 41 0.01 Inverse No 0.10

*Somewhat.

**Mostly.

The VECD strain-controlled number of cycles to failure will be used in the analysis of the binder 

parameter strengths in the chapter 7. The justification for choosing this parameter is that this type 

of characterization is more implementable by means of AMPT.(101,103) Also, the specimens were 

made at fixed air void content, whereas the cores tested in the OT have a mild variation in air 

void content from the constructed pavement density (see chapter 3). Having a fixed air void 

content has advantages when combined in a composite score with full-scale ALF performance 

because only binder properties are reflected in the lab test components, thereby helping balance 

out the comparison. DENT has repeatability concerns, as described above. Dynamic modulus 

and the loss modulus variation are small-strain nondestructive tests that do not mobilize asphalt 

mixtures to large deformations and cracks, which research has shown is necessary for binder 

characteristics to better capture contributions to performance. Axial fatigue testing has 

advantages over DENT and OT because VECD can be used to generate engineering properties 

that are more amenable to mechanistic-empirical pavement design inputs. In other words, fatigue 

law characteristics that are a function of temperature and strain can be more easily captured by 

means of axial fatigue with VECD than with DENT and OT. 

τK

τK

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
215

CHAPTER 7. CANDIDATE BINDER SPECIFICATION PARAMETER STRENGTHS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter brings together full-scale ALF performance and laboratory mixture performance 

to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the various candidate binder parameters. The same 

composite statistical scoring technique is applied using diversified statistical measures, including 

slope regression significance (probability), Kendall’s tau measure of association and its 

associated significance (probability), and conventional correlation coefficient.

RUTTING/PERMANENT DEFORMATION

As previously discussed, the first measure of appropriateness for any binder or mixture 

laboratory test is whether the trends in the relationship are in the correct proportional or inverse 

direction. An extra step is needed to inspect the trends of the binder parameter with mixture

performance and full-scale ALF performance because a composite score from the two will be 

utilized. It is possible, depending on the scatter in the data, that one of the two would be correct. 

Ideally, both should be correct. Table 100 lists the high-temperature binder rutting parameters 

and the corresponding laboratory mixture performance and ALF performance data that are 

compared for the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes. Table 101 lists the same for the 5.8-inch (150-mm)

lanes. The slope of the linear regression was checked to screen relationships between binder 

parameters, mixture performance, and ALF performance to identify scenarios that should or 

should not receive continued analysis for the statistical composite score.
216

Table 100. Evaluation of correct or incorrect trends among binder properties, mixture 

properties, and 4-inch (100-mm) ALF rutting.

Binder Parameter Comparative Performance Data

Expected 

Trend

Correct 

Trend?

|G*|/sin at 10 radians/s

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Inverse Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse Yes

|G*|/sin at 0.25 radians/s

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

Permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Inverse Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse Yes

Non-recovered compliance 

3,200 Pa

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

Permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Proportional Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Proportional Yes

Oscillatory-based surrogate for 

nonrecovered compliance

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

Permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Inverse Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse Yes

ZSV

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

Permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Inverse Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse Yes

LSV

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

Permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Inverse Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse Yes

MVR

69/827 kPa flow number, ALF voids 

Permanent strain at 5,000 cycles Proportional Yes

100 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Proportional Yes

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches

δ

δ
217

Table 101. Evaluation of correct or incorrect trends among binder properties, mixture 

properties, and 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF rutting.

Binder Parameter Comparative Performance Data Expected Trend

Correct 

Trend?

|G*|/sin at 10 radians/s

69/523 kPa flow number, fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Inverse Yes

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse No

|G*|/sin at 0.25 radians/s

69/523 kPa flow number , fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Inverse Yes

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse No

Nonrecovered compliance 

3,200 Pa

69/523 kPa flow number, fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Proportional Yes

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Proportional No

Oscillatory-based surrogate 

for nonrecovered compliance

69/523 kPa flow number, fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Inverse No

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse No

ZSV

69/523 kPa flow number, fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Inverse No

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse No

LSV

69/523 kPa flow number, fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Inverse No

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Inverse No

MVR

69/523 kPa flow number, fixed voids

Permanent strain at 20,000 cycles Proportional Yes

150 mm ALF rut depth at 25,000 cycles Proportional Yes

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

1 mm = 0.039 inches

The relationships in table 100 to evaluate rutting in the 4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes were all 

correct, and the relationships still held when the data points for lane 6 (terpolymer) and 

associated binder and mixture tests were removed. There were intermixed correct and incorrect 

trends for the rutting in the 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF lanes. These results may seem surprising; 

however, the appearance of incorrect scenarios for the 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF rutting does not 

signify poor or weak binder parameters. Rather, it is a direct reflection of the lack of variety in 

5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF rutting (see table 19 and figure 29 in chapter 3). This point puts the 

analysis at an impasse but is also an indicator of a very successful experimental design that 

targeted binders having equivalent high-temperature performance specifications but different 

intermediate-temperature performance specifications associated with fatigue cracking. This 

further suggests that the standard Superpave® high-temperature specification is valid, at least for 

the materials in this research study, given that the materials were selected for the experimental 

design using the Superpave® high-temperature rutting parameter. In other words, there could be 

an underlying relationship that identifies stronger or weaker parameters than Superpave®, but the 

characteristics of the data simply cannot do so (see discussion in chapter 3 on capturing trends in 

light of scatter and number of data points).

The culmination of the numerical and statistical identification of the strongest and weakest 

binder parameters for rutting and permanent deformation are found in table 102 for all of the 

applicable 4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes and in table 103 eliminating lane 6 (terpolymer). The 

entire composite score and each of the statistical components (regression slope significance, 

δ

δ
218

Kendall’s tau measure of association, significance of Kendall’s tau score, and correlation 

coefficient) used to compute the composite score are provided in the tables.

Table 102. Ranking of binder high-temperature rutting parameters with lane 6 

(terpolymer).

Binder Test for 

Rutting

Comparative 

Data

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ 

(percent) R

Composite 

Score

LSV Flow number 95 -1.00 99 -0.87

ALF rutting 82 -0.40 76 -0.71 0.81

ZSV Flow number 94 -1.00 99 -0.87

ALF rutting 82 -0.40 76 -0.71 0.81

MSCR nonrecovered 

compliance

Flow number 99 1.00 99 0.97

ALF rutting 37 0.40 76 0.29 0.72

Oscillatory-based 

nonrecovered stiffness

Flow number 88 -0.8 96 -0.78

ALF rutting 71 -0.2 59 -0.59 0.69

|G*|/sin at 

0.25 radians/s

Flow number 89 -0.40 76 -0.79

ALF rutting 78 -0.20 59 -0.66 0.63

MVR Flow number 77 0.60 88 0.66

ALF rutting 35 0.40 76 0.28 0.59

|G*|/ sin at

10 radians/s 

Flow number 59 -0.20 59 -0.48

ALF rutting 81 -0.40 76 -0.69 0.56

Table 103. Ranking of binder high-temperature rutting parameters without lane 6 

(terpolymer).

Binder Test for 

Rutting

Comparative 

Data

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ 

(percent) R

Composite 

Score

LSV Flow number 88 -1.00 96 -0.88

ALF rutting 98 -0.67 83 -0.98 0.90

ZSV Flow number 89 -1.00 96 -0.89

ALF rutting 95 -0.67 83 -0.95 0.89

Oscillatory-based 

nonrecovered stiffness

Flow number 78 -1.00 96 -0.78

ALF rutting 95 -0.67 83 -0.95 0.87

MSCR nonrecovered 

compliance

Flow number 99 1.00 96 0.99

ALF rutting 73 0.67 83 0.73 0.86

|G*|/sin at 0.

25 radians/s

Flow number 80 -0.67 83 -0.80

ALF rutting 90 -0.33 63 -0.90 0.73

MVR Flow number 68 0.33 63 0.68

ALF rutting 82 0.67 83 0.82 0.68

|G*|/ sin at 

10 radians/s 

Flow number 56 -0.33 63 -0.56

ALF rutting 52 0.00 38 -0.52 0.44

That the ranking of the strongest to weakest binder parameters did not essentially change 

whether the data points from lane 6 were included or excluded was somewhat unexpected. When 

the lane 6 terpolymer was removed, the stronger parameters became stronger and the weaker 

parameters became weaker. The rank order of the oscillatory-based nonrecovered stiffness and 

MSCR switched, but their scores were nearly identical in each comparison. 

δ

δ

δ

δ
219

LSV and ZSV were the strongest statistical parameters associated with laboratory and full-scale 

rutting. The weakest was the standard Superpave® parameter, which is counter to the alternative 

interpretation of ALF performance and experimental design because the binders were chosen 

based on the same Superpave® high-temperature PG and exhibited statistically equivalent rutting.

The next two strongest parameters quantify nonrecoverable deformation by different means;

MSCR is a direct quantification while the oscillatory-based parameter is indirect but based on 

theoretical derivation and confirmed by comparison with direct MSCR. The variation of the 

standard Superpave® parameter taken at a 0.25 radians/s frequency did better than the standard 

parameters taken at 10 radians/s, likely because of the intent to emphasize the softer portion of 

the binder response with polymer modification. MVR did better than the standard Superpave®

parameters but not as well as the modified, lower frequency Superpave® parameter.

Discussion of Implementability, Purchase Specification Applicability, and Other Caveats

The quantitative ranking of the strongest and weakest parameters is important, but not a 

complete deciding factor in and of itself. Specification tests should ideally be both discriminating 

but also practical for broader use by the asphalt binder supply industry, contractors, and owner 

agencies. It is challenging to score and quantitatively rank the implementability of the candidate 

specifications. Qualitative consideration of various caveats associated with each test is provided 

to help further narrow down recommended specifications.

ZSV and LSV were identified as the strongest parameters, and both can be conducted in DSR 

equipment already implemented by Superpave®. ZSV can require a long time for each test, and 

LSV offers an improvement by speeding up the process. Both of these computed viscosities 

correctly reflected the beneficial contributions of polymer modification. However, these 

parameters are still a physical measure of viscosity in which apparent improvements can be 

achieved by means of stiffening from fillers or polyphosphoric acid, which do not impart 

comparable performance-improving characteristics of polymer modification. This research 

further confirms the MVR as a valid alternative to the Superpave® high-temperature PG, but the 

development and application of the MVR was intended as a rapid verification of PG grade. This 

leaves the two parameters that measure nonrecoverable deformations, and both can be measured 

using DSR. The profession may be able to relate with oscillatory-based nonrecoverable stiffness 

more than MSCR because it is based on the same properties currently measured for PG grade: 

|G*| shear modulus and the phase angle . On the other hand, MSCR has advantages over the 

oscillatory-based nonrecoverable stiffness because MSCR provides an additional measure of the 

recoverable deformation by means of percent recovery, which AASHTO TP 70 integrates.(73)

FATIGUE CRACKING

The various candidate intermediate-temperature binder fatigue parameters were also compared 

against both laboratory fatigue tests and full-scale ALF fatigue cracking. The comparisons of 

binder with ALF performance and binder with the strain-controlled axial cyclic fatigue test 

selected in the previous chapter were combined into a single composite score to identify stronger 

and weaker tests for discriminating fatigue cracking. Table 104 summarizes the checks that were 

conducted to make sure that both the axial fatigue test and the 4-inch (100-mm) ALF fatigue 

cracking had the same trend and correct direction, whether an inverse relationship or 

proportional relationship. All binder tests provided the correct trend except the binder stress 

δ
220

sweep fatigue test, which had the opposite ranking. When the trends were checked using the 

5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF lanes and associated laboratory mixture tests, only CTOD, failure strain 

in low-temperature DT test, large strain time sweep surrogate, and Superpave® |G*|sin had 

correct trends. Binder yield energy was not present, probably due to data scatter and the number 

of data points. More binder tests exhibited correct trends when SBS 64-40 data, which 

challenged the laboratory fatigue characterization ranking, were removed. 

Table 104. Evaluation of correct or incorrect trends between binder properties, mixture 

properties, and 4-inch (100-mm) ALF fatigue cracking.

Binder Parameter Comparative Performance Data Expected Trend

Correct 

Trend?

|G*|sin NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Inverse Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Inverse Yes

DTT failure strain NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional Yes

BBR m-value NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional Yes

Time sweep NF

NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional Yes

Stress sweep NF

NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional No

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional No

Large strain time sweep 

surrogate

NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Inverse Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Inverse Yes

EWF NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional Yes

CTOD NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional Yes

Binder yield energy NF strain control axial fatigue + VECD Proportional Yes

Cycles to 25 percent cracked area Proportional Yes

Table 105 ranks the binder parameters from strongest to weakest based on the composite score 

corresponding to the fatigue cracking performance in the 4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes. The 

individual components for each axial fatigue and ALF comparison used to calculate the score 

(regression slope significance, Kendall’s tau measure of association, significance of the 

Kendall’s tau score, and correlation coefficient) are provided as well. The ranking reveals that 

there are more discriminating parameters than the Superpave® |G*|sin . CTOD has the strongest 

association with laboratory and full-scale ALF fatigue cracking followed by the binder yield 

energy. Both of these parameters mobilize the binder to very large strains and deformations, 

which research has identified as a needed mechanism to capture the beneficial effects from 

polymer modification. Number of cycles to failure from the time sweep cyclic fatigue test is 

the third strongest parameter and takes place at a smaller strain, but the approach illustrates that 

cyclic fatigue on binder and cyclic fatigue on mixture are equally valid. Brittle failure strain 

in DT at temperatures much lower than the intermediate fatigue region discriminates fatigue 

cracking better than the standard Superpave® fatigue parameter for these particular mixes, which 

reinforces using deformations larger than are applied in Superpave® |G*|sin . The weaker 

parameters identified were the creep slope m-value from BBR and EWF. BBR m-value was 

identified in the literature review as worthy of exploration but did not appear to provide any 

δ

δ

δ

δ
221

discrimination with the materials in this experiment, possibly due the small deformations and 

low-temperature region. The weaker EWF is a necessary step in the calculation of CTOD by 

means of the yield strength. This suggests the contributions of yield strength to EWF to compute 

CTOD is important.

Table 105. Ranked binder fatigue cracking parameters from 4-inch (100-mm) ALF lanes.

Binder Test for 

Fatigue Cracking

Comparative 

Data

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ

(percent) R

Composite 

Score

CTOD Axial fatigue 99 1.00 99 0.95

ALF cracking 100 1.00 99 0.98 0.99

Binder yield energy Axial fatigue 94 0.80 96 0.87

ALF cracking 90 0.80 99 0.80 0.88

Time sweep Axial fatigue 89 0.80 96 0.79

ALF cracking 95 0.80 96 0.88 0.88

Failure strain in lowtemperature DT test

Axial fatigue 92 0.60 88 0.83

ALF cracking 93 0.60 88 0.85 0.81

Superpave® |G*|sin Axial fatigue 84 -0.60 88 -0.73

ALF cracking 78 -0.60 88 -0.66 0.75

Large strain time sweep 

surrogate

Axial fatigue 85 -0.40 76 -0.74

ALF cracking 78 -0.40 76 -0.67 0.67

EWF Axial fatigue 53 0.40 76 0.43

ALF cracking 60 0.40 76 0.50 0.55

m-value from lowtemperature BBR

Axial fatigue 63 0.40 76 0.52

ALF cracking 47 0.40 76 0.38 0.54

Stress sweep Axial fatigue 89 -0.40 76 -0.79

ALF cracking 83 -0.40 76 -0.73 0.69*

*Incorrect trend direction

The results from the ranking analysis corresponding to the 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF lanes with 

and without lane 9 (SBS 64-40) are shown in table 106 and table 107, respectively. Consistent 

with the previous ranking, CTOD and binder yield energy are present at the top, which further 

supports the discriminating ability of these tests.

Table 106. Ranked binder fatigue cracking parameters from 5.8-inch (150 mm) ALF lanes 

with lane 9 (SBS 64-40).

Binder Test for 

Fatigue Cracking

Comparative 

Data

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ

(percent) R

Composite 

Score

CTOD Axial fatigue 96 0.80 96 0.89

ALF cracking 12 0.40 76 0.10 0.62

Failure strain in lowtemperature DT test

Axial fatigue 94 0.60 88 0.86

ALF cracking 16 0.20 59 0.13 0.55

Large strain time sweep 

surrogate

Axial fatigue 78 -0.80 96 -0.67

ALF cracking 38 0.00 41 -0.30 0.54

Superpave® |G*|sin Axial fatigue 74 -0.80 96 -0.63

ALF cracking 38 0.00 41 -0.31 0.53

δ

δ
222

Table 107. Ranked binder fatigue cracking parameters from 5.8-inch (150-mm) ALF lanes 

without lane 9 (SBS 64-40).

Binder Test for Fatigue 

Cracking

Comparative 

Data

1-pReg

(percent) τK

1-pτΚ

(percent) R

Composite 

Score

Binder yield energy Axial fatigue 79 1.00 96 0.79

ALF cracking 79 0.67 83 0.79 0.83

CTOD Axial fatigue 29 0.67 83 0.29

ALF cracking 100 1.00 96 1.00 0.75

Large strain time sweep 

surrogate

Axial fatigue 68 -0.67 83 -0.68

ALF cracking 65 -0.33 63 -0.65 0.64

Superpave® |G*|sin Axial fatigue 67 -0.67 83 -0.67

ALF cracking 61 -0.33 63 -0.61 0.63

Failure strain in lowtemperature DT test

Axial fatigue 24 0.33 96 0.24

ALF cracking 21 0.33 63 0.21 0.39

Evaluation of Top-Ranked Binder Fatigue Cracking Parameters from Ontario Highway 655

A collaborative effort between the Ontario Ministry of Transport, Ontario Hot Mix Asphalt

Producers, and Queens University built pavement test sections to understand the influence of 

asphalt binder specifications on low-temperature thermal cracking. These test sections were

similar to the ALF full-scale accelerated pavement experimental design because the mix design 

and construction were the same, and the only variable was asphalt binder. An overview of the 

binders used and physical properties measured by Queens University and TFHRC is provided in 

table 108.

(104) The binders were characterized for CTOD, binder yield energy, and Superpave®

|G*|sin . The materials and performance data from the Ontario experiment offer an opportunity

to explore CTOD and binder yield energy because cracking other than classical low-temperature 

thermal cracking appeared.

Table 108. Description of Ontario binders and physical properties.

Binder

Superpave® |G*|sin

(kPa)

(105)

CTOD 25 °C 

(mm)

(105)

Binder Yield Energy 

15 °C (TFHRC)

16 °C 25 °C (Pa)

A Terpolymer (Elvaloy®) 2,218 550 16 399.5

B Oxidized + SBS 2,588 860 10 822.5

C SBS 1,954 670 15 365

D SBS 2,226 690 13 504

E SBS 2,273 590 38 499

F Oxidized 1,820 690 7 818.5

G Unmodified 1,542 350 10 302.5

1 Pa = 0.000145 psi

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Detailed crack maps provided by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation were used to classify 

cracking into longitudinal, centerline, edge, alligator, and transverse after 5 years of service 

(2003–2008).(105) It has been reported that the southbound traffic contained trucks having heavier 

loads than the northbound traffic because southbound trucks are returning from logging 

activities. Significantly different amounts of cracking are found in the two directions. This 

δ

δ

δ
223

performance suggests that the difference between cracking in the northbound and southbound 

lanes could be load-associated cracking rather than low-temperature thermal cracking. Some 

limited alligator fatigue cracking appeared, but some short transverse cracking limited to within 

the wheel paths could be the beginning of interconnected alligator fatigue cracking.

(104) The total 

number of cracks, total length of cracks, and length of longitudinal cracks are provided in table 

109 through and table 111, respectively. The tables do not contain any centerline cracking. The 

ranking changes slightly depending on the type of cracking.

Table 109. Total number of crack performance of Ontario pavement test sections.

(104)

Section

Total Number of Individual 

Cracks Difference 

Northbound Southbound in Cracks

D 91 199 108

F 25 89 64

G 77 125 48

C 27 51 24

B 43 59 16

E 12 23 11

A 3 4 1

Table 110. Total crack length performance of Ontario pavement test sections.

(104)

Section

Total Length of All Cracks 

(m)

Difference 

All Crack 

Northbound Southbound Length (m)

G 76.9 239.7 162.8

B 76.4 154.3 77.9

F 19.8 66.6 46.8

C 41.4 76.7 35.3

D 229.9 257.3 27.4

A 4 8.1 4.1

E 34.9 32.5 (2.4)

1 m = 3.28 inches

Table 111. Total transverse crack performance of Ontario pavement test sections.

(104)

Section

Total Length of Transverse 

Cracks (m)

Difference 

Long. Crack 

Northbound Southbound Length (m)

D 47.3 92.5 45.2

C 17.6 33.8 16.2

G 22.6 37.6 15

F 13.4 28.1 14.7

E 1.1 3.2 2.1

B 18.1 20.1 2

A 0 0.3 0.3

1 m = 3.28 inches

Again, the previously described statistical scoring was used, except only binder properties were 

compared against the full-scale highway test section cracking. The rankings of three binder tests 
224

are provided in table 112 through table 114 for the comparisons with the total number of cracks, 

total lengths of cracks, and length of transverse cracks, respectively. Although the results are 

weaker than ALF, CTOD has the strongest association with the observed cracking while the 

binder yield energy and Superpave® |G*|sin are weaker and sometimes have incorrect trends 

altogether. These results, combined with the ALF results, help further identify and confirm that 

CTOD is a discriminating parameter for fatigue cracking.

Table 112. Comparison between binder fatigue cracking test and Ontario 

total number of cracks.

Binder Test

Expected 

Trend Correct

Regression 

Slope 1-pReg τK 1-pτΚ R

Composite 

Score

CTOD Inverse Yes (–) 63% -0.43 88% -0.41 0.59

|G*|sin 25 °C Proportional Yes (+) 7% 0.24 72% 0.04 0.27

Binder yield energy Inverse No (+) 18% 0.05 50% 0.10 0.21

|G*|sin 16 °C Proportional No (–) 46% -0.24 72% -0.28 0.42

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Table 113. Comparison between binder fatigue cracking test and Ontario 

total length of cracks.

Binder Test

Expected 

Trend Correct

Regression 

Slope 1-pReg τK 1-pτΚ R

Composite 

Score

CTOD Inverse Yes (–) 79% -0.62 97% -0.54 0.73

Binder yield energy Inverse No* (–) (+) 18% 0.05 50% -0.11 0.21

|G*| sin 25 °C Proportional No** (–) 63% 0.24 72% -0.40 0.50

|G*|sin 16 °C Proportional No (–) 80% -0.43 88% -0.55 0.66

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32 

*Somewhat.

**Mostly.

Table 114. Comparison between binder fatigue cracking test and Ontario 

length of transverse cracks.

Binder Test

Expected 

Trend Correct

Regression 

Slope 1-pReg τK 1-pτΚ R

Composite 

Score

CTOD Inverse Yes (–) 50% -0.05 50% -0.31 0.34

Binder yield energy Inverse Yes (–) 22% -0.14 61% -0.13 0.28

|G*| sin 25 °C Proportional Yes (+) 6% 0.05 50% 0.04 0.16

|G*|sin 16 °C Proportional No (–) 35% -0.24 72% -0.21 0.38

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Discussion of Implementability, Purchase Specification Applicability, and Other Caveats 

The strongest binder parameters identified in table 105 as being better that Superpave® |G*|sin

are the CTOD, binder yield energy, time sweeps, and low-temperature DT failure strain. The 

advantage of binder yield energy is that it can be measured in the DSR. However, University of 

Wisconsin researchers have recently postponed further development of this test in favor of 

alternative strain sweep characterization procedures that take advantage of VECD methodologies 

because of one particular shortcoming with the binder yield energy test: some modified binder 

exhibit two peaks (initial yield and ultimate yield) in the binder yield energy test, which presents

a challenge as to when and where the strain energy is to be calculated (see figure 119). The 

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ
225

VECD-based stress sweep binder test was outside the scope of this study at the time this report 

was written. Low-temperature failure strain was the next strongest parameter. Although lowtemperature DT testing combined with BBR testing provides a more rigorous low-temperature 

PG grade than BBR alone, DT testing has already fallen out of favor by agencies. If this was to 

be reconsidered for fatigue resistance, the failure strain alone is likely vulnerable to not 

appropriately catching fatigue and cracking resistance because softer or lower-quality binders 

could exhibit higher strain tolerance. This was not the case for the legitimate, high-quality 

binders in this study. DT test failure strain would have to be accompanied with a strength 

measurement that the DT test can provide, but DENT testing at intermediate temperatures for 

CTOD is already a type of tension test where extension and strength are measured. Nonetheless, 

the largest hurdle for implementation of CTOD using DENT is the need for a new piece of test 

equipment if a laboratory does not already have one to measure force-ductility (AASHTO T

300).(106) Ruggedness evaluation of existing AASHTO T 300 equipment for measuring CTOD 

would be a necessary next step.

227

CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report provides a critical evaluation of the Superpave® binder specifications |G*|/sin and 

|G*|sin as controlling parameters for rutting and fatigue cracking. Previously, the SHRP 

program explored a variety of theoretical principles and experimental techniques and ultimately 

selected these parameters because they are fundamental, easily measured in a DSR, and describe 

the dependence on temperature, frequency, and aging, all of which are relevant to factors that 

influence pavement performance. However, the SHRP binder validation was largely limited to 

unmodified asphalts. Since the implementation of Superpave®, polymer modified asphalt binder 

usage has become prevalent. Key research studies identified shortcomings using |G*|/sin to 

control rutting of polymer modified asphalts; principally, the measurement of these material 

properties are in the small strain, linear viscoelastic region that does not mobilize polymer 

structures that impart beneficial performance. Research also showed shortcomings of fatigue 

parameter |G*|sin , as this seemed to be valid only for thinner, unmodified asphalt pavements. 

Following exploratory laboratory studies of polymer modified asphalts (NCHRP 9-10, 90-07), a 

full-scale APT experiment was designed.(20,22) This ALF experiment generated performance data 

that provided quantitative grounds to screen weaker tests and identify discriminating binder 

characterization parameters to potentially replace or enhance portions of the existing Superpave®

PG system. Asphalt test pavements were built with a single volumetric mix design using a 

variety of unmodified and polymer modified binders with practically equivalent hightemperature properties and different intermediate-temperature fatigue properties.

The experiment also included pavement sections to assess the performance of crumb rubber 

modified asphalt. A case study for FWD layer modulus back-calculation was provided and an 

assessment of emerging AMPT test equipment and NCHRP MEPDG software was made.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Binder Performance Specification Parameters

Key findings are as follows:

• Polymer modified binders significantly improve the fatigue cracking performance 

compared to unmodified binders with similar high-temperature PG grades.

• There are more discriminating binder tests for fatigue cracking and rutting than standard 

Superpave® |G*|sin and |G*|/sin , and these tests are poised for implementation or have 

already become standardized, including MSCR and oscillatory-based nonrecoverable 

stiffness for rutting and calculated CTOD for fatigue cracking.

• Increasing polymer content in relatively softer base asphalt binders to achieve higher 

temperature PG grades does not necessarily provide increased fatigue cracking resistance. 

An important caveat of this conclusion is that it may only be applicable for the particular 

structural configuration of the ALF pavements in this experiment. However, the rutting 

performance of this mixture was generally good and comparable to the other polymer 

modified mixtures until large rut depths (0.47 inches (12 mm)) were reached, and then 

rutting increased substantially.

δ

δ

δ

δ

δ δ
228

Binder Test to Discriminate Permanent Deformation and Rutting

Key findings are as follows:

• The two most discriminating, implementable parameters for rutting quantify 

irrecoverable deformations that occur in asphalt binder. Oscillatory-based nonrecoverable

stiffness is measured in the DSR in a similar manner as the familiar |G*|/sin . MSCR has 

already been developed as an AASHTO provisional standard and provides an added 

measure of recoverable measurements and, therefore, has advantages over oscillatorybased nonrecoverable stiffness.

• The performance data in this particular experiment demonstrated that |G*|/sin still has 

value as a specification parameter to control rutting.

The research literature discussed in chapter 1 documents the shortcomings of the Superpave®

high-temperature PG test. Namely, the test deforms the binder to small strains and has trouble 

capturing the performance-related effect of polymer modification. However, the rutting 

performance of the polymer modified and unmodified asphalt binders in this particular full-scale 

APT experiment do not reflect this deficiency. The binders used in this study were designed and 

selected to have the same high-temperature PG (see figure 15). Therefore, these binders should 

have exhibited the same rutting performance, which was essentially the case (see figure 28, 

figure 29, table 17, and table 19). There were quantifiable differences in the mean rutting, but 

variability in the measured performance diminished those differences. Therefore, one 

interpretation of this experiment’s rutting data is that |G*|/sin still has its merits as a 

specification parameter to control rutting.

It must be strongly emphasized that there were notable numerical and statistical challenges in 

making defensible comparisons between the varieties of binder candidates to identify the best 

tests. Ideally, such analyses use more data points with larger spread to overcome scatter. Simply 

using R2

was not appropriate. The Kendall’s tau measure of association method was utilized 

because it is better suited for small datasets and quantifies the quality of a ranking. Statistical 

significance (probability) was computed as well. The different quantities were combined into a 

single composite score. Laboratory scale performance tests were integrated to strengthen the 

scoring because the binder contributions are reflected in laboratory tests in addition to full-scale 

pavement tests, which provide the analysis with a degree of balance with the full-scale 

ALF performance. 

Some candidate binder parameters such as LSV and ZSV were found to have a strong relation to 

laboratory-scale and full-scale performance. However, these parameters can be susceptible to 

registering improved performance from additives or modification (i.e., acid), which is not as 

legitimate as the beneficial improvements from polymer modification used in this study. Thus, 

they were not recommended.

Binder Tests to Discriminate Fatigue and Cracking

There were fewer numerical and statistical challenges in the datasets to rank weaker and stronger 

binder tests for fatigue cracking. The strongest analysis came from the thinner, 4-inch (100-mm)

δ

δ

δ
229

ALF lanes because two of the thicker, polymer modified mixtures in the 5.8-inch (150-mm) 

lanes did not exhibit any fatigue cracking. Nondestructive testing and extrapolated estimates 

were used to provide a reasonable measure of ranking for the whole set of 5.8-inch 

(150-mm) lanes. 

The key finding is as follows:

• The analysis from both 4- and 5.8-inch (100- and 150-mm) lanes plus a third verification 

from an Ontario test site showed calculated CTOD was consistently the most 

discriminating. Binder yield energy was the next strongest. These results confirm tests 

that deform binder to very large strains discriminate fatigue resistance from polymer 

modification. CTOD can be considered implementable because it can be measured using 

a force-ductility apparatus that is available in some pavement testing laboratories.

Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt 

The key finding is as follows:

• Gap-graded crumb rubber modified asphalt mix (Arizona wet process) placed in a 

composite pavement structure exhibited excellent fatigue cracking resistance to bottomup fatigue cracks. Fatigue cracks initiated and propagated up through 2 inches (50 mm) 

of conventional dense-graded asphalt on the bottom but did not progress through any of 

the 2 inches (50 mm) of gap-graded crumb rubber mix on top.

The CR-AZ mix was formulated using a PG58-22 base binder plus 17 percent crumb rubber by 

weight following ASTM D6114.(24) The estimated high and intermediate PG grades were 194 

and 74.1 °F (90.1 and 23.4 °C), respectively using techniques developed in research based on 

DSR measurements on unaged binder. The CR-AZ binder could be characterized in the RTFO 

by tilting the oven back and in the 0.975-inch (25-mm) plate DSR using a 0.078-inch (2-mm) 

gap rather than a 0.039-inch (1-mm) gap. The aggregate gradation was gap-graded to

accommodate the crumb rubber particles, and the binder content was 7.1 percent. The mix was 

produced using an onsite shearing mill at the asphalt plant. The rutting performance was similar 

to the dense-graded mixtures in the experiment, although the mixture has a higher binder content 

and somewhat lower mix dynamic modulus. The fatigue performance was the best of the 4-inch 

(100-mm) lanes. The ability to arrest the bottom-up fatigue cracks is attributable to the rich 

rubber modified binder and possibly because the stress concentration is in the lower control lift.

The CR-TB binder did not require onsite mills at the plant and was delivered and handled like 

conventional asphalt binder. The CR-TB mix performed well. The rutting performance was the 

best of all the 4-inch (100-mm) lanes because it had slightly stiffer Superpave® PG than the 

others, and the fatigue performance was slightly less than the SBS modified binder.

Fiber Reinforced HMA

Key findings are as follows:

• Very good fatigue cracking resistance was observed in the dense-graded mixture 

reinforced with polyester fibers. The fatigue cracking of this section was measurably 
230

better than those of the polymer modified sections even though a less-resistant 

unmodified asphalt binder was used in the mix. This was the second best performer of its 

thickness group behind the composite, gap-graded crumb rubber asphalt pavement.

• The presence of fiber had no significant beneficial or negative impact on rutting 

performance. 

Mixture Performance Characterization Tests

Key AMPT findings are as follows:

• AMPT flow number and SST RSCH were the two strongest laboratory indicators of ALF 

rutting. The AMPT flow number test is a stronger predictor and more implementable. 

• Most flow number tests did not achieve tertiary flow and showed simpler two-stage 

curves but still adequately discriminated performance. 

Key axial fatigue findings are as follows:

• An alternative test for flexural beam fatigue that used axial, DT-compression cyclic 

loading to capture fatigue damage modulus reduction was assessed. 

• Axial fatigue with VECD can be used to generate fatigue properties at multiple 

conditions with a smaller experimental program than beam fatigue.

• This test was the strongest, most implementable indicator of fatigue cracking, and 

correcting the tests results for true strain control using VECD theory further strengthened 

the test’s abilities. 

Other key findings are as follows:

• The importance of testing asphalt mixtures to confirm performance cannot be 

understated. Such testing should not rely entirely on binder tests because additives 

such as fibers will challenge specification tests at the binder scale, and only mixture 

tests are suited to accommodate pavement structural attributes and volumetric mix 

design characteristics.

• The fiber mix presented some challenges for the three best mixture tests for fatigue 

cracking; none were able to reflect higher fatigue resistance.

A variety of materials characterization tests were conducted on ALF cores, plant-produced 

mixtures, and laboratory-produced mixtures. Some were established tests while others were 

emerging tests. The following tests were utilized in this research:

• AMPT flow number: More convenient flow number tests using less confinement can 

produce permanent strain magnitudes and rankings similar to more confined tests so long 

as the deviator stress is smaller in less-confined tests. Also, predicted rutting using flow 

number curves from more convenient, less-confined tests can be similar to predictions 
231

using confined flow number inputs because the less-confined deviator stress is 

accordingly smaller.

• Axial fatigue: Although the axial fatigue tests require added steps for gluing caps onto 

the end of the specimen, it still offers advantages over flexural beam fatigue because 

samples can be made in the Superpave® gyratory compactor. Axial cyclic fatigue tests in 

stress control rank performance in opposite manners, with stress control favoring stiffer 

mixtures and strain control favoring softer mixtures.

• Dynamic modulus: Dynamic modulus tests presented the best set of data to understand 

differences between cores versus plant-produced lab-compacted mixtures and laboratoryproduced mixtures. Trends were essentially the same in all three versions where cores 

were measurably softer. Dynamic modulus and associated parameters that incorporate the 

viscous phase angle were not consistently strong indicators of rutting or fatigue cracking. 

However, the modulus is still absolutely necessary and an important component for 

mechanistic-empirical performance prediction and VECD analysis.

• TTI OT: The TTI OT captured the rank order of ALF fatigue cracking very well for a 

smaller group of materials but only provides an index and not an engineering property 

that is useful by itself for pavement design. TTI is continuing development of the test 

for fatigue cracking in pavement design.

• DENT: DENT mixture testing for EWF and calculated CTOD was also a fairly strong 

indicator of fatigue cracking, but the required number of replicates and the scatter in the 

analysis are drawbacks. The test also does not yield an engineering property.

• Wheel tracking: The French PRT and HWT were unable to satisfactorily capture the 

rank order of the full-scale ALF rutting. 

• IDT strength: IDT strength alone is not a strong indicator to identify fatigue 

cracking resistance.

FWD

FWD testing revealed variation in the stiffness of the unbound layer within each binder’s test 

lane and between test lanes. Back-calculation programs EVERCALC and MODCOMP, having 

different optimization algorithms, were evaluated and found to provide the same trends. The 

average stiffness of the crushed stone base was between 11.9 and 9.6 ksi (82 and 66 MPa), 

slightly stiffer than the average subgrade stiffness ranging between 11.4 and 11.1 ksi (79 and 

77 MPa). Known depth to bedrock was easily detected. EVERCALC moduli were chosen 

because the base was generally stiffer and the subgrade was generally softer. Predicted HMA 

tensile strain using laboratory-measured modulus and FWD back-calculated base and subgrade 

stiffness gave reasonable magnitudes compared to what was measured from embedded 

strain gauges.

The use of MDDs was key in evaluating the quality of the back-calculations. Forward 

predictions of the base and subgrade layer deflections using the back-calculated modulus 

revealed very good agreement on the top of the base layer, fair agreement in the center of the 
232

base layer, and less agreement at the bottom of the base layer. This indicated that the backcalculation could have been additionally optimized. However, the focus of the experiment was 

the HMA layers, and the back-calculated moduli were deemed sufficient given that the critical 

strains and stresses for the purposes of this study were located within the asphalt layers. A 

seasonal monitoring program enables the depth to the seasonally-affected and unaffected 

subgrade layer to be estimated and identified more accurately.

Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Performance Analysis

The key finding is as follows:

• Additional mixture-specific characterization inputs are needed above and beyond the |E*| 

dynamic modulus to be able to better discriminate and rank performance of modified and 

unmodified asphalt.

The NCHRP 1-37A and NCHRP 1-40D MEPDG models are largely calibrated using data from 

LTPP.

(1) These do not include any significant amounts of polymer modified asphalt data,

whereas the ALF experiment included several different polymer modified asphalts. 

Consequently, the rank order and the magnitude of predicted rutting and fatigue cracking were 

not accurate. In fact, the actual MEPDG software was not able to be used for the predictions 

because it was not developed to accommodate specialized APT conditions (i.e., controlled

temperatures, heavy wheel loads). A standalone application that emulates the MEDPG had 

to be used. 

Just as with the binder parameters previously discussed, modulus measured at small strains 

(binder |G*| and mixture |E*|) does not mobilize the material into regions that force the particular 

performance aspects to be revealed, whether permanent deformation or fatigue crack resistance. 

Along these lines, the NCHRP 9-30A project is pursuing this type of material characterization 

input and recalibration of the guide for improved rutting prediction.(90) This study illustrated an 

approach similar to the methodologies that will come out of NCHRP 9-30A, which use flow 

number permanent deformation curves to yield mixture-specific coefficients for the MEPDG 

model framework rather than a single national calibration for all HMA. Magnitudes of the 

predicted rutting were improved drastically, but the ranking was still not captured. However, the 

statistical similarities and variability in the measured rutting bracket the improved predictions.

Additional insight gained from the flow number-based rutting prediction analysis is that the 

value of characterization at more than one temperature would allow a better prediction of rutting 

over a range of temperatures. 

Two aspects of damage and fatigue cracking that the MEPDG does not provide were highlighted.

Seismic PSPA tests on two ALF lanes illustrated that HMA modulus decreases by as much as 

50 percent before fatigue cracks show at the surface. HMA modulus in the MEPDG is not 

recursively updated to reflect damage and modulus reduction. The pattern in which actual

bottom-up fatigue cracking develops was not captured whereby the surface remains crack 

free until surface cracking is initiated and propagates.

Despite these shortcomings, the MEPDG was useful in analyzing the uniformity of ALF 

construction. The national calibration containing many different material characteristics and 
233

structural features taken from LTPP can be assumed to adequately capture the impact variations 

in layer thickness, density (modulus), and base and subgrade support have on predicted rutting 

and fatigue. Three scenarios were evaluated: as-built, as-designed, and as-designed with fixed 

(average) base and subgrade stiffness. The very similar rankings revealed from the exercise 

indicated no significant changes in the rank order.

RECCOMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made based on the conclusions from this research:

• Adopt CTOD for the next generation of binder specification tests for fatigue cracking 

resistance. 

• Support continued refinement and implementation of cyclic axial fatigue protocols in 

AMPT equipment. This is ongoing in two FHWA-supported research activities: 

performance-related specifications and Western Research Institute Asphalt Research 

Consortium Technology Deployment activity.

• Consider application of gap-graded crumb rubber in thicker layers and pavement 

structures that take advantage of placing the bottom of the layer at or near a neutral axis

to arrest the propagation of fatigue cracks.

• Review literature and survey agencies to evaluate performance and cost benefits 

of other fiber-modified HMA projects’ performance to compare and contrast with 

ALF performance.

A number of follow-up activities are recommended, as follows:

• Develop draft CTOD specifications in AASHTO format beginning with Ontario Method 

LS-299 and AASHTO T 300.(71,106)

• Fabricate molds and tabs for the DENT test and distribute to participating agencies.

• Present strengths of CTOD to AASHTO and the FWHA Asphalt ETGs to gather written 

comments on implementability and applicability as specification test (some presentations 

have been made to ETG already).

• Organize an exploratory round-robin study in preparation for ruggedness evaluation 

of CTOD.

• Explore the LTTP database to identify sites with different levels of fatigue cracking 

performance and characterize the binders for CTOD for added validation (ongoing).

• Conduct flow number tests at temperatures other than 147 °F (64 °C) to refine the flow 

number-based rutting performance of ALF mixture following the recommendations of 

NCHRP 9-30A as they are developed.
234

• Quantify the cost and benefits of fiber and crumb rubber for the particular ALF 

pavements structure and performance.

• Expand upon PSPA characterization of ALF lanes in future experiments.

• Ensure that absorption of cores for density is measured in future quality assurance 

during ALF construction and consider sampling from behind the paver rather than 

from within trucks.
235

APPENDIX. DENT TEST METHOD SPECIFICATION

TITLE

The title of this document is “Standard Specification for Method of Test for the Determination 

of Asphalt Cement’s Resistance to Ductile Failure Using Double Edge Notched Tension 

Test (DENT).”

SCOPE

This test method covers the determination of asphalt cement’s resistance to ductile failure using a 

DENT test. The test is conducted after thermal conditioning to determine the EWF, the plastic 

work of fracture, and an approximate CTOD at a specified temperature and rate of loading. This 

method is provided as a provisional test method. The test is a working document; continuous 

refinement to the test method may be expected.

REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

The following documents are referenced in this specification: 

• AASHTO R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Cement Using a Pressurized Aging Vessel 

(PAV).

• AASHTO T 240, Effect of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin-Film

Oven Test).

• AASHTO T 300, Force-Ductility Test of Bituminous Materials.

• AASHTO T 301, Elastic Recovery Test of Asphalt Materials by Means of a Ductilometer.

• AASHTO T 315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a 

Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR).

• ASTM D8, “Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Materials for Roads and 

Pavements.”

• ASTM D113, “Standard Test Method for Ductility of Bituminous Materials.”

• MTO LS-299, Method of Test for Determining Asphalt Cement’s Resistance to Ductile 

Failure Using Double-Edge-Notched Tension Tests (Ministry of Transportation, Ontario).

TERMINOLOGY

The following terminology is used in this specification: 

• Wt = Total work of fracture, area under the load versus load-line displacement curve, 

units J.
236

• wt = Specific total work of fracture (Wt / Bl), units kJ/m2.

• we = Specific EWF, the energy required to fracture or break the sample without plastic 

deformation away from the fracture zone, units kJ/m2

.

• wp = Specific plastic work of fracture, the non-essential work dissipated during the 

deformation of a volume of asphalt around the fracture zone, units MJ/m3.

• β = Geometric constant describing the shape of the plastic zone.

• δt = CTOD, units mm.

• P = Load, units N.

• D = Displacement in test, units m.

• B = Sample thickness, units m.

• l = Ligament length, the material between the notches, units m.

• σn = Net section stress of sample, units N/m2

.

APPARATUS

The following equipment is used in this specification: 

• Mold: Consists of two end pieces and a pair of matching DENT inserts fitted together as 

shown in AASHTO T301.

• End pieces: Six end pieces from the elastic recovery specimen mold according to 

AASHTO T 301.

• DENT inserts: Six inserts made from type 360 brass, built to dimensions shown in 

figure 186. These inserts come in pairs, and each pair is manufactured to have a space 

between the matching pair of notches equal to the three different ligament lengths of 

0.59, 0.39, and 0.2 inches (15, 10, and 5 mm) when fitted with the end pieces.
237

1 mm = 0.039 inches

Figure 186. Illustration. DENT inserts.

• Base plates: The base plates shall be made of non-absorbent material of sufficient 

thickness to prevent deformation and of a sufficient size to hold from one to three molds, 

but still able to fit in the temperature-controlled bath for conditioning. The plate shall be 

uniformly flat to ensure that the bottom surfaces of each mold will touch it throughout.

• Testing apparatus: A constant rate of displacement device capable of maintaining

displacement at rates of 4 ±0.01 inches/min (100 ±2.5 mm/min). The maximum stroke for 

the instrument shall be 39.4 inches (1,000 mm) or greater. The apparatus should have a 

set of loading pins that ensure precise alignment of the sample during the test. The 

apparatus shall be able to determine displacement to an accuracy of 0.002 inches 

(±0.05 mm). (Note: DENT testing apparatus is commonly force-ductility apparatus 

installed in a ductilometer.)

• Load sensor: The sensitivity of the load sensor and recording electronics shall allow the 

load, P, to be measured every 0.3 s during the test with an accuracy of at least ±1 percent.

The load sensor shall be capable of measuring a nominal maximum force of up to

29.9 lbf (133 N).

• Temperature-controlled bath for testing: The bath shall be large enough to contain the 

testing apparatus and samples in their molds prior to testing under a minimum of 1 inch 

(25 mm) of water. The equipment shall be capable of maintaining the water at the testing 

temperature to an accuracy of at least ±0.9 °F (±0.5 °C).

• Temperature-controlled bath for conditioning: The bath shall be capable of 

maintaining a minimum of 1 inch (25 mm) of water over the sample at the conditioning 

temperature requirements to within ±0.9 °F (±0.5 °C). Typically, the temperaturecontrolled bath for testing is utilized.

• Glass stir: Stick capable of stirring the hot asphalt cement vigorously.
238

PREPARATION OF SAMPLES

Prepare the DENT samples according to the Preparation of Apparatus and Molding of Test 

Specimens procedure in AASHTO T 300 with the following exceptions and additional 

requirements:

• Six samples shall be prepared using degassed PAV-aged asphalt cement, two for each 

ligament length of 0.59, 0.39, and 0.2 inches (15, 10, and 5 mm), by fitting each of the 

three matching pairs of inserts with three pairs of end pieces so the space between the 

matching pair of notches is equal to the three different ligament lengths to a tolerance 

of 0.001 inches (0.25 mm). Asphalt cement shall be aged according to AASHTO T 240 

(RTFO) and AASHTO R 28 (PAV). The aged asphalt cement shall then be heated for 1 h 

at 320 ±9 °F(160 ±5 °C) to ensure that the asphalt cement readily flows when dispensed 

from the container into the prepared molds. (Note: The heating temperature may be raised 

to a maximum of 356 °F (180 °C) to provide a low enough viscosity, but the sample 

material should not be overheated.)

• Prior to pouring the asphalt cement into the mold, measure and record the actual ligament 

length, l, to within 0.004 inches (0.1 mm).

• After any trimming, measure and record the sample thickness, B, in meters to four

decimal places (to 0.1 mm). If trimmed flush with the mold, this will be the thickness 

of the mold.

TEST PROCEDURES

The following steps constitute the procedures for testing: 

1. Condition the samples on the base plates at 77 ±0.9 °F (25 ± 0.5 °C) for 3 h ±5 min in their 

molds in a temperature controlled bath under a minimum of 1 inch (25 mm) of water.

2. Once conditioned, prepare the sample for testing by removing the sample from the base plate 

without causing excessive deformation or stress concentrations to the sample. Keep the 

sample always under the surface of the water, detach the DENT inserts, and load it through 

the holes in the end pieces onto the testing apparatus’ loading pins. The sample shall be 

loaded so there is a minimum of 1 inch (25 mm) of water below and above the sample.

Allow the sample to sit and equilibrate for a minimum of 5 min before starting the test.

3. Run the test according to AASHTO T 300 but at a displacement rate of 4 ±0.02 inches/min 

(100 ±2.5 mm/min) in a bath maintained at 77 ±0.9 °F (25 ± 0.5 °C) until ductile failure is 

reached or a stroke length of 39.4 inches (1,000 mm) is reached.

4. If ductile failure is not achieved before the stroke length of 39.4 inches (1,000 mm) is 

reached, the test shall be stopped and retested at a lower displacement rate. Reheat the 

sample material in a manner that minimizes damage to the material (see Preparation of 

Sample section). Condition and retest according to steps 1–3 at a displacement rate of 

2 ±0.01 inches/min (50 ±2.5 mm/min).
239

5. Record actual sample ligament length, l, displacement rate, water bath temperature, and load 

every 0.3 s for the entire test time.

6. Repeat steps 1–5 on the duplicate and then on all the other ligament length samples.

CALCULATIONS

The following calculations should be performed following testing: 

1. Using numerical integration techniques, calculate the average Wt for each ligament length 

where Wt for each sample is computed based on figure 187.

(units kJ)

Figure 187. Equation. Total work of fracture calculated from integration of load 

and displacement data.

Where tf is the time when ductile failure or the maximum stroke length is reached, whichever 

comes first. (Note: Any negative load readings or negative Wt values and any Wt obtained after tf

are not to be included in the calculation. Although it is not always noticeable, additional data are 

often recorded for the run after failure. For example, when the load is very small and then 

increases slightly or the load is very small and remains constant, the data are a residual load on 

the device. Check each of the data records to ensure that these residual and any prestart values 

are zeroed so they are not included in the total Wt.)

2. Calculate wt for each ligament length for each average Wt where wt is the (average Wt)/(Bl)

(units J/m2).

3. Plot wt for the three ligament lengths, l and use the method of least squares to fit a regression 

line through the data. See figure 188 for an example.

Wt= � P(t) × D(t) dt

tf

0
240

1 kJ = 23,730 lb-ft2/sec2

1 mm = 0.0309 inches

Figure 188. Graph. Example wt versus ligament length plot for determining EWF.

Obtain values for we and the term , where we is the specific EWF (i.e., wt for l = 0.0) and 

is the slope of the best fit straight line, for . (Note: An individual value 

does not need to be calculated. As background for the user of this test, , where h is the 

height of an assumed elliptic shape of the plastic zone and L is the ligament length.)

4. Determine , where = Ppeak / (Bl) and Ppeak is the average peak load obtained 

for the sample tested with the smallest ligament length (i.e., the average maximum load for 

the 0.2-inch (5-mm) ligament samples).

REPORTING RESULTS

Report the following on a form similar to figure 189: we, , , Ppeak, best fit line for the wt

versus ligament lengths plot. For each ligament length, plot the average actual sample ligament 

length, the average actual sample thickness, average Wt, wt, and load versus displacement curves, 

as in figure 190.

Specific Total Work of Fracture

y = 2.9677x + 5.7028

R2

 = 0.9864

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

0 5 10 15 20

Ligament Length (mm)

wt, specific total work (kJ/m2)

βwp

βwp wt = we + βwp l β

ββ = hππ

4LL

δt = we / σn σn

βwp δt
241

Figure 189. Chart. Example reporting sheet.
242

1 N = 0.225 lbf

1 mm = 0.0309 inches

Figure 190. Graph. Typical load-displacement curves for EWF test.

Load Versus Displacement Curves

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Displacement (mm)

Load (N)

5mm - Run 1

5mm - Run 2

10mm - Run 1

10mm - Run 2

15mm - Run 1

15mm - Run 2
243

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many organizations and people to thank for support of this research. Most notably, the 

financial support through the TPF and State Planning and Research programs by the following 

State transportation departments: Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, 

New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Significant credit is also given to the following private industry organizations that provided inkind contributions: NuStar (formerly Citgo), Dow, DuPont, Road Science LLC (formerly Koch), 

Paramount, Butaphalt (formerly TexPar), Trifinery GCA, Trumbull, Owens Corning, Wright 

Asphalt, Martin Color Fi, Bit Mat, Mathy Construction/MTE Services, the National Asphalt 

Pavement Association, FNF Construction, Consulpav, Rubber Pavements Association, 

International Surfacing Systems, and Recovery Technologies Group. 

A great deal of recognition must be made to FWHA staff John D’Angelo (retired), Tom Harman, 

Kevin Stuart (retired), and Jack Youtcheff for identifying, developing, and coordinating the 

experiment. In addition, the members of the FWHA Asphalt ETGs and their associated State 

transportation department and private industry friends and members are acknowledged for their 

input on the experiment’s development.

ALF construction and many FWD tests could not have completed without the efforts and 

services of FHWA Eastern Federal Lands. 

FHWA MAMTL provided very valuable onsite testing during construction for quality assurance 

in participation with the TFHRC Bituminous Mixtures Laboratory. 

The final report could not have been assembled without contributions from research support 

staff and associates in the ALF operations. Binder Rheology Laboratory and Bituminous 

Mixtures staff were Dennis Lim, Mario Tinio, Susan Needham, Scott Parobeck, Frank Davis, 

and Senthil Thyagarajan.

245

REFERENCES

1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 1-37(A). (2004). MechanisticEmpirical Design Guide of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Washington, DC. 

Obtained from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/home.htm.

2. AASHTO M 320. (2009). Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder, 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

3. AASHTO T 313. (2012). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Flexural Creep 

Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR), American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

4. AASHTO T 314. (2012). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Fracture Properties 

of Asphalt Binder in Direct Tension (DT), American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

5. AASHTO T 315. (2012). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Rheological 

Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR), American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

6. Petersen, J.C., Robertson, R., Brenthaver, J., Harnsberger, P.M., Duval, J., Kim, S., 

Anderson, D., Christensen, D., and Bahia, H. (1994). Binder Characterization and 

Evaluation, Volume 1, Report No. SHRP A-367, Strategic Highway Research Program, 

National Research Council, Washington, DC.

7. Kennedy, T.W, Cominsky, R.J., Harrigan, E., and Leahy, R. (1990). The SHRP Asphalt 

Research Program: 1990 Strategic Planning Document, Report No. SHRP-A/UWP-90-

007, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

8. Anderson, D., Christensen, D., Bahia, H., Dongre, R., Sharma, M., Antle, C., and Button, J. 

(1994). Binder Characterization and Evaluation, Volume 3: Physical Characterization, 

Report No. SHRP A-369, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research 

Council, Washington, DC.

9. Hveem, F., Zube, E., and Skog, J. (1960). “Progress Report on the Zaca-Wigmore 

Experimental Asphalt Test Project,” Symposium on Road and Paving Materials, 1959, 

ASTM STP 277, American Society for Testing and Materials, Baltimore, MD.

10. Skog, J.B. (1981). “Effect of Changes in Asphalt Properties on Pavement Performance: 

Zaca-Wigmore Test Road,” Asphalt Paving Technology, Proceedings of the Association of 

Asphalt Paving Technologists Technical Session, Vol. 50.

11. Deacon, J.A., Tayebali, A., Coplantz, J., Finn, F., and Monismith, C. (1994). Fatigue 

Response of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixes; Part III: Mix Design and Analysis, Report No. 

SHRP A-404, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, 

Washington, DC.
246

12. Asphalt Research Program, University of California, Berkley. (1994). Permanent 

Deformation Response of Asphalt Aggregate Mixes, Report No. SHRP A-415, Strategic 

Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

13. Strategic Highway Research Program. (1994). Stage 1 Validation of the Relationship 

Between Asphalt Properties and Asphalt-Aggregate Mix Performance, Report No. SHRP 

A-398, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

14. Leahy, R.B., Monismith, C.L., and Lundy, J.L. (1995). “Performance-Based Properties of 

Asphalt Concrete Mixtures,” Engineering Properties of Asphalt Mixtures and the 

Relationship to their Performance, ASTM STP 1265, G. Huber and D. Decker (Eds.), 

ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA.

15. Lytton, R., Uzan, J., Fernando, E., Roque, R., Hiltunen, D., and Stoffels, S., (1993). 

Development and Validation of Performance Prediction Models and Specifications for 

Asphalt Binders and Paving Mixes, Report No. SHRP A-357, Strategic Highway Research 

Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

16. Stuart, K.D., Mogawer, W.S., and Romero, P. (2001). Validation of the Superpave Asphalt 

Binder Fatigue Cracking Parameter Using the FHWA’s Accelerated Loading, Report No. 

FHWA-RD-01-093, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

17. Stuart, K.D. and Mogawer, W.S. (1997). “Validation of Asphalt Binder and Mixture 

Tests that Predict Rutting Susceptibility Using the Federal Highway Administration’s 

Accelerated Loading Facility,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 

Vol. 66.

18. Stuart, K.D., Mogawer, W.S., and Romero, P. (1999). Validation of Asphalt Binder and 

Mixture Tests That Measure Rutting Susceptibility Using the Accelerated Loading Facility, 

Report No. FHWA-RD-99-204, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

19. Kavanaugh, L. (2004). “A 9-Year Evaluation of Field Cracking and Rutting Performance 

of SPS-9 Superpave Experiment,” Transportation Research Record 1896, Transportation 

Research Board, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC. 

20. Bahia, H., Hanson, D., Zeng, M., Zhai, H., Khatri, M., and Anderson, R. (2001). 

Characterization of Modified Asphalt Binders in Superpave Mix Design, NCHRP Report 

459, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Academy of Science, 

Washington, DC.

21. Deacon, J., Harvey, J., Tayebali, A., and Monismith, C. (1997). “Influence of Binder Loss 

Modulus on the Fatigue Performance of Asphalt Concrete Pavements,” Journal of the 

Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 66.

22. Stuart, K.D., Youtcheff, J.S., and Mogawer, W.S. (2001). Understanding the Performance 

of Modified Asphalt Binders in Mixtures: Evaluation of Moisture Sensitivity, Report No. 

FHWA-RD-02-029, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA. 
247

23. Arizona Test Method 714. (2006). Sampling and Sieving of Crumb Rubber, Arizona 

Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ.

24. ASTM D6114/D6114M. (2009). Standard Specification for Asphalt-Rubber Binder, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA.

25. ASTM D5329. (2009). Standard Test Methods for Sealants and Fillers, Hot-Applied, for 

Joints and Cracks in Asphaltic and Portland Cement Concrete Pavements, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA.

26. ASTM D36/D36M. (2012). Standard Test Method for Softening Point of Bitumen (Ringand-Ball Apparatus), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

27. ASTM D5. (2006). Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials, ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA.

28. Shenoy, A. (2001). “High Temperature Performance Grade Specification of Paving Asphalt 

from the Material’s Volumetric-Flow Rate,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 24, No. 244.

29. Shenoy, A. (2002). “A Method to Estimate the Rheological Properties of Aged Asphalt 

Binders Without Actually Aging Them,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 64.

30. Arizona Department of Transportation. (2008). “Section 413, Asphaltic Concrete (AsphaltRubber),” Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Phoenix, AZ. 

31. Bonaquist, R. (1992). An Assessment of the Increased Damage Potential of Wide Base 

Single Tires, Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Vol. 3.

32. Sherwood, J. (2005). Ultra-Thin Whitetopping (UTW) Project, Accelerated Pavement 

Testing of Ultra-Thin Whitetopping Concrete Overlays, Federal Highway Administration, 

McLean, VA. Obtained from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/utwweb/. Site last 

accessed November 7, 2011. 

33. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Construction Technologies Laboratories, and 

The Asphalt Institute. (1990). Calibrated Mechanistic Structural Analysis Procedure for 

Pavements: Volume II, Appendices, NCHRP Project 1-26, Final Report. Transportation 

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

34. Anderson, D.A., Kilareski, W.P., and Siddiqui, Z. (1988). Pavement Testing Facility: 

Design and Construction, Report No. FHWA-RD-88-059, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

35. AASHTO T 99. (2010). Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils 

Using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop, American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
248

36. AASHTO T 180. (2010). Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils 

Using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop, American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

37. AASHTO T 168. (2003). Standard Method of Test for Sampling Bituminous Paving 

Mixtures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC.

38. AASHTO T 248. (2011). Standard Method of Test for Reducing Samples of Aggregate to

Testing Size, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC.

39. AASHTO T 30. (2010). Standard Method of Test for Mechanical Analysis of Extracted

Aggregate, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC.

40. AASHTO T 308. (2010). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Asphalt Binder

Content of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) by the Ignition Method, American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

41. AASHTO T 287. (2006). Standard Method of Test for Asphalt Binder Content of Asphalt

Mixtures by the Nuclear Method, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

42. AASHTO T 209. (2012). Standard Method of Test for Theoretical Maximum Specific

Gravity (Gmm) and Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

43. AASHTO PP28. (2001). Standard Practice for Superpave Volumetric Design for Hot Mix

Asphalt (HMA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC.

44. ASTM D2950/D2950M. (2011). Standard Test Method for Density of Bituminous Concrete 

in Place by Nuclear Methods, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

45. AASHTO T 166. (2012). Standard Method of Test for Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) of

Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

46. ASTM D3203/D3203M. (2011). Standard Test Method for Percent Air Voids in 

Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Mixtures, ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken, PA.

47. FLH T 501-96. (1996). “Determining the Thickness of Compacted Asphalt Concrete 

Paving Mixture Specimens,” Federal Lands Highway Field Materials Manual, Office of 

Federal Lands Highway, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
249

48. Arnold, T.S., Rozario-Ranasinghe, M., and Youtcheff, J. (2006). “Determination of Lime 

in Hot-Mix Asphalt,” Transportation Research Record 1962, Transportation Research 

Board, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.

49. Qi, X., Gibson, N., and Youtcheff, J. (2008). Fatigue Cracking Characteristics of 

Accelerated Testing Pavements with Modified Binders, Proceedings of the Sixth RILEM 

International Conference on Cracking in Pavements, June 16–18, Chicago, IL.

50. Youtcheff, J., Stuart, K., Al-Khateeb, G., and Shenoy, A. (2004). Understanding the 

Performance of Polymer Modified Binders, Proceedings of the Eurasphalt and Eurobitme 

Congress, May 12–14, Vienna, Austria.

51. AASHTO T 331. (2010). Standard Method of Test for Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of

Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

52. Kendall, M. and Gibbons, J. (1996). Rank Correlation Methods, Fifth Edition, Oxford 

University Press, Oxford, England.

53. Washington, S., Leonard, J., Manning, D.G., Roberts, C., Williams, B., and Bacchus, A.R.

(2001). NCHRP 20-45—Statistics for Transportation Researchers, Scientific Approaches to 

Transportation Research, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Obtained 

from: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/cd-22/readme.html. Site last accessed 

November 7, 2011. 

54. Bari, J. (2006). Development of a New Revised Version of the Witczak E* Predictive 

Models for Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures, Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 

Phoenix, AZ.

55. Washington State Department of Transportation. (2005). Everseries User’s Guide, 

Pavement Analysis Computer Software and Case Studies. Obtained from: http://www.

wsdot.wa.gov/Business/MaterialsLab/Pavements/PavementDesign.htm#FWD. Site last 

accessed November 7, 2011. 

56. AASHTO TP 79-09. (2009). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Dynamic 

Modulus and Flow Number for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Asphalt Mixture 

Performance Tester (AMPT), American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Washington, DC.

57. Thyagarajan, S., Sivaneswaran, N., Muhunthan, B., and Petros, K. (2009). “An Evaluation 

of the Effects of Nonlinear Load-Strain Behavior on MEPDG Analysis of Flexible 

Pavements,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 78.

58. Peterson, R.L., Mahboub, K.C., Anderson, R.M., Masad, E., and Tashman, L. (2004). 

“Comparing Superpave Gyratory Compactor Data to Field Cores,” Journal of Materials in 

Civil Engineering, January/February.
250

59. Hunter, A.E., Airey, G.D., and Collop, A.C. (2004). “Aggregate Orientation and 

Segregation in Laboratory-Compacted Asphalt Samples,” Transportation Research Record 

1891, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

60. Wang, W. and Hoeg, K. (2009). “Method of Compaction has Significant Effects on StressStrain Behavior of Hydraulic Asphalt Concrete,” ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 

Volume 37, No. 3.

61. Linden R.N., Mahoney, J.P., and Jackson, N.C. (1989). “Effect of Compaction on Asphalt 

Concrete Performance,” Transportation Research Record 1217, Transportation Research 

Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

62. Abd El Halim, A.O., and Haas, R. (1994). “Effect of Field Compaction Method on Fatigue 

Life of Asphalt Pavements,” Transportation Research Record 1469, Transportation 

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

63. Christensen, D., Pellinen, T., and Bonaquist, R. (2003). “Hirsch Model for Estimating the 

Modulus of Asphalt Concrete,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving 

Technologists, Vol. 72.

64. Witczak, M.W., Kaloush, K., Pellinen, T., El-Basyouny, M., and Von Quintus, H. (2002).

NCHRP Report 465: Simple Performance Test for Superpave Mix Design, Transportation 

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

65. Martono, W. and Bahia, H. (2008). Developing a Surrogate Test for Fatigue of Asphalt 

Binders, Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 

Washington, DC.

66. Shenoy, A. (2002). “Fatigue Testing and Evaluation of Asphalt Binders Using the Dynamic 

Shear Rheometer,” ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation 30(4), ASTM International, 

Philadelphia, PA.

67. Andriescu, A., Hesp, S.A.M., and Youtcheff, J.S. (2004). “Essential and Plastic Works of 

Ductile Fracture in Asphalt Binders,” Transportation Research Record 1875, 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

68. Broberg, K.B. (1975). “On Stable Crack Growth,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of 

Solids, Vol. 23, Issue 3.

69. Cotterell, B. and Reddel, J.K. (1977). “The Essential Work of Plane Stress Ductile 

Fracture.” International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 13, Issue 3.

70. Mai, Y.W. and Cotterell, B. (1980). “Effects of Pre-Strain on Plane Stress Ductile Fracture 

in α-brass,” Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 15, No. 9. 

71. MOT LS-299. (2009). “Method of Test for Determining Asphalt Cement’s Resistance to 

Fatigue Fracture Using Double Edge Notched Tension Test (DENT),” MTO Laboratory 

Testing Manual, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, ON.
251

72. Johnson, C., Wen, H., and Bahia, H. (2009). “Practical Application of Viscoelastic 

Continuum Damage Theory to Asphalt Binder Fatigue Characterization,” Asphalt Paving 

Technology, Vol. 78.

73. AASHTO TP 70. (2012). Standard Method of Test for Multiple Stress Creep Recovery

(MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR), American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

74. Dongré, R., D’Angelo, J., Baumgardner, G., and Reinke, G. (2003). New Developments in 

Refinement of the Superpave High Temperature Specification Parameter, 40th Annual 

Meeting of the Petersen Asphalt Research Conference, Laramie, WY.

75. Dongré, R.N. and D’Angelo, J.A. (2004). New Criterion for Superpave High-Temperature 

Binder Specification, 83d Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC.

76. ASTM D5976. (2000). Standard Specification for Type I Polymer Modified Asphalt 

Cement for Use in Pavement Construction, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

77. AASHTO T 51. (2009). Standard Method of Test for Ductility of Asphalt Materials,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

78. Shenoy, A. (2001). “Refinement of the Superpave Specification Parameter for Performance 

Grading of Asphalt,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 127, Issue 5.

79. Shenoy, A. (2004). “High Temperature Performance Grading of Asphalts Through a 

Specification Criterion that Could Capture Field Performance,” Journal of Transportation 

Engineering, Vol. 130, Issue 1.

80. Shenoy, A (2004). “A Comprehensive Treatise of the High Temperature Specification 

Parameter,” Applied Rheology, Vol. 14, Issue 6.

81. Shenoy, A. (2008). “Nonrecovered Compliance from Dynamic Oscillatory Test Vis-a-Vis 

Nonrecovered Compliance from Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Test in the Dynamic 

Shear Rheometer,” International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 9, Issue 5.

82. Rowe, G.M., D’Angelo, J., and Sharrock, M.J. (2002). Use of the Zero Shear Viscosity as a 

Parameter for the High Temperature Binder Specification Parameter, 3d International 

Symposium on Binder Rheology and Pavement Performance, San Antonio, TX.

83. D’Angelo, J. and Dongré, R. (2004). Multi-Stress Creep Recovery: A New Approach to the 

Refinement of High Temperature Binder Specification, 41st Annual Meeting of the 

Petersen Asphalt Research Conference, Cheyenne, WY.

84. Dongré, R.N. and D’Angelo, J.A. (2006). Development of a High Temperature 

Performance-Based Specification in the United States, 10th International Conference on 

Asphalt Pavements, Quebec, Canada.
252

85. Shenoy, A. (2001). “High Temperature Performance Grade Specification of Asphalt Binder 

from the Material’s Volumetric-Flow Rate,” Materials and Structures, Vol. 34.

86. Shenoy, A. (2000). “Material’s Volumetric-Flow Rate (MVR) as a Unification Parameter 

in Asphalt Rheology and Quality Control/Quality Assurance Tool for High Temperature 

Performance Grading,” Applied Rheology, Vol. 10, Issue 6.

87. ASTM D1238. (2010). Standard Test Method for Melt Flow Rates of Thermoplastics by 

Extrusion Plastometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

88. AASHTO T 324. (2011). Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of

Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

89. AASHTO TP 7-94. (1994). Test Method for Determining the Permanent Deformation and 

Fatigue Cracking Characteristics of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Simple Shear Test 

(SST) Device, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC.

90. National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP 09-30A. (Active). Calibration 

of Rutting Models for HMA Structural and Mix Design, Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC. Obtained from: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.

asp?ProjectID=965. Site last accessed November 7, 2011. 

91. Gibson N., Kutay M.E., Keramat D., and Youtcheff J. (2009). “Multiaxial Strain Response 

of Asphalt Concrete Measure During Flow Number Simple Performance Test,” Journal of 

the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 78.

92. Kim, R., Guddati, M.N., Underwood, B.S., Yun, T.Y., Subramanian, V., and Savadatti, S.

(2009). Development of a Multiaxial VEPCD-FEP++: Final Report, Report No. FHWAHRT-08-073, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

93. Zhou, F., Hu, S., Chen, D., and Scullion, T. (2007). “Overlay Tester—Simple Performance 

Test for Fatigue Cracking,” Transportation Research Record 2001, Transportation 

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

94. AASHTO T 322. (2007). Standard Method of Test for Determining the Creep Compliance

and Strength of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

95. AASHTO TP 8-94. (1994). Standard Test Method for Determination of the Fatigue Life of 

Compacted HMA Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending, American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

96. Witczak, M.W. (2005). NCHRP Report 547: Simple Performance Tests: Summary of 

Recommended Methods and Database, Transportation Research Board, National Research 

Council, Washington, DC.
253

97. Lee, H.J. and Kim, Y.R. (1998). “Viscoelastic Constitutive Model for Asphalt Concrete 

Under Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 124, No. 1, American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

98. Lee, H.J. and Kim, Y.R. (1998). “Viscoelastic Continuum Damage Model for Asphalt 

Concrete with Healing,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 124, No. 11, American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 

99. Christensen, D. and Bonaquist, R. (2005). “Practical Application of Continuum Damage 

Theory to Fatigue Phenomena in Asphalt Concrete Mixtures,” Journal of the Association of 

Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 74.

100. Kutay, M.E., Gibson, N.H., and Youtcheff, J. (2008). “Conventional and Viscoelastic 

Continuum Damage (VECD) Based Fatigue Analysis of Polymer Modified Asphalt 

Pavements,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 77.

101. Christensen, D. and Bonaquist, R. (2008). “Analysis of HMA Fatigue Data Using the 

Concepts of Reduced Loading Cycles and Endurance Limit,” Journal of the Association of 

Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 78.

102. Kutay, M.E., Gibson, N.H., Dongre, R., and Youtcheff, J. (2009). “Use of Small Samples 

to Predict Fatigue Lives of Field Cores-Newly Developed Formulation Based on 

Viscoelastic Continuum Damage Theory,” Transportation Research Record 2127,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

103. Hou, T., Underwood, B.S., and Kim, Y.R. (2010). “Fatigue Performance Prediction of 

North Carolina Mixtures Using the Simplified Viscoelastic Continuum Damage Model,” 

Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 80.

104. Andriescu, A. (2006). Essential Work of Fracture Approach to Fatigue Grading of Asphalt 

Binders. Doctoral dissertation, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. 

105. Huber, G. (2009). Evaluation of Low Temperature Cracking of Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements 

in Ontario, A report prepared for The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and Ontario 

Hot Mix Producers Association, Ontario, Canada.

106. AASHTO T 300. (2011). Standard Method of Test for Force Ductility Test of Asphalt

Materials, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

Washington, DC.


HRDI-10/11-12(200)E Recycled

Recyclable