For questions, thoughts, or interest in collaboration, please contact: 

David Mensching, david.mensching@dot.gov or Satish Belagutti, satish.belagutti.ctr@dot.gov 

Asphalt Binder and Mixture 

Laboratory (ABML) Look-In

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER 

 August 2022 – Issue 2 

Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-22-092 

Assessment of Automated Extraction Technology 

The Federal Highway Administration ABML–

Implementation and Delivery (ABML-ID) evaluated 

the automated extraction procedure and its effect 

on performance grading. This document is a 

supplement to a previously released highlight 

document (FHWA-HRT-20-057).

1

The objective of this study was to compare the high

temperature (HT), intermediate temperature (IT), 

and low temperature (LT) performance grade (PG) 

property changes of asphalt binders extracted from 

traditional extraction (TE) methods (American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) T-164, Method A2) and an 

automated extraction (AE) device (ASTM D81593). 

The study included the following materials: a PG 64-

22 binder in 0 percent and 40 percent reclaimed 

asphalt pavement (RAP) mixtures and a RAP binder. 

On extraction of the asphalt binder, the ABML’s 

specialized recovery method was used before 

physical properties were assessed.

Specialized Recovery Method

Figure 1 shows the recovery equipment setup. 

Figure 2 describes the steps to recover asphalt 

binder from extracted asphalt solution. 

 Source: FHWA. 

Figure 1. Recovery equipment setup. 

Asphalt Binder Recovery Steps

Source: FHWA

Figure 2. Asphalt binder recovery steps. 

Asphalt Binder Analysis 

Extractions were conducted on asphalt binder from 

a PG 64-22 in 0 percent and 40 percent RAP, and a 

RAP binder asphalt mixture using automated 

extraction and traditional extraction for evaluation.

Testing was conducted on recovered asphalt binder 

to determine the properties at HT, IT, and LT. Error 

bars in the plots correspond to differences plus or

minus one standard deviation from the mean. The 

following plots show binder complex shear modulus 

(G*) and binder phase angle (δ), creep stiffness (S), 

and the creep slope from the bending beam 

rheometer. 

 

 Figure 3. HT stiffness comparison. 
For questions, thoughts, or interest in collaboration, please contact: 

David Mensching, david.mensching@dot.gov or Satish Belagutti, satish.belagutti.ctr@dot.gov 

Asphalt Binder and Mixture 

Laboratory (ABML) Look-In

TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER 

 Figure 4. IT stiffness comparison. 

 Figure 5. LT stiffness comparison. 

 Figure 6. LT slope(m) comparison. 

 Figure 7. Virgin and 40 percent RAP Comparison. 

 Figure 8. Comparison of 100 percent RAP.

 August 2022 – Issue 2 

Gradation Analysis

Table 1 shows the summary of gradations and 

asphalt content (AC) by weight of mixture of TE 

and AE compared to the job mix formula (JMF). 

These volumetric properties are often obtained by 

practitioners after extraction.

Table 1. Summary of gradations and AC content. 

Size

(mm) 

JMF

(percent) 

TE-1 

(percent) 

TE-2 

(percent) 

AE-1 

(percent) 

AE-2 

(percent) 

12.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

9.5 85.8 85.1 85.4 85.8 86.3 

4.75 47.4 44.8 45.5 47.5 47.8 

2.36 27.4 23.6 24.2 27.8 28.1 

1.18 20.3 16.0 16.0 20.6 20.9 

0.6 15.7 11.4 11.5 16.1 16.4 

0.3 11.1 6.9 7.0 11.8 12.1 

0.15 7.5 3.3 3.4 8.5 8.7 

0.075 5.0 0.6 0.7 6.1 6.3 

AC 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Observations

The following observations were made: 

• Physical properties of extracted binder from 

AE were statistically similar to the unextracted 

control virgin binder.

• AC percent was found to be similar after AE, 

compared to JMF. 

• Aggregate gradations were different at finer 

sizes a

1

Federal Highway Administration. 2020. Asphalt Binder and Mixture Laboratory (ABML) Look-In. Report No. FHWA-HRT-22-057. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/20057/index.cfm, last accessed June 15, 2022. 2

AASHTO.

2014. Standard Method of Test for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). T 164. Washington, DC: American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials. https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=AASHTO%20T%20164&item_s_key=00489046, last accessed June 

15, 2022. 3ASTM D8159. 2021. Road and Paving Materials; Vehicle-Pavement Systems. Vol 04.03. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

https://www.mystandards.biz/publication/astm-volume-0403-road-and-paving-materials-vehicle-pavement-systems-1.6.2021.html, last accessed June 15, 2022. 

“The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this document only because they are 

considered essential to the objective of the presentation. They are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to reflect a preference, approval, 

or endorsement of any one product or entity.” (Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration, Asphalt Binder and Mixture 

Laboratory (ABML) Look-In (Washington, DC: 2022) https://doi.org/10.21949/1521922).

Observations

The following observations were made: 

• Physical properties of extracted binder from 

AE were statistically similar to the 

unextracted control virgin binder.

• AC percent was found to be similar after AE, 

compared to JMF.

• Aggregate gradations were different at finer 

sizes after TE, compared to JMF. All fines 

passing the 0.075 mm sieve could not be 

recovered from the TE, and future users 

should exercise caution.