## 1 Introduction  
\(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) was developed as a fatigue cracking parameter during the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) for asphalt pavement. Complex shear modulus (\(G^{*}\)) is defined as the absolute value of peak shear stress divided by the absolute value of peak shear strain, whereas phase angel (\(\delta\)) is defined as the lag between strain and stress peak values due to the viscoelastic property of asphalt. The \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) was proposed to limit the magnitude of \(G^{*}\) and \(\delta\) to select relative soft asphalt with a high elasticity, and thus to improve the fatigue resistance of asphalt binder. Based on unmodified binder, [PERSON] et al. [1] found that the \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) was able to differentiate various asphalt types and contents in resisting fatigue damage in a linear viscoelastic range. With the increased usage of asphalt modifications (i.e., polymer, warm mix asphalt), researchers started to realize that \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) cannot successfully be utilized in fatigue characterization, as \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) has little relation to asphalt mixture fatigue results [2,3]. The possible reasons that caused such discrepancies include: (1) most responses of modified asphalt binder were non-linear, and it was not reasonable to use linear parameters to characterize a non-linear response; (2) one of the assumptions of \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) was that all the asphalt binders share the same sensitivity to loading rate and testing temperature, whereas this assumption was not applicable to the modified binders [3]; and (3) \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\) was tested at a low strain level with a fixed frequency and no damage was introduced during the test, whereas field traffic was much more complicated and with a higher level of damage severity. Higher stain in asphalt binder may induce significant amounts of viscous flow or yielding, as well as micro-cracking and macro-racking in areas of a high-stress concentration [4]. Both fatigue test and fracture tests were developed to address the above issues. A repeated loading test was used to better simulate the field traffic load, which generates accumulated damage, including the time sweeping test [3], linear amplitude sweep test [5], and dynamic mechanical analyzer test [6]. The fracture test can introduce damage with a high efficiency and is very time efficient. The major fracture tests consist of ductility, crack tip opening displacement, and the monotonic test. Recently, the multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test was applied to quantify the fatigue since the MSCR recovery can be potentially used to evaluate the delayed elastic response of asphalt binder [7]. The MSCR test does not impose the assumption that the material behavior is linear viscoelastic [8]. The test is also sensitive to different binder types at elevated temperatures (i.e., 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C or higher). It was found that the MSCR test was able to distinguish modified binders from un-modified binders [9]. The current study using the MSCR on fatigue resistance evaluation was majorly based on correlating MSCR results at a high performance grade (PG) temperature to asphalt fracture test results [7]. In summary, multiple parameters were proposed to quantify the fatigue resistance of both modified and un-modified asphalt to address the limitations of the \(G^{*}\)sin \(\delta\). The MSCR test, considering its wide application, is practical to investigate whether it is applicable to evaluate the fatigue performance of modified and unmodified asphalt binders. The current study using MSCR as part of a fatigue study was limited to high testing temperatures, and its correlation with mixture property was not well explored. The research objectives of this study were to (a) examine if the MSCR test was able to distinguish different binder types and additive contents at intermediate temperatures; and (b) evaluate if the MSCR test at intermediate temperatures could correlate well with the fatigue performance of the asphalt mixture.