Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Duplication of this paper for publication or sale is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the Transportation Research Board

Comparative Evaluation of the Stiffness Properties of Warm-Mix Asphalt Technologies and |E*| Predictive Models
Habtamu Zelelew, PhD (Corresponding Author)
ESC Inc, FHWA Office of Pavement Technology 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590, Phone: (202) 366-6606 e-mail: habtamu.zelelew.ctr@dot.gov Federal Highway Administration Office of Pavement Technology 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-1549 e-mail: matthew.corrigan@dot.gov ESC Inc, FHWA TFHRC 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101 Phone: (202) 493-3103 e-mail: satish.belagutti.ctr@dot.gov ESC Inc, FHWA TFHRC 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA Phone: (202) 256-5928 e-mail:jeevan.ramakrishnareddy.ctr@dot.gov

Matthew Corrigan, P.E.

Satish Belagutti

Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

No. of Words = 3235 + 8*500 = 7235 < 7500 Transportation Research Board Committee AFK30: Characteristics of Nonasphalt Components of Asphalt Paving Mixtures For Presentation at the 91st Annual Meeting October 31 2011

1
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

ABSTRACT
Warm-mix Asphalt (WMA) has gained popularity due to rising energy costs and potential reductions in carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. In this paper, a comprehensive laboratory evaluation of WMA technologies stiffness properties and comparison of three |E*| predicting models (Witczak 1-37A, Witczak 1-40D, and Hirsch) are presented. A total of nine WMA technologies were included; six foaming processes (Accu-Shear, Advera, Aspha-min, Aquablack, Low Emission Asphalt (LEA), and Gencor), two chemical additives (Evotherm and Rediset), and an organic additive (Sasobit). The rheological properties of the asphalt binders were characterized using the dynamic shear rheometer device at four test temperatures (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4C) and multiple frequencies (0.016 to 25 Hz). The asphalt mixture performance tester was used to capture the stiffness properties of the asphalt mixtures using four temperatures (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4C) and six frequencies (25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz). The stiffness properties of the WMA technologies as well as their control binders/mixtures were evaluated through the use of master curves (both shear modulus and dynamic modulus). Compared to the control binder and mixture specimens, lower stiffness values were observed for the WMA technologies. Overall, reasonable |E*| predictions of the plant produced WMA technologies were obtained when the Hirsch model was utilized followed by the Witczak 1-40D model and the Witczak 1-37A model.

KEYWORDS: Warm-mix asphalt, shear modulus, dynamic modulus, and |E*| predictions

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, Warm-mix Asphalt (WMA) has gained popularity due to rising energy costs, potential reductions in carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, and the need for sustainable materials. WMA is the name given to a variety of technologies that allow producing asphalt mixtures to lower temperatures at which the material is mixed, compacted, and placed on the roadways. Some WMA technologies have potential benefits in reducing the binder viscosity as well as reducing the short term aging of the mixture during production (1, 2). Another benefit of WMA is that the improved workability which allows incorporation of higher percentages of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) or Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles (RAS) in the asphalt mixture (2). There is a widespread concern in pavement community however that the reductions in binder viscosity and production temperatures may lead WMA mixtures to exhibit lower stiffness properties and consequently prone to rutting as compared to the conventional hotmix asphalt (HMA) mixtures. The first trial WMA field projects were constructed in 2004 in Florida and North Carolina. To date, over forty-five states and ten Canadian provinces have constructed WMA demonstration projects in their jurisdictions (2). Since then, several of WMA technologies have emerged in the US market. There is a need to fully understand the properties of WMA technologies including their interaction with the asphalt binder and consequently their potential affect on pavement performance. In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in collaboration with the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) formed the WMA technical working group in order to address these challenges and implement WMA technologies successfully. The FHWA Office of Pavement Technology introduced the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) equipment for conducting performance-based evaluation of asphalt concrete mixtures. The stiffness and deformation properties of asphalt mixes can be evaluated using this device respectively through the dynamic modulus and flow number tests. The dynamic modulus of an asphalt mixture, identified by |E*|, is a response developed under sinusoidal loading conditions tested at multiple frequencies and multiple temperatures. Among others, accuracy and repeatability of |E*| measurements can be significantly influenced by the material properties and test conditions (e.g., temperature, confinement, rate of loading, tuning/calibration, and specimen conditioning). When specimens are tested under higher test temperatures and/or 3

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

lower loading frequencies, the strain measuring gauge point locations can loosen and consequently high variations in the measured |E*| are observed. |E*| is also a crucial input to the AASHTOWare DARWin-ME (formerly the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (ME PDG)) which requires laboratory measured (Level 1) or predicted (Level 2 and 3) dynamic modulus for estimating pavement performance (3). Over the past several years, various HMA |E*| predictive models have been developed (4-9). The three most popular models include: the NCHRP 1-37A project (referred in this paper as the Witczak 1-37A model) (4); the NCHRP 1-40D project (referred in this paper as the Witczak 140D model) (5); and the Hirsch model (6). Several studies utilized these models to predict HMA |E*| over a range of temperatures, rate of loading, and aging conditions (10-13). This paper presents a comprehensive laboratory evaluation of WMA technologies stiffness properties. It underscores identifying the effects of WMA technologies on binder/mixture stiffness properties. A comparative assessment of the WMA |E*| predicting models (Witczak 1-37A, Witczak 1-40D, and Hirsch) is also presented. The study included nine WMA demonstration projects in eight states visited by the FHWA Mobile Asphalt Trailer Laboratory (MATL) program over the past five years.

OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of this study were to: Identify the effects of WMA technologies on binder stiffness properties. Identify the effects of WMA technologies on mixture stiffness properties. Compare the Witczak 1-37A model, the Witczak 1-40D model, and the Hirsch model in predicting plant produced WMA |E*|. In order to achieve these objectives, laboratory tests were conducted using the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) and AMPT devices respectively to capture the rheological properties of asphalt binders and characterize the stiffness properties of the asphalt mixtures.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 5

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

MATERIALS
The WMA technologies included six foaming processes (Accu-Shear, Advera, Asphamin, Aquablack, Low Emission Asphalt (LEA), and Gencor), two chemical additives (Evotherm and Rediset), and an organic additive (Sasobit). The base binder grade ranged from PG 58-34 to PG 76-22. Ten mix designs meeting the respective state DOT specification were included, eight Superpave mixes containing 9.5 mm, 12.5 mm, 19 mm, and 25 mm and two 19 mm Hveem mixes. The project locations covered a wide range of traffic levels as the design gyrations (N design ) ranged from 55 to 125. All binder tests were conducted at the AMRLaccredited Asphalt Binder Testing Laboratory (ABTL) operated by the FHWA Office of Pavement Technology. The mixture volumetrics and AMPT performance tests were performed by the Mobile Asphalt Mixture Testing Laboratory (MAMTL).

BINDER TESTING
The AASHTO T164 Standard Method of Test for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) test protocol was used for extraction of asphalt binders from the plant produced asphalt mixture specimens. In addition, the ASTM D5404 Standard Practice for Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Evaporator test protocol was utilized to recover the asphalt binder specimens. This test method recommends using Trichloroethylene solvent for extraction and recovery process. However, the FHWA binder laboratory has been using an 85% toluene and 15% of ethanol mixture for extraction and recovery process. The rheological properties of the extracted and recovered asphalt binders were then measured following the AASHTO T315 Standard Method of Test for Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) test protocol. The DSR testing consisted of 25 mm parallel plate geometry and 1 mm gap setting. The asphalt binder sources included lab blended and plant supplied specimens. The Silverson high shear mixer was used to blend the base binder and the WMA technology in the laboratory. The specified dosage rates of the WMA technology was added gradually into the base binder.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Test Results Shear Modulus Master Curve

The frequency sweep tests were conducted to evaluate the stiffness properties of the control binders and binders containing WMA technologies. The binder specimens were tested using test temperatures of 4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4 C over a wide range of loading frequencies 0.1 to 157.1 rad/s (i.e., 0.016 to 25 Hz). As described later, the asphalt mixture dynamic modulus tests were also conducted using the same set of test temperatures. Each of the frequency sweep test data was then shifted to a reference temperature of 21.1 C and fitted with generalized logistic function developed by Pellinen, Witczak, and Bonaquist (14). Figures 1 and 2 present the comparison of shear modulus |G*| master curves for the control binder and WMA technologies included in the study. Asphalt binders with higher |G*| mostly improve shear deformation resistance. It is shown in these figures that the asphalt binders containing the organic additive Sasobit measured high stiffness. The Accu-Shear and Rediset technologies measured slightly higher stiffness as compared to their control binders primarily at the low reduced frequency ranges (i.e., below 10 Hz). The other WMA technologies (Advera, Aspha-min, and Evotherm) measured comparably similar stiffness values as their control binders when the lower reduced frequency range is considered. For the PA0986 project, the LEA and Gencor technologies demonstrated higher stiffness as compared to the control binder when the high reduced frequency ranges are considered. The differences in the stiffness properties amongst these WMA technologies could be explained from the differences in base binder, dosage rates, the WMA technology used, and the inherent variability in the DSR test procedures.

6
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

1.E+10 PG 70-22 Sasobit 1.E+08
Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

1.E+10 PG 58-28 1.E+08

Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

Advera Sasobit Evotherm

Aspha-min

1.E+06

1.E+06

1.E+04

1.E+04

1.E+02

1.E+02

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1 2
1.E+10 PG 58-34 Advera 1.E+08
Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(a)

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(b)

1.E+10

PG 70-22 Rediset

Sasobit
Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

1.E+08

1.E+06

1.E+06

1.E+04

1.E+04

1.E+02

1.E+02

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

3 4 5

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(c)

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(d)

FIGURE 1 Shear modulus master curve; (a) MO0672, (b) CO0777, (c) WY0778, and (d) TX0985. 7

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

1.E+10 PG 64-22 Advera 1.E+08
Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

1.E+10

PG 64-22 Accu-Shear

Sasobit LEA
Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

1.E+08

1.E+06

Gencor

1.E+06

1.E+04

1.E+04

1.E+02

1.E+02

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1 2

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(a)

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(b)

1.E+10

PG 64-22 Accu-Shear

1.E+08
Shear Modulus, |G*| (Pa)

1.E+06

1.E+04

1.E+02

1.E+00 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

3 4 5

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(c)

FIGURE 2 Shear modulus master curve; (a) PA0986, (b) LA1088, and (c) IN1099. 8

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

ASPHALT CONCRETE MIXTURE TESTING Specimen Preparation

Plant produced asphalt mixtures for dynamic modulus specimens were sampled from haul trucks. Asphalt specimens were immediately fabricated without reheating or additional oven conditioning to eliminate additional mixture aging. The asphalt mixtures were then compacted to 8.5% air voids in the gyratory compactor in order to achieve the 7.0+0.5% targeted air voids for the cored and trimmed test specimen. The performance test specimens were cored from the center 100 mm of a 150 mm diameter specimen and the sample ends were trimmed from a height of 180+ mm down to 150 mm. The MATL mix design replication (MDR) samples were oven conditioned for 4 hours at 135C.

Dynamic Modulus Test

Four test replicates per sample were used for performance testing. Since the dynamic modulus test is non-destructive at low temperatures, the same set of four replicates were tested at the three lower temperatures (4.4, 21.1, and 37.8C), while another set of four replicates were tested at the high temperature (54.4C). Six loading frequencies were used 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz. The dynamic modulus tests were performed from the lowest temperature to the highest temperature and from the highest frequency to the lowest frequency. The axial stress needed in the unconfined test to produce a target microstrain of 10015 was used. The dynamic modulus |E*| was calculated by dividing the maximum peakto-peak stress by the recoverable peak-to-peak strain.

Test Results Dynamic Modulus Master Curve

The dynamic modulus test data was used to construct master curves for each of the test specimen at a reference temperature of 21.1C. The data was then shifted along the frequency axis to form a single |E*| master curve using the sigmoidal function given in ME PDG (3).

9
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Figures 3 through 5 present comparison of |E*| master curves of the control HMA and WMA mixtures for all the projects included in the study. Overall, the |E*| master curve plots exhibited similar shape/trend for a wide range of frequencies. The stiffness properties of all of the asphalt mixtures presented in these figures decreased with an increase in test temperature and increased with an increase in loading frequency. Asphalt mixtures with higher |E*| mostly improve stability and rutting resistance. In general, compared to the control HMA mixtures, lower stiffness values were observed for the WMA technologies prepared with foaming processes followed by the chemical additives. The reduction in stiffness is more pronounced for the asphalt mixtures with Advera and Aspha-min technologies and therefore these mixes may be more susceptible to rutting. This is a concern during the early life of the pavement if high temperatures are encountered and heavy traffic loading is placed on the pavement before it can age and stiffen in place on the roadway. The WMA mixtures containing organic additive Sasobit exhibited higher stiffness, particularly at lower and intermediate frequency ranges. In these figures, the MATL mix design replicates (MDR) mixtures measured relatively higher stiffness (except for MO0987 project) as compared to the plant produced HMA mixtures due to additional oven conditioning (4 hours at 135C). The differences in the stiffness properties of these WMA mixtures could be explained through, among others, the differences in volumetric properties, binder rheological properties, WMA dosage rates, aggregate shape properties (e.g., angularity and texture), production temperatures, and plant aging.

10
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

1.E+05

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA WMA (Sasobit)

1.E+02

WMA (Aspha-min)

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1
1.E+05

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(a)

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA WMA (Advera) WMA (Sasobit) WMA (Evotherm)

1.E+02

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

2
1.E+05

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(b)

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA WMA (Advera) WMA (Sasobit)

1.E+02

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

3 4

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(c)

FIGURE 3 Dynamic modulus master curve; (a) MO0672, (b) CO0777, and (c) WY0778. 11

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

1.E+05

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA Wear HMA Nonwear WMA (Evotherm) Wear WMA (Evotherm) Nonwear

1.E+02

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1
1.E+05

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(a)

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA WMA (Rediset 2) WMA (Rediset 10) WMA (Rediset 12)

1.E+02

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

2
1.E+05

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(b)

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA HMA (MDR) WMA (Advera) WMA (Sasobit)

1.E+02

WMA (LEA) WMA (Gencor)

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

3 4 5

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(c)

FIGURE 4 Dynamic modulus master curve; (a) MN0884, (b) TX0985, and (c) PA0986. 12

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

1.E+05

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA HMA (MDR) WMA (Aquablack 6)

1.E+02

WMA (Aquablack 7) WMA (Aquablack 8) WMA (Aquablack 10)

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1
1.E+05

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(a)

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA 12.5mm HMA (MDR) 12.5mm WMA (Accu-Shear) 12.5mm

1.E+02

HMA 19mm HMA (MDR) 19mm WMA (Accu-Shear) 19mm

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

2
1.E+05

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(b)

Dynamic Modulus, |E*| (MPa)

1.E+04

1.E+03

HMA WMA (Accu-Shear 1) WMA (Accu-Shear 2) WMA (Accu-Shear 3)

1.E+02

1.E+01 1.E-06

1.E-04

1.E-02

1.E+00

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

3 4 5

Reduced Frequency (Hz) (TRef = 21.1 C)

(c)

FIGURE 5 Dynamic modulus master curve; (a) MO0987, (b) LA1088, and (c) IN1090. 13

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

|E*| PREDICTIONS
This paper also included predictions of |E*| through the use of the Witczak 1-37A, Witczak 1-40D, and Hirsch models. Detailed explanation of the model equations can found elsewhere (4, 5, and 6). The inputs to the Witczak 1-37A model include mixture volumetrics, aggregate gradation, binder viscosity, and loading frequency. The mixture volumetrics include air voids and effective binder content. The gradation parameters include percent passing on the 0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve, cumulative percent retained on the 19 mm (3/4 in.) sieve, cumulative percent retained on the 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) sieve, and cumulative percent retained on the 4.76 mm (No. 4) sieve. The inputs to the Witczak 1-40D model are similar to the inputs to the Witczak 137A model. The Witczak 1-40D model was intended to improve the Witczak 1-37A model and therefore, the binder viscosity and loading frequency parameters are replaced by the binder shear modulus |G*| and the binder phase angle. In this study, the binder frequencies at which |G*| measured were multiplied by a factor of 0.159 to calculate the mixture frequencies used in the Witczak 1-40D model. For the Hirsch model, the binder |G*|, voids in mineral aggregates, and voids filled with asphalt are incorporated. For this model, the loading frequency of the binder is the same as that for the mixture. These models were originally developed using HMA mixture material properties. The |E*| predictive capability of these models using plant produced WMA mixture data is presented below.

COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED |E*|

Figure 6 presents the comparison of laboratory measured and predicted |E*| using the three models in arithmetic and logarithmic scales. A total of 570 data points were used involving only WMA mixtures tested at four temperatures and six loading frequencies. In order to meet one of the stated objectives, the control HMA mixtures (both plant produced and MATL mix design replication) were not included in the |E*| prediction analysis. In these figures, overprediction of |E*| was observed when the Witczak 1-37A and 1-40D models were utilized. The over-prediction is pronounced with higher modulus values that correspond to the asphalt mixtures tested at high loading frequencies and low test temperatures. In the logarithmic scale, the Hirsch model predicted |E*| with the highest coefficient of determination (R2=0.9005) and

14
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the lowest error (S e /S y =0.3154) followed by the Witczak 1-40D model (R2=0.8453 and S e /S y =0.3934) and the Witczak 1-37A model (R2=0.8074 and S e /S y =0.4388). Better predictions were obtained using the Witczak 1-37A model following the Hirsch model when the arithmetic scale is considered. These findings are consistent with the model developers with high correlation coefficient and low error in logarithmic scale for the Witczak 1-40D and Hirsch models (5, 6). Comparisons of the predictive models amongst various WMA technologies (i.e., foam, chemical, and organic) are also shown in Figure 7.

15
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

35000 100000

30000 10000

25000
Predicted |E*| (MPa)

20000

Predicted |E*| (MPa)

R2 = 0.8106 Se/Sy = 0.4352

1000

15000

10000

100

R2 = 0.8074 Se/Sy = 0.4388

5000

10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 Measured |E*| (MPa)

1 2
35000 30000

(a)
100000

25000

10000

Predicted |E*| (MPa)

20000

Predicted |E*| (MPa)

R2 = 0.5984 Se/Sy = 0.6338

1000

15000

10000

100

R2 = 0.8453 Se/Sy = 0.3934

5000

10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 Measured |E*| (MPa)

3 4
35000 30000

(b)
100000

25000

10000

Predicted |E*| (MPa)

20000

Predicted |E*| (MPa)

R2 = 0.8854 Se/Sy = 0.3386

1000

15000

10000

100

R2 = 0.9005 Se/Sy = 0.3154

5000

10 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000 Measured |E*| (MPa)

5 6 7 8

(c) FIGURE 6 Comparison of measured and predicted |E*| in arithmetic and logarithmic scales; (a) Witczak 1-37A, (b) Witczak 1-40D, and (c) Hirsch.

16
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

100000 Foam Chemical Organic 10000
Predicted |E*| (MPa)

Line of Equality

1000

100

10 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000

1
100000 Foam Chemical Organic 10000
Predicted |E*| (MPa)

(a)

Line of Equality

1000

100

10 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000

2
100000 Foam Chemical Organic 10000
Predicted |E*| (MPa)

(b)

Line of Equality

1000

100

10 10 100 1000 Measured |E*| (MPa) 10000 100000

3 4 5

(c)

FIGURE 7 |E*| Comparison of measured and predicted |E*| for various WMA technologies; (a) Witczak 1-37A, (b) Witczak 1-40D, and (c) Hirsch. 17

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Accuracy of the |E*| Predictive Models

The accuracy of the predictive models was determined by calculating the |E*| percent error (e) which equals the difference between predicted and measured |E*| divided by the predicted |E*|. For each test temperature and loading frequency, the |E*| percent error was computed and presented into seven groups: (a) e < 0%, (b) 0% < e < 10%, (c) 10% < e < 20%, (d) 20% < e < 30%, (e) 30% < e < 40%, (f) 40% < e < 50%, and (g) e > 50%. Negative |E*| percent errors denote under-predictions. The summary of the |E*| percent error corresponding to the predictive models for all test temperatures are presented in Figure 8. At 4.4C and 21.1C, the Hirsch model measured the highest under-prediction errors (e < 0%) followed by the Witczak 1-37A model. For these temperature ranges, the over-prediction errors are not higher than 20%. At 37.8C and 54.4C, an increase in the over-prediction errors was observed in the Witczak 137A and 1-40 models. At these temperature ranges, higher over-prediction errors (e > 50%) were observed for the Witczak 1-37A model followed by Witczak 1-40D model. The Hirsh model resulted in a gradual prediction error percent increase at 54.4C. This was expected as the model was developed within the temperature range of 4C to 38C (6). Overall, as it is evident from Figures 6 through 8, the Hirsch model reasonably predicted the plant produced WMA |E*| and demonstrated the highest overall accuracy followed by the Witczak 1-40D model and the Witczak 1-37A model.

18
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy

80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D 60 Hirsch 60 80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D Hirsch

Percent (%)

40

Percent (%)
e < 0% 0 < e 10% 10 < e 20% 20 < e 30% 30 < e 40% 40 < e 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50%

40

20

20

0 e < 0% 0 < e 10% 10 < e 20% 20 < e 30% 30 < e 40% 40 < e 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50%

1 2
80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D 60 Hirsch

(a)
80 Witczak 1-37A Witczak 1-40D 60 Hirsch

(b)

Percent (%)

40

Percent (%)
e < 0% 0 < e 10% 10 < e 20% 20 < e 30% 30 < e 40% 40 < e 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50%

40

20

20

0 e < 0% 0 < e 10% 10 < e 20% 20 < e 30% 30 < e 40% 40 < e 50% Predicted |E*| Percent Error Range e > 50%

3 4

(c)

(d)

FIGURE 8 Summary of predicted |E*| percent error (e); (a) 4.4C, (b) 21.1C, (c) 37.8C, and (d) 54.4C. 19

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 20

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This paper presents a comprehensive laboratory evaluation of WMA technologies stiffness properties and comparisons of three |E*| predictive models (Witczak 1-37A, Witczak 1-40D, and Hirsch). It included nine WMA demonstration projects; six foaming processes (Accu-Shear, Advera, Aspha-min, Aquablack, Low Emission Asphalt (LEA), and Gencor); two chemical additives (Evotherm and Rediset); and an organic additive (Sasobit). The rheological properties of the asphalt binders were characterized using the dynamic shear rheometer device at four test temperatures (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4C) and multiple frequencies (0.016 to 25 Hz). The asphalt mixture performance tester was used to capture the stiffness properties of the asphalt mixtures using four temperatures (4.4, 21.1, 37.8, and 54.4C) and six frequencies (25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 Hz). The following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the findings presented in this study: The Accu-Shear and Rediset technologies measured slightly higher binder stiffness as compared to their control binders primarily at low reduced frequency ranges. The LEA and Gencor technologies demonstrated higher binder stiffness as compared to the control binder at high reduced frequency ranges. The Advera, Aspha-min, and Evotherm technologies measured comparably similar binder stiffness values as their control binder at lower reduced frequency ranges. Compared to the control HMA mixtures, lower stiffness values were observed for the WMA technologies prepared with foaming processes followed by the chemical additives. The reduction in stiffness is more pronounced for the asphalt mixtures containing Advera and Aspha-min technologies. The WMA mixtures containing organic additive measured higher stiffness. The differences in the stiffness properties of the WMA technologies are attributed to, among others, the differences in binder rheological properties, volumetric properties, WMA dosage rates, aggregate structure in the mix, production temperatures, and plant aging. Overall, reasonable |E*| predictions of the plant produced WMA technologies were obtained when the Hirsch model was utilized followed by the Witczak 1-40D model and the Witczak 1-37A model.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 21

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

RECOMMENDATIONS
A comprehensive statistical analysis is needed to further investigate the effects of various properties (e.g., volumetrics, binder, aggregate, WMA dosage rates, and aging) on binder/mixture stiffness performance. Refining the existing |E*| predictive models using WMA material data. Additional investigation into the AASHTOWare DARWin-ME predicted pavement distresses versus actual field WMA pavement distresses is required to determine if WMA pavement performance is similar to HMA. The dataset used in this paper can assist researchers and practitioners to calibrate and validate the AASHTOWare DARWin-ME for designing new and rehabilitated WMA pavements.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 22

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The success of this study is made possible through the close partnership of the transportation community. The FHWA Office of Pavement Technology wishes to express sincere thanks to the state Departments of Transportation (Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming) and the contractors involved in the projects. The authors would also like to acknowledge and extend special thanks to MATL programs mixture and binder laboratory technicians.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

REFERENCES
1. DAngelo, J., Harm, E., Bartoszek, J., Baumgardner, G., Corrigan, M., Cowsert, J., Harmon, T., Jamshidi, M., Jones, W., Newcombe, D., Prowell, B., Sines, R., and Yeaton, B. Warm-mix Asphalt: European Practice. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FHWA-PL-08-007, 2008. 2. Prowell, B., Hurley, G., and Frank, B. Warm-mix Asphalt: Best Practices. The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), 2nd Edition, Lanham, MD., Quality Improvement Series 125, 2011. 3. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. NCHRP 1-37A Project. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. 4. Andrei, D., Witczak, M. and Mirza, W. Appendix CC-4: Development of a Revised Predictive Model for the Dynamic (Complex) Modulus of Asphalt Mixtures. Development of the 2002 Guide for the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Final Document, NCHRP 1-37A, 1999. 5. Bari, J. and Witczak, M. Development of a New Revised Version of the Witczak |E*| Predictive Model for Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures. In Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 75, 2006, pp. 381-423. 6. Christensen, D., Pellinen, T., and Bonaquist, R. Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt Concrete. In Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 72, 2003, pp. 97-121. 7. Al-Khateeb, G., Shenoy, A. Gibson, N. and Harman, T. A New Simplistic Model for Dynamic Modulus Predictions of Asphalt Paving Mixtures. In Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 75, 2006, pp. 1254-1293. 8. Ceylan, H., Gopalakrishnan, K., and Kim, S. Advanced Approaches to Hot-mix Asphalt Dynamic Modulus Prediction. In Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 7, 2008, pp. 699-707. 9. Sakhaeifar, M., Underwood, S., Ranjithan, R., Kim, R., and Jackson, N. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Estimating Dynamic Modulus of Asphalt Concrete. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.

23
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

Habtamu Zelelew, Matthew Corrigan, Satish Belagutti, and Jeevan RamakrishnaReddy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2127, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 173-186. 10. Dongre, R., Myers, L., DAngelo, J., Paugh, C. and Gudimettla, J. Field Evaluation of Witczak and Hirsch Models for Predicting Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005. 11. Azari, H., Al-Khateeb, G., Shenoy, A., and Gibson, N. Comparison of Simple Performance Test |E*| of Accelerated Loading Facility Mixtures and Prediction |E*|: Use of NCHRP 1-37A and Witczaks New Equations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1998, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 1-9. 12. Ceylan, H., Schwartz, C., Kim, S., and Gopalakrishnan, K. Accuracy of Predictive Models for Dynamic Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2009, pp. 286-293. 13. Robbins, M., and Timm, D. Evaluation of Dynamic Modulus Predictive Equations for NCAT Test Track Asphalt Mixtures. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. 14. Pellinen, T., Witczak, M., and Bonaquist, R. Asphalt Mix Master Curve Construction Using Sigmoidal Fitting Function with Non-Linear Least Squares Optimization. In Recent Advances in Materials Characterization and Modeling of Pavement Systems, Geotechnical Special Publication, American Society of Civil Engineering, No. 123, 2004, pp. 83-101.

24
TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.