Low Temperature Evaluation of

Kentucky PG 70-22 Asphalt Binders

R. Michael Anderson Dwight E. Walker

Asphalt Institute Asphalt Institute
Research Park Drive Research Park Drive
P.O. Box 14052 P.O. Box 14052
Lexington, KY 40512-4052 Lexington, KY 40512-4052
(606) 288-4960 (voice) (606) 288-4960 (voice)
(606) 288-4999 (FAX) (606) 288-4999 (FAX)
manderson@asphaltinstitute.org dwalker@asphaltinstitute.org

Pamela A. Turner
Asphalt Institute
Research Park Drive
P.O. Box 14052
Lexington, KY 40512-4052
(606) 288-4960 (voice)
(606) 288-4999 (FAX)
pturner@asphaltinstitute.org

Paper submitted for presentation at

1999 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting
Washington, DC

Word Count
Abstract 239
Text 3,432
Tables (6 @ 250 ea.) 1,500
Figures (8 @ 250 ea.) 2,000
Total 7,171
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 2

ABSTRACT

A research study was initiated to ascertain if all PG 70-22 binders would perform
the same in an asphalt mixture in Kentucky, regardless of method of manufacture of the
binder. Five PG 70-22 binders and one PG 64-22 binder (control) were incorporated into
an asphalt mixture through a hot-mix asphalt plant. Test sections were placed for each
binder. Mixture was sampled at the plant and returned to the laboratory for mechanical
property testing. Mixture mechanical property tests included repeated shear test at
constant height (RSCH), frequency sweep test at constant height (FSCH), and indirect
tensile creep test (ITC). These tests were chosen to evaluate the high, intermediate, and
low temperature properties of the asphalt mixtures. Only low temperature properties are
discussed in this paper.
Thermal stress analysis techniques permitted the critical mixture temperature for
single-event thermal cracking to be compared to critical binder temperatures. While the
critical binder temperature (calculated from BBR stiffness) matched reasonably well with
the critical mixture temperature, the critical binder temperature calculated from BBR m-
value did not match as well. The m-value critical temperature is generally higher than
indicated by the low temperature indirect tensile creep testing.
While not all PG 70-22 performed the same in mixture testing, the research did
not clarify if differences in mixture properties for the PG 70-22 binders are related to
differences in binder stiffness, differences in method of manufacture, or both.

Key Words: asphalt, binders, mixtures, Superpave, performance

Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 3

INTRODUCTION

Beginning in the late 1970’s, the Kentucky Department of Highways (KYDOH)

began an effort to improve performance of asphalt pavements. In particular, combating
rutting of asphalt pavements was made a priority. Various strategies were tried; some of
the means employed included raising the minimum Marshall stability requirements,
refining aggregate gradations, revising various material properties (limiting natural sand
content, etc.), and utilizing binder or mixture modifiers. These efforts met with only
limited success. Eventually, in the late ‘80’s, the Department began using large-stone
aggregate mixtures (1), and these efforts were more successful in reducing rutting.
However, for “worst-case” situations (coal-haul routes, truck-lanes, problem
intersections, etc.), some added assurance of satisfactory pavement performance was
desired. Binder or mixture modifiers were selected as the means of providing this
margin. Although numerous asphalt or mixture modifiers were available to be specified
by materials engineers, many of these products could not be readily tested by
conventional means by the KYDOH. Consequently, there was no well-accepted basis for
comparing the benefits of these performance-enhancing products.
When Superpave Performance Graded (PG) binders were introduced, this system
seemed to offer a means of comparing the performance benefits of asphalt binders having
the same grade or classification but produced by various means. In Kentucky, PG 64-22
was standardized as the workhorse grade and the binder grade was “shifted” to a PG 70-
22 when the pavement had moderate truck traffic. For extreme loading, a PG 76-22
binder was required. PG 70-22 binders, produced by several different processes, were
available from local asphalt suppliers. So, it was decided to conduct an evaluation of the
performance of a mix containing the different PG 70-22 binders. Both field test sections
and laboratory tests were planned and included in the study.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Each of the suppliers who regularly furnished asphalt binders to Kentucky

projects was contacted to determine what formulation they would make available. The
following means of producing a PG 70-22 were identified:

- Unmodified, “straight-run” asphalt (produced from selected crude stock)

- Gelled asphalt
- Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene (SBS) elastomer modified asphalt
- Latex (Styrene-Butadiene-Rubber [SBR]) elastomer modified asphalt
- Oxidized asphalt.

None of the suppliers were able to furnish an oxidized material meeting the PG
70-22 requirements in time to be included in the project. A second supplier’s SBS
modified asphalt was substituted for the oxidized material to complete the study. PG 64-
22 was selected as the control material.
A rural Interstate project having constant traffic volume and uniform grade was
selected as the test site. This route was projected to have 33,000,000 ESALs over a 20-
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 4

year design life. The test sections, sized to use two transport loads of binder each,
resulted in approximately 1.6-kilometer long trial installations. The binders were utilized
in a Class AK Surface (9.5 mm nominal), Kentucky’s standard wearing-course mixture
for moderate and high traffic installations. The same aggregate sources and combined
gradation were used for all test sections.
To avoid potential intermixing and contamination with other asphalt materials in
the mixing-plant storage tanks, the Contractor was required to pump the asphalt directly
from the truck to the plant’s asphalt injection system. Before beginning the PG 70-22
work, the Contractor was required to produce the control mix (with PG 64-22) for two
days to demonstrate that the experimental mixture would have uniform properties
(gradation, air voids, VMA, density, etc.). This uniformity of production was necessary
to assure that the variable being evaluated was binder type.

PROJECT TESTING

Eleven mixture samples (one from each of the two loads of the five binders, plus
one control/PG 64-22) were obtained. Each sample was subdivided for extensive testing.
In addition to the routine Contractor and Agency quality control and acceptance samples,
20 buckets of each of the 11 mixtures were obtained for additional performance
evaluation.
As part of the acceptance procedure, Marshall specimens were compacted at the
plant laboratory for verification of the actual materials volumetric properties. Specimens
were compacted using a Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) for informational
purposes. Sieve analyses and asphalt content determinations were performed as part of
the Contractor’s process control operations. The variability found was considered typical
of plant production.
The density of the constructed mixtures was tested using cores. The density of
the cores consistently achieved 93 percent of the maximum theoretical density of the
plant-produced mixture. The density achieved for all the sections averaged 93.7 percent.

BINDER TESTING

Each of the PG 70-22 binders were sampled from the haul transports at the mixing
plant and tested in accordance with AASHTO MP-1, Specification for Performance
Graded Asphalt Binders (2). Low temperature test results are summarized in Table 1.
With the exception of Sample C, all the binders met or were very close to meeting
the low-temperature criteria for a PG xx-22 asphalt binder. A check sample tested by
KYDOH subsequently produced a passing result for Sample C.
While all the samples were nominally PG xx-22 binders, the physical properties at
low temperatures were substantially different. Low temperature stiffness varied from 95
to 257 MPa at -12°C, while m-value varied from 0.277 to 0.357.
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 5

MIXTURE TESTING

The purpose of this study was to determine comparative performance of the mixes
made with the various binders.
Koch Materials Company and the Asphalt Institute agreed to work with KYDOH
in testing and evaluating the mixtures. Koch concentrated on evaluating the rutting,
stripping tendencies, and modulus values of the mixtures. The results of their efforts are
reported as a separate study (3). This study involves low temperature mixture testing and
analysis.
Since the trial mixtures were produced through a hot-mix facility, no additional
short-term aging was used. Long term oven aging was performed (48 hours at 85°C) for
the compacted mixture specimens to simulate the aging that the asphalt binder
experiences through the pressure aging vessel.

Low Temperature Testing

Three specimens were prepared from each mixture sample using the SGC to
approximately seven percent air voids. Two test specimens (150-mm diameter by 50-mm
height) were cut from each compacted specimen. As a result, six test specimens were
available from each mixture sample for low temperature property testing.
The low temperature tests used in this research were those used in the Superpave
system to assess thermal cracking. The indirect tensile creep (ITC) test and indirect
tensile strength (ITS) tests are used to determine low temperature compliance and
fracture strength of the mix specimen, respectively. In both the ITC and ITS tests, the
specimen is loaded in compression across the diametral plane to produce tension in the
center of the specimen. The ITC test uses a constant load to induce a tensile creep over a
period of 100 seconds loading. The horizontal and vertical movements are measured in
the specimen as indicated in Figure 1. Creep compliance can be calculated by using the
displacement in the specimen and the load as a function of time. The ITS test uses a
constant deformation rate of 12.5 mm/min. to create a fracture in the specimen. The
specimen dimensions and peak load are used to calculate the fracture strength. The test
procedures used for the ITC and ITS tests are described in AASHTO TP9, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Creep Compliance and Strength of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device. (4)
In the original Superpave mix analysis, specimens were tested at 0°C, -10°C, and
-20°C, and data was collected to input into the low temperature performance prediction
models. For this research, specimens were tested at -12°C and -18°C to correspond to
typical binder testing temperatures for a PG xx-22 asphalt binder.
The ITC test is analogous in mixture testing to the bending beam rheometer
(BBR) in binder testing. In each test, a constant creep load is applied to a specimen with
known dimensions. The displacement of the specimen is measured, and a stiffness or
compliance is calculated. As an approximation in this study, stiffness is calculated as the
inverse of compliance. In both tests, stiffness can be calculated as a function of time.
Low temperature stiffness results (measured at 60 seconds loading) are indicated
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 6

in Table 2 for binder and mixture. Creep compliance was calculated for each mix
specimen tested at 8, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 100 seconds. A curve was then generated of
stiffness as a function of time as illustrated in Figure 2. Mixture stiffness is illustrated in
Figure 3 at both test temperatures.
The test results indicate that the mixture stiffness estimated at 60 seconds is, as
expected, higher at -18°C than at -12°C. Only one sample exhibited slightly lower
stiffness at -18°C than at -12°C (Sample 7). This is a likely result of testing error.
The highest mixture stiffness at -12°C was 15,133 MPa from Sample D. The
lowest mix stiffness at -12°C was 10,768 MPa from Sample C. This result was expected
since the lowest BBR stiffness at -12°C was from Sample C (95 MPa) and the highest
BBR stiffness at -12°C was from Sample D (257 MPa).
Coefficients of variation (CV) for the ITC test were reasonable with an average
CV of 11% for the mixture stiffness at 60 seconds. Figure 4 was generated to verify
whether mixture stiffness from the ITC test correlates with BBR stiffness at the same test
temperature.
The data in Figure 4 indicates a weak relationship (R2 = 0.39) between mixture
stiffness in the ITC test and binder stiffness in the BBR test. There is an apparent trend,
however, indicating increasing mixture stiffness as the binder stiffness increases.
Figure 4 indicates that, for the mixtures in this research, mix stiffness cannot be
estimated from BBR stiffness. Other research (5) has indicated that binder testing alone,
combined with the use of binder-to-mixture stiffness relationships, does not currently
appear justified in estimating thermal cracking performance.
From this analysis, it appears that low temperature data from BBR testing does
not completely characterize the low temperature properties of the asphalt mixture.
Samples A, C, E, G, I, and K produced approximately the same mixture stiffness
(approximately 11,000 MPa), and Samples B, D, F, H, and J produced approximately the
same mixture stiffness (approximately 13,500 MPa). In this study, two binders of the
same low temperature grade (PG xx-22) may result in mixtures that have as much as 30%
difference in stiffness.

THERMAL STRESS ANALYSIS

Low temperature indirect tension creep data can also be analyzed using
procedures described by Christensen (6), which are a modification of the models
developed by Roque and others during SHRP (7,8). The analytical approach described
begins with ITC data at one or more temperatures. Compliance and Poisson’s ratio are
calculated as described in AASHTO TP-9 (4). The compliance data is then fit to a power
law model as described (6):

D(t) = D0 +D1{t/[C2(T-TR)]}m where,

D(t) creep compliance at time, t

D0 glassy (equilibrium) compliance
D1 location parameter of master curve
C2 slope of the log of shift factor with respect to temperature, T
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 7

TR reference temperature for master curve, usually -20°C

m equilibrium log-log slope of the compliance curve

The relaxation modulus is then approximated from the creep compliance master
curve. Thermal stresses are calculated using a hereditary integral, a mathematical form
of expressing mechanical behavior of materials that exhibit memory (6). Christensen,
Roque, and other researchers (6,7,8) describe the models in far greater detail.
The calculation of thermal stresses in an asphalt mixture proceeds by establishing
a starting temperature for the cooling process (10°C in this analysis) and a cooling rate
(approximately 5°C per hour). Crack initiation is considered to occur when the thermal
stress exceeds the tensile strength of the asphalt mixture.
To execute Christensen’s analysis procedure the following inputs are required:

1. ITC data (preferably at two temperatures with replicates),

2. Start temperature for the cooling cycle (assumed 10°C),
3. Cooling rate (assumed 5°C/hr.),
4. Mixture tensile strength, calculated for each sample following equations described
elsewhere (9), and
5. Linear coefficient of thermal contraction for the asphalt mixture (calculated as a
single value for all samples).

Table 3 presents the compliance curve parameters for the 11 mixture samples.
Compliance curves for Samples A and F are illustrated in Figure 5. This figure indicates
that Sample A has a greater compliance, at a given loading time, than Sample F. The
standard error of fit (Table 3) was in all cases less than two percent, indicating that the
model describes the data well.
During the determination of the compliance master curve, Poisson’s ratio was
calculated. This value is used to calculate tensile strength at low temperature (9). Table
4 indicates Poisson’s ratio and mixture tensile strength at -12°C and -18°C. The data in
Table 4 indicates that there is a range in tensile strength among the 11 samples tested
from 2.97 MPa (Sample C at -12°C) to 4.37 MPa (Sample E at -18°C). Tensile strength
values at -18°C were selected for the thermal stress calculation presented subsequently.
The other input affecting calculation of the thermal stresses and the critical mixture
temperature for cracking is the linear coefficient of thermal contraction of the mixture.
The SHRP research estimated this value by the following equation (8):

Bmix = [(VMA*BAC) + (Vagg*Bagg)]/300 where:

Bmix linear coefficient of thermal contraction,

VMA voids in the mineral aggregate of the mixture,
BAC volumetric coefficient of thermal contraction of the asphalt binder,
Vagg volume of aggregate in the asphalt mixture, and
Bagg volumetric coefficient of thermal contraction of the aggregate.

The BAC value is the most critical term to have accurate since it is substantially
larger than the Bagg value. The models developed during SHRP used published values for
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 8

aggregates. For this analysis, Bagg was assumed (9.54x10-6 / °C) and BAC was assumed
based on the SHRP recommendations (3.45x10-4 / °C). By estimating the mixture VMA
at 7% air voids, Bmix was calculated (2.15x10-5 / °C). Other research (10) has indicated
that Bmix should be determined experimentally since a substantial error can occur, leading
to changes in the mixture critical temperature. Also, the standard assumption of BAC may
not be valid for some of the modified asphalt binders used in this study.
After determining the appropriate inputs, the thermal stress calculation was
executed. The critical mix temperature is defined as the temperature where the thermal
stress exceeds the tensile strength. Example thermal stress curves are indicated in Figure
6 for Samples A and F. Figure 6 indicates that with decreasing temperature there is a
more gradual increase in thermal stress, combined with a higher tensile strength, for
Sample A than Sample F. Consequently, the critical mixture temperature is much lower
(colder) for Sample A than Sample F.
Table 5 indicates the critical mix cracking temperature for the eleven samples.
The critical mix temperatures exhibited a range from -19.9°C to -34.9°C indicating that
not all of these PG xx-22 binders would be expected to have the same low temperature
cracking resistance (single-event cracking distress). Table 6 provides a comparison of
the critical low temperatures for the asphalt mixture (based on ITC data) and the asphalt
binder (based on BBR Stiffness and m-value). Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the relationship
between estimated critical temperatures of the asphalt mixture and asphalt binder. Figure
7 indicates that, with a few exceptions, the mixture critical temperature matches the
binder critical temperature calculated by BBR Stiffness. Only four samples indicate
greater than a 3°C difference in estimated values.
Figure 8 indicates that the estimates do not match as well when BBR m-value is
used. The critical temperature using BBR m-value generally underestimates the mixture
critical temperature. Since m-value usually controls the low temperature grade of an
asphalt binder, it appears that the binder specification is conservative with respect to
single-event low temperature cracking.
The lack of a better relationship between mix temperature and binder temperature
could be attributed partially to two factors:
1. Mixture aging (48 hours @ 85°C) may not have duplicated the aging of the
binder through the PAV, and
2. The estimation of the linear coefficient of thermal contraction of the mixture
may have been inaccurate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the testing and analysis presented, the following conclusions may be
made:

1) Low temperature testing indicates that mixture low temperature stiffness (S), as
determined using the ITC test at -12°C and 60 seconds loading, varied from
10,768 MPa to 15,133 MPa for the PG xx-22 asphalt binders.

2) There was a weak relationship (R2 = 0.39) between low temperature binder
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 9

stiffness and mixture stiffness at -12°C and 60 seconds loading.

3) Mixture tensile strengths varied from 2.97 MPa to 4.37 MPa for the various
mixtures and temperatures, thereby changing thermal fracture stress.

4) Using the aforementioned listed assumptions, the mixture critical temperature

reasonably matches the binder critical temperature as calculated using BBR
stiffness. The mixture critical temperature does not match the binder critical
temperature calculated using BBR m-value. The binder critical temperature (m-
value calculation) underestimates the mixture critical temperature. Since m-value
normally controls the low temperature grade of the asphalt binder, it appears that
the binder specification is conservative with respect to single-event thermal
cracking compared to mixture results. Better relationships may be found with
more accurate representations of mix aging and coefficients of thermal
contraction.

5) The estimated critical mix temperature ranged from -19.9°C to -34.9°C for the
various PG 70-22 asphalt binders. Sample C had a critical mixture temperature of
-19.9°C despite having the lowest binder and mixture stiffness at -12°C (Table
2). This sample also indicated the lowest BBR m-value, highest BBR stiffness
(S), lowest tensile strength, and lowest equilibrium log-log slope of the
compliance curve (mixture m-value) of all the samples.

6) The broad range in mixture critical temperatures indicates that not all of the
nominal PG xx-22 asphalt binders in this research study may perform the same. It
is important to note that although pre-qualifying testing indicated that these
asphalt binders were nominally PG xx-22 binders, the actual low temperature
grade of the asphalt binders in this study varied from -15°C to -28°C. The
apparent relationship between critical binder temperature (calculated by BBR
stiffness) and critical mixture temperature, indicates that differences in estimated
performance for the asphalt binders in this study may be more related to actual
binder stiffness than method of manufacture. There were sufficient differences in
the results of the mixture testing, with some samples exhibiting unusual behavior,
that further study and refinement of the mix testing procedures, and binder testing
procedures, is warranted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express appreciation to the following parties for their
cooperation and involvement in this study:
- Kentucky Department of Highways
- Marathon Ashland Petroleum Inc.
- Koch Materials Company
- Walker Construction Company
Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the member companies
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 10

of the Asphalt Institute. Without their support and interest the research presented here
could not have been accomplished. The findings and opinions expressed in this paper
represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the
aforementioned agencies.
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 11

REFERENCES

(1) Anderson, R.M., D.E. Walker, J.A. Scherocman, and L.E. Epley. “Kentucky’s
Experience With Large Size Aggregate In Bituminous Hot-Mix”, Journal of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 60, 1991.

(2) Standard Specification for Performance Graded Asphalt Binder, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO
Designation: MP1, Gaithersburg, MD, 1993.

(3) Blankenship, P.B., A.H. Myers, A.S. Clifford, T.W. Thomas, G. N. King, and
H.W. King. “Do All PG 70-22s Perform the Same? Kentucky Field Trial”,
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 1998, publication pending.

(4) Standard Test Method 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, AASHTO
Designation: TP9, Gaithersburg, MD, 1994.

(5) Buttlar, W.G. and R. Roque. “Evaluation of Empirical and Theoretical Models to
Determine Asphalt Mixture Stiffnesses at Low Temperatures”, Journal of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 65, 1996.

(6) Christensen, D.W. “Analysis of Creep Data from Indirect Tension Test on
Asphalt Concrete”, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 1998,
publication pending.

(7) Hiltunen, D.R. and R. Roque. “A Mechanics-Based Prediction Model for

Thermal Cracking of Asphaltic Concrete Pavements”, Journal of the Association
of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 63, 1994.

(8) Lytton, R.L., J. Uzan, E.G. Fernando, R. Roque, D.R. Hiltunen, and S.M. Stoffels.
Development and Validation of Performance Prediction Models and
Specifications for Asphalt Binders and Paving Mixes, SHRP Report A-357,
National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1993.

(9) May, R.W. and R.B. McGennis. Superpave Asphalt Mixture Analysis, Course
Text, FHWA Contract DTFH61-95-C-00055, National Asphalt Training Center
II, May 1996.

(10) Stoffels, S.M. and F.D. Kwanda. “Determination of the Coefficient of Thermal
Contraction of Asphalt Concrete Using the Resistance Strain Gage Technique”,
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 65, 1996.
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 12

TABLE 1 Results of Low Temperature Binder Tests

Stiffness, MPa m-value
Sample -12°C -18°C Tc (S), °C -12°C -18°C Tc (m), °C Tc , °C
A 161 297 -18.1 0.331 0.277 -15.4 -15.4
B 114 196 -22.7 0.301 0.270 -12.2 -12.2
C 95 171 -23.7 0.277 0.257 -5.1 -5.1
D 257 477 -13.5 0.302 0.247 -12.2 -12.2
E 110 238 -19.8 0.357 0.303 -18.3 -18.3
F 120 296 -18.1 0.344 0.281 -16.2 -16.2
G 113 n/a n/a 0.354 n/a n/a n/a
H 240 480 -13.9 0.296 0.247 -11.5 -11.5
I n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
J 112 200 -22.2 0.299 0.266 -11.8 -11.8
K 142 320 -17.5 0.324 0.269 -14.6 -14.6
“n/a” means data not available.

TABLE 2 Low Temperature Stiffness (Binder and Mixture)

Binder Stiffness (60 s), MPa Mixture Stiffness (60 s), MPa
Sample -12°C -18°C -12°C -18°C
A 161 297 11,757 14,113
B 114 196 13,108 15,163
C 95 171 10,768 12,563
D 257 477 15,133 16,753
E 110 238 11,442 14,420
F 120 296 13,858 17,308
G 113 n/a 11,068 n/a
H 240 480 13,093 13,715
I n/a n/a 11,124 11,885
J 112 200 13,147 16,156
K 142 320 11,339 10,666
“n/a” means data not available.
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 13

TABLE 3 Compliance Curve Parameters

Sample Log D0 Log D1 m C2 Std Error of Fit

A -6.478 -7.454 0.390 -0.056 1.4%
B -6.439 -7.774 0.489 -0.026 0.8%
a
C -7.628 -6.449 0.112 -0.069 1.9%
D -6.519 -7.532 0.363 -0.034 1.5%
E -7.523 -6.619 0.166 -0.059 1.3%
F -6.632 -7.263 0.260 -0.103 0.8%
G -6.505 -7.076 0.345 -0.085b 0.9%
H -6.424 -7.590 0.431 -0.048 1.0%
I -6.509 -6.964 0.259 -0.006 1.3%
J -6.495 -7.731 0.480 -0.047 1.4%
K -6.674 -6.912 0.254 -0.038 0.8%
a
Sample C had abnormally high standard deviation (Log D0) compared to others.
b
Assumed value since ITC performed only at -12°C for Sample G.

TABLE 4 Poisson’s Ratio and Tensile Strength

Poisson’s Ratio Tensile Strength, MPa

Sample -12°C -18°C -12°C -18°C
A 0.30 0.26 3.70 3.85
B 0.39 0.25 3.30 3.35
C 0.26 0.27 2.97 3.46
D 0.29 0.28 3.73 3.61
E 0.29 0.50 4.26 4.37
F 0.27 0.31 3.57 3.44
G 0.29 n/a 4.13 4.35
H 0.36 0.23 3.28 3.42
I 0.32 0.30 3.46 3.61
J 0.36 0.27 3.63 3.60
K 0.32 0.37 3.51 3.73
“n/a” means data not available
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 14

TABLE 5 Estimated Critical Cracking Temperature

Sample Critical Pavement Temp, °C

A -30.2
B -31.7
C -19.9
D -23.1
E -26.1
F -22.5
G -34.9
H -29.9
I -30.6
J -30.8
K -28.4

TABLE 6 Comparison of Estimated Critical Temperatures

Critical Pavement Temp, °C

Sample Mixture Binder (S) Binder (m-value)
A -30.2 -28.1 -25.4
B -31.7 -32.7 -22.2
C -19.9 -33.7 -15.1
D -23.1 -23.5 -22.2
E -26.1 -29.8 -28.3
F -22.5 -28.1 -26.2
G -34.9 n/a n/a
H -29.9 -23.9 -21.5
I -30.6 n/a n/a
J -30.8 -32.2 -21.8
K -28.4 -27.5 -24.6
“n/a” means data not available
Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 15

0.00030

0.00025

0.00020
Deformation, in

0.00015

0.00010

0.00005 Horiz1 Vert1

Horiz2 Vert2
0.00000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, seconds

FIGURE 1 Measured Extensometer Response During ITC

16,000
y = 17198x-0.1169
14,000 R2 = 0.998
Stiffness, MPa

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, seconds

FIGURE 2 Low Temperature Stiffness for Specimen 8013A

Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 16

Kentucky IH-64: Low Temperature Tests

18,000
-12C
-18C
16,000
S(60), MPa

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000
A B C D E F G H I J K
Sample

FIGURE 3 Low Temperature Mixture Stiffness

Kentucky IH-64: Low Temperature Tests

16,000
Mixture Stiffness (60 s), MPa

15,000
R2= 0.39
14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000
50 100 150 200 250 300
Binder Stiffness (60 s), MPa

FIGURE 4 Relationship Between Mixture Stiffness and Binder Stiffness

Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 17

Mixture Creep Compliance from Indirect

Tension Test
1.00E-04
A
1.00E-05
F
D(t), 1/psi

1.00E-06

1.00E-07

1.00E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04 1.00E+06 1.00E+08 1.00E+10

Loading Time, s

FIGURE 5 Compliance Curves (Samples A and F)

Estimated Thermal Stress

A F
Stress, MPa

3.85
3.44

0
-30.2 -22.5
Temperature, C

FIGURE 6 Thermal Stress Curves (Samples A and F)

Anderson, Walker, and Turner page 18

Kentucky IH-64: Low Temperature Tests

Mixture Critical Temperature, C -12
ity
-18 q ual
f E
eo
L in
-24

-30

-36

-42
-42 -36 -30 -24 -18 -12
BBR Stiffness Temperature, C

FIGURE 7 Comparison of Estimated Critical Temperatures (BBR Stiffness)

Kentucky IH-64: Low Temperature Tests

-12
Mixture Critical Temperature, C

-18

-24

-30
lity
Equa
-36 o f
e
Lin

-42
-42 -36 -30 -24 -18 -12
BBR m-value Temperature, C

FIGURE 8 Comparison of Estimated Critical Temperatures (BBR m-value)