1

Modeling Viscosity Behavior of Crumb Rubber Modified Binders

Carl Thodesen
1
, Feipeng Xiao
2*
, and Serji N. Amirkhanian
3


1
Senior Civil Engineer, ECOPATH Industries, 14821 N. 43rd Street, Scottsdale, AZ, 85260,
Tel.:+001 480 990 7623, Fax: +001 480 991 0314, E-mail: carl.thodesen@stratcoglobal.com

2*
Research Assistant Professor, Asphalt Rubber Technology Service (ARTS), Department of
Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0911, Tel.: +001 864 656 6799;
Fax: +001 864 656 6186; E-mail: feipenx@clemson.edu

3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0911,
Tel.: +001 864 656 6799; Fax: +001 864 656 6186; E-mail: kcdoc@clemson.edu


Abstract
Accurately predicting the viscous properties of crumb rubber modified (CRM) binders has
proven difficult, especially as these properties tend to vary with changing crumb rubber
concentrations and temperatures. This study explores the utilization of the statistical regression
and neural network (NN) approaches in predicting the viscosity values of CRM binder at various
temperatures (135
o
C and greater). A total of 53 CRM binder combinations were prepared from
two different rubber types (ambient and cryogenic), three different binder sources, four rubber
concentrations (0%, 5%, 10%, and 15%), and five crumb rubber gradations (ADOT, SCDOT,
0.18mm, 0.425mm, and 0.85 mm). The results indicated that the regression model is easy to use
and can be used for viscosity prediction, similarly NN-based models also provided accurate for
predictions for the viscosity values of CRM binders regardless of rubber type and can easily be
implemented in a spreadsheet. In addition, the developed NN model can be used to predict
viscosity values of other types of CRM binders efficiently. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis
of input variables indicated that the changes of viscosity are significant as the changes of asphalt
binder grade, test temperature, and rubber content. The results also show that these three
independent variables are the most important factors in the developed NN models in comparison
with other variables.


Keywords: Crumb rubber, Viscosity, Regression, Artificial neural network, Important index






*: Corresponding Author
2

Introduction
The ability to predict a materials behavior provides the materials designer with an important tool
in developing future products. Moreover, this capacity also provides information with regards to
the relative importance of each variable with respect to the overall material performance. Crumb
rubber modified (CRM) binder is one such material whose properties are dependent on variables
such as crumb rubber concentration and temperature. This modification of asphalt has been
found effectively in improving the flexible pavements resistance to permanent deformation.
Many studies indicate that adding crumb rubber to asphalt binder increases its viscosity and
resistance to high temperatures [1-3].
The effects of crumb rubber grinding method are also relevant with respect to CRM
binder properties. The principal difference between rubber particles produced using the
cryogenic and ambient procedures lies in the shape of the resulting particle. Crumb rubber
produced using cryogenic means tends to exhibit a smooth surface, comparable to shattered
glass. Ambient grinding tends to yield particles with a rougher surface, thus producing greater
surface area than cryogenic particles. Studies have shown that ambient ground crumb rubber
typically produces greater effects on the CRM binder properties [3-6].
AASHTO T 316 is the commonly used the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)
procedure for evaluating asphalt binder viscosity. Achieving asphalt viscosity requirements is of
utmost importance for ease of pumping as asphalt is generally stored in asphalt plants at
temperatures between 149
o
C and 177
o
C depending on the grade or viscosity [7]. However,
fulfilling these requirements becomes more difficult with the increasing viscosity due to
modification of the binder by crumb rubber [8] as well as the specifications established by SHRP
indicating that asphalt viscosity should not exceed 3.0 Pa.s at 135
o
C [9].
3

Research has shown that CRM asphalt binder viscosity increases as crumb rubber
concentration is increased, regardless of crumb rubber type. Non-Newtonian behavior of the
CRM binders was also shown to be more pronounced with increasing amounts of rubber. The
same study also concluded that lower viscosity asphalt increases the rate of the modified binder
reaction when compared to higher viscosity binders from the same source [10].
All combinations of crumb rubber and binder produce a uniquely modified binder. The
resulting viscosity increases due to absorption of the aromatic oil causing the swelling of the
rubber particles. It has been shown that the increase in rubber concentration yielded significant
increase in viscosity [10]. Viscosity of CRM binder is known to be dependent on crumb rubber
content [8], particle size and processing method [11], mixing temperature and duration [12], and
rubber type (passenger tire or truck tire) [13].
Due to these complicated parameters, the viscosity values of CRM binders are not well
predicted and it is difficult to define a concise relationship between the factors (variables), or the
problem is too complicated to be described mathematically. Increasingly, modern pattern
recognition techniques such as neural network are being considered to develop models from data
to their ability to learn and recognize trends in the data pattern. Statistical viscosity prediction
regression model developed by Thodesen [14] was proved effective. Recently, Neural Networks
(NN) are useful in place of conventional physical models for analyzing complex relationships
involving multiple variables and have been successfully used in civil engineering applications
such as process optimization, slope stability analysis, and deep excavation forecast models [15-
20].
The objective of this study was to develop the regression and a series of NN models to
predict the viscosity values of various CRM binders. The important and sensitivity analyses of
4

input variables were performed in NN to evaluate the influences of each independent variable on
the viscosity of CRM binders. Additional viscosity values from previously untested materials
were used to validate the developed regression and NN models in this study.

Materials and Data Collection
The first study used two binder sources (A and B) which were blended with 4 different CRM
sources. Both binder sources were PG 64-22, and were each reacted for 30 minutes at 177
o
C at
5, 10, 15, and 20 % CRM by weight of binder. All crumb rubber used in this study fell within
consistent specifications for crumb rubber (Table 1), two crumb rubber sources utilized
cryogenic grinding while the other two were obtained through ambient grinding.
The second study was performed using all three binder sources (Table 2); all three binder
sources were PG 64-22, and were each reacted for 30 minutes at 177
o
C at 10 and 15 % CRM by
weight of binder. In this case two crumb rubber sources were tested; one cryogenic and one
ambient ground. However, in this study the crumb rubber was separated into different sizes and
the effects of particle size studied, the sizes studied were 0.18, 0.425, and 0.85 mm. All testing
was performed on a Brookfield viscometer between the temperatures of 135-180
o
C.
During the model development stage a total of twelve (Binder code: A-L) base asphalt
binders were evaluated. In addition, during verification five other asphalt binders (Binder code:
M-Q) were evaluated. The binders were selected from many sources to determine the effects of
geographic locations of the binders. On some occasions, the same binder source was evaluated
over several months to determine if the binder properties were maintained over time. Table 3
provides a description of the binders used in this study. The test dates and test locations are also
5

given in order to provide a description of the various dates and locations the binders were
evaluated.
The gradation of the crumb rubber sources was highly varied and therefore, five different
gradations were evaluated. The gradations were: Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
and South Carolina Department of Transportations (SCDOT) specifications, 0.850 mm, 0.425
mm, and 0.180 mm. This range of gradations provides both coarse and fine gradations, as well as
individual coarse and fine crumb rubber particles. The SCDOT and ADOT gradations are given
in Table 4.
Crumb rubber data was available for twelve different types of crumb rubber (Table 5).
The variables that were varied for the crumb rubbers included: production location, grinding
procedure, gradation, and tire type. As described in later chapters, many of the crumb rubber
sources were added to various asphalt binders at concentrations ranging between 5 and 20% by
weight of binder.
The 600 g samples were stored in sealed individual quart cans at room temperature until
they were blended with the crumb rubber. Prior to blending, the specified binder cans were
placed in a 163
o
C oven for approximately 75 minutes. The wet process was used when reacting
the crumb rubber with the binders. The mechanical mixer used was a high shear 50.8 mm
diameter radial flow impellor; appropriate crumb rubber concentrations were used to react the
materials using a reaction time of 30 minutes while maintaining a constant binder temperature of
177
o
C and speed of 700 rpm. This temperature was selected as it is a common temperature used
to produce CRM binders in the field in South Carolina. Upon completion of blending the crumb
rubber with the binder, the can of CRM binder was sealed and allowed to cool for 24 hours at
room temperature prior to testing.
6

AASHTO T316 was used when determining the viscosity at 135
o
C. During this
procedure 8.5 grams of asphalt binder is poured into a standard Brookfield Viscometer test tube,
the test tube and asphalt were then placed in temperature control device and the desired
temperature selected. The appropriate spindle was selected (#21 for virgin binder), attached to
the viscometer, and then submerged in the test tube to the specified depth. The sample was then
allowed to heat up for 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of the spindle rotating at 20 RPM.
Finally, three viscosity measurements are recorded at one minute intervals (AASHTO, 2006).
It should be noted that when CRM binder samples were used 10.5 gram samples were
used instead of 8.5 grams samples, subsequently a smaller spindle size (#27) was also selected.
Careful attention was placed on ensuring that the CRM binder samples were well mixed prior to
pouring into the test tube tested at various temperatures (135, 150, 170, and 190C).

Viscosity Model Development
Regression Model

The regression model was developed in two parts; first, the effects of the addition of
crumb rubber to the virgin binders were studied. Once a working model was developed for the
addition of the crumb rubber to the virgin binders, the model for temperature variation was
developed. Such a division assumes that once the binder viscosity is set at 135
o
C, binder
viscosities will vary with temperatures greater than 135
o
C in the same fashion. Therefore, the
starting point for the model is described by Equation (1), given by:
, 0,135
( )( )
x t
Rubber Factor Temperature Factor q q = (1)
Where, q
x,t
is the viscosity with rubber content x at temperature t, and q
0,135
is the neat binder
viscosity at 135
o
C.

7

The rubber factor was considered first because preliminary experimental results indicated
that when crumb rubber was added to the binder, the asphalt viscosity consistently increased. It
was seen that viscosity ratio change with respect to crumb rubber percent followed an
exponential trend [14]. The Rubber Factor in the model has the form given in Equation (2):
CV
R x
x
e q = (2)
Where, R
cv
is the rubber coefficient for viscosity and x is the rubber content.

The effect of temperature on binders was also studied; here too the asphalt binder
viscosity was normalized. However, in this case the viscosity at 135
o
C was used as the reference.
A temperature of 135
o
C is commonly used by many testing agencies as the reference for
Brookfield viscometer viscosity measurements.
The Arrhenius equation was used as the starting point of establishing the temperature
factor component of the model. The Arrhenius equation is used for modeling viscous behavior
of thermo-rheologically simple materials; thermo-rheologically simple materials are those
materials whose chemical structure is stable at the testing temperatures (135-210
o
C). The form of
the Arrhenius equation is given in Equation (3):
a
E
Rt
t
Ae q = (3)
Where, q
t
: Viscosity of the asphalt binder at temperature t; A: Constant; E
a
: Activation energy;
R: Universal gas constant (8.314 J.mol
-1
.K
-1
).

The model was normalized by allowing the viscosity to be predicted at a desired
temperature (Equation (4)):
t
t
Ae
|
q = (4)
8

Where, A

and : Constants; t: Temperature in degrees Celsius
The rubber and temperature factors (Equations (2) and (4)) were combined to produce
Equation (5):
, 0,135
( )( )
CV
R x t
x t
e Ae
|
q q = (5)
Since the values for q
0,135
and R
cv
are known constants which have been previously derived, only
the values for parameters A and need to be estimated. The method of nonlinear least squares
was used to estimate the parameters A and . All calculations were performed using the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) procedure, whereby a nonlinear regression model was fitted to
the data.

NN models
The neural networks approach was used to develop the predictive models of the viscosity
values of asphalt mixtures considering the interaction of complicated variables. In this study, six
parameters from asphalt binder, crumb rubber, and test conditions (e.g. asphalt binder source
(Bs), binder grade (G), rubber source (Rs), test temperature (T), rubber gradation (R
G
), and
rubber content (R
C
)) were expressed as independent variables to yield the viscosity values. In
addition, a three-layer feedforward neural network was trained with the experimental data. This
architecture consists of an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer. Each of the neurons
in the hidden and output layers consists of two parts, one dealing with aggregation of weights
and the other providing a transfer function to process the output.
For the three-layer network, the output of the network, the viscosity value , is calculated
as follows [17]:
9

0
1 1
n m
T k T HK ik i
k i
f B W f B W P q
= =
( | |
= + - +
`
( |
\ . )

(6)
Where
B
o
= bias at the output layer; W
k
= weight of the connection between neuron k of
the hidden layer and the single output layer neuron; B
HK
= bias at neuron k of the hidden
layer; W
ik
= weight of the connection between input variable i and neuron k of the hidden
layer; P
i
= input i
th
parameter; and f
T
= transfer function, defined as:
1
( )
1
k
k
f
e

=
+
(7)
In Equation (6), the number of input variables (m) is 6; the input variables (defined
previously) are P
1
=Bs, P
2
=G, P
3
=Rs, P
4
=T, P
5
= R
G
, and P
6
= R
C
, The number of hidden neuron
(n=3 for two types of crumb rubber) is determined through a trial and error procedure; normally,
the smallest number of neurons that yields satisfactory results should be used.
In this study, the backpropagation algorithm was used to train this neural network. The
objective of the network training using the backpropagation algorithm was to minimize the
network output error through determination and updating of the connection weights and biases.
Backpropagation is a supervised learning algorithm in which the network is trained and adjusted
by reducing the error between the network output and the targeted output. The neural network
training starts with the initiation of all of the weights and biases with random numbers. The input
vector is presented to the network and intermediate results propagate forward to yield the output
vector. The difference between the target output and the network output represents the error. The
error is then propagated backward through the network, and the weights and biases are adjusted
to minimize the error in the next round of prediction. The iteration continues until the error goal
(tolerable error) is reached. It should be noted that a properly trained backpropagation network
would produce reasonable predictions when it is presented with input not used in the training.
10

This generalization property makes it possible to train a network on a representative set of
input/output pairs, instead of all possible input/output pairs [21].

Experimental Results and Discussion
Regression model
Equation (8) describes the resulting estimated equation using SAS:
0.040
, 0,135
( )(211.8 )
CV
R x t
x t
e e q q

= (8)
With the standard errors of A and found to be 28.4084 and 0.00096, respectively. Equation (8)
was used to predict values of viscosity for an array of binder and temperature combinations. The
coefficient of determination (R
2
) was used to provide a measure of the goodness of fit of the
model Additionally, the root mean squared error (RMSE), a frequently-used measure of the
differences between values predicted by a model and the values actually observed from the thing,
was employed in determining the viscosity prediction accuracy in this study.
The predicted and measured values of regression models for the mixtures containing
ambient and cryogenic rubbers at two testing temperatures are shown in Figure 1. It can be noted
that the R
2
value of regression model for specimens containing ambient rubber is 0.816 and its
RMSE value is 1.51 Pa.s. These values indicate that the regression is obviously effective to
predict the viscosity values of various CRM binders.
Values for the R
cv
were calculated and are summarized in Tables 6 (a) and 6 (b). As seen
in these tables, statistically significant differences are present depending on the binder source and
grinding procedure. The highest R
cv
was exhibited by the Russian binder source; it is thought that
this elevated R
cv
is due to the high shear mixing procedure and higher temperature used during
reaction, rather than unique crumb rubber and binder properties. This is likely the case as the
11

Russian binder, whose viscosity was similar to the other binders tested, was modified with
ambient crumb rubber. For the remaining binders, the R
cv
values tended to decrease with
decreasing virgin viscosity, thus suggesting that as the virgin binder viscosity decreases so too
does the corresponding CRM binder viscosity [14, 22].
Tables 6 (a) and 6 (b) used the Fisher least significant difference (LSD) procedure to
distinguish statistically significant differences amongst the R
cv
values. This procedure is a
commonly used statistical analysis method to determine the difference between two sample
estimates necessary to declare the corresponding differences between population means. R
cv

values having at least one LSD letter in common produced statistically similar values.
The influence of the R
cv
on CRM binder viscosity is quite profound, for example if a
binder of 0.5 Pa.s was reacted with a crumb rubber yielding an R
cv
of 0.1 and another of 0.12 the
two binder viscosities produced would be of approximately 3.7 and 5.5 Poise, respectively. This
difference in predicted viscosity is dependent on the R
cv
, as seen in Table 6 (b) ambient ground
particles typically tend to produce higher R
cv
values than cryogenically ground particles. The
difference in grinding procedures was seen to produce statistically different R
cv
values, by
definition the R
cv
of a binder containing no crumb rubber is zero. Preliminary results also
indicate that the R
cv
tends to increase for ambient ground particles with increasing fineness, no
such increase was found for cryogenic particles of differing fineness.
NN models
The measured viscosity values of the testing specimens were used to develop the NN
models. The original dependent and independent data of the viscosity values were categorized in
accordance with the ambient and cryogenic rubbers due to the various material components and
temperature sensitivity of the asphalt mixtures. In this study, unlike the regression models using
12

2 variables, the independent variables of NN models included the only 6 basic input variables
described earlier. The dependent variable was selected to be the viscosity value (q ). Ambient
rubber modified binder included 276 viscosity value data sets and 187 of them were selected as
the training data set, and the other 89 were used as the testing data sets. At the same time,
cryogenic rubber modified binder included 222 viscosity value data sets and 152 of them were
selected as the training data set, and the other 70 were used as the testing data sets (Table 7).
The overall NN models used a goal error of 0.00001 and an epoch of 1000 in this study. The
sampling process is largely random, since no effort was made to keep track of the characteristics
of input and output variable. While randomness in the data selection was largely maintained, the
training data set is believed to be representative [23, 24].
The developed NN model, expressed in terms of the connection weights and biases in the
three-layer topology, can then be used to predict viscosity values for any given set of data (Bs, G,
Rs, T, R
G
, and R
C
) using Equation 6. Note that Equation 6 can easily be implemented in a
spreadsheet for routine applications. The spreadsheets for ambient rubberized modifiers are
shown in Table 8. While time consuming to develop the NN model, use of the NN-based
spreadsheet model to calculate performance temperature is simple and the execution rapid.
Figure 2 shows the results obtained from the NN models (in the form of Equation 6) for the
specimens containing ambient rubber. As shown in Figure 2, the R
2
values of NN viscosity
model using ambient rubber are 0.9951 and 0.9942 for training and testing data sets,
respectively. Their RMSE values are 0.294 and 0.325. Figure 2 indicates that the NN exhibits an
accuracy prediction based on a high R
2
value and a low RMSE value. As a result, the developed
NN viscosity model effectively improves the prediction possibility of viscosity value of ambient
rubber at various conditions.
13

Similarly, the NN viscosity models of the specimens containing cryogenic rubber were
implemented in accordance with Equation (6) and expressed in terms of the connection weights
and biases shown in Table 9. The comparisons of the measured and predicted viscosity values
are shown in Figure 3. It can be noted that the NN model has the R
2
values of 0.9832 and 0.9773
for training and testing data sets while their RMSE values are 0.154 and 0.181.
Obviously, Figures 2 and 3 present that the viscosity prediction of NN model is more
effective than the regression model regardless of the rubber types (ambient or cryogenic).
Although different materials and testing conditions were used in the project, the predicting
performance of the trained neural network, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, is considered
satisfactory.


Sensitivity analysis of NN model
Due to highly complex and non-linear form of analysis of NN, additional sensitivity
analysis was conducted to estimate the impact of input variables on the output. During sensitivity
analysis process, one input parameter was changed slightly (approximately 5 to 10%) from the
initial condition, while the remaining parameters were kept constant. The predicted performance
temperature was then determined. Further modification of the parameter consequently yielded
increases/decreases in the predicted performance temperature. This process was repeated for all
input variables or modifications. The six input variables (Bs, G, Rs, T, R
G
, and R
C
) were
considered in the sensitivity analysis of the performance model for rubberized binders. The
figures (Figures 4 and 5) are plotted on axes depicting relative changes in both input and output
parameters. The output variable data set was segregated into several groups regarding predicted
and measured results during plotting the trend curves. This segregation of expected ranges
14

illustrates the non-linearity of the proposed models and the performance of the output at various
viscosity values. For example, the viscosity values were categorized to q < 1.0 Pa.s, q = 1.0-5.0
Pa.s and q> 5.0 Pa.s based on the scope of the measured values. The changes of the input
variable values were dependent on their category. This method facilitates visualization of the
relationship between input and corresponding output (i.e. a relative change in an input parameter
yields a relative change in the performance temperature value) [25-27].
As shown in Figure 4, the input variables show that the changes of input variables result
in the changes of output values for the specimens containing ambient rubber. Figure 4(a)
indicates that, as expected, the change of asphalt binder source results in the noticeable percent
change of the viscosity values for three categories. Obviously, it seems that the binder source
affects the viscosity value of ambient rubber modifier. As shown in Figure 4(b), as the increase
of the performance grade, the viscosity of asphalt binder increases remarkably. This is consistent
with the fact that the asphalt binder with a higher performance grade often has a greater viscosity
values and is often employed in a high temperature area. The analysis result in Figure 4(c)
illustrates that rubber source does not have a significant impact on the viscosity of binder for
overall categories since the viscosity almost kept constant as the change of rubber source. The
sensitivity analysis of test temperature in NN model indicates that the increase of test
temperature results in a rapid decrease in binder viscosity (Figure 4(d)). The effect of rubber
gradation is shown in Figure 4(e), it can be noted that the increase of rubber gradation slightly
reduces the viscosity value. However, in Figure 4(f), as the rubber content increases, the
viscosity value increases significantly. As a result, generally, these model analysis results are
consistent with the experimental test results.
15

Similar sensitivity analyses were performed for the viscosity values of the specimens
made with cryogenic rubber. The results indicate that the sensitivities of input variables from the
mixtures made with cryogenic rubber are approximately the same with those of the ambient
ground CRM binder mixtures. The charts of these analyses are presented in Figure 5.

Important index analysis of NN model
Yang and Zhang [28] suggest that the relative strength of the effect of an input variable
on the output can be derived based on the weights stored in the network. They define the relative
strength of effect (RSE) for each input variable on each output variable. The equation is
expressed as follows.
1 1 2
1
1 1
... ( ) ( )... ( )
n n n
i k k i i in i i i
in in i
RSE c W G W G W G

=

(9)
Where
c = a normalized constant;
2
( ) exp( ) /(1 exp( ))
k k k
G = + ; W
ik
= weight of the
connection between input variable i and neuron k of the hidden layer;
k T ik k
i
f W B = +

;
B
K
= bias at neuron k of the hidden layer; and f
T
= transfer function,

The important indices for the six input variables, Bs, G, Rs, T, R
G
, and R
C
of the binders made
with ambient rubber, were obtained from Equation (9) and are shown in Figure 6. However,
these weights should be viewed only as a rough estimate, as they are determined based on the
same assumption that only one input variable at a time is allowed to vary, although the
developed NN is highly nonlinear [.
It can be noted that asphalt binder grade ( G ), test temperature (T ), and rubber content
(
C
R ) are relatively more important, as shown in Figures 6(a). Compared with other independent
variables, binder source (
S
B ), rubber source (
s
R ), and rubber gradation (
G
R ) is relatively
16

unimportant as reflected in the behavior of the developed NN. However, the input variables of
the binders containing cryogenic rubber exhibit that rubber source (
s
R ) are also relatively
important (Figures 6(b)). This may be that the absorption and swelling properties of crumb
rubber differ due to the product process. As a result, the viscosity values strongly correlate with
those relatively important indices and their test results can be used to predict the viscosity values
of the asphalt binders.

Validation of models
The viscosity values (104 data sets) from other binder sources (e.g. Middle East, Texas,
Canada) were employed to validate the statistical regression and the developed NN models. The
designed two variables (using known values) were input into the statistical regression models to
calculate the viscosity values. The comparison of the predicted and measured viscosity values is
shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that the R
2
and RMSE values of this regression model are
0.901 and 0.65.
The given six input variable values were used with the developed NN models to calculate
predicted viscosity values and compared with the measured data. Figure 8 shows the measured
values from other projects and those predicted values by the developed NN models. The results
generally show small differences between the predicted and measured viscosity values of the
mixtures made with both rubber types (i.e., the RMSE values of these models are low), which
can be considered satisfactorily from the developed NN. Generally, the developed NN models
have a better prediction rate than the statistical regression models since the NN models have a
higher R
2
value and lower RMSE value in comparison with the statistical regression model.

17

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis of the experimental testing data of the viscosity values for two
crumb rubber, this study determined that:
1. The analysis showed the regression-based models with two variables of the asphalt
binders could effectively predict the viscosity values of binders at various testing
temperatures and mixing types.
2. The NN approach, as a new modeling method used in this study, can effectively create a
feasible predictive model using six variables from the binders and mixtures. The
established NN-based models could effectively and accurately predict the viscosity
values, as evidenced by higher R
2
and lower RMSE values than regression-based models
regardless of either rubber types or test conditions. These NN models can easily be
implemented in a spreadsheet, thus making it easy to apply.
3. The sensitivity analyses of six input variables indicated that, in most cases, the percent
changes in input variables (e.g. binder source, rubber gradation and source)
insignificantly affect the percent changes of the viscosity values regardless of the testing
temperatures and crumb rubber types.
4. The important indices of six input variables show that the asphalt binder grade, testing
temperature, and crumb rubber content are the most important factors in the developed
NN models to predict viscosity values for the binder containing ambient rubber, while
rubber source is also an important factor for cryogenic rubberized binder. However,
binder source, and rubber gradation are relatively unimportant as compared to the other
independent variables.
18

5. The regression and developed NN models could satisfactorily predict the viscosity values
as shown by validation results using the viscosity values from the other research projects.






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SC DHEC) is greatly appreciated. The results and opinions presented in this paper do
not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the SC DHEC.
























19

References
1. Palit SK, Sudhakar KR, and Pandey BB, Laboratory Evaluation of Crumb Rubber
Modified. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 16, no. 1, 45-53. 2004
2. Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN, and Juang CH. Rutting Resistance of Rubberized Asphalt
Concrete Pavements Containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Mixtures. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering 19, no. 6, 475-483. 2007
3. Yilidirim Y, Polymer modified asphalt binders. Journal of Construction and Building
Materials 21, no. 1 66-72. 2007
4. Blumenthal MH. Producing Ground Scrap Tire Rubber: A Comparison Between Ambient
and Cryogenic Technologies. Proceedings of National Waste Processing Conference.
Washington D.C, 367-374. 1994
5. Putman BJ and Amirkhanian SN. Crumb Rubber Modification of Binders: Interaction
and Particle Effects. Proceedings of the Asphalt Rubber 2006 Conference. Palm Springs,
CA, 655-677. 2006
6. West RC, Page GC, Veilleux JG, and Choubane B. Effect of Tire Grinding Method on
Asphalt Rubber Binder Characteristics. Transportation Research Record, no. 1638 134-
140.1998
7. US Army Corps of Engineers. Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Handbook, AC 150/5370-14A.
Washington DC: Library of Congress. 2000
8. Stroup-Gardiner M, Newcomb DE, and Tanquist B., Asphalt-rubber interactions.
Transportation Research Record, 99-108. 1993
9. Asphalt Institute. Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Specification and Testing,
Superpave Series No.1 (SP-1). Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute, 2003
10. Lougheed TJ, and Pappagiannakis AT, Viscosity Characteristics of Rubber Modified
Asphals. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 153-156.1996
11. Putman BJ. Quantification of the Effects of Crumb Rubber in CRM Binders. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 2005
12. Abdelrahman M. Controlling the Performance of Crumb Rubber Modifier (CRM)
Binders through the Addition of Polymer Modifiers. Transportation Research Record .
2006
13. Khalid HA, and Artamendi I, Mechanical Properties of used-tyre Rubber. Engineering
Sustainability, 37-43.2004
14. Thodesen C. Development of Prediction Models of High Temperature Crumb Rubber
Modified Binders. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson
University, Clemson, SC, 2008.
15. Agrawal G, Chameau JL, and Bourdeau PL, Assessing the liquefaction susceptibility at a
site based on information from penetration testing. Chapter 9, in: artificial neural
networks for Civil Engineers Fundamentals and Applications, ASCE Monograph, New
York. 1995
16. Goh ATC, Wong KS, and Broms BB, Estimation of lateral wall movements in braced
excavations using neural networks, Canadian Journal of Geotechnique, Vol. 32, 1059-
1064, 1995
17. Juang CH and Chen CJ, CPT-based liquefaction evaluation using artificial neural
networks, Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Vol. 14, 221-
229, 1999

20

18. Jen JC, Hung SL, Chi SY, and Chen JC, Neural network forecast model in deep
excavation, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, 59-65, 2002
19. Tarefder FA, White L, and Zaman M, Neural network model for asphalt concrete
permeability, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, 19-27, 2005
20. Xiao F and Amirkhanian SN, Asphalt Binder Rheology Sensitivity Investigation on
Resilient Modulus of Rubberized Mixtures Using Artificial Neural Network Approach
Journal of Testing and Evaluation (ASTM) Vol. 37, 2, 129-138, 2009
21. Chen CJ, Risk-based liquefaction potential evaluation using cone penetration tests and
shear wave velocity measurements. Ph.D dissertation, 1999, Clemson University
22. Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN, Shen J, and Putman BJ, Influences of Crumb Rubber Size and
Type on Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Mixtures, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 23(2), pp.1028-1034, 2009
23. Kuang TC, Hsiao CL, Schuster M, and Juang HC, A neural network approach to
estimating deflection of diaphragm walls caused by excavation in clays, Computers and
Geotechnics, Vol. 34, 385-396, 2007
24. Xiao F and Amirkhanian SN, An Artificial Neural Network Approach to Estimating
Pavement Stiffness Behavior, Journal of Transportation Engineering (ASCE) (in press,
2009)
25. Danzer MC, Estimation of liquefaction-induced vertical and horizontal displacements
using artificial neural networks and regression analysis, Ph. D dissertation, Clemson
University, South Carolina, USA, 1999
26. Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN, and Juang CH, Prediction of Fatigue Life of Rubberized
Asphalt Concrete Mixtures Containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Using Artificial
Neural Networks, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering (ASCE) (in press, 2009)
27. Gandhi T, Xiao F, and Amirkhanian SN, Estimating Indirect Tensile Strength of
Mixtures Containing Anti-Stripping Agents Using An Artificial Neural Network
Approach, International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, Vol.2 (1), pp.1-
12, 2009
28. Yang Y, and Zhang Q, A hierarchical analysis for rock engineering using artificial neural
networks, Rock Mechanics Rock Engineering, Vol.30, 207-222, 1997
















21

Table 1 Crumb Rubber Gradation used from Thodesen study

Sieve Number No. 8 No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200
Opening size (mm) 2.38 2 1.19 0.6 0.3 0.074
Upper Specification
(% passing)
100% 100% 100% 100% 45% 5%
Lower Specification
(% passing)
100% 100% 65% 20% 0% 0%




















22

Table 2 Virgin binder properties
Aging State Parameter
Binder
A B C
Unaged
Binder
Rotational Viscosity @ 135
o
C (Pa.s) 0.703 0.43 0.472
G*/sin@ 64
o
C (kPa) 2.413 1.279 1.468
RTFO aged
Residue
G*/sin @ 64
o
C (kPa) 6.075 2.81 2.579
RTFO + PAV
aged residue
G*/sino @ 25
o
C (kPa) 3352.1 4074 3573.5
Stiffness @ -12
o
C (MPa) 141.3 217 232.3
m-value @ -12
o
C 0.359 0.307 0.321




























23

Table 3 Description of binder used in this research study
Binder
Code Source Description Superpave PG
Test
Date Test Location
A Venezuela - PG 70-22 2006-7
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
B South Carolina Blend PG 64-22 2006-7
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
C Russia - PG 64-22 2005
Pannonia Lab,
Veszprem, Hungary
D Venezuela - PG 70-22 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
E Middle East - PG 64-22 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
F South Carolina Blend PG 64-22 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
G South Carolina Blend PG 64-22 2005
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
H South Carolina SBS PG 76-22 2005
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
I Unknown - PG 58-28 1999
FHWA Lab,
McLean, VA
J Unknown - PG 64-22 1999
FHWA Lab,
McLean, VA
K Unknown NOVOPHALT PG 76-22 1999
FHWA Lab,
McLean, VA
L Unknown STYRELF PG 82-22 1999
FHWA Lab,
McLean, VA
M Middle East - PG 64-22 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
N Texas - PG 70-22 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
O Canada 2 - PG 64-22 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
P West Texas - PG 64-22 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Q Canada 1 - PG 64-22 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Note: ARTS-asphalt rubber technology service











24

Table 4 (a) ADOT and (b) SCDOT gradations
(a)
Sieve Number No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200
Opening size (mm) 2.000 1.190 0.600 0.300 0.075
Upper Specification
(% passing)
100 100 100 45 5
Lower Specification
(% passing)
100 65 20 0 0

(b)
Sieve Number No. 20 No. 40 No. 80 No. 100
Opening size (mm) 0.850 0.425 0.180 0.150
Upper Specification
(% passing)
100 100 50 30
Lower Specification
(% passing)
100 85 10 5





























25

Table 5 Description of crumb rubber used in this research study
CRM
Designation
Production
Location Grinding Gradation Tire Type
Test
Date Test Location
Source 1
South
Carolina Cryogenic ADOT Passenger 2006-7
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 2 Arizona Cryogenic ADOT Passenger 2006-7
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 3 California Ambient ADOT Unknown 2006-7
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 4 Florida Ambient ADOT Truck 2006-7
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 5 Hungary Ambient ADOT Unknown 2005
Pannonia Lab,
Veszprem,
Hungary
Source 6
South
Carolina Ambient SCDOT Passenger 2005
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 7
South
Carolina Cryogenic 0.850 mm Passenger 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 8
South
Carolina Cryogenic 0.425 mm Passenger 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 9
South
Carolina Cryogenic 0.180 mm Passenger 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 10
South
Carolina Ambient 0.850 mm Passenger 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 11
South
Carolina Ambient 0.425 mm Passenger 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 12
South
Carolina Ambient 0.180 mm Passenger 2004-5
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 13
South
Carolina Cryogenic SCDOT Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 14
South
Carolina Ambient SCDOT Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 15
South
Carolina Cryogenic 0.850 mm Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 16
South
Carolina Cryogenic 0.425 mm Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 17
South
Carolina Cryogenic 0.180 mm Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 18
South
Carolina Ambient 0.850 mm Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 19
South
Carolina Ambient 0.425 mm Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC
Source 20
South
Carolina Ambient 0.180 mm Passenger 2007
ARTS Lab,
Clemson, SC









26

Table 6 (a) Mean R
cv
by Binder Source; (b) Mean R
cv
by Binder Source
(a)
Source Binder Mean R
cv
Observations LSD
Russia C 0.187 1 a
Blend B 0.120 6 b
Venezuela A,D 0.120 17 b
Middle Eastern E 0.110 6 b c
Blend F 0.094 4 c

(b)
Grinding
Mean
R
cv
Observations LSD
Ambient 0.133 17 a
Cryogenic 0.100 17 b
































27

Table 7 Sample training and testing data for ambient rubberized binder
No. B
S
G R
S
T R
G
R
C

C C mm % Pa.s
1 1 70 3 135 1.19 0 0.65
2 2 64 3 135 1.19 0 0.51
3 5 64 10 135 0.85 10 2.35
4 6 64 10 135 0.85 10 1.63
5 7 64 10 135 0.85 10 1.49
6 3 64 5 135 1.19 2 0.96

187 2 64 6 154 1.19 15 1.35
1* 1 70 3 135 1.19 0 0.64
2* 2 64 3 135 1.19 0 0.46
3* 5 64 10 135 0.85 10 2.28
4* 6 64 10 135 0.85 10 1.59
5* 7 64 10 135 0.85 10 1.50
6* 3 64 5 135 1.19 2 0.96

89* 2 64 6 154 1.19 15 1.31
1 1 70 1 135 1.19 0 0.65
2 2 64 1 135 1.19 0 0.44
3 5 64 7 135 0.85 10 1.85
4 6 64 7 135 0.85 10 1.60
5 7 64 7 135 0.85 10 1.29

152 7 64 9 135 0.18 15 1.99
1* 1 70 1 135 1.19 0 0.64
2* 2 64 1 135 1.19 0 0.51
3* 5 64 7 135 0.85 10 1.86
4* 6 64 8 135 0.425 10 1.15
5* 7 64 7 135 0.85 10 1.24

70* 7 64 9 135 0.18 15 1.98
A
m
b
i
e
n
t

r
u
b
b
e
r
C
r
y
o
g
e
n
i
c

r
u
b
b
e
r

Note: B
S
-binder source; G-binder grade; R
S
-rubber source; T-temperature; R
G
-rubber gradation; R
C
-rubber
content; - viscosity; *: testing data







28

Table 8 NN calculation spreadsheet for ambient rubberized binder
1 A B C D E F G
2 COMMANDS OF EXECUTING EQ.6 Hidden Layer
3 ARGUMENT("B
S
", "G", "R
S
", "T ", "R
G
", "R
C
") Weight matrix Hidden 1 Hidden 2 Hidden 3
4 Bias 189.6071 16.2315 4.1297
5 B
S
=(B
S
- 0.25)/7.5; G=(G-63.25)/7.5 Input 1 -41.4578 -100.8770 1.6279
6 R
S
=(R
S
-0)/10.0; T=(T-128.125)/68.75 Input 2 -20.9794 -15.9820 -0.3671
7 R
G
=(R
G
-0.0538)/1.263; R
C
=(R
C
+2.5)/25 Input 3 -57.9890 0.1109 0.4455
8 Input 4 181.5715 -2.5521 2.0455
9 Input 5 -181.2738 4.6543 0.4966
10 pi1=1/(1+EXP(-(R
b
*D$5+R
p
*D$6+V*D$7+F*D$8+ Input 6 -6.2513 4.2590 -3.5647
11 S* D$9+M
V
*D$10+D$4)))
12 pi1=1/(1+EXP(-(R
b
*E$5+R
p
*E$6+V*E$7+F*E$8+
13 S* E$9+M
V
*E$10+E$4)))
14 pi1=1/(1+EXP(-(R
b
*F$5+R
p
*F$6+V*F$7+F*F$8+
15 S* F$9+M
V
*F$10+F$4)))
16 Output Layer
17 Bias 272.2905
18 Hidden 1 -236.5587
19 Hidden 2 -13.1849
20 Hidden 3 -37.9789
21 Z=pi1*D18+pi2*D19+pi3*D20+D17
22 Z=1/(1+EXP(-Z))
23 Ln(F)=30312.5*Z-2976.25
24 RETURN (F)
Cells B3:B25 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix:
Weight matrix:
Cells D4: F4 are B
HK
Cells D5: F11 are W
ik
Weight matrix:
Cell D17 is B
o
Cells D18: D20 are
Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix: Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix:
Cells B3:B24 are
macro commands to
execute Eq.6
Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix: Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix:
























29

Table 9 NN calculation spreadsheet for cryogenic rubberized binder
1 A B C D E F G
2 COMMANDS OF EXECUTING EQ.6 Hidden Layer
3 ARGUMENT("B
S
", "G", "R
S
", "T", "R
G
", "R
C
") Weight matrix Hidden 1 Hidden 2 Hidden 3
4 Bias 11.2452 -10.5683 5.1785
5 B
S
=(B
S
- 0.25)/7.5; G=(G-63.25)/7.5 Input 1 5.7205 -6.0537 -3.7724
6 R
S
=(R
S
-0)/10.0; T=(T-128.125)/68.75 Input 2 -1.4293 1.4990 1.6328
7 R
G
=(R
G
-0.0538)/1.263; R
C
=(R
C
+2.5)/25 Input 3 -7.5077 7.9615 4.2961
8 Input 4 0.8820 -0.9110 0.1770
9 Input 5 -4.1376 4.4992 1.8188
10 pi1=1/(1+EXP(-(R
b
*D$5+R
p
*D$6+V*D$7+F*D$8+ Input 6 -2.0487 2.1218 -0.1942
11 S* D$9+M
V
*D$10+D$4)))
12 pi1=1/(1+EXP(-(R
b
*E$5+R
p
*E$6+V*E$7+F*E$8+
13 S* E$9+M
V
*E$10+E$4)))
14 pi1=1/(1+EXP(-(R
b
*F$5+R
p
*F$6+V*F$7+F*F$8+
15 S* F$9+M
V
*F$10+F$4)))
16 Output Layer
17 Bias 7722.190
18 Hidden 1 -7151.494
19 Hidden 2 -2263.327
20 Hidden 3 -573.893
21 Z=pi1*D18+pi2*D19+pi3*D20+D17
22 Z=1/(1+EXP(-Z))
23 Ln(F)=8973.9583*Z-851.5625
24 RETURN (F)
Cells B3:B25 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix:
Weight matrix:
Cells D4: F4 are B
HK
Cells D5: F11 are W
ik
Weight matrix:
Cell D17 is B
o
Cells D18: D20 are
Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix: Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix:
Cells B3:B24 are
macro commands to
execute Eq.6
Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix: Cells B3:B24 are Weight matrix: Weight matrix:












30

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
R
2
= 0.8160
RMSE = 1.51
498 data sets


Figure 1 Measured and predicted viscosity values of CRM binder from regression model



















31

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
Training data
Training R
2
= 0.9951
RMSE = 0.294
184 data sets

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
Testing data
Testing R
2
= 0.9942
RMSE = 0.325
89 data sets

(a) (b)
Figure 2 Measured and predicted viscosity values of ambient rubberized binder from NN models,
(a) Training data results; (b) Testing data results


















32

0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
Training data
Training R
2
= 0.9832
RMSE = 0.154
149 data sets

0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
Testing data
Testing R
2
= 0.9773
RMSE = 0.181
70 data sets

(a) (b)
Figure 3 Measured and predicted viscosity values of cryogenic rubberized binder from NN
models, (a) Training data results; (b) Testing data results






















33

-400
-200
0
200
400
-200 -100 0 100 200
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
%
)
Percent change in binder source (%)
-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -30 0 30 60
Percent change in binder grade (%)

-400
-200
0
200
400
-200 -100 0 100 200
Percent change in rubber source (%)

(a) (b) (c)
-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
%
)
Percent change in temperature (%)
-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Percent change in rubber gradation (%)

-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -30 0 30 60
Percent change in rubber content (%)

(d) (e) (f)
<1.0 Pa.s; 1.0~5.0 Pa.s; >1.5 Pa.s

Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis of input variables for ambient rubberized binders (a) binder source;
(b) binder performance grade; (c) rubber source; (d) temperature; (e) rubber gradation; (f) rubber
content













34

-400
-200
0
200
400
-200 -100 0 100 200
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
%
)
Percent change in binder source (%)

-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -30 0 30 60
Percent change in binder grade (%)

-400
-200
0
200
400
-200 -100 0 100 200
Percent change in rubber source (%)

(a) (b) (c)
-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

(
%
)
Percent change in temperature (%)

-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Percent change in rubber gradation (%)

-400
-200
0
200
400
-60 -30 0 30 60
Percent change in rubber content (%)

(d) (e) (f)
<1.0 Pa.s; 1.0~5.0 Pa.s; >1.5 Pa.s

Figure 5 Sensitivity analysis of input variables for cryogenic rubberized binders (a) binder
source; (b) binder performance grade; (c) rubber source; (d) temperature; (e) rubber gradation;
(f) rubber content










35

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

I
n
d
e
x
Input variables
B
S
R
C T
R
S G
R
G

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

I
n
d
e
x
Input variables
B
S
R
C T
R
S G
R
G

(a) (b)

Figure 6 Important indices of NN model, (a) ambient rubberized binder;
(b) cryogenic rubberized binder


















36

0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
R
2
= 0.9010
RMSE = 0.65
104 data sets


Figure 7 Validation of regression model


























37

0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
R
2
=0.9897
RMSE = 0.39
37 data sets

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s

(
P
a
.
s
)
Measured viscosity values (Pa.s)
R
2
=0.9306
RMSE = 0.18
67 data sets

(a) (b)

Figure 8 Validation of NN model, (a) ambient rubberized binder;
(b) cryogenic rubberized binder