Rheological analysis of multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test

T.L.J. Wasage*, Jiri Stastna

1
and Ludo Zanzotto
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
(Received 12 August 2010; nal version received 16 March 2011)
It has been known for some time that the current AASHTO M 320-05 specication does not address the true rutting potential
of modied asphalt binders. The multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test was proposed by the United States Federal
Highway Administration to replace the AASHTO M 320-05 high-temperature specication parameter and various
SHRP - test methods. The new parameter of non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, is currently being considered as a
replacement for the Superpave high-temperature binder parameter of }G*}/sin d (v = 10 rad/s) (AASHTO TP 70-09). An
investigation of the suggested new parameter in capturing the rutting potential and a rheological analysis of the MSCR test
method were carried out for conventional and modied asphalt binders and are reported in this paper. The laboratory wheel
tracking test was conducted to study the rutting potential of asphalt mixes prepared with the same asphalt binders.
Correlation of the new parameter, Jnr, with rutting in asphalt mixes is briey discussed. A linear viscoelastic compliance
model was developed to describe the MSCR test and is also discussed.
Keywords: rutting; non-recoverable compliance; multi-stress creep recovery test; modied asphalt binders; asphalt mixes
1. Introduction
It is believed that the accumulated strain in asphalt binder,
as a consequence of trafc, is mainly responsible for the
rutting of asphalt pavements. There have been attempts to
formulate a specication parameter that can describe the
afnity of a binder to the increase of accumulated
deformation under periodic loading. For example, the
standard specication for performance-graded asphalt
binder (AASHTO designation: M 320-05) uses the
parameter }G
*
}/sin d ( =1/J
//
) (v =10 rad/s) as the
specication parameter for binders at high temperatures.
As the loss compliance, J
//
, measures the energy
dissipated per cycle of sinusoidal deformations (Ferry
1980), it was assumed that a larger value of J
//
would lead
to greater deformation in the binder. Consequently,
pavement with such a binder will be more prone to
rutting. This parameter, which was found to work well for
unmodied asphalts, does not give correct predictions
for polymer-modied asphalts (PMAs; Anderson and
Kennedy 1993, Bahia et al. 2001, Bouldin et al. 2001,
Shenoy 2001, DAngelo and Dongre 2002).
In an attempt to replace the existing Superpave high-
temperature binder parameter, }G
*
}/sin d, a new test, called
multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR), was extensively
studied (DAngelo 2009a, 2009b). This test uses a
sequence of shear creep and recovery experiments. In its
recent form, the MSCR test consists of 1 s of creep loading
followed by 9 s of recovery over multiple stress levels of
0.1 and 3.2 kPa at 10 cycles for each stress level.
The test begins at the lower stress level and continues to
the next stress level at the end of 10 cycles with no time lag
between cycles. The average non-recovered strain for the 10
creep and recovery cycles is then divided by the appropriate
applied stress in those cycles, yielding the new parameter
non-recoverable compliance, Jnr (DAngelo 2009b).
There are two crucial parameters in this MSCR test: (a)
the applied shear stresses and (b) the temperature at which
the test is performed. This paper reports the results of the
MSCR test for several conventional and polymer and
crumb rubber-modied asphalt binders and also presents
an analysis of the suitability of Jnr as the new parameter
for the prediction of rutting. We were interested in the role
of applied stresses because the level of stress determines
the limit of the linear viscoelastic description of the
studied material; thus, a sequence of increasing shear
stresses was considered in our MSCR test. The possibility
of using pseudo-linear viscoelastic modelling was also
investigated.
2. Experimental
2.1 Materials
2.1.1 Asphalt binders
Four different asphalt binders were used. The asphalt
binders were in the same high-temperature performance
grade (PG) category, according to the standard specica-
tion for performance-graded asphalt binder, AASHTO
designation: M 320-05 (Tables 1 and 2) (American
ISSN 1029-8436 print/ISSN 1477-268X online
q 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.573557
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Corresponding author. Email: twasage@ucalgary.ca
International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Vol. 12, No. 6, December 2011, 561568
Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials
2008). The binders were as follows:
. Base (conventional) asphalt (referred to as asphalt
B): asphalt 85/100 Pen grade, characterised as PG
64-25 (split grade).
. PMA (referred to as asphalt C): PG 64-34. Asphalt
200/300 Pen grade modied by 4% (by weight) of
styrenebutadienestyrene (SBS) copolymer.
. PMA (referred to as asphalt D): PG 64-37. Asphalt
300/400 Pen grade modied by SBS copolymer.
. Crumb rubber-modied asphalt (referred to as
asphalt E): PG 64-37. Asphalt 300/400 Pen grade
modied by crumb rubber material (CRM) from
used tyres.
Table 1 presents the designation and Superpave
performance grading of the asphalt binders.
2.1.2 Asphalt mixes
The asphalt mixes were compacted using the same
aggregate gradation, asphalt content (5.3%) and air voids
(,4%), according to the Superpave mix design.
A Superpave gyratory compactor was used as the
compaction apparatus. All four asphalt binders were
used to prepare the mixes. The aggregate gradation for all
mixes is shown in Figure 1.
2.2 Multi-stress creep recovery test
MSCR experiments were performed in the stress-
controlled dynamic shear rheometer creep vislometry
oscillatory rheometer (CVOR) from Malvern Instruments.
The tests were conducted at different temperatures from 30
to 708C using plateplate geometry with a plate diameter
of 25 mm and a gap of 1.0 mm.
A set of 110 cycles of repeated creep and recovery
were taken by the instrument, with a loading time of 1 s
and an unloading time of 9 s at levels of shear stress from
25 to 25,600 Pa. The same sample was used in all cycles,
and 10 cycles of repeated creep and recovery were taken
for each stress level. The stress level doubled after every
10 cycles, starting at 25 Pa. Figure 2 shows a schematic
Table 1. Designation and Superpave performance grading of
the asphalt binders.
Asphalt binder
Superpave
grading Designation
Base asphalt 85/100 Pen grade PG 64-25
(split grade)
B
PMA 200/300 Pen grade with
SBS polymer
PG 64-34 C
PMA 300/400 Pen grade with
SBS polymer
PG 64-37 D
Crumb rubber-modied
asphalt 300/400 Pen
grade with CRM
PG 64-37 E
Table 2. Rut depth after 10,000 cycles.
Mix type with Test temperature (8C) Final rut depth (mm)
Asphalt B 40 0.615
50 1.070
60 2.390
Asphalt C 40 0.520
50 0.890
60 2.505
Asphalt D 40 0.480
50 1.07
60 2.840
Asphalt E 40 0.645
50 1.420
60 3.980
0
.
0
7
5
0
.
1
5
0
.
6
0
1
.
1
8
2
.
3
6
4
.
7
5
9
.
5
1
2
.
5
1
9
.
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sieve size [mm]
(raised to 0.45 power)
C
u
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

p
a
s
s
i
n
g
Figure 1. Aggregate gradation of asphalt mixes.
Ten cycles for each
stress in actual test
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

S
t
r
a
i
n
Time (s)
one
cycle
1 10
1 10 20
Time (s)
C
r
e
e
p
s
t
r
e
s
s
Stress
increases from
25 Pa to
25,600 Pa
100 Pa
25 Pa
50 Pa
Figure 2. Schematic representations of the MSCR test loading
and unloading sequence.
T.L.J. Wasage et al. 562
representation of the MSCR test loading and unloading
sequence.
2.3 Wheel tracking test
For the wheel tracking test, two gyratory compacted
cylindrical specimens, each with a diameter of 150 mm,
were paired together. Plaster of Paris was used to cast
the samples together inside the specimen box. Gyratory
compaction was employed to compact the test mix to yield a
uniformdensity and distribution of air voids. The percentage
of air voids varied from 3 to 5% in the prepared mixes.
The apparatus used in this study was a type of
Hamburg wheel tracking machine built by ConTech
(Dubi, Czech Republic). A transducer was installed to
record the average rut depth at the centre domain of each
specimen the approximate location of the maximum rut
depth. The signal of the transducer was fed to the
autonomous data acquisition unit, which logged the
progressively increasing rut depth at an accuracy of
0.01 mm. The data were recorded every 250 cycles.
The apparatus consisted of two parallel sets of loading
wheels, allowing for the simultaneous testing of two
specimens. Rubber tyres were used, and they were 47 mm
wide with a diameter of 203.2 mm. The applied load was
set to 705 N (AASHTO T324-04), and the average contact
stress given by the manufacturer was 0.73 MPa. Each
wheel travelled 230 mm before reversing direction, and the
device operated at 52 wheel passes per minute.
3. Results of the MSCR testing
Accumulated strains at 408C, which were obtained from
the test under different stress levels, for asphalts B and C
are given as examples of the test data in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively. Only a very small recovery was clearly
visible in the conventional asphalt (asphalt B), even with
the smallest applied stress of 25 Pa. On the other hand, a
strong recovery in the PMA (C) was observed for all the
stresses used.
Jnr was determined by dividing the average non-
recovered strain in every group of 10 cycles by the applied
stress appropriate for the group:
Jnr =
g(10n) 2g 10(n 2 1)

10t
n
; (1)
where n is the index for groups of 10 cycles, each group
characterised by the appropriate t
n
, i.e. n = 1; 2; 3; . . . ; g
is the non-recoverable strain and t is the shear stress.
Figure 5 shows the dependence of Jnr on the applied
stress and temperature in asphalt B. Jnr was almost
independent of the stress at a temperature of 408C;
however, a strong increase at large stresses and
temperatures above 608C was observed. Asphalt B
exhibited weak dependence on the applied stress up to
several thousands of Pa, even at a temperature of 708C. This
points to a relatively strong linear viscoelastic behaviour
for asphalt B (conventional asphalt).
Figure 6 portrays Jnr for the SBS-modied asphalt
(asphalt C) at the same temperatures as above.
One can see very different behaviours of Jnr in this
PMA (asphalt C): Jnr was weakly dependent on the stress
up to the level of 12,800 Pa at a temperature of 408C, and
after 12,800 Pa, an increased dependence was observed
with increasing stress. When the temperature was
increased, the region of insensitivity to the stress level
shrank compared with the situation in asphalt B. As the
stress level increased, nonlinear behaviour of Jnr was
observed. Similar behaviour was also registered in
modied asphalts D and E.
Clearly, the parameter Jnr could indicate the boundary
of the linear viscoelastic behaviour in the studied binders.
In asphalt B (conventional), such a boundary was
determined by stresses up to several thousands of Pa and
Figure 3. Accumulated strain, asphalt B, T = 408C and stress,
2525,600 Pa .
Figure 4. Accumulated strain, asphalt C, T = 408C and stress,
2525,600 Pa .
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 563
was not dependent on temperatures used in the testing. The
situation was different for the studied modied asphalt
binders. In these materials, the boundary of linear
viscoelastic behaviour was strongly dependent on the
applied stress as well as on the applied temperature. Thus,
the suggestion that the MSCR test should be done at the
temperature determined by the Superpave high-tempera-
ture specication parameter (}G
*
}/sin d) and at one or two
pre-dened stress levels seems to be unwarranted.
In Figures 7 and 8, the dependence of Jnr on the
applied stress is shown at a lower temperature (408C) and
at a higher temperature (608C), respectively. At 408C
(Figure 7), a stress of about 1000 Pa determined the
common lower boundary of the linear viscoelastic
behaviour in all the tested materials. As mentioned earlier,
this stress level was much higher in asphalt B; however,
asphalts D and E exhibited a strong dependence of Jnr on
the stress once the boundary of the limiting stress
(,1000 Pa) was crossed. The fastest increase of Jnr was
observed in asphalt E.
At 608C (Figure 8), the common stress boundary of the
linear viscoelastic behaviour was about 100 Pa. From
Figure 8, one can see that the materials were divided into
two groups in the linear viscoelastic domain. Asphalts B
and D were paired (with Jnr ,0.002 [1/Pa]), and asphalts
C and E were grouped together (with Jnr ,0.0004 [1/Pa]).
Beyond the limiting stress level, the behaviour of Jnr in
asphalts C and E, as well as in asphalt D, was quite similar.
Jnr increased with increasing stress. Asphalt D had the
largest magnitude of Jnr at both temperatures (40 and
608C) and asphalt C had the smallest magnitude, except at
the three lowest stresses, where asphalt E had the smallest
Jnr. In all the modied binders (asphalts CE), the
situation was more complicated at higher temperatures.
4. Relationship of non-recoverable compliance (Jnr)
to rutting
It is important to understand the correlation between Jnr
and the rutting potential of asphalt pavements to evaluate
this new parameter and to understand its ability to predict
Figure 5. Non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, in asphalt B at
temperatures indicated on the graph.
Figure 6. Non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, in asphalt C at
temperatures indicated on the graph.
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Stress [Pa]
J
n
r

[
1
/
P
a
]
Asphalt B
Asphalt C
Asphalt D
Asphalt E
Figure 7. Non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, in asphalts BE at
408C.
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Stress [Pa]
J
n
r

[
1
/
P
a
]
Asphalt B
Asphalt C
Asphalt D
Asphalt E
Figure 8. Non-recoverable compliance, Jnr, in asphalts BE at
608C.
T.L.J. Wasage et al. 564
the high-temperature binder performance in asphalt
pavements. The nal rut depths obtained from the
laboratory wheel tracking test after 10,000 cycles were
compared with the Jnr values at the respective
temperatures. Generally, the rutting depends on the type
of paving mix; thus, the asphalt binder was the only
variable in the tested asphalt mixes. All other conditions
(such as aggregate gradation, compaction method,
percentage of air voids, densities and so on) were
maintained at the same values. Table 2 records the rut
depths after 10,000 cycles at different test temperatures for
the studied mixes. The obtained rut depths were compared
with the Jnr values, and correlations between the two
quantities were investigated.
Correlations between the rut depth (after 10,000 cycles
of wheel tracking test) and the value of Jnr (from the
MSCR tests) obtained for stresses less than 12,800 Pa were
poor. The best correlation was obtained for the stress level
of 12,800 Pa (see the example for binders/mixes B and C
in Figure 9). A similar observation was reported by
DAngelo (2009b). This is not surprising because one can
expect much higher shear stresses generated by the wheel
tracking test than those in the MSCR test performed on the
binder.
At high shear stresses, the MSCR test brings the binder
to the domain of nonlinear viscoelasticity, and the same
must occur during the wheel tracking test in the
corresponding mix. It is difcult to imagine that Jnr and
the rut depth, two quantities obtained in the domain of
nonlinear viscoelasticity, can be easily correlated. More-
over, the element (particle) of the mix undergoes much
more complicated deformation in the wheel tracking test
than the element of the corresponding binder in the MSCR
test. Thus, even though the MSCR testing of binders at
higher stresses is closer to the real situation in paving
mixes, it is probably still too oversimplied and may not
give the right assessment of the role of the binder in the
rutting process that is so troubling in paving mixes.
5. Modelling of the MSCR test
The studied test was a regular creep and recovery test
repeated with different shear stresses applied for 10 cycles.
If s
0
is the stress applied in the rst group of 10 cycles,
then the stress in cycle m (m = 0, 1, 2, . . . ) is s
0
2
m
.
The following is a schematic of the rst group of 10
cycles that is repeated for every shear stress:
t
First group
a

b 3b 3b+a b+a 2b+a 2b

where, in our experiment, a = 1 s and b = 10 s.
With the help of the unit step function H, we can write
the stress, s(t
/
), in our test as
s(t
/
) = s
0
X
10
m=0
2
m
X
10(m-1)
n=10m-1
H t
/
2 (n 2 1)b

2H (t
/
2 (n 2 1)b 2 a)

:
(2)
For the purpose of programming in the curve tting
platform (TableCurve 1996), Equation (2) can be written
symbolically as
s(t
/
) = s
0
X
10
1
[] - 2
X
20
11
[] - 2
2
X
30
21
[] - - 2
10
X
110
101
[]
" #
:
(3)
One can also prepare the equivalents of the linear
viscoelastic compliances in each group of 10 cycles by
dividing the experimental strains by s
0
2
m
and obtaining a
modied accumulated compliance function that can still
depend on the applied stress. After this procedure is done
for each group, one can add the groups of compliance
functions into a complete accumulated compliance
function.
We have made the following assumptions:
. In each group, the accumulated compliance function
has the form of the linear viscoelastic compliance
accumulated.
. Generally, all parameters in such a compliance
function can depend on the applied stress.
. Simplifying hypothesis: Let us assume that the
viscosity term of the linear viscoelastic compliance
is the term with the strongest stress dependence, and
the rest of the used compliance function depends
only weakly on the stress, i.e. the remaining terms
in our model compliance function contain only
parameters and not functions of the applied stress.
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1 1 10
Rut depth [mm]
J
n
r

[
1
2
8
0
0

P
a

1
]
Asphalt B
Asphalt C
Linear fit
y = 0.0011x
R
2
= 0.98
Figure 9. Correlation between Jnr in asphalts B and C, stress
12,800 Pa and nal rut depth in asphalt mixes prepared with
asphalts B and C at 40, 50 and 608C.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 565
Thus, we may start with the linear viscoelastic
constitutive equation (Ferry 1980)
g
acc
(t) =

1
21
H(t 2 t
/
)J(t 2 t
/
)
ds(t
/
)
dt
/
dt
/
: (4)
From Equation (2), it follows that
ds(t
/
)
dt
/
= s
0
X
10
m=0
2
m
X
10(m-1)
n=10m-1
d t
/
2 (n 2 1)b

2d (t
/
2 (n 2 1)b 2 a)

; (5)
where d is the delta function.
Thus,
g
acc
(t) =s
0
X
10
m=0
2
m
X
10(m-1)
n=10m-1
H t 2(n21)b J t 2(n21)b

2H (t 2(n21)b2a) J t 2(n21)b2a

: (6)
When one constructs J
acc
according to the above-described
procedure, it is possible to study the function, J
acc
. (It is a
function of time and stress.)
From Equation (6),
J
acc
=
X
110
n=1
H t 2 (n 2 1)b J t 2 (n 2 1)b

2H (t 2 (n 2 1)b 2 a) J t 2 (n 2 1)b 2 a

: (7)
Assuming the form of linear viscoelastic compliance as
(Wasage et al. 2007, Stastna et al. 2007):
J(t; s) = J
g
- J
D
c(t) -
t
h
; (8)
where J
g
is the glassy compliance, J
D
is the delayed
compliance and h represents the stress-dependent
viscosity function.
Thus, we assume that the stress dependence is
concentrated only in the viscosity term, h. In our
experiment, the stress was doubled after every 10 cycles;
thus, the stress was basically an increasing function of time.
In the next step, we have assumed the following form
of h:
h =
h
0
1 - f (gt)e
gt

u
M; (9)
where h
0
; f ; g and u are parameters, which together with
the parameters J
g
; J
D
and creep function, c(t), have to be
determined by tting the experimental data to the
accumulated compliance model.
Due to the form of J
acc
, Equation (7), and the very
small value of the glassy compliance, J
g
would not
signicantly change the total value of J
acc
and cannot be
determined from the t to J
acc
. (It can, however, be
determined, for example, from the t to the rst cycle.)
What is left, according to our hypothesis, is the parameter
J
D
and the creep function, c(t); and, these have to be
determined by a tting procedure.
Basically in linear viscoelasticity (Gross 1953, Ferry
1980):
c(t) =

1
0
L(L) 1 2 e
2t=L
n o
dL; (10)
where L(L) is the continuous retardation spectrum.
We have generalised Equation (10) by assuming a
complete stretch of time (Polacco et al. 2008), i.e.
c(t) =

1
0
L(L) 1 2 e
2(t=L)
c
n o
dL; (11)
where the retardation spectrum is given as
L(L) =
ac
G(1 - (1=c))
(aL)
c
e
2(aL)
c
: (12)
Then,
c(t) = 1 2
2
G(1 - (1=c))

(at)
c-1
q
K
1-(1=c)
2

(at)
c
p

;
(13)
where K
1-(1=c)
is the Macdonald function. For details, refer
Stastna et al. (2007) and Polacco et al. (2008).
For the description of our multi-stress repeated creep
and recovery, we use the following form of compliance
function:
J t; s(t)

=J
g
-J
D
12
2

(at)
c-1
p
G(1-(1=c))
K
1-(1=c)
2

(at)
c
p

" #
-
t 1-f (gt)e
gt

u
h
0
: (14)
Equation (14) is able to describe the MSCR test in both
conventional and modied binders. Figures 10 and 11
0.01
0.001
0.0001
J
a
c
c

[
1
/
P
a
]
1e-05
0.1 1 10
t [s]
100 1000 10000
Model fit
Experimental data
Figure 10. Accumulated creep compliance of asphalt C. Fit to
Equation (14), T = 408C.
T.L.J. Wasage et al. 566
show the examples of the model t for asphalt C at 40 and
608C. The estimated zero shear viscosity values from
the model at 40 and 608C were 23,950 and 1236 Pa s,
respectively, which were in agreement with the values
obtained from the steady shear viscosity measurements
(Reyes et al. 2007, Wasage et al. 2007).
6. Conclusions
The MSCR test at temperatures of 40, 50, 60 and 708C
showed that, in a conventional asphalt binder, the
accumulated compliance is only a function of time for
applied shear stress levels up to about 10,000 Pa. On the
other hand, the accumulated compliance in the polymer
(SBS) or in crumb rubber-modied asphalt binders was a
function of time and applied stress, except for very low
stress levels. PMA is a multi-component and two-phase
system and this asphalt polymer system contains non-
permanent network of higher molecular weight blocks and
this gives the system the chance to change easily from
linear to nonlinear behaviour.
Jnr function behaviour was studied under stress levels
starting at 25 Pa up to 25,600 Pa. The variation of Jnr in the
modied asphalt binders again clearly showed that it is
important to understand the stress dependency of the
material. The MSCR test can be used to identify the upper
bound of the stress level below which linear viscoelastic
behaviour is probable; linear viscoelasticity can be used
for the description of the test, depending on the
temperature at which the test was performed. Thus, the
ability of Jnr to predict the performance of different
asphalt binders is strongly dependent on the testing
temperature.
The relationship of Jnr with laboratory wheel tracking
test results was investigated. It was found that the best
correlation between Jnr and rut depth was obtained at the
high stress levels of the MSCR test. This points to the
existence of large shear stresses in the Hamburg wheel
tracking test, as was already suggested by DAngelo
(2009a, 2009b). When large shear stresses are applied to
binders in the MSCR test, the linear viscoelastic
description of the material is not applicable (putting
aside the experimental difculties to obtain very high
stresses in conventional rheometers); thus, it is difcult to
correlate Jnr with rut depth in the appropriate asphalt
paving mix.
The MSCR test was successfully modelled with the
help of pseudo-linear viscoelastic theory. The obtained
pseudo-linear model of J(t; s(t)) was capable of describ-
ing the MSCR test in both conventional and modied
asphalt binders.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and to Husky
Energy Inc. for their nancial support of this work.
Notes
1. Email: stastna@ucalgary.ca
2. Email: zanzotto@ucalgary.ca
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Ofcials, 2008. Standard specication for performance-
graded asphalt binder, AASHTO designation: M 320-05.
Anderson, D.A. and Kennedy, T.W., 1993. Development of
SHRP binder specication. Journal of the Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologies, 62, 481501.
Bahia, H.U., et al., 2001. Characterization of modied asphalt
binders in Superpave mix design. Report 459, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
Bouldin, M.G., Dongre, R., and DAngelo, J., 2001. Proposed
renement of Superpave high-temperature specication
parameter for performance-graded binders. Transportation
Research Record, 1766, 4047.
DAngelo, J., 2009a. Current status of Superpave binder
specication. Road Materials and Pavement Design, ICAM
2009, 10, 1324.
DAngelo, J., 2009b. The relationship of the MSCR test to
rutting. Road Materials and Pavement Design, ICAM 2009,
10, 6180.
DAngelo, J. and Dongre, R., 2002. Superpave binder
specications and their performance relationship to modied
binders. Proceedings of Canadian Technical Asphalt
Association, XLVII, 91103.
Ferry, J.D., 1980. Viscoelastic properties of polymers. New York:
Wiley.
Gross, B., 1953. Mathematical structure of the theories of
viscoelasticity. Paris: Hermann.
Polacco, G., Stastna, J., and Zanzotto, L., 2008. Accumulated
strain in polymer-modied asphalts. Rheologica Acta, 47,
491498.
Reyes, M., et al., 2007. Evaluation of shear ow susceptibility of
asphalt at high temperature. In: Proceedings of the 52nd
annual conference of Canadian Technical Asphalt Associ-
ation, Niagara Falls, Canada.
0.01
0.1
1
0.001
0.0001
J
a
c
c

[
1
/
P
a
]
0.1 1 10
t [s]
100 1000 10000
Model fit
Experimental data
Figure 11. Accumulated creep compliance of asphalt C. Fit to
Equation (14), T = 608C.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering 567
Shenoy, A., 2001. Renement of the Superpave specication
parameter for performance grading of asphalt. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 127 (5), 357362.
Stastna, J., et al., 2007. Dynamic creep test in several asphalt
binders. The role of temperature and stress. In: Proceedings
of the advanced characterization of pavement and soil
engineering materials conference, Athens, Greece.
TableCurve 2D v4.0, 1996. Chicago, USA: AISN Software, Inc.
Wasage, T.L.J., et al., 2007. Role of viscosity in dynamic creep
tests in conventional, oxidized and polymer modied
asphalts. Transportation Research Record, 1998, 5664.
T.L.J. Wasage et al. 568
Copyright of International Journal of Pavement Engineering is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.