Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8
Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Construction and

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/lo cate/conbuildmat Laboratory evaluation on high temperature viscosity and low

Laboratory evaluation on high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness of asphalt binder with high percent scrap tire rubber

Hainian Wang a , , Zhanping You b , 1 , Julian Mills-Beale b , 2 , Peiwen Hao a , 3

a Highway School, Chang’an University, South Erhuan Middle Section, Xia’n, Shaanxi, 710064, China b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, United States

article info

Article history:

Received 6 November 2010 Received in revised form 23 May 2011 Accepted 18 June 2011 Available online 12 July 2011

Keywords:

Asphalt rubber

Rotational viscosity

Creep stiffness

Laboratory test

RTFO aging

Rubber concentration

abstract

The objective of this research is to utilize crumb rubber from scrap tires as an environmental friendly and sustainable additive for enhancing the high temperature and low temperature rheological properties of asphalt binders for asphalt pavements. Two different crumb rubber sources with different gradations – fine and coarse – were used in this project. The crumb rubber-modified (CRM) binder was produced by adding 10, 15, 20 and 25% crumb rubber particles by weight of a Superpave PG 64-22 asphalt binder. The CRM binders with and without Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO) aging were characterized by the AASHTO rotational viscosity test at 135, 140, 150, 160, 170, 177, and 190 C (AASHTO T316). Furthermore, the low temperature cracking resistance of the binders was evaluated using the AASHTO Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) test procedure at 12 and 18 C (AASHTO T313). The statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to quantify the effect of the influencing factors such as temperature, rubber particle size, and rubber concentration on the CRM binders’ performance. From the laboratory tests and ANOVA results in this study, it is evident that the addition of crumb rubber into asphalt binder can both signif- icantly improve the viscosity of binder at high temperature and lower the creep stiffness at low temper- ature, which is beneficial to better both high temperature stability and low temperature cracking resistance of asphalt pavements. After RTFO aging, the viscosity decreases with increasing rubber concen- tration. Finer crumb rubber attains higher viscosity at high temperature and lower creep stiffness at low temperature. Considering the viscosity–temperature relationship, RTFO aging effects, creep stiffness decreasing percentage, and economical factors, 15% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio is proposed for the pro- duction of CRM binder.

2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

With the motor industry developing and spreading at a higher pace in all parts of the world, high amount of scrap tires were pro- duced every year, which makes the disposal of tires a serious envi- ronmental problem [1] . Crumb rubber, which is obtained from the grinding of scrap tires, has proved to be an efficient solution to the environmental concerns surrounding the accumulation of waste tires in recent years [2,3] . The beneficial use of crumb rubber into virgin asphalt binder and pavements provides an environmentally sustainable method of disposing of the millions of tires generated annually [4] .

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 29 82334824. E-mail addresses: wanghainian@yahoo.com.cn (H. Wang), zyou@mtu.edu (Z. You), jnmillsb@mtu.edu (J. Mills-Beale), haopw@yahoo.com.cn (P. Hao).

1 Tel.: +1 906 487 1059.

2 Tel.: +1 906 487 2528.

3 Tel.: +86 29 82334427.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.061

The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines asphalt rubber (AR) as ‘‘a blend of asphalt cement, reclaimed tire rubber and certain additives, in which the rubber component is at least 15% by weight of the total blend and has reacted in the hot asphalt cement sufficiently to cause swelling of the rubber par- ticles,’’ [5] . Researchers have shown that the addition of crumb rubber into virgin asphalt can produce asphalt rubber binders with better resistance to rutting, fatigue cracking and thermal cracking as well as reducing the thickness of asphalt overlays and potential reflective cracking [6,7] . The asphalt rubber acts in slurry and chip seal materials as a stress absorbing membrane while demonstrat- ing good anti-fatigue and durability performance in field applica- tions [8,9] . The addition of crumb rubber into virgin asphalt induces a significant increase in binder viscosity. As the viscous property of asphalt rubber is critical to mixture compaction temperature and binder workability during storage and pumping process, the viscosity of asphalt rubber has been the central focus in pre- vious research work [10,11]. Lougheed and Papagiannakis

584

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

adopted the Brookfield viscometer to test the viscosity of three virgin and six rubber-modified asphalt binders [12] . Their sam- ples contained crumb rubber concentrations of 3%, 5%, 7%, 12% and 18% by weight of the virgin binder. Notable among their conclusions was the introduction of the concept of ‘‘stabilized viscosity’’. Stabilized viscosity is the phenomenon whereby the viscosity of the rubber-modified asphalt will decrease to a stabi- lized value after approximately 45–75 min of blending; with the exact stabilized time dependent on the crumb rubber concentra- tion. West et al. evaluated the effect of the tire rubber grinding method on AR binder properties and characteristics, and they found a good correlation between the grinding process of crumb rubber and the viscosity and storage settlement. Crumb rubber with greater specific surface areas and more irregular shapes can induce high viscosity conditions in asphalt rubber binder [13] . Lee et al. adopted the gel permeation chromatography (GPC), dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) and rotational viscosity (RV) to characterize control binder, SBS-modified binder and rubber-mod- ified binder of two short-term aging method, rolling thin film oven (RTFO) aging and short-term oven aging (STOA) [14] . According to their tests, increased aging time will cause an increase in viscosity at high temperatures for the control and SBS-modified binders. It should be noted however that there was no clear trend in the vis- cosity change for the rubber-modified binder with and without aging. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) and differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) techniques have been used to evaluate the effect of crumb rubber characteristics, including rubber sources and rubber concentration, on crumb rubber-modified (CRM) bin- der viscosity [15] . Their tests proposed that the CRM type and sources plays an obvious role in influencing the viscous properties of the CRM binder. Statistical regression and neural network ap- proaches have been applied to predict the viscosities of different rubber type CRM binders with different concentrations and pro- posed an efficient way to estimate the viscous properties of differ- ent variables such as asphalt binder grade, binder source, test temperature, rubber content and rubber source [16] . With the aid of the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), rotational viscometer and the GPC, interaction effects such as blending time, temperature and rubber content of CRM binders were investigated in research conducted by Jeong et al. [17] . Their work proved that longer blending time and higher blending temperature result in a higher viscosity of CRM binders. Previous research investigations have focused on viscous prop- erties of CRM binders from different aspects and this was beneficial to understand the different influence factors and their effects on the performance of CRM binders. It must be emphasized that the aging effect on the viscosity of binders containing different CRM concentrations and at different temperatures still need a thorough study. Additionally, it is pertinent to focus on the low temperature stiffness of CRM binders to investigate the relationship between low temperature stiffness and thermal cracking of CRM mixture pavements. These areas of study have received less attention in past and current studies.

2. Objective and scope

The objective of this research is to utilize crumb rubber from scrap tires as an environmental friendly and sustainable additive for enhancing the rheological properties of asphalt binders. The fo- cus was to investigate the viscous property of CRM binders with and without RTFO aging at different test temperatures, and also test the low temperature creep stiffness of CRM binders with dif- ferent rubber concentrations.

3. Experimental program

3.1. Materials

Two particle size crumb rubber materials cryogenically produced from different sources in China were adopted in this paper. Fig. 1 shows the percent passing gra- dation of Crumb Rubber A (Rubber A) and Crumb Rubber B (Rubber B). Five rubber asphalt concentrations, 0%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% by weight of asphalt, were used in this study. A Superpave PG 64–22 binder was used as the control binder in this study. This binder was obtained from a construction site near Detroit in Michigan and met the MDOT specification requirements. Table 1 shows the properties of control PG 64-22 binder. Two sources of cryogenic fine crumb rubber were added to the virgin PG 64-22 binder to produce the CRM binders. The basic properties of the crumb rubber are shown in Table 2 .

3.2. Experimental plan

The detailed experimental plan is indicated in Fig. 2 . The plan sums up the material preparation, Superpave™ characterization and evaluation of the CRM binders.

3.3. Sample preparation

The crumb rubber was added gradually into the asphalt binder at a reaction temperature of 350 F (177 C), and mixed mechanically for about 45 min. The reac- tion time of 45 min was considered adequate based on some preliminary literature

Table 1 The properties of virgin asphalt.

Aging states

Test properties

Testing results

naged binder

Rotational viscosity @ 135 C (Pa s) G = sin d @ 64 C (kPa) G = sin d @ 64 C (kPa) G sin d @25 C (kPa)

0.435

1.412

RTFO aged residue RTFO + PAV aged residue

3.69

1171

 

Stiffness

@

12 C (MPa)

189

m -value

@ 12 C

0.314

Table 2 Properties of the crumb rubber materials.

 

Property

Rubber A

Rubber B

Specific gravity (g/m 3 ) Moisture content (%) Ash content (%) Acetone to mention oil complex (%) Fiber content (%) Metal content (%) Carbon black content (%)

 

1.12

1.14

0.56

0.65

3.6

4.3

8.9

10.2

0.1

0.05

0

0

32.7

35.4

100 Rubber A Rubber B 80 60 40 20 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.425 0.6
100
Rubber A
Rubber B
80
60
40
20
0
0.075
0.15
0.3
0.425
0.6
0.85
1.18
Sievesize (mm)
Passing Percentage (%)

Fig. 1. The passing percent gradation of Crumb Rubbers A and B.

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

585

PG 64-22 Asphalt Binder Rubber modified Virgin asphalt asphalt RTFOT Source A Source B Unaged
PG 64-22 Asphalt
Binder
Rubber modified
Virgin asphalt
asphalt
RTFOT
Source A
Source B
Unaged
RTFOT
+PAV
Rotational
Rotational
10%
15%
20%
25%
Viscosity
Viscosity
BBR @ -18C
& -12C
Same testing
Same testing
Same testing
Same testing
Same testing
procedures as
procedures as
procedures as
procedures as
procedures as
Virgin asphalt
Virgin asphalt
Virgin asphalt
Virgin asphalt
Source A

Fig. 2. Experimental plan for the CRM binder tests.

   

0%

 

8

0% 10% 15% 20% 25% Rubber A
0%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Rubber A
 

8

10% 15% 20% 25% Rubber B
10%
15%
20%
25%
Rubber B

4

4

2

2

Viscosity (Pa.s)

1

Viscosity (Pa.s)

1

0.5

0.5

0.25

0.25

 

0.125

 

0.125

0.0625

0.0625

0.03125

0.03125

140

160

180

200

140

160

180

 

200

Temperature (

)
)

Temperature (

)
)

Fig. 3. Viscosities of unaged CRM binders (Rubber A on left; Rubber B on right).

reviewing indicating that the CRM binder could reach the highest viscosity at this time [12,18] . After 45 min reaction time, the CRM binder was tested under the Brookfield viscometer at seven different temperature conditions – 190, 177, 170, 160, 150, 140, and135 C. A 25% torque was applied and the rotation speed was set at 100 rpm. The #29 spindle was adopted in the tests in favor of the #27 spindle due to the high viscosity of CRM binders. Both unaged and RTFO-aged CRM binders were tested to evaluate their viscosity. The viscosity test followed the AASHTO T 316 standard test specification. Furthermore, the low temperature stiffness of CRM binders was evaluated at 12 and 18 C using the BBR test equipment according to the AASHTO T 313 standard test specification. Three replicates were conducted in both rotational viscosity and BBR and the average rest values were ap- plied in the subsequent discussion.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. High temperature viscosity

The influence of rubber types, rubber concentration, test tem- perature, and aging effect on the viscosity of CRM binders is dis- cussed in this section. Figs. 3 and 4 show the viscosity graphical

plots for the unaged and RTFO-aged CRM binders, respectively. It is clear that the viscosity of CRM binder at any rubber concentra- tion decreases with increasing test temperature, with the same trend holding true for the non-modified asphalt. The addition of crumb rubber can greatly increase the binder viscosity, which is vi- tal in increasing the binder film thickness for coating aggregates in the hot mixture. Ultimately, the more viscous CRM binder will maintain the stability of asphalt mixtures. With increasing percentage of crumb rubber, the binder viscos- ity increases at each test temperature. The most remarkable in- crease in viscosity occurs when the rubber content is increasing from 0% to 10%, and with the continual increase in rubber content, the overall viscosity increasing amplitude experiences a little de- crease for the two CRM binders at unaged or RTFO-aged condition. The Superpave™ specification (AASHTO M 320) requires that the maximum viscosity of asphalt binder is no greater than 3 Pa s at 135 C for the convenience of storage and pumping in construction period. However, it is difficult to follow this requirement for CRM

586

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

binders. If the CRM binders reach 3 Pa s viscosity for rubber B mod- ified binder, their temperature need to increase to 147, 162, and 174 C for 15%, 20%, and 25% rubber–asphalt ratio binder, respec- tively. The normal requirement of 3 Pa s is thus not feasible for high percent CRM binder. Thus, the storage, blending and rolling temperature of asphalt mixtures with high percent CRM binder need to be heated to higher temperature in construction, respec- tively. The exact optimal temperatures of CRM binders are subject to viscosity–temperature curves, which may be influenced by the rubber characteristics, rubber concentration and asphalt binder. To better understand the inherent relationship between each influencing factor and their effects on the viscosity of CRM binders, the regression between the viscosity and the test temperature for CRM binders was studied here and could be presented as:

logðV Þ ¼ a T þ b

ð 1Þ

where V is the viscosity of the CRM binder; T , the test temper- ature; ‘‘ a ’’ and ‘‘ b ’’, the regression parameters. The slope coefficient ‘‘ a ’’ represents the changing rate of binder viscosity with the test temperature. The relationship was developed based on research investiga- tions by [16,19]. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the regression parameters

between the viscosity and test temperatures at different rubber as- phalt ratio for CRM binders with and without RTFO aging, respec- tively. R 2 is the correlation coefficient of the regression. From the R 2 values in Tables 3 and 4 , Formula 1 characterizes well the good correlation between the viscosity and test temper- ature for both CRM binders with and without RTFO. The absolute value of ‘‘a’’ increased about 10% and 5%, from 10% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio, for rubber A and rubber B binders, respectively. For the unaged CRM binder, as the rubber asphalt ratio increases un- til to 20%, the viscosity decrease rate is increasing with the increasing of test temperature. For the both RTFO-aged CRM bind- ers, the largest absolute ‘‘a’’ value occurred at 15% rubber asphalt ratio. A bigger absolute value for ‘‘a’’ is desired for the CRM bind- ers as it will be beneficial to have a relatively low viscosity at high temperature for construction workability of the CRM binders and have a greater viscosity at relatively low temperature for rut- ting resistance and high temperature stability of rubber asphalt mixture. Among the many influencing factors on the viscosity of CRM binder, the test temperature is one of those most important. How- ever, different states and countries may have different require- ments on the viscosity test temperature for CRM binders.

0% 8 10% 15% 4 20% 25% 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.125 Rubber A 0.0625
0%
8
10%
15%
4
20%
25%
2
1
0.5
0.25
0.125
Rubber A
0.0625
140
160
180
200
Temperature (
)
Viscosity (Pa.s)
Viscosity (Pa.s)

8

4

2

1

0.5

0.25

0.125

0.0625

0% 10% 15% 20% 25% Rubber B 140 160 180 200 Temperature ( )
0%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Rubber B
140
160
180
200
Temperature (
)

Fig. 4. Viscosities of RTFO aged CRM binders (Rubber A on left; Rubber B on right).

Table 3 Regression parameters for viscosities of unaged CRM binders.

Rubber asphalt ratio (%)

Rubber A

 

Rubber B

 

a

bR 2

a

bR 2

10

0.01468

2.16155

0.997

0.01526

2.22813

0.996

15

0.01604

2.73542

0.999

0.01559

2.77321

0.999

20

0.01625

3.04589

0.999

0.01604

3.10298

0.999

25

0.01292

2.48987

0.999

0.01412

2.93286

0.999

Table 4 Regression parameters for viscosities of RTFO-aged CRM binders.

 

Rubber asphalt ratio (%)

Rubber A

 

Rubber B

 

a

bR 2

a

bR 2

10

0.01595

2.56664

0.998

0.01562

2.54588

0.998

15

0.01605

2.8533

0.999

0.01637

3.04484

0.999

20

0.01545

2.9974

0.999

0.01429

2.90593

0.999

25

0.01553

2.85271

0.999

0.01408

2.91606

0.999

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

587

Arizona, Texas and ASTM assigned 177 C in their specifications, while California and South Africa set 190 C in the viscosity testing, other than normal 135 C for regular binders [20,21] . The 177 and 190 C test temperature were taken out to analyze their effects on the viscosities of both CRM binders with and without RTFO aging, and were shown in Figs. 5 and 6 , respectively. It can be observed that the crumb rubber size have an obvious influence on the high temperature viscosity of CRM binders. Rub- ber B is finer than Rubber A, and its modified binder has a higher viscosity than Rubber A whether with or without RTFO aging. For the unaged CRM binders, there is no remarkable difference be- tween Rubbers A and B modified binder at 10% rubber asphalt ra- tio, and the difference increases to 71% and 60% at 25% rubber asphalt ratio for 177 and 190 C test temperatures, respectively. The finer crumb rubber has a greater surface area and therefore re- acted and swelled efficiently during the blending process. As a re- sult, the finer crumb rubber reached a higher viscosity with the same rubber asphalt ratio. The 85 min RTFO aging also has a notable effect on the viscosity of CRM binders. With increasing rubber concentration, the percent improvement in CRM binder viscosity after RTFO aging begins to decrease. For Rubber A binder at a test temperature of 177 C, the viscosity improving percentage decreases from 75% (0% rubber) to 42% (10% rubber), and further to 34% (15% rubber) and then to 21% (20% rubber), and -21% (25% rubber). During the aging process,

3.0 2.72 10% 2.59 Test Temperature 15% 2.5 2.34 20% 177 o C 25% 2.0
3.0
2.72
10%
2.59
Test Temperature
15%
2.5
2.34
20%
177 o C
25%
2.0
1.87
1.81
1.50 1.59
1.40
1.5
1.25
1.02
1.03
1.0
0.76
0.59
0.54
0.38
0.5
0.36
0.0
A
UNAGED
A RTFO
B UNAGED
B RTFO
Viscosity (Pa.s)

Fig. 5. Viscosity comparisons of Rubbers A and B modified asphalt at different concentration levels and 177 C test temperature.

1.90 2.0 1.80 10% Test Temperature 1.71 15% 190 o C 20% 25% 1.5 1.28
1.90
2.0
1.80
10%
Test Temperature
1.71
15%
190 o C
20%
25%
1.5
1.28
1.18
1.18
0.97
0.95
1.0
0.90
0.72
0.68
0.54
0.5
0.43
0.39
0.25
0.24
0.0
A
UNAGED
A RTFO
B UNAGED
B RTFO
Viscosity (Pa.s)

Fig. 6. Viscosity comparisons of Rubbers A and B modified asphalt at different concentration levels and 190 C test temperature.

the aromatic oil and light fractions contents decrease in the asphalt binder and this induces a greater binder viscosity. With the addi- tion of crumb rubber into asphalt at high temperatures, the rubber particle will absorb the aromatic oil and light fractions in the as- phalt and swell in size to induce a higher viscosity. With increasing rubber concentration in the CRM binder, the percentage of free aro- matic and light fractions will decrease, and the actual effect of RTFO aging will also decrease. When the rubber asphalt ratio reaches 25%, the viscosity of RTFO-aged binder is even smaller than that of unaged binder. This is not beneficial for long term storage of the rubber asphalt after modifying, and could ultimately deterio- rate the field performance. It is noticed that, at the temperatures less than 170 C, the 20% Rubber A binder has higher viscosity value than 25% Rubber A bin- der. The possible reason could be elaborated as following. The vis- cosity test on CRM binder is conducted from high temperature (190 C) to low temperature (135 C) using rotational viscometer

in the laboratory. The accumulated long time temperature control-

ling and equilibration period may induce some potential aging on the binder and due to the aforementioned decreasing of free aro- matic and light fraction content, and result in the lower viscosity

of 25% CRM binder at the temperature less than 170 C. However,

this effect may also be subjected to the crumb rubber source, and more SEM tests could provide detailed explanation on this mechanism in the future. The viscosity improving effect is also influenced by the crumb rubber concentration in the rubber asphalt binders. With the increasing of rubber concentration, the viscosity improving per- centage shows a decreasing trend. Take unaged Rubber B binder tested at 190 C as an example, the viscosity is increased 433% from 0% to 10% rubber asphalt ratio, 183% from 10% to 15% rubber as- phalt ratio, 74% from 15% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio, and 61% from 20% to 25% rubber asphalt ratio. With increasing rubber concentra- tion in the CRM binder, the percentage of free aromatic and light fractions will decrease, which induces a smaller viscosity improv- ing effect. It should be also noted that, with the increasing of high temperature viscosity of CRM binder, it will induce the difficulty of pumping, reduce its workability, and raise the heat energy con- sumption in construction. From these two aspects, the 25% rubber asphalt ratio is not proposed for field application.

4.2. ANOVA analysis on high temperature viscosity

The statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to investigate the high temperature viscosity of CRM binders as a function of test temperature and rubber concentration and the re- sults are summarized in Table 5 . For both Rubber A and Rubber B

binder, the F value is greater than its F critical value and the P -va- lue is smaller than the significance level of 0.05. The ANOVA data indicates that both the test temperature and rubber concentration have significant effect on the viscosity of CRM binders. In order to thoroughly compare the viscosity of CRM binders at

different rubber concentration, the one-factor ANOVA was adopted

to evaluate if the viscosities of adjacent rubber concentration CRM

binders have significant difference, as shown in Table 6 . The ANO-

VA data shows that with the increasing of rubber concentration up

to 20%, the rubber concentration has a significant influence on the

viscosity of CRM binder, as the F value is greater than its corre- spondent F critical value and P -value is smaller than 0.05. How- ever, there is no significant difference between the viscosities of 20% and 25% rubber concentration for both Rubber A and Rubber

B CRM binder. From the cost-effective viewpoint of viscosity

increasing performance and increasing cost on crumb rubber, it

is also not suggested to apply the rubber concentration to more

than 20%.

588

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

Table 5 Two-factor ANOVA on the viscosity of CRM binder (a = 0.05).

Materials

Source of variance

SS(Pa s)

df

MS(Pa s)

F

P -value

F crit

Rubber A

Temperature

Concentration

47.673

55.958

6

4

7.946

13.989

8.7172

15.348

2E 06

4E

05

2.508

2.776

Rubber B

Temperature

15.307

4

3.827

6.3269

0.003

3.007

Concentration

48.044

4

12.011

19.858

5E 06

3.007

Note : SS, the sum of squared deviations; df, the degree of freedom; MS, mean square; F , the F value; F crit, the F critical value.

4.3. Low temperature stiffness

The BBR test can be used to evaluate how much a binder de- flects or creeps under a constant load at low temperature. The creep stiffness obtained from BBR test can well characterize the cracking resistance of asphalt binder at low temperature. Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate the creep stiffness of A and B CRM binders with dif- ferent rubber contents at 12 and 18 C test temperatures. The addition of crumb rubber into the asphalt greatly decreases the low temperature stiffness of CRM binders, which can increase the toughness of CRM mixtures and decrease the occurring possibility of the asphalt binder and pavement cracking at low temperature. For CRM A binder at 20% rubber asphalt ratio, its creep stiffness re- duces to about 50% of the control binder at both 12 and 18 C test temperatures. Additionally, with increasing rubber concentra- tion, the creep stiffness decreases for both CRM binders at both 12 and 18 C test temperatures. The crumb rubber is not as temperature sensitive as the asphalt binder, and has lower modu- lus and stiffness than the asphalt binder at low temperature. As a result, the increasing rubber content will induce lower creep stiff- ness for CRM binders at low temperature. Superpave™ specification (AASHTO M 320) requires the creep stiffness to be less than 300 MPa and m -value to be greater than 0.300 at the test temperature during the performance grading of the asphalt binder. The research mainly focuses on the creep stiff- ness of CRM binders to characterize their low temperature cracking performance. The control PG 64–22 binder meets this requirement at 12 C but fails at 18 C. With the addition of crumb rubber, both CRM binders can definitely meet the criteria at 18 C even at 10% rubber asphalt ratio. Therefore, the addition of crumb rub- ber decreased the low temperature grade from 22 C to 28 C compared to the control binder. When the rubber asphalt ratio exceeds 15%, the percentage de- crease in creep stiffness is not as remarkable as before. The creep stiffness decreases by 25% from control binder to the 10% rubber asphalt ratio binder, and by 27% from the 10% to 15% rubber as- phalt ratio binder. Finally, it decreases by 9% from the 15% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio for Rubber A binder at 18 C. From this point, the highest rubber asphalt ratio, 25%, would be no suggested in field application. The crumb rubber particle size also has some influence on the creep stiffness of the CRM binder. For the CRM binders at both 12 and 18 C, Rubber B (finer size rubber) binder has less creep stiffness than Rubber A binder. This may be due to a more efficient

Table 6 One-factor rubber concentration ANOVA on the viscosity of CRM binder (a = 0.05).

189 189 200 Rubber A Rubber B Testing Temperature 145 142 150 -12 o C
189 189
200
Rubber A
Rubber B
Testing Temperature
145 142
150
-12 o C
112
101
90
85
100
77
60
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
Rubber asphalt ratio (%)
Stiffness (MPa)

Fig. 7. Low temperature stiffness obtained by BBR tests on of Rubbers A and B ( 12 C).

400 356 356 Rubber A 350 Rubber B 300 266 Testing Temperature -18 o C
400
356
356
Rubber A
350
Rubber B
300
266
Testing Temperature
-18 o C
250
200
193
181
200
176
168
153
135
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
Rubber asphalt ratio (%)
Stiffness (MPa)

Fig. 8. Low temperature stiffness obtained by BBR tests on Rubbers A and B ( 18 C).

reaction between the fine crumb rubber and asphalt binder com- pared to the coarse crumb rubber and the asphalt binder.

Rubber concentration

Rubber A

Rubber B

F

P -value

F crit

F

P -value

F crit

0% vs 10% 10% vs 15% 15% vs 20% 20% vs 25%

17.418

0.005856

5.9874

15.6694

0.0075

5.9874

13.022

0.01125

5.9874

15.2241

0.008

5.9874

12.862

0.011554

5.9874

13.3954

0.0106

5.9874

2.7134

0.150604

5.9874

2.41051

0.1844

5.9874

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

Table 7 Two-factor ANOVA on the low temperature stiffness of CRM binder ( a = 0.05).

589

Test temperature

Source of variation

SS (MPa)

df

MS (MPa)

F

P -value

F crit

12 C

Rubber type

791.05

1

791.05

9.25

0.006

4.35

Concentration

54866.07

4

13716.52

160.31

0.000

2.87

Interaction

581.68

4

145.42

1.70

0.190

2.87

18 C

Rubber type

3286.53

1

3286.53

10.14

0.005

4.35

Concentration

166566.47

4

41641.62

128.43

0.000

2.87

Interaction

4119.80

4

1029.95

3.18

0.036

2.87

Note : SS, the sum of squared deviations; df, the degree of freedom; MS, mean square; F , the F value; F crit, the F critical value.

Table 8 One-factor rubber concentration ANOVA on the low temperature stiffness of CRM binder (a = 0.05).

Rubber concentration 12 C

 

18 C

 

F

P -value

F crit

F

P -value F crit

0% vs 10% 10% vs 15% 15% vs 20% 20% vs 25%

158.20

1.5E 06 5.32

73.50 0.000

5.32

153.14 1.7E 06

5.32

15.24 0.005

5.32

10.12

0.01297

5.32

10.73 0.011

5.32

2.31

0.16734

5.32

7.41

0.026

5.32

Note : F , the F value; F crit, the F critical value.

4.4. ANOVA analysis on low temperature stiffness

The ANOVA was also applied to investigate the low temperature stiffness of CRM binders as a function of rubber type and rubber concentration at 12 and 18 C, respectively. The ANOVA analy- sis results are summarized in Table 7 . For both 12 and 18 C test temperature, the F value is greater than its correspondent F critical value and the P -value is smaller than the significance level of 0.05. The ANOVA data indicates that both the rubber type and rubber concentration have significant effect on the low temperature stiff- ness of CRM binders. In order to thoroughly investigate the low temperature stiffness of CRM binders at different rubber concentration, the one-factor ANOVA was adopted to evaluate if the low temperature stiffness of adjacent rubber concentration CRM binders have significant dif- ference, as shown in Table 8 . The ANOVA data shows that, for both 12 and 18 C test temperature, with the increasing of rubber concentration up to 20%, the rubber concentration has a significant influence on the low temperature stiffness of CRM binder, as the F value is greater than its correspondent F critical value and P -value is smaller than 0.05. However, its influence impact (F value) is decreasing with the increasing of rubber concentration. Finally, there is no significant difference between the low temperature stiffness of 20% and 25% rubber concentration. From the cost-effec- tive viewpoint of low temperature stiffness decreasing perfor- mance and increasing cost on crumb rubber, it is also not suggested to apply the rubber concentration to more than 20%.

4.5. Proper rubber asphalt ratio

According to the rotational viscosity tests and bending beam rheometer tests on CRM binders conducted in this paper, it is clear that the addition of crumb rubber into pure asphalt can better both its high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness, which is desired and beneficial to the better performance of rubber asphalt mixture. However, it should be also noted that, with the increasing of rubber concentration in the CRM binders, the modify- ing effects of viscosity and stiffness is decreasing. Based on the vis- cosity and temperature regression relationship, the 15% to 20% rubber asphalt ratio binders will have the greatest regression parameter, ‘‘a’’, and induce the most desirable viscosity–tempera-

ture curve. According to the ANOVA analysis on high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness, there is no significant per- formance difference between 20% and 25% rubber concentration CRM binders. Meanwhile, the over excessive rubber concentration will also make the difficulty of pumping, reduce the mixture work- ability, raise the heating energy consumption and increase the cost of rubber asphalt binder. Considering the all the factors above, 15 to 20% rubber asphalt ratio is suggested in the production of CRM binder. The optimum rubber concentration should be deter- mined by considering the actual application fields and modifying demands, asphalt plant pumping and blending conditions, and other factors comprehensively, which is to be further investigated.

5. Conclusions

Two crumb rubber samples of different gradations – fine and coarse – were used in this project. Four rubber asphalt ratios were applied to prepare the CRM binders using Superpave PG 64-22 as- phalt binder and the crumb rubber additives. Seven test tempera- tures were taken to evaluate the viscous properties of the CRM binders with and without RTFO aging. The BBR test was used to measure creep stiffness of both CRM binders at 12 and 18 C in this paper. The ANOVA technique was applied to quantify the ef- fect of factors, such as test temperature, rubber type, rubber con- centration, on the CRM binders’ performance. The test results obtained from this study can unveil some inherent correlations of each influencing factor and the viscosity and creep stiffness of CRM binders and provide some guiding frameworks in determin- ing the rubber constitutive design and construction parameters for CRM asphalt binders. Some preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from the research are:

(1) The addition of crumb rubber into asphalt binder can signif- icantly improve the viscosity of binders, which is beneficial to enhance the high temperature performance of asphalt binders and mixture. The viscosity specification requirement

however not feasible for high percent CRM

binder. (2) The addition of crumb rubber into asphalt binder can reduce the creep stiffness of CRM binder at low temperature which is helpful for better cracking resistance ability of asphalt bin- der and mixture. From the perspective of low temperature stiffness, the addition of 10% crumb rubber into control bin-

der can lower a low temperature grade from 22 C to 28 C. (3) With increasing rubber concentration, the performance on high temperature viscosity and low temperature stiffness of CRM binders are improved, but its improving impact tends to decrease. ANOVA results indicate that there is no significant performance difference on high temperature vis- cosity and low temperature stiffness between 20% and 25% rubber concentration CRM binders. (4) Finer crumb rubber can help achieve higher viscosity at high temperature and lower creep stiffness at low temperature.

of 3 Pa s is

590

H. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 26 (2012) 583–590

(5) Considering the viscosity–temperature relationship, RTFO aging effects, creep stiffness decreasing percentage and eco- nomical factors, 15–20% rubber asphalt ratio is proposed for the production of CRM binder. However, further CRM binder and mixture tests will confirm its extensive laboratory performance.

Acknowledgement

The research is supported by the funds of Natural Science Found Committee (NSFC) of China (No. 50808023) (No. 51011120574) and the Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Col- leges, Chang’an University (CHD2010JC061). The experimental work was completed in the Transportation Materials Research Cen- ter at Michigan Technological University, which maintains the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) accreditation on asphalt and asphalt mixtures.

Reference

[1] Kiser JV. Asphalt rubber: overcoming the obstacles. Scrap 2003;60(1):46–50. [2] Xiao F, Wenbin Zhao PE, Amirkhanian SN. Fatigue behavior of rubberized asphalt concrete mixtures containing warm asphalt additives. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(10):3144–51. [3] Shen J, Amirkhanian S, Xiao F, Tang B. Surface area of crumb rubber modifier and its influence on high-temperature viscosity of CRM binders. Int J Pavement Eng 2009;10(5):375–81. [4] Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN, Wu B. Fatigue and stiffness evaluations of reclaimed asphalt pavement in hot mix asphalt mixtures. J Test Eval 2011;39(1). [5] ASTM international annual book of standards. D 8 definitions, vol. 04.03; 2008. [6] Raad L, Saboundjian S. Fatigue behavior of rubber-modified pavements. Transport Res Record 1998(1639):73–82.

[7] Huang B, Mohammad LN, Graves PS, Abadie C. Louisiana experience with crumb rubber-modified hot-mix asphalt pavement. Transport Res Record

2002:1–13.

[8] Kuennen T. Surface treatments: when seals make sense. Better Roads

2004;74(10):24–32.

[9] Chen D-H, Scullion T, Bilyeu J, Won M. Detailed forensic investigation and rehabilitation recommendation on interstate highway-30. J Perform Constr Facil 2005;19(2):155–64. [10] Celik ON, Atis CD. Compatibility of hot bituminous mixtures made with crumb rubber-modified binders. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(6):1143–7. [11] Akisetty CK, Lee S-J, Amirkhanian SN. Effects of compaction temperature on volumetric properties of rubberized mixes containing warm-mix additives. J Mater Civil Eng 2009;21(8):409–15. [12] Lougheed TJ, Papagiannakis AT. Viscosity characteristics of rubber-modified asphalts. J Mater Civil Eng 1996;8(3):153–6. [13] West RC, Page GC, Veilleux JG, Choubane B. Effect of tire rubber grinding method on asphalt–rubber binder characteristics. Transport Res Record

1998:134–40.

[14] Lee S-J, Amirkhanian SN, Shatanawi K, Kim KW. Short-term aging characterization of asphalt binders using gel permeation chromatography and selected Superpave binder tests. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(11):2220–7. [15] Thodesen C, Shatanawi K, Amirkhanian S. Effect of crumb rubber characteristics on crumb rubber modified (CRM) binder viscosity. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(1):295–303. [16] Thodesen C, Xiao F, Amirkhanian SN. Modeling viscosity behavior of crumb rubber modified binders. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(9):3053–62. [17] Jeong K-D, Lee S-J, Amirkhanian SN, Kim KW. Interaction effects of crumb rubber modified asphalt binders. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(5):824–31. [18] Cao W-D, Lu W-M. Experimental research on recycled tire rubber modified asphalt mixture using hybrid process. Jianzhu Cailiao Xuebao/J Build Mater 2007;10(1):110–4 [in Chinese]. [19] Specht LP, Khatchatourian O, Brito LAT, Ceratti JAP. Modeling of asphalt– rubber rotational viscosity by statistical analysis and neural networks. Mater Res 2007;10(1):69–74. [20] ASTM Standards D6114, 2009. Standard specification for asphalt–rubber binder. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2009. [21] Hoffmann P, Potgieter CJ. Bitumen rubber chip and spray seals in South Africa. SATC 2007 – 26th annual Southern African transport conference: the challenges of implementing policy, 225–238.