Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

Using a modified asphalt bond strength test to investigate the

properties of asphalt binders with poly ethylene wax-based warm
mix asphalt additive
Taha A. Ahmed a,⇑, Hosin ‘‘David” Lee b,1, R. Christopher Williams c,2
a
Australian College of Kuwait, Department of Civil Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, P.O. Box 1411, Safat 13015, Kuwait
b
The University of Iowa, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 4105 Seamans Center, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
c
Iowa State University, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, 813 Bissell Road, Ames, Iowa 50011-1066, USA

Received 23 March 2017; received in revised form 16 July 2017; accepted 15 August 2017
Available online 1 September 2017

Abstract

This paper presents a feasibility of a modified Asphalt Bond Strength (ABS) test method for use with a new adhesion testing device
with three different pullout stubs and its application for evaluating Polyethylene (PE) wax-based Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) additive.
Four different asphalt binders were used to evaluate the feasibility of applying the existing AASHTO ABS test method using a new
ASTM-certified adhesion testing device and three different pullout stubs. The modified ABS test method was used to evaluate the loss
of adhesion and cohesion in asphalt bond strength due to moisture-induced damage. The paper also discusses rheological properties of
extracted asphalt binders from three different test sections in Minnesota, Ohio and Iowa constructed using PE wax-based WMA additive
and different amounts of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) materials. Based on the modified ABS test results using the new adhesion
testing device, it was found that the proposed pullout stub with 0.0 mm thickness (no edge) exhibited consistent results. Based on the
results from extracted asphalt performance grading and the multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test, it was found that the PE
wax-based WMA additive, which was specially designed for asphalt mixtures with a high RAP content, significantly improved the rhe-
ological properties of aged asphalt binders from RAP materials.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Warm-mix asphalt; Poly ethylene (PE) wax based; Moisture damage; Adhesion; Asphalt bond strength (ABS); Reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP)

1. Introduction and literature review cohesion characteristics of the asphalt mixture’s compo-
nents. The lake of enough bond strength between the
The bond strength between asphalt binder and asphalt binder and the aggregate in the asphalt mixture
aggregate can be explained in terms of the adhesion and can lead to moisture damage. Moisture damage is the result
of moisture interaction with the asphalt binder-aggregate
⇑ Corresponding author. adhesion within the asphalt mixture, making it more sus-
E-mail addresses: taha-ahmed@uiowa.edu (T.A. Ahmed), hlee@ ceptible to moisture during cyclic loading [1–3]. This weak-
engineering.uiowa.edu (H.‘‘David” Lee), rwilliam@iastate.edu ening, if severe enough, can result in stripping.
(R.C. Williams). Previous research showed that there are three main
1
Fax: +1 319 335 5660. adhesion mechanisms that can describe the adhesion
2
Fax: +1 (515) 294 8216.
between the asphalt binder and aggregate surface; chemical
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement
Engineering. adhesion, surface energy, and mechanical adhesion.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.08.004
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
Chemical adhesion occurs as a result of forming water-
insoluble components caused by a chemical reaction
between the acidic and basic components of asphalt and
aggregate surface. Some research studies suggested that
the bond formed by chemical sorption might be necessary
in order to minimize stripping potential in asphalt–aggre-
gate mixtures. In general, some aggregates with acidic sur-
faces don’t react as strongly with asphalt binders, which
may not be enough to counter other moisture damage caus-
ing factors [1].
Surface energy can be explained in terms of relative wet-
tability of aggregate surface by water or asphalt. The sur-
face tension between the asphalt binder and the aggregate
at the wetting line is less than the surface tension between
the water and the aggregate due to its higher viscosity.
Thus, if all the three are in contact (water, aggregate, and
asphalt binder), water more likely replaces asphalt binder.
This will result in less aggregate coating by asphalt binder
and eventual striping. The interfacial tension between
aggregate and asphalt binder depends on the asphalt type,
aggregate type, and the aggregate surface roughness [1,2].
Mechanical adhesion depends on the physical properties
of the aggregate such as surface texture, porosity or
absorption, surface coatings, surface area, and particle size
[1]. Asphalt binder gets into the aggregate surface pores
and irregularities, and when it hardens it causes a mechan-
ical lock. The interference of moisture with the asphalt bin-
der penetration reduces the mechanical lock and leads to
stripping. Good mechanical lock can improve the nature
of the chemical bond between the asphalt binder and aggre-
gate surface even in the presence of water [1,2].
Cohesion is developed in the asphalt mastic, asphalt bin-
der mixed with fine aggregate, and it would depend on the
rheological properties of the asphalt binder. The asphalt
mastic’s resistance to microcracking is highly influenced
by the dispersion of the mineral filler. Thus, the cohesive
Fig. 1. Effect of moisture on resilient modulus is reversible [5].
29
strength is controlled by the combination and the interac-
tion of asphalt binder and the mineral filler [3]. Water
can affect the cohesion of asphalt mastic in several ways
such as weakening the mastic due to water saturation
and void swelling [4]. An asphalt mixture could lose up
to 50 percent of its resilient modulus upon saturation
but, upon drying, the modulus can be completely recovered
[5]. This is shown graphically in Fig. 1.
Based on the above discussion, it can be said that the
moisture damage in asphalt mixture can be due to a cohe-
sion failure within the mastic, or an adhesion failure at the
aggregate-asphalt binder interface. Both failure modes can
be related to the characteristics of the asphalt mastic and
the asphalt film thickness around aggregate particles. Thus,
asphalt mixtures with thin asphalt film tend to fail in ten-
sion by adhesive bond rupture whereas asphalt mixture
with thicker asphalt film thickness tends to fail in a cohe-
sive failure mode due to the damage within mastic. The
determination of asphalt film thickness that differentiates
the two modes of failure would depend on the rheological
properties of the asphalt, the amount of damage the
asphalt or mastic can withstand prior to failure, a rate of
loading, and a temperature at the time of loading [6].
Therefore, several test methods were developed to eval-
uate the loss of adhesion or cohesion between the asphalt
binder and the aggregate surface due to moisture-induced
damage. However, many of these tests use indirect methods
to measure the adhesion and cohesion properties, which
may not be very consistent [7]. Therefore, a new test proce-
dure (AASHTO TP 91-11: Standard Method of Test for
Determining Asphalt Binder Bond Strength by Means of
the Asphalt Bond Strength (ABS) Test) was developed
for measuring moisture damage characterization based on
asphalt-aggregate adhesive and cohesive properties [8].
The new method measures the pull-off force needed to
break the bond strength between the asphalt binder and
30 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
the aggregate surface using adhesion testing device. This
AASHTO procedure is based on test results using only
one type of devices. However, the test procedure should
be universally applicable using multiple testing devices.
Therefore, in this study, a different adhesion testing device
is proposed to improve the consistency of the existing
AASHTO procedure.
Several studies have reported that, Warm Mix Asphalt
(WMA) mixtures are more susceptible to moisture than
conventional Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixtures [9]. There-
fore, this research study used the new modified Asphalt
Bond Strength (ABS) test method to investigate the adhe-
sive and cohesive characteristics of WMA mixtures pre-
pared using Poly Ethylene (PE) wax-based additive. This
PE wax-based additive works by reducing the viscosity of
the asphalt at lower temperatures with a melting point of
100 °C and crystallization point of 90 °C. The PE wax-
based additive controls the crystallization so that it does
not become brittle at low temperature. Additionally, the
PE wax-based additive contains anti-stripping agent to
enhance the bonding of asphalt binder to the aggregate sur-
face. In this study, three different forms of the PE wax-
based WMA additive are evaluated to measure their effec-
tiveness in improving the rheological properties of asphalt
binders.
2. Asphalt bond strength test method
ASTM-certified adhesion testing device, PosiTest AT-A
automatic adhesion tester, was used to perform the ABS
test following the AASHTO TP 91-11 procedure. In order
to prepare the test specimens, the asphalt binder is attached
to the aggregate surface by means of adhesion at controlled
environmental and moisture conditions. According to
AASHTO TP 91-11 procedure, all aggregate substrates
were prepared by cutting quarried rocks using a standard
rock saw to create parallel faces and then Lapped using a
280-grit silicon carbide material on a standard lapidary
wheel to remove saw marks and ensure a consistent surface
Fig. 2. Schematic of the pull-off test method (left) and positest pull-off adhesion tester (right) [10].
roughness. After cut and lapped, samples were cleaned for
60 min in ultrasonic cleaner containing distilled water at a
temperature of 60 °C to remove residual particles on the
plate surface [8]. To measure the pull-off force needed to
detach the asphalt binder samples from the aggregate sur-
face, a hydraulic pressure is applied to pull out a stub
attached to the asphalt sample. Fig. 2 shows a schematic
of the pull-off test method and the PosiTest Pull-Off Adhe-
sion Tester.
The AASHTO TP 91-11 procedure recommended new
geometry and treatment to the stub surface used with
PATTI Quantum Gold adhesion tester in order to create
a rough texture that would provide a mechanical interlock
and a larger contact area between the asphalt binder and
stub. This AASHTO procedure is based on test results
using only one type of device and one pullout stub of
0.8-mm thickness. Therefore, for this study, three different
modified pullout stubs with thicknesses of 0.8 mm, 0.4 mm
and 0 mm (no edge) are proposed to be used with the
PosiTest AT-A automatic adhesion tester. Fig. 3 shows
one pullout stub used for PATTI Quantum Gold and three
modified stubs used for PosiTest Pull-Off adhesion tester
device.
Limestone aggregate and four different binder grades
were tested using the three pullout stubs in order to find
out which pullout stub should be used with the new adhe-
sion testing device. Only un-conditioned samples were
tested in this part of the study.
3. Test sections with Poly Ethylene Wax-based WMA
additive
Three different forms of the PE wax-based WMA addi-
tive; pellets, liquid, and specially designed liquid form for
mixtures with high RAP amount were evaluated in this
study to measure their effectiveness in improving the rheo-
logical properties of asphalt binders. The three forms were
implemented in three different projects with a rate of 1.5%
 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
Fig. 3. Pull-out Stubs for (a) PATTI quantum gold adhesion tester, and (b) PosiTestÒ pull-off adhesion tester.
by optimum asphalt content of the mix. Asphalt binders
were extracted from field WMA mixtures from following
three test sections.
First, the PE wax-based pellet (PE-Pellet) form was
applied to a 2.0-in mill and overlay WMA test section on
the southbound outside lane of TH 169 state highway in
Champlin, Minnesota. Asphalt binder PG64-28 and Gran-
ite aggregate along with 25% RAP by total weight of mix
were used to prepare the mix. Another HMA test section
was constructed for comparison using the same properties.
The HMA and WMA mixtures were designed according to
Superpave mix design procedure for a medium traffic level
of 3–10 million ESALs according to Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation (MnROAD) mix design
requirements.
Second, the PE wax-based liquid (PE-Liquid) form was
applied to a 3.0-in. asphalt layer on State Highway 158 in
Lancaster, Ohio. The 3.0-in. layer consisted of intermediate
layer with a thickness of 1.75 in. and surface layer with a
thickness of 1.25 in. WMA and HMA mixes were designed
according to Marshall mix design procedure following
31
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) mix design
specifications for a medium traffic volume. The mix used
a blend of Limestone and Natural gravel aggregates and
25% RAP materials by weight for the intermediate layer
and 20% RAP by weight for the surface layer. Asphalt bin-
der PG70-22 was used for the surface layer and PG64-22
was used for the intermediate layer. Only asphalt binder
extracted from the surface layer mixtures was evaluated
in this study.
Third, the specially designed PE wax-based liquid
(SDPE-Liquid) form for mixtures with high RAP amount
was applied to a surface layer with a thickness of 1.5 in.
on state highway 6 in Iowa City, Iowa. Two WMA and
HMA test sections were constructed for a 10 million
ESALs traffic volume. The mixes were designed according
to Superpave mix design procedure per Iowa Department
of Transportation (Iowa DOT) mix design requirements.
The mixtures used asphalt binder PG64-28 and Limestone
aggregate along with 30% fractionated RAP by binder
replacement. Table 1 shows a summary of properties and
the materials used in the test sections.
32 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
Table 1
Summary of properties and materials used in the test sections.
Test Section #1
Site Location Highway TH 169, Champlin, Minnesota
Application Type 2.0-in. Surface Layer
Aggregate type Granite
RAP Content,% 25% (by total mix weight)
Binder Type PG64-28 (polymer modified)
WMA Additive Type Poly Ethylene wax-based
pellet (PE-Pellet)
Mix Design Method Superpave
4. Modified asphalt bond strength test results
In order to capture the effect of different pullout stub
thicknesses and the asphalt binder grade on the asphalt-
aggregate bond strength, test specimens using four different
asphalt binder grades; PG58-28, PG64-22, PG64-28M
(polymer modified) and PG70-22M (polymer modified)
were prepared following AASHTO TP 91-11 test proce-
dure. Asphalt samples, limestone aggregate plates and pull-
out stubs were heated up at 150° C for a minimum of
30 min to remove absorbed water on the aggregate surface
and provide a better bond between the asphalt binder and
the aggregate surface. The aggregate plates were then
brought to an application temperature of 60° C, whereas
the application temperature for the pullout stubs still
150° C. After a sufficient heat-up time, the molten asphalt
samples were carefully poured in 10.0 mm diameter
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) silicon molds and left
for 30 min to reach the room temperature. The asphalt
samples were attached to the aggregate plates by placing
them on the surface of the pullout stub then firmly pressing
each stub with the asphalt sample into the aggregate plate
surface until the stub is in contact with the aggregate sur-
face and no excess of asphalt flowing is observed. The pre-
pared samples were then left for 24 h at room temperature
before testing.
Fig. 4. ABS test results of modified pullout stubs.
Test Section #2 Test Section #3
Highway 158, Lancaster, Ohio Highway 6, Iowa City, Iowa
1.25-in. Surface Layer 1.5-in. Surface Layer
Limestone & Natural gravel Limestone
20% (by total mix weight) 30% (by binder replacement)
PG70-22 (polymer modified) PG64-28 (polymer modified)
Poly Ethylene wax-based Specially Designed Poly Ethylene
liquid (PE-Liquid) wax-based liquid (SDPE-Liquid)
Marshall Superpave
The ABS test results are shown in Fig. 4 with the num-
bers above each bars representing the average value and the
whisker representing the standard deviation. Overlapping
of the standard deviations implies the similarity in the mea-
sured ABS values between the different types of pullout
stubs. As can be seen from Fig. 4, the 0.0 mm pullout stub
produced significantly higher and more consistent ABS val-
ues than 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm stubs. It can be seen from
Fig. 4 that the bond strength was significantly affected by
the asphalt type.
In order to measure the actual thickness of the applied
asphalt layer, the aggregate plates were cut across the cen-
terline of the asphalt samples and investigated using Olym-
pus SZ61 microscope equipped with Olympus DP26 digital
camera as shown in Fig. 5a). The average values of the
asphalt layer for 0.8 mm, 0.4 mm and 0.0 mm pullout stubs
were 998 lm, 539 lm and 106 lm, respectively. Fig. 5b)
shows samples of asphalt layer thicknesses created by the
pullout stubs after running the test. As can be seen from
Fig. 5b), the measured layer thicknesses were slightly
higher than the real stubs’ thicknesses due to the irregular-
ity and pores of the aggregate plates and the groves on the
stubs. Asphalt layer thicknesses were measured after the
asphalt samples were exposed to a direct tension during
the test, which resulted in a plastic deformation in the
asphalt samples.
 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 33

Fig. 5. (a) Olympus SZ61 microscope, (b) samples of asphalt layer thicknesses created by the pullout stubs, and (c) Test sample with 75% cohesive failure.

According to AASHTO TP 91-11, samples are consid-
ered failed in adhesion if more than 50% of the binder is
removed after the test is performed. Otherwise, the failure
is cohesive. All the tested samples failed in a cohesive mode
except for PG58-28 and PG64-22 asphalt samples tested
with 0.0 mm pullout stubs. Fig. 5c) shows a picture of a test
sample with 75% cohesive failure with the yellow areas
indicating an adhesive failure.
By looking at the measured asphalt layers and the corre-
sponding mode of failure, it can be seen that samples with
high asphalt layer thickness always fail in cohesive mode.
This explains why all the asphalt samples created using
0.8 mm, and 0.4 mm stubs failed in a cohesive mode. On
the other hand, the asphalt samples created by 0.0 mm stub
exhibited both cohesive and adhesive failure modes. The
ABS values obtained from 0.0 mm pullout stubs were sig-
nificantly higher than the others because there were more
direct contact points between the pullout stub and the
aggregate plate.
Two-way ANOVA, as shown Table 2, was conducted to
evaluate the impact of pullout stub type, the asphalt perfor-
mance grade and their interaction on the measured ABS
values between the asphalt binder and the aggregate sur-
face. It can be seen from Table 2 that, the pullout stub type,
the asphalt performance grade and their interaction had
significant impacts on the measured ABS value between
the asphalt binder and the aggregate surface. It can be con-
cluded that using the 0.0 mm (no edge) pullout stubs with
the new adhesion tester device produced more consistent
and reasonable ABS values by providing more direct con-
tact points between the pullout stub and the aggregate
surface.

Table 2
ANOVA table of the ABS test results.
Source Degrees of Freedom Type 1 SS Mean Square F Value P-Value > F
Asphalt Performance Grade (PG) 3 120048.2222 40016.0741 59.96 <0.0001
Pullout Stub (PS) 2 329435.0556 164717.5278 246.83 <0.0001
PG * PS 6 16502.2778 2750.3796 4.12 0.0055
34 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37

5. Rheological and adhesive/cohesive characteristics of
extracted asphalt binders
The asphalt binders of the collected mixtures from the
test sections were extracted, re-graded and then evaluated
using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test fol-
lowing ASHTO TP70, ‘‘Standard Method of Test for Mul-
tiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt
Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR).” The
MSCR test uses the creep and recovery method to measure
the percent recovery and non-recoverable creep compliance
(Jnr). It can be used to predict the rutting susceptibility of
the mix [11]. Typically, reducing Jnr value by half can
reduce rutting by half [12].
The modified ABS test using the PosiTest Pull-Off adhe-
sion testing device and 0.0 mm (no edge) pullout stub was
used to evaluate the asphalt-aggregate bond strength of the
extracted and recovered asphalt binders in both dry (un-
conditioning) and wet (moisture conditioning) situations.
According to AASHTO TP91-11, the moisture condition-
ing process includes soaking the prepared samples for 24
h in a heated water bath at 40° ± 2 °C followed by leaving
for 1 h at room temperature before testing. The specified
conditioning temperature by the AASHTO TP 91-11 pro-
cedure can be changed to match the conditioning tempera-
ture used for AASHTO T 283 (Standard Method of Test
for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to
Moisture-Induced Damage) or any other reasonable tem-
perature as needed. However, in this study, the condition-
ing temperature kept unchanged because the study focused
mainly on the feasibility of using the existing test procedure
with a new adhesion testing device other than the one was
originally used.
5.1. Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binder
The extraction process was done following the ASTM
D2172/D2172M-11 ‘‘Standard Methods for Quantitative
Extraction of Bitumen from Bituminous Paving Mixtures”,
and ASTM D5404/D540M-12 ‘‘Standard Practice for

Table 3
Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binders from Minnesota test section.
Property HMAPG 76-22 PE-PelletPG 76-22 Specification Test Method
Tests on Original Binder
Dynamic shear, G*/sind (10 rad/s), kPa 1.914 at 76 °C 1.78 at 76 °C 1.00 Min AASHTO T315
Tests on Residue from RTFO, AASHTO T240
Mass loss,% NT NT 1.00% Max AASHTO T240
Dynamic shear, G*/sin d (10 rad/s), kPa 3.26 at 76 °C 2.304 at 76 °C 2.20 Min AASHTO T315
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of Asphalt Binder AASHTO TP 70-11
Non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr3.2, kpa 1 2.75 at 76 °C 3.405 at 76 °C Max, 4.0 kpa 1
HMA: Standard Traffic ‘‘S”
Percent difference between Jnr3.2 and Jnr0.1, Jnrdiff,% 34.65 at 76 °C 25.85 at 76 °C Max, 75% PE-Pellet: Heavy Traffic ‘‘S”
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel, AASHTO R28 @ 100 °C
Dynamic shear, G*sin d at 28 °C (10 rad/s), kPa 3929.5 at 25 °C 3548.5 at 28 °C 5000 Max AASHTO T315
Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)
S-value, MPa 161 at 12 °C 188 at 12 °C 300 Max AASHTO T313
m-value 0.317 at 12 °C 0.3055 at 12 °C 0.300 Min

Table 4
Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binders from ohio test section.
Property HMA PE-Liquid Specification Test method
PG 82-16
PG 82-16
Tests on Original Binder
Dynamic shear, G*/sind (10 rad/s), kPa 2.2219 at 82 °C 2.437 at 82 °C 1.00 Min AASHTO T315
Tests on Residue from RTFO, AASHTO T240
Mass loss,% NT NT 1.00% Max AASHTO T240
Dynamic shear, G*/sin d (10 rad/s), kPa 3.3917 at 82 °C 3.066at 82 °C 2.20 Min AASHTO T315
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of Asphalt Binder AASHTO TP 70-11
Non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr3.2, kpa 1 2.87 at 82 °C 3.745 at 82 °C Max, 4.0 kpa 1
HMA: Standard Traffic ‘‘S”
Percent difference between Jnr3.2 and Jnr0.1, Jnrdiff,% 70.4 at 82 °C 62.85 at 82 °C Max, 75% PE-Liquid: Heavy Traffic ‘‘S”
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel, AASHTO R28 @ 100 °C
Dynamic shear, G*sin d at 28 °C (10 rad/s), kPa 4399.5 at 28 °C 4330 at 28 °C 5000 Max AASHTO T315
Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)
S-value, MPa 119 at 6 °C 109 at 6 °C 300 Max AASHTO T313
m-value 0.372 at 6 °C 0.3835 at 6 °C 0.300 Min
 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37 35

Table 5
Rheological properties of the extracted asphalt binders from Iowa test section.
Property HMAPG SDPE-Liquid Specification Test method
82-16 PG 70-28
Tests on Original Binder
Dynamic shear, G*/sind (10 rad/s), kPa 1.363 at 82 °C 1.12 at 70 °C 1.00 Min AASHTO T315
Tests on Residue from RTFO, AASHTO T240
Mass loss,% NT NT 1.00% Max AASHTO T240
Dynamic shear, G*/sin d (10 rad/s), kPa 2.326 at 82 °C 2.6875 at 70 °C 2.20 Min AASHTO T315
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of Asphalt Binder AASHTO TP 70-11
Non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr3.2, kpa 1 3.95 at 82 °C 1.815 at 70 °C Max, 4.0 kpa 1
HMA: Standard Traffic ‘‘S”
Percent difference between Jnr3.2 and Jnr0.1, Jnrdiff,% 39.7 at 82 °C 33.7 at 70 °C Max, 75% SDPE-Liquid: Heavy Traffic ‘‘H”
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel, AASHTO R28 @ 100 °C
Dynamic shear, G*sin d at 28 °C (10 rad/s), kPa 3675.5 at 28 °C 4726.5 at 22 °C 5000 Max AASHTO T315
Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)
S-value, MPa 80.95 at 6 °C 226 at 18 °C 300 Max AASHTO T313
m-value 0.367 at 6 °C 0.3125 at 18 °C 0.300 Min

Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Eva- the extracted asphalt binder from the SDPE-Liquid mix-
porator”. After the extraction and recovery of asphalt bin- ture was tested and graded as PG70-28 for a heavy traffic
ders was done, a full performance grading was done ‘‘H” level. The SDPE-Liquid additive reduced the impact
following AASHTO M 320 ‘‘Standard Specification for of aging on the asphalt binder during construction and
Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder” and AASHTO improved the high and low temperature grades of the
MP19-10 ‘‘ Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Using extracted asphalt binder. Further, the SDPE-Liquid addi-
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test” [13]. Tables tive enhanced the asphalt binder characteristics during
3–5 show summaries of the performance grading results for the MSCR test by decreasing the non-recoverable creep
the different extracted and recovered asphalt binders. compliance, which resulted in a higher qualified asphalt
The target asphalt performance grade for Minnesota binder for a higher traffic level ‘‘H” instead of a standard
test section with 25% RAP by weight of mix was 70–22. traffic level ‘‘S” obtained for the extracted asphalt PG82-
Therefore, due to the high RAP content, virgin asphalt 16 from the HMA mixture.
grade was lowered by one level to PG 64-28. The extracted
asphalt binders from both HMA and PE-Pellet mixtures of
Minnesota test section were tested and graded as PG76-22 5.2. Asphalt bond strength test results
for a standard traffic ‘‘S” level.
Asphalt binder PG70-22 was used for Ohio test section The modified Asphalt Bond Strength (ABS) test results
with 20% RAP by weight of mix. The extracted asphalt are shown in Table 6 and plotted in Fig. 6 with the num-
binders from both HMA and PE-Liquid mixtures of Ohio bers above the bars representing the average values and
test sections were tested and graded as PG82-16 for a stan- the whiskers representing the standard deviation. Overlap-
dard traffic ‘‘S” level. ping of the standard deviation implies the similarity in the
The target performance grade for Iowa test section was measured ABS between the asphalt types.
70–22 with 30% RAP by binder replacement. According to For both HMA and PE-Pellet samples from Minnesota
Iowa DOT, asphalt performance grade should be lowered test section, moisture conditioned samples exhibited
one level when using more than 20% RAP by binder slightly lower ABS values than the un-conditioned samples.
replacement in the mix and, therefore, PG64-28 was used Moisture conditioned PE-Pellet samples exhibited slightly
to produce the mixtures. The extracted asphalt binder from lower ABS values than moisture conditioned HMA sam-
the HMA mixture of Iowa test section was tested and ples. Moisture conditioned HMA and PE-Pellet samples
graded as PG82-16 for a standard traffic ‘‘S” level whereas from Minnesota test section exhibited higher ABS values
Table 6
ABS test results of extracted asphalt binders.
Mix type/asphalt grade Un-conditioned samples Conditioned samples
Average, psi St. Dev. Failure Mode Average, psi St. Dev. Failure Mode
Minnesota _HMA/PG76-22 488.7 52.3 53% Cohesion 426.0 32.2 85% Cohesion
Minnesota _PE_Pellet/PG76-22 490.7 41.0 73% Cohesion 391.3 22.0 73% Cohesion
Ohio_HMA/PG82-16 567.0 16.5 76% Cohesion 200.7 12.5 77% Adhesion
Ohio_PE-Liquid/PG82-16 475.3 14.5 76% Cohesion 192.0 12.2 78% Adhesion
Iowa_HMA/PG82-16 490.0 50.3 76% Cohesion 269.7 38.7 80% Adhesion
Iowa_SDPE-Liquid/PG70-28 519.7 12.6 76% Cohesion 322.3 5.5 65% Cohesion
36 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
Fig. 6. ABS test results of extracted asphalt binders.
than samples from Iowa and Ohio test sections, which indi-
cates a high resistance to moisture damage.
Moisture conditioned HMA and PE-Liquid samples
from Ohio test section exhibited similar ABS values and
significantly lower than un-conditioned samples. Moisture
conditioned HMA and PE-Liquid samples from Ohio
exhibited the lowest ABS values, which indicate a low resis-
tance to moisture damage.
Moisture conditioned HMA and SDPE-Liquid samples
from Iowa test section exhibited significantly lower ABS
values than un-conditioned samples. The moisture condi-
tioned SDPE-Liquid samples exhibited significantly higher
ABS values than HMA samples. It can be seen that, both
HMA and SDPE-Liquid mixtures are susceptible to mois-
ture damage. However, the SDPE-Liquid showed a better
resistance to moisture damage, which can be attributed to
the SDPE-Liquid additive’s ability to improve the rheolog-
ical properties of the asphalt binder.
6. Conclusions
The study presented a feasibility of a modified asphalt
bond strength test method for use with a new adhesion test-
ing device with three different pullout stubs and its applica-
tion for evaluating PE wax-based WMA additive.
Based on the research findings, it can be concluded that
the ABS test can be conducted using a new adhesion testing
device with a modified 0.0 mm (no edge) pullout stub. The
modified ABS test method was successfully applied to eval-
uate extracted and recovered asphalt binders from three
different test sections. The modified ABS test method
showed that the asphalt binder type had an impact on
the ABS test results similar to the previous study done
using the original ABS test method [7,8].
Additionally, it was found that the SDPE-liquid WMA
additive significantly improved both high and low temper-
ature grades of asphalt. The MSCR test results showed
that the SDPE-liquid additive significantly enhanced the
non-recoverable creep compliance and the percent recovery
of the asphalt binder. Furthermore, the samples prepared
using the SDPE-liquid additive exhibited a better moisture
resistance than HMA samples.
In order to improve the repeatability of ABS test, more
tests should be performed on various aggregate surfaces,
different asphalt binders, and different conditioning meth-
ods and temperatures. Also, the impact of aggregate
absorption on the moisture conditioned samples should
be included in future studies to see if the aggregate absorp-
tion has a significant influence on the measured bond
strength using the ABS test method.
Acknowledgement
The Authors would like to acknowledge the great sup-
port of the Korean Institute of Civil Engineering and
Building Technology and the Mid-America Transportation
Center in funding this research study.
References
[1] D.N. Little Jr., D.R. Jones IV, Chemical and Mechanical Processes of
Moisture Damage in Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements, National Seminar,
TRB Committee on Bituminous–Aggregate Combinations to Meet
Surface Requirements Transportation Research Board (TRB), San
Diego, CA, February 2003, pp. 37–74.
[2] A.R. Tarrer, V. Wagh, The Effect of the Physical and Chemical
Characteristics of the Aggregate on Bonding, Strategic Highway
Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1991.
[3] B.M. Kiggundu, F.L. Roberts, The Success/Failure of Methods Used
to Predict the Stripping Potential in the Performance of Bituminous
Pavement Mixtures, NCAT Report No. 88-03, National Center for
Asphalt Technology, Auburn, January 1988.
[4] R.L. Terrel, S. Al-Swailmi, Water Sensitivity of Asphalt-Aggregate
Mixes: Test Selection, SHRP Report A-403 , Strategic Highway
Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
June 1994.
[5] R.J. Schmidt, P.E. Graf, The Effect of Water on the Resilient
Modulus of Asphalt Treated Mixes, Proc Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists 41 (1972) 118–162.
 T.A. Ahmed et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 28–37
[6] A. Hefer, D. Little, Adhesion in Bitumen-Aggregate Systems and
Quantification of the effects of Water on the Adhesive Bond, Report
No. ICAR/505-1, International Center for Aggregates Research,
December 2005.
[7] M. Raquel, V. Raul, H.U. Bahia, Measuring the Effect of Moisture
on Asphalt-Aggregate Bond with the Bitumen Bond Strength Test,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2009, pp. 70–81.
[8] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO TP9-11: Standard Method of Test for Determining
Asphalt Binder Bond Strength by Means of the Asphalt Bond
Strength (ABS) Test, 2011.
[9] H. Lee, T. Glueckert, T. Ahmed, Y. Kim, C. Baek, S. Hwang,
Laboratory evaluation and field implementation of polyethylene wax-
based warm mix asphalt additive in USA, Int. J. Pav. Res. Technol. 6
(5) (2013) 547–553.
37
[10] Defelsko Company, PosiTest, Pull-off Adhesion Tester Operational
Manual, Obtained from http://www.defelsko.com/adhesion-tester/
adhesiontester.htm. (Site last accessed July 2014).
[11] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), The Multiple Stress
Creep Recovery (MSCR) Procedure, FHWA-HIF-11-038, April
2011. Obtained from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/materials/
pubs/hif11038/tb00.cfm (Site last accessed July 2014).
[12] E. DuBois, Y. Mehta, A. Nolan, Correlation between multiple stress
creep recovery (MSCR) results and polymer modification of binder,
Constr. Build. Mater. 65 (29) (August 2014) 184–190.
[13] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Standard Specifications of Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, 29th Edition [CD-ROM], 2009.