1. Asphalt Rubber Research
Rubber Pavement Association
Technical Advisory Board Meeting
11 July San Diego, California
Kamil E. Kaloush
Arizona State University

2. AR Research Background at ASU
Started July 2001
Obtain Typical Engineering Material Properties for AR Mixtures and Binders
>>> 2002 Design Guide
Compare the Laboratory Performance of AR Mixtures To Conventional ADOT Mixtures
Special Studies: Field - Laboratory Comparison

3. Arizona State University
Research Partners
Arizona State University

4. Current Projects 1st Project: I-40 Buffalo Range Sections 2nd Project:
Completed
Current Projects
1st Project:
Jul 01 – Jun 02
I-40 Buffalo Range Sections
2nd Project:
Nov 01 – Nov 03
I-17 Frontage Rd.
AR Demonstration Program
On-Going

5. Satisfy Research Needs
Project 2: PG Binder Specifications for AR Binders.
Project 8: Database of Asphalt Rubber Projects.
Project 10: Evaluate AR Using 2002 Design Guide Test Protocols.
Project 11: Laboratory and Field Evaluation

6. Current Projects 3rd Project: Alberta AR Test Section 4th Project:
Jul 02 – Jan 03
Alberta AR Test Section
Starting Soon!
4th Project:
ALF Test Section

7. Asphalt-Rubber Technology Research Center (ARTIC) Library Update
On Going
Asphalt-Rubber Technology Research Center (ARTIC) Library Update
Research Needs
Project 3: Document Merits of Asphalt Rubber Products
Project 5: Individual Technical Merit Documents

8. I-40 Buffalo Range One Stock Binder (58-22). Gap / Open Graded Mixes.
Binder Tests.
Mixture Tests on HMA.
In-situ Air Voids
I-40 MP 229

9. AR Demonstration Program
Acting as a Catalyst to Expand the Environmental Responsible Use of Crumb Rubber
Demonstrate the Use of Ground Tire Rubber in Asphalt Pavement Construction
>> Nationwide Implementation.

10. Project Ends
Pinnacle Peak Rd.
Project Start

11. AR Demonstration Program
Mainly PG / (Test Section 58-22).
Gap Graded Mix
Binder and HMA Testing
Lab Experimental Design on HMA
3 Compaction Levels
2 Aging Levels
Field Specimens
Reflective Cracking Model Verification (CONSULPAV: Dr. Jorge Sousa)

14. Gyratory Compaction / Coring

17. Air Voids Measurements - Corelok

19. Binder Tests Conventional Tests Superpave / SHRP Tests
Penetration AASHTO T49-93
Softening Point AASHTO T53-92
Rotational Viscosity AASHTO TP48
Superpave / SHRP Tests
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR): AASHTO PP1
Bending Beam Rheometer
(BBR): AASHTO TP1-98

20. ASU Experience in AR Binder Handling / Testing
Heating: Needs Additional 15 to 20 min
Use Continuous & Rigorous Stirring
RTFO : Spill Over (~ 20%)
Brookfield: Select Proper Spindle

21. Buffalo Range (PG58-22 + R) Pen 59, 77oF Soft. Point 139oF
Brookfield Viscosity oF

22. PG 58-22 With and Without Rubber

23. Comparison with ADOT Binders

24. Comparison with PG 76-16 Binder

25. Effect of RTFO and PAV

26. Comparison With PG 76-16 Binder
RTFO
PAV

27. Mixture Tests: NCHRP 9-19 SPT Candidates Triaxial Compression
Dynamic Modulus (E*)
Flow Time (FT) – (Static Creep Test)
Flow Number of Repetitions (FN) – (Repeated Load Test)

28. E* Dynamic Modulus Testing
Phase Lag in Dynamic Loading
Confinement
3 to 200 psi

29. E* Master Curve

30. Shear Deformation Begins
Creep Test - Rutting
Stress s
Time
Secondary
Primary
Tertiary
FT Defines Time When
Shear Deformation Begins

31. Repeated Load Test - Rutting2 14 16 2 14 16
Number of Cycles (N)
0.1 s
0.9 s er MR
Permanent Strain (in/in)
FN (Flow Number)
ep = a N b N

32. Cracking Tests
Indirect Tensile Creep Test
Creep Compliance
Strength

33. Cracking Tests
Flexural Fatigue Tests
SHRP M-009

34. 2002 Design Guide
Generalized fatigue equation for mixed loading mode: E Nf εt

35. E* Master Curves Comparison

36. Repeated Load Tests

37. Static Creep Tests

38. Indirect Tensile Strength Tests

39. Indirect Tensile Strength Tests
Thermal Cracking
As Tensile Strain

40. Indirect Tensile Strength Tests
Thermal Cracking
As Fracture Energy

41. Fatigue Test Results

42. Gap – Open – Dense Graded

43. Summary
The Conventional Binder Tests are Adequate in Describing the Viscosity-Temperature Susceptibility (A-VTS) of Crumb Rubber Modified Binders.
This A-VTS Relationship Also Appears to Relate to Observed Field Performance Behavior.
Less Low-Temperature Cracking
Good Resistance to Rutting at High Temperatures.

44. Summary
Corelok is a Useful Device for Measuring Mixture Air Voids, Especially ACFC Mixes
E*AR Mixes ~ E* Conv. Mixes (Note Va %)
Permanent Deformation (PD)Tests: > ARAC Good Resistance to Deformation

45. Summary Tensile Strength: No Advantages of AR Mixes Strain at Failure
Fracture Energy were Better Indicators of Field Performance
Fatigue Relationships: AR-ACFC and ARAC Mixtures Provides Much Better Fatigue Life Than Dense Graded PG Mix.

46. Acknowledgment Thank you ! George Way, Julie Nodes, Doug Forstie, ADOT
Mark Belshe, FNF Construction
Donna Carlson, Doug Carlson, RPA
Andy Acho, Ford Motor Company
Matthew Witczak, ASU
ASU Advanced Pavement Laboratory Staff / GRA’s
Kenny Witczak, Javed Bari, Mohammad Abojaradeh, Aleksander Zborowski, Andres Sotil
Thank you !