TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

TRB Webinar: Asphalt

Killers—Fatigue, Formulation,
and Old Age in Binders
July 8, 2021
1:00- 2:30 PM Eastern

@NASEMTRB
#TRBwebinar
 The Transportation Research Board
PDH Certification has met the standards and

Information: requirements of the Registered

Continuing Education Providers

•1.5 Professional Development Program. Credit earned on completion

Hours (PDH) – see follow-up of this program will be reported to

RCEP. A certificate of completion will
email for instructions
be issued to participants that have

•You must attend the entire registered and attended the entire

webinar to be eligible to receive session. As such, it does not include

content that may be deemed or
PDH credits
construed to be an approval or

•Questions? Contact Beth endorsement by RCEP.

Ewoldsen at
Bewoldsen@nas.edu
#TRBwebinar
 Learning Objectives

• Make informed decisions about

implementing new research to issues
of asphalt binders

#TRBwebinar
 Questions and Answers
• Please type your
questions into your
webinar control panel

• We will read your

questions out loud, and
answer as many as
time allows

#TRBwebinar
David J. Donald W.
Mensching Christensen
david.mensching@
dot.gov dwcaat@hotmail.com
U.S. Department of Advanced Asphalt
Transportation Technologies, LLC

Jean-Pascal Ramon Bonaquist

Planche aatt@erols.com
jplanche@uwyo.edu Advanced Asphalt
Western Research Technologies, LLC
Institute

#TRBwebinar
What Kills Asphalt?

NCHRP 9-59 Findings

Don Christensen
Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC
July 2021
NCHRP 9-59: an improved binder
fatigue specification

Bill Ahearn,
Pamela Marks,
Simon Hesp
What binder properties
do we need to specify
to maximize fatigue
performance?
∆Tc?
Glover-Rowe parameter
(GRP)?
Extension/ductility?
Elastic recovery?

7/6/2021
NCHRP 9-59:
Lab Testing 16
 Fatigue life: fatigue strain
capacity and fatigue exponent
1.E+03 NCHRP 9-59
180 ⁄𝛿𝛿
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 SHRP SDENT

Failure Strain or FSC, %

𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 = � � 1.E+02 ALF SDENT
9-59 SDENT
𝜀𝜀𝑏𝑏 1.E+01 FSC values DTT
calculated
1.E+00
from 9-59 &
6.0 1.E-01 SHRP flexural
Fatigue Exponent

fatigue
5.0 y = 2.21x 1.E-02
R² = 85 % 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10 1.E+11
4.0 Stiffness/3 or G*, Pa

3.0
Exp = 2 x 90/phase
2.0
1.0 2.0 3.0
90/Phase Angle
Fatigue Model
Binder rheologic type / R’ value
R’ is R estimated
using a constant
glassy modulus
of 1.0 GPa.

R and R’ are
related but not
equal…
∆Tc and R’-Value are closely
related…
4.0
2.0
Delta Tc, deg

0.0
-2.0
-4.0 R² = 93%
-6.0
-8.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Estimated R'
 DENT extension vs G*

25
2.2 < R' < 3.0
SDENT Extension, mm

20
Mod., 2.2 < R' < 3.0
15

10 R' > 3.0

5
0 20 40
Specimen Stiffness, N/m
DENT normalized extension
(NEXT)
25
Non-Mod. PMBs
DENT NEXT, mm 20
15
10
5
0
L A N K F E P B I D HMC G O J
Binder Code

NEXT is the extension estimated at a

constant initial specimen stiffness of 20
kN/m
Factors affecting FSC
1,000.00
Higher ΔTc
100.00 Lower R
Failure Strain or FSC, %

PMBs
10.00

1.00 Lower ΔTc

Higher R
0.10

0.01
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10

Stiffness/3 or G*, Pa
Layered elastic analysis
Based on ALF2 100 mm sections
1.E+06
1.E+05 V. Low Phase PMBs
1.E+04 PMB, R'<2.9
1.E+03
Nf

PMB, R' > 2.9

1.E+02 AAG-1
Non-PMB, R' > 2.6
1.E+01
1.E+00 Non-PMB, 1.7 < R' <2.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Non-PMB, R' = 1.2
T - BBR Tc(m)
What about Glover-Rowe?
100
Observed FSC, %

10 Non-PMBs
PMBs
Equality
1
1 10 100
0.65/GRP^0.5, 1/Gpa

𝛿𝛿 ⁄180
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 𝜀𝜀𝑏𝑏
 Uniaxial fatigue model
1.E+06
1.E+05
Strain-
Predicted Nf

R² = 88%
1.E+04
based
1.E+03
1.E+02
damage
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Observed Cycles to Failure
1.E+06
1.E+05
Predicted Nf
Stress- 1.E+04

based 1.E+03
R² = 94%
damage 1.E+02
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Observed Cycles to Failure
 Stress-based fatigue model
10,000
Cycles to Failure

1,000 R' = 2.0

R' = 2.5
100 R' = 3.0
Increasing ΔTc,
polymer modification R' = 3.5
10
1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09
G*, Pa

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 5.0
𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 = � � ; 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸
𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏
What kills asphalt…
 High R’ values/low delta Tc values
produce weak and brittle binders that
are prone to top-down cracking
 Can be caused by a poor-quality binder
(REOB), age-hardening, or both
 Age-hardening will also increase
stiffness, making thermal cracking more
likely
 Polymer modification can dramatically
improve fatigue performance
What kills asphalt…
 Damage due to thermal cracking and
traffic loading likely superposes, making
it difficult to separate these distress
modes
 Minimum ΔTc, adjusted for modified
binders—NCHRP 9-60
 Are binders with low R’/high delta Tc
values a problem?
Acknowledgements
 Nam Tran and his associates at NCAT
 NCHRP
 The 9-59 Project Panel
 Industry suppliers
 My associates at AAT
 Asphalt Killers
Thermal Stress, Formulation,
and Old Age in Binders

Outcomes of NCHRP 9-60

Jean-Pascal Planche,
Gayle King, Michael Elwardany,
Don Christensen, Carolina Rodezno
WRI, GHK Inc., AAT, NCAT

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

 Outline

 Introduction – context
 NCHRP 9-60 proposal on test
methods and specification
 9-60 proposal genesis: What drives
changes in binder physical properties –
thermal, rheological, and failure
• Thermal stress
• Binder formulation
• Aging – oxidative and physical

 Summary
 Context - Introduction

• Bitumen chemical complexity

• Variable continuum can have an
unstable balance
• SuperPave binder specs and
quality issues outdated for 2021
binders with high variability
• Polymers, Modifiers, RAP/RAS,
Recycling Agents, Bio-binders,
Conversion residues (IMO 2020),

NCHRP
Plastics...
• Characterization methods lack
an holistic approach
• Binder quality impacts
9-60
performance
3
 Binder Impacts on Performance
from Agency Survey
Surface Damage
Transverse Cracking Misc. Surface Cracking
+ ON, CA + ON, CA

Raveling
Block Cracking + ON, CA
+ ON, CA

4
 Performance and Rheological
parameters of PMA’s
 PMA field proven performance - Von Quintus, 2005
2 -37
DTc
1 Tc(S) -38
Tc(m)

Tc(S) and Tc(m) (°C)

∆Tc Parameter (°C)
0 -39
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1 -40
∆Tc
-2 -41

-3 -42

-4 -43

-5 -44

SBS Content

 Rheologically “disproven”?
GR 0.0
-0.4 -0.2
-2.0 -1.2 -1.0
-2.2 -2.6 -2.7
-4.0 -3.7
∆Tc (°C)
-6.0 -5.2 -5.6 -5.6
-8.0
-8.1 -8.5 -8.0 -7.7
-10.0 -8.4
Bc
-12.0
-11.7 Bo
-14.0 -12.7

(Aurilio et al.; CTAA 2020) (Elwardany et al., C&BM, 2020)

5
 PMA microstructure considerations

 Multiphase microstructure (IR microscopy)

• Polymer phase dispersed in an asphaltene rich continuous phase
• Swollen by slightly condensed aromatics and aliphatics
• Influenced by base binder, % polymer, reaction and processing
• Impacts both phase properties – PMA not just “P in A”!

6% SBS 0.3%

12.2%

(Mouillet, 2008) (Elwardany et al, C&BM 2020) 6

 9-60 Proposed Specifications
Based on ABCD & BBR and Added to PG
Testing Proposed
• RTFO+PAV20 specifications
• LPG: BBR + ABCD onlyfor critical binders
• 3 PAV pans - sufficient for both BBR & ABCD Tests framework
• Addition to current
20 Climate-based PG

3✓
Proposed Limits
∆Tf, (Tc(S) - Tcr) (°C)

• Universal - blind
15 (-6,10)

2
• BBR alone when
10 (-2,7)
1
ΔTc > -2°C (Accepted)
ΔTc <-6°C (Rejected)
X
5

0
4x ✓ • BBR & ABCD for
-6°C<ΔTc <-2°C
-5 ΔTf min = 7°C at -2°C
ΔTf min = 10°C at -6°C
-10
-10 -5 0 5
∆Tc, (Tc(S) - Tc(m)) (°C)
7
 09-60 Binder Matrix – LTPG ranking

 Low PG Ranking after PAV20h-Aging from BBR

 Unmodified, Polymer-modified, ReOB-modified, SDA, PPA-modified,
Biophalt, Oxidized, Airblown, Visbroken
-10

-15

-20 -17 -17 -19

-20-20
Low PG (°C)

-25 -22 -23

-23
-25 -26
-30
-27 -27 -27-27
-28 -29
-30 -31
-35 -32 -33 -33
-34 -35-35 -35
-35 -36
-40 -37 -38
-39
-42
-45
AAG-1

MN1-5

MN1-3
MN1-4

MN1-2
AZ1-4
AZ1-3
AZ1-1
AAM-1

AAA-1

MTO/S1
MTO/S4
SDA/Oil A

AZ1-2

ABA

AAK-1
09-59/B3

09-59/B5

Biophalt

09-59/B6

09-59/B2
MTO/S15

MTO/S10
MTO/S12
MTO/S14
MTO/S13
Visbroken

09-59/B12

09-59/B16

09-59/B14

09-59/B15
(Elwardany et al, C&BM 2020)

8
 ∆Tc, (Tc(S) - Tc(m)),
PAV40h (°C)

-5
0
5

-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
Hardgrade
59-B02
Visbroken
SDA+C
59-B12
ME-PL
ABA
AZ 1-1
Multigrade
SDA+B
WTX
MTO S15
Virgin A - 64-22
AAM-1
MN 1-4
MTO S04
Virgin B - 70-22
59-B05
AZ 1-3
AZ 1-4
GSE
59-B03
MN 1-3
MTO S13
ME-PI
ME-IF
AZ 1-2

(Elwardany et al., C&BM 2020)

59-B16
MN 1-2
NH-MC58
59-B14
AAK-1
MTO S14
WC
AAA-1
MTO S12
 Unmodified, Polymer-modified, ReOB-modified, SDA,

MTO S01
SDA+D
59-B15
PPA-modified, Biophalt, Oxidized, Airblown, special binders.

SDA+A
BBR & Corrected 4mm-DSR ΔTc Ranking after PAV40h

Biophalt
09-60 Binder Matrix – ∆Tc ranking

MN 1-5
AAG-1
 ∆Tf, (Tc(S) - Tcr),
PAV40h (°C)

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
WTX
ME-PL
Visbroken
59-B12
GSE
AZ 1-4
MN 1-3
Hardgrade
AAA-1
AAG-1
MN 1-4
SDA+A
NH-MC58
SDA+D
AAK-1
59-B14
59-B16
SDA+C
SDA+B
MN 1-5
AZ 1-3
WC
MTO S04
Multigrade
MN 1-2
MTO S15
AZ 1-2

(Elwardany et al., C&BM 2020)

ABA
BBR & ABCD ΔTf Ranking after PAV40h

Virgin A - 64-22
AZ 1-1
59-B15
MTO S12
MTO S01
AAM-1
59-B05
ME-IF
PPA-modified, Biophalt, Oxidized, Airblown, Visbroken.
 Unmodified, Polymer-modified, ReOB-modified, SDA,

MTO S14
Virgin B - 70-22
59-B02
59-B03
ME-PI
09-60 Binder Matrix – ∆Tf ranking

10

Biophalt
MTO S13
 09-60 Binder Matrix – Combined
ranking and assumed performance
BBR & ABCD ΔTf Ranking after PAV40h
 Unmodified, Polymer-modified, ReOB-modified, SDA,
PPA-modified, Biophalt, Oxidized, Airblown, Special binders.
12 7% SBS
Critical Good
Unmodified
10
∆Tf, (Tc(S) - Tcr),

Polymer-modified
8
PAV-40h (°C)

Poor PPA-modified
6 Biophalt
4 SDA + Oil

2 REOB-modified

0 Airblown
Oxidized
-2
Hardgrade-4 Visbroken Special binders

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

∆Tc, (Tc(S) - Tc(m)), PAV-40h (°C) 11
(Elwardany et al., C&BM 2020)
 ∆Tc & ∆Tf Ranking Field validation
FAA/AI study - Block cracking
Terpolymer
REOB

50
Cumulative Transverse

MN 1-2
45
MN 1-3
40 MN 1-4
Cracking (m)

35 MN 1-5
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year

12
 Thermal Stress
Mechanism(s) for Damage
 Hypothesis: Two Thermally-Induced Damage Mechanisms
Mix Restraint (External) Mastic Restraint (Internal)
Mastic tensile stresses

Mastic Fine
Aggregate

Asphalt Mixture
Failure
Viscoelastic
No External Restraint
-10°C/hr cooling rate

Evidence for Unrestraint Specimens

 Acoustic Emissions Results (Behnia et al., 2018)
 FEA & Mix-BBR(Sliver) Results (Elwardany et al., AAPT 2019) 13
 ABCD Failure Test
to capture Stress build-up

Factors affecting ABCD - Tcr

 Coeff of Thermal Contraction controls volumetric change rate
 Binder LVE properties G* and δ
 Ability to relax stresses
Thermal stress developed under given cooling conditions
 Binder Strength
 Parameters function of glass transition temperature Tg
Tg : transition region and not a single temperature
 Complex binders usually have a wider Tg region
(Elwardany et al.; C&BM 2020) 14
 Tg influence on BBR Tc
and ABCD Tcr

• Tg (H) and Tc(S) correlation: better for unmodified,

impacted by aging level - Confirms other works (Lesueur, Olard, Bahia)
• Tg and Tcr: lower correlations, shows PMA features 15
 NCHRP 9-60 Binder Mapping

m-controlled

• PAV20 aged binders

• PMA’s and Non PMA’s

S-controlled

16
 Colloidal Instability
… and ∆Tc
Correlations between ∆Tc and CII after PAV40h
 Unmodified, Polymer-modified, ReOB-modified, SDA,
PPA-modified, Biophalt, Oxidized, Airblown, Special binders
6 Unmodified
∆Tc, (Tc(S) - Tc(m)),

0 Polymer-modified
PAV40h (°C)

-6 PPA-modified

Biophalt
-12
SDA + Oil
-18
REOB-modified
-24
Airblown
-30 y= -60.91x2 + 37.11x - 5.40
Oxidized
R² = 0.64
-36 Special binders
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Colloidal Instability Index (PAV40h) (Elwardany et al.,
C&BM 2020)
Classical CII= (Sat+Asph)/(Arom+Res) 17
 Tg and Maltenes
Glass Transition (Tg), Modulated SAR-AD Maltene Subfractions
DSC

• SAR-AD maltene subfractions effect on DSC Tg(H)

• Continuous trend evolution from Saturates (negative
slope) to highly Aromatics and Resins (positive slope)
• No trend with asphaltenes: no direct effect on Tg 18
 Tg(H) and Tc(S) and Maltenes

• Relationship between Tg(H) or Tc(S) with MII

• New composition balance index: Maltene Instability
Index MII: (Sat+Aro1)/(Aro2+Aro3+Res) 19
 ∆Tc and wax
Crystallizable
Positive ∆Tc Fraction, SAR-AD asphalts vs DSC CF
Unmodulated DSC

• Crystallizable fraction (CF from

High DSC) add the final
wax (CF)
touch to the mapping
• Waxy crudes stand out in mapping
20
• … and ∆Tc
 Relaxation and Molecular Weight
Distribution

20 700
WRI 01
18 COS 49
COS 50 600

Light Scattering Units (LSU)

16 COS 51
COS 52 500
14
COS 53
12 COS 54
400
10
300
8
6 200
4
100
2
0 0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (min)

• ∆Tc from BBR vs. binder polydispersity from GPC

• ∆Tc is more complex than either Tc, and relates on
GPC/SEC polydispersity index or molecular
21
associations – captures PMA’s singular features
 Summary
• Thermal stress mechanisms
• Internal and external - Macro and micro scales
• Influence of the glass transition
• Formulation
• Crude oil origin and refinery process
• Chemical composition
• Balance – maltenes, asphaltenes and waxes (CF)
• Additives / polymers interactions with the base
• Aging, both chemical (oxidative) and physical
• Testing
• Importance of glass transition and equi-stiffness temperature
on defining testing conditions – Ref. temperature needed
• Power and limitations of rheological parameters
• Usefulness of failure, particularly for PMA’s 22

• Combination proposed for future specifications

 Summary
DRAFT
Thermal Polymers Crosslinked SBS
Wax from Air
REOB Conversion Physical or reacted
asphalts blowing
visbreaking blends Terpolymers
CII Neutral     Neutral
PI (GPC)      
Oxidation Neutral    Neutral or  Neutral or 
PH    Neutral Neutral or  Neutral or 
PG Low      
Tc(S) Neutral   Neutral  
Tc(m)      Neutral
∆Tc      Neutral
Tcr (ABCD) Neutral     
∆T f      (SBS) 
 EVA, SBR
Failure  Terpo (stress)
(stress)
Modulus  Neutral    XL SBS (stress
(DTT)  SBS
+ strain)
(strain)
23
 Summary

What kills asphalt?

Poor formulation and poor
testing…

Neither one is simple, but

progress is possible!
24
 Questions?

Contact: jplanche@uwyo.edu 25
Findings and Recommendations
From
NCHRP Project 9-61

Short- and Long-Term Binder

Aging Methods to Accurately
Reflect Aging in Asphalt Mixtures

Ramon Bonaquist, P.E.

Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC
NCHRP Project 9-61
• Completed December 2020
– NCHRP Report 967
• Research Team
– Advanced Asphalt
Technologies, LLC
• Ramon Bonaquist - PI
– Western Research Institute
• Jeramie Adams - Co-PI
– Consultants
• Dave Anderson
• Gayle King
• Erick Sharp
Today’s Outline
• Objectives
• Short-Term Conditioning
– Approach
– Findings
– Recommendations
• Long-Term Conditioning
– Approach
– Findings
– Recommendations
Objectives
• Evaluate laboratory conditioning
procedures
– AASHTO T 240, AASHTO R 28 and alternatives
• Recommend improvements
– New procedure
– Modifications to existing procedures
• Calibrate the improved procedures to
accurately simulate aging
– Mixture production, transport, and placement
– Service life of the pavement
Short-Term Conditioning

• Concerns with AASHTO T 240

– Uniformity of the film and how well it is renewed
is viscosity dependent
– Some modified binders tend to crawl out of the
bottle
• Alternatives Evaluated
– AASHTO T 240
– AASHTO T 240 with preheated containers
– Modifications to AASHTO T 240 made in the
U.K. Ageing Profile Test
– Static Thin Film Test (12.5 g binder in PAV pan)
Short-Term Evaluation
• Compare binder conditioning procedures to
binder recovered from short-term oven
conditioned mixtures
– NCHRP 9-52 recommendations
– Designed as a paired difference experiment
– HMA and WMA temperatures
– Eight Binders
Neat PG 52-34 SBS PG 64-34
Terpolymer PG 64-34 SBS PG 76-28
Neat PG 64-22 PG 64-22 with 3 % SBR Latex
SBS PG 76-22 SBS 82-22
Binder Loss Survey

• Maine DOT
• 33 Agencies responded
– 10,500 annual tests
• Binder loss occurred in about 4 % of samples
– 15 Agencies list only modified binders as susceptible
– 7 Agencies list only neat binders as susceptible
– 2 Agencies list both modified and neat binders as susceptible
Major Short-Term Conditioning Findings
• For HMA Conditions
– No significant difference in aging index for any of the short-term
binder conditioning procedures and short-term oven aging of
mixtures
– No viscosity effect identified for AASHTO T 240 or any of the
alternatives
– Binder leakage in AASHTO T 240 occurs in about 4 % of
samples
• For WMA Conditions
– Mixing screw procedures are needed when the viscosity of the
binder at the conditioning temperature exceeds about 0.55 Pa·s
Short-Term Conditioning Recommendations

• Keep AASTHO T 240

– Further investigate procedure/training to reduce instances of
binder loss
• Consider Static Thin Film If 12.5 g PAV Adopted
– Eliminates binder transfer between short- and long-term
conditioning
– Condition binder using a small positive pressure to eliminate
elevation effect
• Project 20-07/Task 400, Effect of Elevation on Rolling Thin Film Oven
Aging of Asphalt Binder
Long-Term Conditioning
• Concerns with AASHTO R 28
– Conditioning is not severe enough
– Service life that is simulated is not well defined
• Alternatives Evaluated
– PAV film thickness
– PAV temperature
– PAV conditioning time
 What is Target Age for Long-Term?
45

40
Length of Transverse Cracks, m

35

AR
30
CA
Transverse Cracking
25 MS
NM in SPS 8 Sections
20 NC
MO
15
NY
OH
10
WI
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Pavement Age, yrs
Long-Term Evaluation
• Response Surface Experiment
– Varied temperature, film thickness, and
conditioning time
– Compare lab conditioned recovered binder from
ARC AZ and MN sites
– Master curve parameters and FTIR data
• Calibration Experiment
– 26 Pavement Sections from LTPP
– Cores and Original Binder
– Age: 8 to 19 yrs
– Wide range of climates
 Major Long-Term Response Surface
Findings
• Smooth evolution of aging in
PAV
• PAV reproduces field aging
• Higher temperature, thinner
films, and/or longer
conditioning times needed
to simulate near surface
aging
• 40 hr, 50 mm thickness and
20 hr, 12.5 mm thickness
approximately equal
Long-Term Calibration Experiment
• Calibration Experiment
– 12.5 g Mass
– 20 hr Conditioning Time
– Varied PAV Conditioning Temperature To Match Recovered
Binder Properties
– Statistical Model to Account for
• Temperature
• Age
• Air Voids
• Binder Temperature Aging Sensitivity
• Depth
PAV Conditioning Temperature Model
120.0

115.0

CA
110.0 CA2

Predicted Equivalent PAV Temperature ⁰C NC

IL
NM
105.0 TX NY AR2
MS OK
AL IA
IN MO SD
100.0 MN
MD
MANAITOBA

95.0 NJ
MT WI
ME ALBERTA

90.0
PA
TX2
85.0

80.0

75.0

70.0
70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0
Best Fit Measured Equivalent PAV Temperature, ⁰C
12.5 g, 20 hr PAV Temperatures to Simulate 10
years of In-Service Aging in Top 1 Inch
Average 98 %
Calculated PAV Recommended
Reliability High % of
and Low Temperature Temperature LTPPBind 3.1 PG Grade Based on Environment
Pavement ⁰C Stations
⁰C
Temperature

-61 84.4
85 1 PG 40-52; PG 46-52; PG 40-46
-31 86.6
01 88.9 PG 52-52; PG 46-46; PG 40-40
90 4
3 91.1 PG 46-40; PG 52-46; PG 40-34
6 93.4 PG 58-46; PG 52-40; PG 46-34; PG
95 20 40-28 PG 58-40; PG 52-34; PG 46-28;
9 95.7 PG 40-22
12 97.9 PG 64-40; PG 58-34; PG 52-28;
PG 46-22; PG 40-16 PG 64-34;
15 100.2 100 41 PG 58-28: PG 52-22; PG 46-16;
PG 40-10 PG 64-28; PG 58-22;
18 102.5 PG 52-16; PG 46-10
21 104.8 PG 70-28; PG 64-22; PG 58-16;
105 20 PG 52-10 PG 70-22; PG 64-16;
24 107.1
PG 58-10
27 109.3
110 13 PG 70-16; PG 64-10; PG 70-10
30 111.6
331 115.0 115 1 PG 76-10
1 Outside range of data used in calibration
Major Long-Term Conditioning Findings
• Feasible to simulate approximately 10 years of
near surface, in-service aging using the PAV
– 12.5 g conditioned for 20 hours
– 50 g conditioned for 40 hours
– Temperatures between 85 and 115 C depending on climate
– Pressure of 2.1 MPa
• Residue from 12.5 g PAV conditioning is
significantly more aged than standard PAV
residue
– Need to adjust performance grading criteria
Major Long-Term Conditioning Findings
(Continued)
• 12.5 g PAV conditioning requires greater attention
to detail
– Thicker pans to reduce warpage
– Tighter tolerance on levelness
Long-Term Conditioning
Recommendations
• Current Performance Grading
– No change
• Conditioning for Adoption of ΔTc Criterion
– Single 20 hr PAV run
– Use 2 50 g pans for low temperature/intermediate grading
– Use 8 12.5 g for ΔTc evaluation using 40 hour ΔTc criterion
• Conditioning for Revised Performance Grading
– Static thin film conditioning for short-term conditioning
– 12.5 g PAV for long-term
Questions/Discussion

Ramon Bonaquist
Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC
703-999-8365
aatt@erols.com
David J. Donald W.
Mensching Christensen
david.mensching@
dot.gov dwcaat@hotmail.com
U.S. Department of Advanced Asphalt
Transportation Technologies, LLC

Jean-Pascal Ramon Bonaquist

Planche aatt@erols.com
jplanche@uwyo.edu Advanced Asphalt
Technologies, LLC

#TRBwebinar
 Other TRB events for you
• July 16: Review of Federal Highway
Administration Infrastructure R&D - Expert Task
Group on Pavements

• August 10: National Conference on Transportation

Asset Management

• August 25: Best Practices for Unsurfaced Road

Evaluation and Rating
https://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/events

#TRBWebinar
 TRB’s New Podcast!
• Have you heard that we have a new
podcast, TRB’s Transportation Explorers?
• Listen on our website or subscribe
wherever you listen to podcasts!

#TRBExplorers
 Get Involved with TRB
Receive emails about upcoming TRB webinars
https://bit.ly/TRBemails

Find upcoming conferences

http://www.trb.org/Calendar

#TRBwebinar
 Get Involved with TRB
#TRBwebinar

Getting involved is free!

Be a Friend of a Committee bit.ly/TRBcommittees
– Networking opportunities
– May provide a path to Standing Committee membership

Join a Standing Committee bit.ly/TRBstandingcommittee

Work with CRP https://bit.ly/TRB-crp

Update your information www.mytrb.org