1

INFLUENCE OF WARM MIX ASPHALT ADDITIVE AND DOSAGE RATE ON

CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE OF BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTS

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Ashley Buss
Graduate Research Assistant (Corresponding Author)
Iowa State University
Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Department
174 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 563-880-8098
abuss@iastate.edu
Yu Kuang
Graduate Research Assistant, Iowa State University
Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Department
394 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011
ykuang@iastate.edu
R. Christopher Williams
Professor, Iowa State University
490 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 515-294-4419
rwilliam@iastate.edu
Jason Bausano
Research Engineer, MeadWestvaco
5255 Virginia Avenue, North Charleston, SC 29406
Phone: 843-740-2292
jason.bausano@mwv.com
Andrew Cascione
Graduate Research Assistant, Iowa State University
Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Department
394 Town Engineering Building, Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 520-481-4127
aacascio@iastate.edu
Scott Schram
Bituminous Engineer
Materials Office
Iowa Department of Transportation
Ames, IA 50010
Phone: 515-239-1604
scott.schram@dot.iowa.gov
Submitted on: August 1, 2013
TEXT: 5237
FIGURES and TABLES: 9
TOTAL WORDS: 7487

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

ABSTRACT
Warm mix asphalt (WMA) technology is an effective way to reduce emissions and save energy during asphalt
paving by reducing production temperatures of hot mix asphalt (HMA). As development of WMA additives
evolve, many owner-agencies do not know the effect WMA dosage rates have on moisture susceptibility, rutting
resistance, and mixture compaction at different temperatures. The overall influence of time and temperature on
mixture performance is also important. In this research, two versions of a commonly used WMA additive
derived from the forest products industry are evaluated for performance during construction and traffic loading.
Laboratory specimens with different additive contents (0%, 0.5%, and 1.0%) were compacted at different
temperatures (115C, 130C, and 145C), to evaluate shear capability parameters. Statistical analyses of the
compaction force index (CFI) indicated the stability of asphalt mixtures at various compaction temperatures.
Evaluation of moisture sensitivity and rutting performance was conducted using the indirect tensile strength test
and Hamburg wheel tracking test. Improvements were realized at the 0.5% dosage level; therefore, no economic
benefit is achieved by increasing the dosage level. Findings from the laboratory were tested in the field to
evaluate the effect of curing time and temperature on WMA compared with HMA. A plant-produced mix
included HMA and a WMA mixture produced for the same project. The WMA additive used in the plant project
is the same additive used in the laboratory study. Loose mix was collected in order to evaluate the influence of
curing time and temperature of a WMA mixture.
Keywords: warm mix asphalt, compaction, anti-strip, rutting

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

INTRODUCTION
WMA technology contributes to the construction of sustainable roadways by reducing plant mixing
temperatures 20C to 55C (35F to 100F) lower than typical HMA (1). This not only reduces the emission of
greenhouse gases that include carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), but also lowers fuel consumption
which saves energy and production costs. During jobsite placement of WMA, the lower temperatures reduce the
amount of fumes and odors inherent when asphalt is produced and placed at high temperatures. Producing
asphalt at lower temperatures also reduces binder oxidation, which can increase asphalt pavement cracking
resistance and service life (1).
There are three main types of WMA technologies. These include foaming, organic wax additives, and
chemical processes. According to a recent survey (2), Evotherm, Sasobit and Double Barrel Green are
widely used WMA additives or processes used in the United States. Evotherm 3G is a chemical based additive.
Evotherm does not contain any water but is in the form of a liquid additive which includes chemical agents
derived from the forest products industry. Sasobit, an organic wax WMA additive, is a Fisher-Tropsch wax.
These are created by the treatment of hot coal with steam in the presence of a catalyst. Double barrel green is an
asphalt foaming system that uses water to produce foamed WMA. All of the commonly used WMA products are
designed to improve bitumen coating of aggregates, workability, and aggregate-binder adhesion.
As use of WMA technology grows, owner/agencies are interested in knowing how the WMA additives
affect the compactability of the asphalt mixture during lay down as well as the moisture susceptibility of the
asphalt pavement. The addition of WMA additives will improve compaction of the asphalt mixture at lower
temperatures but effectiveness as a compaction aid over a range of temperatures or dosage rates has not been
widely studied. Compactability of WMA using variable dosage rates of Sasobit and Rediset were evaluated
and compared with a 0.6% dosage rate of Evotherm 3G. Evotherm 3G was found to provide the best
compactability (3). Further study of dosage rates for surfactant-based chemical WMA additives is needed.
Likewise, little research has been conducted on the dosage rate of WMA additives as it relates to the
moisture sensitivity of an asphalt mixture as well. Traditionally, the moisture susceptibility of WMA has been a
concern for pavement engineers due to the lower mixing temperatures, addition of water that is necessary for
some WMA technologies, or the change in asphalt-water affinity caused by chemicals or waxes. In most
chemical based WMA additives, the chemical additives are designed to improve aggregate-binder adhesion to
improve the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt pavement. Moisture susceptibility improvement has been
experimentally proven (4); however, it is not known whether dosage rate that optimizes the compactability of
the asphalt mixture is the same dosage rate that optimizes its resistance to moisture damage. Moreover, little
research has been conducted to determine if different dosage rates of a WMA additive have different effects on
mixture compactability and performance. Curing time and temperature is also a factor that has shown to
influence the performance of WMA (5-7). Recent studies have shown that the stiffness of asphalt mixtures is
sensitive to curing temperature and temperature of WMA (5-7). The effect that the curing time and temperature
has on the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD) results should be evaluated to determine if the reduced
reheating temperature and/or curing time will cause mixes to fail the 14,000 stripping inflection point
requirement for mixes with equivalent single axle load (ESAL) designs greater than 3 million (8).
OBJECTIVES
This research addresses three main objectives. The first objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of additives A1 and B-1 as compaction aids by using shear force index parameters obtained from the Superpave Gyratory
Compactor (SGC). The second objective is to study how effective these two types of additives perform as liquid
anti-strip agents by conducting the following two moisture sensitivity analyses:
1. Evaluate the indirect tensile strength of moisture conditioned and unconditioned specimens by
following AASHTO T-283 Resistance of Compacted HMA to Moisture-Induced Damage.
2. Utilize the HWTD to test the mixtures susceptibility to moisture damage.
The third objective is to evaluate B1 additives effect on curing time and temperature on a plant-produced WMA
and HMA.
MATERIALS
The two WMA technologies used in this study are generically referred to as: WMA-A1 and WMA-B1. The
properties of each material are listed in Table 1. The main difference between the materials is their viscosity
with WMA-A1 having a higher viscosity than WMA-B1.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1

TABLE 1 WMA additive properties

Physical form
Specific gravity at 25C (77F)
Conductivity at 25C (77F) (S/cm)
Dielectric Constant at 25C (77F)
Viscosity (Pa S)
at 27C (80F)
at 38C (100F)
at 49C (120F)

2
3

WMA-B1
Dark amber liquid
0.97
2.2
2 - 10

WMA-A1
Dark liquid
0.999
4.3
2 - 10

0.28 0.56
0.15 0.30
0.08 0.16

1.05 1.90
0.47 0.85
0.20 0.40

TABLE 2 Aggregates and combined gradation for lab produced mix and plant produced mix
Aggregate

% in Mix

Source Location

Gsb

%Abs

FAA

1/2 Crushed Eagle City

32

Ames Mine/Martin Marietta

2.581

2.65

47.0

3/4 CL Chip Eagle City

Ames Mine/Martin Marietta

2.625

1.92

47.0

1/2 X 4 Quartzite

13

Dell Rapids E. Minnehaha Co/Everi.

2.641

0.14

47.5

3/8 CL Chip Lime Creek

Ames Mine/Martin Marietta

2.680

0.44

47.0

Manf. Sand Lime Creek

24

Ames Mine/Martin Marietta

2.659

0.78

45.0

2.594

1.35

40.0

2.620
2.606
2.705
2.606
2.635

0.72
2.45
1.41
0.76
1.65

45.0
45.0
45.0
38.0
42.4

Sand

17

Ames South/Hallett Materials Co.

Hydrated Lime

commercially produced

1/2 X 4 Quartzite
1/2 ACC Stone
Manf Sand
Concrete Sand
RAP

9.0%
31%
26%
17%
17%

New Ulm Quartzite Quarry

Greene Limestone- Warnholtz
Greene Limestone- Warnholtz
Greene LS- Cedar Acres Resorts
2RAP09-06 (4.63%)

Job Mix Formula- Combined Gradation

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4

#8

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Upper Tolerance
100

100

100

91

63

43

100

100

95

84

56

38

100

100

88

77

49

33

18
25

14

5.0
5.8

3.4

10

3.0
1.0

Lower Tolerance
Upper Tolerance
100

100

100

94

72

53

100

100

95

87

65

48

100

100

100

94

72

53

24
32

20
24

1.0
8.8

5.8

4.7
1.0

Lower Tolerance
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The A-1 and B-1 additives were each blended with a PG 64-22 asphalt binder at 0%, 0.5%, and 1.0%
by weight of binder.
A 12.5 mm (0.5 in.) nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) was developed using Superpave
specifications for the 10 million ESAL level. The optimal binder content that met all Superpave volumetric
criteria was 5.3%. All samples were compacted in the Superpave Gyratory compactor. The non-shaded portion
of Table 2 shows the combined gradation for the laboratory mixture as well as each aggregate type, bulk specific
gravity, percent absorption and fine aggregate angularity. The variable factors for the samples are the two types
of WMA additive, (A1 and B1) with three different dosage contents (0%, 0.5%, 1%). Therefore, one control

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

and four experimental mixes were developed. The mixes are abbreviated as 0%, A1-0.5%, A1-1%, B1-0.5% and
B1-1% for subsequent discussion.
The laboratory study was expanded to include a plant produced (field) mixture in order to identify the
effects of curing time and temperature on WMA compared with HMA. The field mixture included a control
HMA mix (no additive) and a WMA (additive B1) mixture. The field mixture is a 12.5 mm (0.5 in.) NMAS and
a 10 million ESAL level design. The shaded portion of Table 2 shows the combined gradation and aggregate
properties. The mixture was produced in Floyd County Iowa on a section of US 218 near Charles City. Reduced
plant temperatures were achieved on this project.
TEST METHODOLOGY
To evaluate the performance of additives A1 and B1 as a compaction aid, the samples were compacted using a
Superpave Gyratory Compactor at three different mixing/compaction temperatures: 160/145C (320/293F),
145/130C (293/266F), and 130/115C (266/239F), respectively. The selected design number of gyrations
(Ndes) was 96 and the maximum number of gyrations (Nmax) was 152. Three replicate samples for each
mixing/compaction temperature combination were compacted to Nmax.
The Superpave Gyratory Compactor used in this research was equipped with several advanced
functions that include measurement of the force and shear capability applied to the specimen. From this data,
resistive effort curves can be constructed to analyze the stability of the asphalt mixtures at the three different
mixing/compaction temperature combinations. The resistive effort represents the work done by the SGC per
unit volume per gyration, assuming the material is perfectly viscous or plastic (9). From the resistive effort
curve, the compaction force index (CFI) and the traffic force index (TFI) are developed to estimate the shear
force effect from compaction and traffic on asphalt pavements.
The resistive effort curve is separated at 92% of the asphalt mixture maximum theoretical specific
gravity (Gmm) into a construction effect zone and a traffic effect zone. The CFI refers to the construction side
and relates to the area under the resistive effort curve below 92% Gmm. For the traffic effect zone, the TFI is
measured by the area between 92% and 98% Gmm under the resistive effort curve. In essence, low resistive effort
is desirable for a contractor to easily compact an asphalt pavement, saving compaction time/effort and reducing
cost. Therefore, asphalt mixtures with lower CFI values are desired for improved constructability. Inversely,
higher TFI values are desired for asphalt mixtures as they indicate a greater resistance to stress from traffic
loading and a reduction in pavement rutting, ultimately extending the pavements service life (10).
Moisture Sensitivity
In order to evaluate the contribution of the WMA additives as an anti-strip and to determine which type has the
ability to mitigate moisture sensitivity at the optimum dosage rate, Indirect Tensile Strength (IDT) testing and
HWTD were conducted. For the laboratory produced mixes, six replicate samples for each test were compacted
to 7%0.5 air voids using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor. Dimensions for AASHTO T-283 cylindrical
samples are 100 mm (4 in.) diameter and 63.2 2.5 mm (2.5.1in.) in height. Mixing and compaction
temperatures were 155C (311F) and 145C (293F), respectively. Samples for each test were randomly
assigned into two subsets of three samples. Moisture conditioning of the samples was conducted according to
AASTHO T-283.
One of two subsets was randomly selected to be tested under the dry condition. The dry samples were
conditioned to a temperature of 25 0.5C (771F) for two hours prior to testing. The moisture-conditioned
specimens underwent vacuum saturation. The degree of saturation was between 70 and 80 percent for the tested
specimens and they were each wrapped with a plastic film and then placed in a plastic bag which contained 10
0.5 ml of water and sealed. Afterwards, the sealed samples were stored in a freezer at a temperature of -18 3C
(0 5F). After a minimum of 16 hours, all of samples were removed from the freezer, unwrapped, and
submerged in a water bath at 60 1C (1402F) with 25mm (1in.) of water above their surface for 24 1
hours. For the last step, before testing is same as control group samples as all of conditioned samples were
placed in a 25 0.5C (771F) water bath for two hours prior to testing.
The laboratory evaluation of optimum dosage rate and compactability will ultimately be tested in the field
where moisture susceptibility requirements are important. Therefore, the influence of curing time and
temperature was studied for a plant-produced/laboratory-compacted mixture. The curing of WMA field samples
is currently performed at the reduced compaction temperatures. This portion of the study focuses on how HMA
and WMA performance results in the HWTD change due to different curing times and temperatures. The intent
is to determine how long curing should take place and at which temperature in order to have comparable test

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

results in the HWTD between HMA and WMA as well as determine which temperature and time combination
best simulates the field core HWTD test results. The curing durations chosen were 2 and 4 hours with curing
temperatures of 120C (248F), 135C (275F), and 150C (302F). A curing time of greater than four hours is
not generally practical in industry. The cured samples were tested in the HWTD. Only WMA samples were
cured at reduced temperatures. Table 3 shows the Hamburg pairs that were tested. Each X represents a sample
that was paired and tested in the HWTD. Cores taken from the field two years after construction were also
tested.
TABLE 3 Plan of study for investigating curing time and temperature in the HWTD
120C (248F)
135C (275F)
150C (302F)
Mixes
2 Hours
4 Hours
2 Hours
4 Hours
2 Hours
4 Hours
Field Mix HMA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

--*

--

--

Field Mix WMA

XXXXXX
XX
XXXXXX
*-- indicates no samples were tested for this category

--

XXXXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXXXX

XX

Indirect Tensile Strength

The IDT test was conducted according to AASHTO T-283 to evaluate the mixtures resistance to stripping.
Moisture damage in asphalt can be influenced by the presence of moisture in the asphalt mixture and will result
in a loss of strength through the weakening of the bond between the asphalt cement and the aggregate (11). The
loss of strength due to moisture in the asphalt mixture can be reflected from the tensile strength ratio (TSR). The
TSR is a numerical index that expresses an HMA pavements resistance to moisture damage as the ratio of
retained strength after freeze-thaw conditioning to that of its original strength.
For testing, the samples were placed between steel loading strips in a hydraulic universal testing
machine (UTM) within an environmental chamber set at 25C (77F). A load was applied to the specimen at a
constant rate of 50 mm/min (2 in/min). The maximum compressive load was recorded from which the tensile
strength can be calculated. The average tensile strength of the moisture conditioned subset group was divided by
the dry subset group to calculate the TSR.
Hamburg Wheel Track Test
The HWTD is one of several wheel tracking tests used in the United States. It was developed in the 1970s by
Esso A.G of Hamburg, Germany, (12). The HWTD is used to test an asphalt mixtures susceptibility to moisture
damage and its resistance to permanent deformation.
AASHTO T-324 followed for specimen preparation and test setup. Mixing and compaction
temperatures were 155C (311F) and 145C (293F), respectively. Two cylindrical specimens 150 mm (6 in.)
in diameter and 611 mm (2.40.04 in.) in height were butted into molds and placed under water at 50C
(122F). Two solid steel wheels with 0.73 MPa (145 psi) contact stress were loaded on the samples and repeated
20,000 times at 1.1km/h wheel passes for about 6.5 hours or until failure. The test ends automatically when 50
mm (1.6 in.) rut depth occurs or the preset number of 20,000 wheel cycles is reached (11).
An important indication moisture damage measured by the HWTD is called the stripping inflection
point (SIP). The SIP is the number of wheel passes at the intersection of the creep slope and the stripping slope.
After the number of wheel passes at that point, the moisture damage tends to dominate performance. The
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) points out that any inflection point below 10,000 wheel passes
is an indication of moisture susceptibility (13). The HWTD rutting result is defined as the rut depth at 20,000
wheel passes. Currently, there is no AASHTO specification to limit the maximum rut depth for the HWTD
testing in the U.S.; however, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) uses 12.5 mm (0.5 in.) after
10,000 passes for mixes with a PG 64-22 and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) suggested
that a rut depth of 10 mm (0.4 in.) after 20,000 passes as the criterion (14).
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Test results were evaluated based upon how the additive types, A1 and B1, contribute to both the stability of the
asphalt mixtures and the results for IDT and HWTD, while taking into consideration the various additive dosage
levels as well as the mixing and compaction temperature combinations. Statistical analysis was conducted using
JMP statistical software (15).

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Figure 1 displays the average values of the compaction force index (CFI) shown with 95% confidence
intervals. The error bars in Figure 1 and Figure 2 show little difference between the additive dosage levels for
both CFI and TFI. ANOVA testing confirmed there are no statistically significant differences in additive type
and no interaction effects for dosage rate and temperature among additive types A1/B1 at an =0.05 level.
However, for A1 and B1, there are the same significant differences in temperature when Tukey honestly
significant difference (HSD) multiple comparison testing was performed. The compaction temperature of 145C
(293F) is not significantly different with 130C (266F) and 115C (239F), but 115C (239F) is significantly
different with 130C (266F). The statistical difference between 115C (239F) and 130C (266F) indicates
the compaction temperature of 115C (239F) may be too low for this mixture and better compaction is
achieved at 130C (266F). The CFI at 115C (239F) also has the highest average for each mixture tested. The
largest average reduction in the CFI values occurred for B1-1% followed by A1-0.5% but variability in the CFI
parameter does not allow for statistical conclusions at an -level of 0.05. An ANOVA analysis of CFI data
confirmed that there are no statistically significant differences in the variable dosage levels and no interaction
effects between additive type and compaction temperature exist. The ANOVA analysis suggests some statistical
differences between compaction temperatures but no overall trend applies to all dosage rates and temperatures.
These differences can be observed by the overlapping of confidence intervals in Figure 1.
800.0
700.0
600.0

CFI

500.0
145 C

400.0

130 C

300.0

115 C

200.0
100.0
0.0
Control
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

B1- 0.5%

B1-1%

A1-0.5%

A1-1%

FIGURE 1 Effects of different additives and dosage levels on the CFI.

Figure 2 shows the TFI values with error bars that represent 95% confidence interval. The average TFI
for the control shows the largest sensitivity to temperature, on average. The ANOVA analysis showed no
significant differences in additive type or dosage level and no significant interactions between factors.
A comparison between A1-0.5% and B1-0.5%, showed no statistically significant differences in
additive type and no interactions between additive and temperature. The highest mean TFI was measured at
115C (239F) compaction temperature and is statistically different from the mean TFI at 130C (266F). On
average, the control samples had a higher TFI at the lower temperatures of 130C (266F) and 115C (239F).
Comparing between A1-1% and B1-1% TFI, there are no statistically significant differences in the
factors of additive type, temperature and the interaction between additive and temperature.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

5000.0
4500.0
4000.0
3500.0
3000.0

145 C

TFI

2500.0

130 C

2000.0

115 C

1500.0

1000.0
500.0
0.0

Control

B1- 0.5%

B1-1%

A1-0.5%

A1-1%

FIGURE 2 Effects of different additives and dosage levels on the TFI.

The TSR and indirect strength values with 95% confidence intervals are shown in Figure 3. The TSR
ratio was calculated by using the conditioned mix strength with an additive as the numerator and the
unconditioned mix strength without additive as the denominator. The denominator of the TSR ratio is always the
dry strength of the 0% additive content mix. By keeping a consistent denominator, the data does not add a
confounding factor. This method accurately reflects the difference in TSR values.
All TSR values meet the required 80% minimum. The ANOVA analysis shows no statistical difference
between additive type and content; however, on average the 0.5% dosage rate has the highest average TSR
values.
IDT Strength
IDT Ratio

1400

1.4

1200

1.2

1000

1
Iowa DOT TSR

Indirect Tensile Strength, kPa

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

800

0.8

600

0.6

400

0.4

200

0.2

13
14
15
16
17
18

FIGURE 3 Iowa DOT TSR values for the control and treatment conditions.
The mixes were evaluated using the HWTD test using laboratory compacted specimens which contain
two types of additives (A1, B1) and three content level (0%, 0.5% and 1%) organized as a full factorial design.
Three replicates were prepared at each combination of factor levels, which required a total of 36 specimens.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Mixing and compaction temperatures were 155C (311F) and 145C (293F), respectively. The laboratory mix
samples were cured for 2 hours at the compaction temperature.
According to the literature review, it is not inevitable that HWTD results will show all three
characteristic variables: creep slope, stripping slope and SIP. For the result of the HWTD test, no stripping
deformation occurred. Therefore, only the creep slope and the maximum rut depth at 20,000 passes were used to
analyze the data.
Based on the data comparison, adding either additives, A1 or B1, can reduce the rutting depth when
mixed and compacted at the same temperature. The mix types with the WMA additive (A1 or B1) present better
rutting resistance with a reduced creep slope as compared to the HMA samples. The A1-0.5% and A1-1.0%
performed almost same as the B1-0.5% and B1-1%, respectively.
With respect to the creep slope, the ANOVA analysis indicates statistical differences in additive type
and dosage rate. The B1 additive has the lowest mean creep slope and is statistically different than A1.
Moreover, the 0%-control specimens show the highest mean creep slope and is significantly different from other
mixes containing WMA additives at all dosage rates (0.5%, 1.0%), as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 shows the rut depth at 20,000 passes. By examining the rut depths, a comparison of dosage
level demonstrates the impact the additives have on rutting performance in the asphalt mixes. The mixes with
the WMA additive exhibited statistically lower amounts of rutting than the mix with no WMA additive. There
were no differences in rutting performance between the 0.5% and 1.0% dosage rate or between the A1 and B1
additives. Therefore, adding at least 0.5% of the A1 or B1 additives will improve an asphalt mixtures resistance
to rutting.
6

1.8E-04
Rutting Depth

1.6E-04

Creep Slope
4

1.4E-04
1.2E-04

1.0E-04
3
8.0E-05
2

6.0E-05

Creep Slope (mm/pass)

Rut Depth at 20000 Passes (mm)

4.0E-05
1
2.0E-05
0

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

0.0E+00
0%

A1-0.5%

A1-1%

B1-0.5%

B1-1%

FIGURE 4 Average rut depth at 20,000 passes and creep slope for control and treatment samples.
The curing study was performed on plant produced mixes using the HWTD to investigate the impact of
time and temperature on the SIP results. The curing times were either 2 or 4 hours and the temperatures were
120C (248F), 135C (275F) and 150C (302F). All of the mixes included in this study used the same WMA
additive. The HWTD sample dimensions were 150mm (6 in.) diameter and 60.3 mm (2.374 in.) in height.
Cores were sawn to the test sample height.
The HWTD test results for the cured-lab compacted samples were compared against the cores taken
from the roadway. Figure 5 shows the comparisons for all samples including WMA and HMA. The dash lines
represent only 2 hours of curing. The WMA and HMA cores performed well with no evidence of stripping. The
HMA mixes are denoted in the graph as red or orange lines. The WMA is shown in blue or green lines. The
WMA samples with 2 hours of curing at 120C (248F) and 135C (275F) were the poorest performing mixes.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

HMA and WMA samples cured for 2 hours at 150C (302F) displayed similar test results. Increased
conditioning time of 4 hours also increased performance in the HWTD. The HMA and WMA both showed
similar rutting depths when cured at 4 hours at 150C (302F) and this was similar with the rutting depths of the
tested cores. The data for the WMA samples cured for four hours at 150C (302F) showed some noise in the
data but there was not significant rutting or signs of stripping. The SIP values are shown in Figure 6. The HMA
samples cured for 2 hours at 150C (302F) showed similar values to the WMA samples cured for 4 hours at
120C (248F). Samples conditioned for the two hour curing time at 120C (248F) and 135C (275F) showed
low stripping inflection points and would not pass the 14,000 SIP requirement for this 10 million ESAL mix but
longer curing times or higher temperatures would increase the SIP values so that the required minimum SIP
would be met.
WMA Core
WMA 2 hrs 135C
WMA 4hrs 120C
HMA 4 hrs 150C

0.0

HMA Core
WMA 2 hrs 150C
WMA 4 hrs 135C

WMA 2 hrs 120C

HMA 2 hrs 150
WMA 4 hrs 150C

Rut Depth, mm.

-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0

-10.0
-12.0
-14.0
-16.0
0

12
13

5,000

10,000
Pass Number

15,000

20,000

FIGURE 5 Hamburg results comparing curing temperature and time.

14
20000
18000

16000
Number of Passes

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000

2000
0

15
16
17

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

FIGURE 6 SIP comparing HMA/WMA, curing time and temperature.

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

CONCLUSIONS
In this research, laboratory specimens were produced using two versions of a commonly used WMA
technology, generically referred to as WMA-A1 and WMA-B1, with three different dosage rates. The first
objective was to use the compaction shear capability test parameter to evaluate the performance of the WMA
additives as a compaction aid. The second objective was to determine the use of this additive as an anti-stripping
agent. The indirect tensile strength and HWTD tests were executed to evaluate the moisture susceptibility of
mixes that utilized both types of WMA additives. The final objective was to determine the impact laboratory
curing time and temperature have on a plant-produced/laboratory-cured WMA mix compared with an HMA
control mix. Based on the laboratory experiment and statistical analysis, the following conclusions are derived:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

The compaction force index (CFI) and the traffic force index (TFI) will not be affected by the additive
type (A1, B1) and additive content (0%, 0.5%, 1%). Demonstrating that the shear capability is not
sensitive to the effect of the WMA additives.
The mixtures have better shear capability at the temperature mixing/compaction combination of
145C/130C (293F/266F) than at the combination of 130C /115C (266F/239F).
The TSR values were not statistically different but the average TSR values with the dosage level of
0.5% were slightly higher. No additional benefit is gained by increasing the additive amount. All
samples meet the 80% minimum criteria.
Laboratory produced samples tested in the HWTD showed no signs of moisture damage. Adding the
WMA additive, A1 or B1, can statistically reduce the rut depth and act as an anti-stripping agent. The
mix types with the WMA additive (A1 or B1) present better rutting resistance with a reduced creep
slope as compared to the HMA samples when mixed and compacted at the same temperature. B1 and
A1 produced statistically similar results at both dosage levels.
Curing time and temperature greatly influences the stripping inflection point in the Hamburg. The
lower WMA temperature with curing times below 2 hours, did not perform as well as the samples
cured and compacted at HMA temperature or for longer curing durations. WMA and HMA cores taken
two years after placement performed well in HWTD tests.
Based on the data from this research and the literature review (6), a curing time of 2 hours at 135C
(275F) seems to adequately represent the conditioning of WMA but broader studies which include
more mixes and various performance tests should be performed to verify this recommendation.

The WMA dosage level and additive type did not influence the results of the compaction shear capability.
Various compaction temperatures were used when measuring the CFI and TFI parameters and this showed little
sensitivity to changes in the binder at the various temperatures but indicated that 115C (239F) may be too low
for the laboratory mixture. Manufacturer recommendations should be used when choosing mixing and
compaction temperatures. The moisture susceptibility tests showed that the WMA additives, A1 and B1,
demonstrated moisture resistance ability when compacted at the same temperature as the control samples. The
recommended optimal dosage is 0.5% for the mixtures and this is comparable with the manufactures
recommendation. At the 0.5% dosage rate, the reduced compaction temperature of 130C (266F) was achieved
and additional resistance to moisture damage was found. Adding dosage levels above 0.5% did not indicate any
significant benefits. The curing study data indicates shorter curing times and/or reduced temperatures will
influence the SIP in the HWTD. Further research studies in this area will provide a better understanding of how
curing time and temperature influence other test parameters. A better understanding of the impact reduced
mixing and compaction temperatures have on mix performance can be achieved when using several WMA
additives, mix designs and testing procedures at a wide range of temperatures to identify the differences between
HMA and WMA.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Iowa Highway research board for funding the curing study and the Iowa
Department of Transportation for their expertise and assistance throughout this study.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Buss, Kuang, Williams, Bausano, Cascione, and Schram

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

REFERENCES
1. D'Angelo, J., E. Harm, J. Bartoszek, G. Baumgardner, M. Corrigan, J. Cowsert, T. Harman, M.
Jamshidi, W. Jones, D. Newcomb, B. Prowell, R. Sines, B. Yeaton, Warm-Mix Asphalt: European
Practice, Report No.FHWA-PL-08-007, U.S. Department of Transportation, February 2008.
2. Mogawer, W. A., A. Austerman, E. Kassem, and E. Masad. Moisture Damage Characteristics of
Warm Mix Asphalt Mixtures. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol 80,
2011, pp.368-402.
3. Bennert, T., G. Reinke, W. Mogawer, and K. Mooney. Assessment of Workability and Compactability
of Warm-Mix Asphalt. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No 2180, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010,
pp. 36-47.
4. Mogawer, W.S., A.J. Austerman and H.U. Bahia. Evaluating the Effect of Warm-Mix Asphalt
Technologies on Moisture Characteristics of Asphalt Binders and Mixtures. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No 2209, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 52-60.
5. Bennert, T., A. Maher, and R. Sauber. Influence of Production Temperature and Aggregate Moisture
Content on the Initial Performance of Warm-Mix Asphalt. In Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No 2208, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 97-107.
6. Yin, F., L., Garcia Cucalon, A. Epps Martin, E. Arambula, A. Chowdhury, E.S. Park. Laboratory
conditioning protocols for warm-mix asphalt.
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol 82, 2013, pp.115-133.
7. Al-Qadi, I.L., Z. Leng , J. Baek, H. Wang, M. Doyen, and S.L. Gillen. Short-Term Performance of
Plant-Mixes Warm Stone Mastic Asphalt Laboratory Testing and Field Evaluation. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No 2306, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 86-94.
8. Iowa Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications with GS-12002 Revisions. Section 2303:
Flexible Pavements. Last updated 03/18/2013. Retrieved from Iowa Department of Transportation
Electronic
Reference
Library
on
7/29/2013
from:
http://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/GS/content/2303.pdf
9. Faheem, A., and H. Bahia. Estimating Results of a Proposed Simple Performance Test for Hot-Mix
Asphalt from Superpave Gyratory Compactor Results. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No 1929, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp.104- 113.
10. Abed, D. A. Enhanced Aggregate-Asphalt Adhesion and Stability of Local Hot Mix Asphalt.
Engineering & Technology Journal. Vol. 29 No.10, 2011 pp. 2044-pp. 2059.
11. Roberts, F. E., P. Kandhal, D. Lee, and T. Kennedy. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and
Construction. National Asphalt Pavememnt Association Research and Education Foundation,
Lanham, Maryland, 1996.
12. Aschenbrener, T. Comparison of Several Moisture Susceptibility Tests to Pavements of Known Field
Performance. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol 64, 1995, pp.163pp.208.
13. Aschenbrener, T., R.L. Terrel, R.A. Zamora. Comparison of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device and
the Environmental Conditioning System to Pavements of Known Stripping Performance. Publication
No. CDOT-DTD-R-94-1. Colorado Department of Transportation, 1994.
14. Lu, Q. Investigation of Conditions for Moisture Damage in Asphalt Concrete and Appropriate
Laboratory Test Methods. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
15. SAS Institute Inc., JMP, Version 9.0., Cary, NC, 1989-2009.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.