This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 04 January 2015, At: 01:34

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Development of dynamic modulus master curves for

hot-mix asphalt with abbreviated testing temperatures
a a a
Alex K. Apeagyei , Brian K. Diefenderfer & Stacey D. Diefenderfer
a
Virginia Transportation Research Council , Charlottesville , VA , USA
Published online: 11 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Alex K. Apeagyei , Brian K. Diefenderfer & Stacey D. Diefenderfer (2012) Development of dynamic
modulus master curves for hot-mix asphalt with abbreviated testing temperatures, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 13:2, 98-109, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2011.566612

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.566612

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Vol. 13, No. 2, April 2012, 98–109

Development of dynamic modulus master curves for hot-mix asphalt with

abbreviated testing temperatures
Alex K. Apeagyei*, Brian K. Diefenderfer1 and Stacey D. Diefenderfer2
Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA, USA
(Received 15 January 2010; final version received 23 February 2011)

This paper describes an abbreviated testing temperature (ABBREV) approach for developing dynamic modulus (jE*j)
master curves for hot-mix asphalt (HMA). The ABBREV approach uses three instead of the five standard temperatures
required under AASHTO TP 62. Testing at the lowest and highest temperatures as specified under AASHTO TP 62 is not
required. Potential savings in testing time were a key motivation for the study. Using a database of jE*j from up to 36 HMA
mixtures, we developed regression models to estimate the jE*j at the lowest and highest testing temperatures. By combining
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015

the predicted jE*j at the lowest and highest temperatures with measured jE*j at intermediate temperatures (4, 21 and 388C),
we found the ABBREV master curves to be comparable with those of AASHTO TP 62. The results suggest that jE*j master
curve for HMA could be developed without the need to conduct tests at the lowest and highest testing temperatures
recommended under AASHTO TP 62.
Keywords: hot-mix asphalt; dynamic modulus; master curve

1. Introduction Dougan et al. (2003) identified several issues

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is in
the process of implementing the Guide for the Mechan-
istic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pave-
ment Structures (MEPDG). The adoption of the MEPDG
in Virginia is expected to improve pavement analysis and
design and offer improved capability for prediction of
pavement performance and maintenance needs. For
flexible pavements, one of the key design inputs for the
MEPDG is the dynamic modulus (jE*j) in the form of a
master curve. The jE*j master curve is used to characterise
the temperature and loading-rate (frequency) dependency
of the stress –strain behaviour of hot-mix asphalt (HMA),
and requires tests to be performed at multiple temperatures
and loading frequencies typically encountered on pave-
ments. Because of the importance of jE*j, standard
procedures (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials [AASHTO] TP 62) (TP 62) are
specified for developing the master curves.
Development of jE*j master curve under TP 62
requires testing two or three replicate HMA specimens at
five temperatures (2 10, 4, 21, 38 and 548C) and six
loading frequencies (25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5 and 0.1 Hz).
Therefore, a substantial amount of testing time is required
for developing jE*j master curves. Testing time has thus
been recognised by many investigators as too prohibitive
for routine master curve development (Dougan et al. 2003,
Kim et al. 2004, Bonaquist 2008, Bonaquist and
Christensen 2005).
associated with the development of jE*j master curves
based on TP 62. The authors concluded that excessive
testing time (including sample preparation and condition-
ing), which was estimated to be around one week per
mixture type, needed to be reduced to enable routine
determination of jE*j by organisations outside the research
arena, particularly state departments of transportation.
Kim et al. (2004) also identified conditioning time as a
major component of the overall time required under TP 62
to develop jE*j master curves and proposed measures to
address the issue. The authors applied the concept of
time – temperature superposition by which the same
modulus value of a material can be obtained either at
low-test temperatures and long-loading times or at high-
test temperatures and short-loading times. This is possible
by assuming that HMA is a thermorheologically simple
material. On the basis of the time – temperature super-
position principle, the following abbreviated procedure
was proposed by Kim and co-workers: (1) reducing the
number of test temperatures from five to three and (2)
increasing test frequencies from six to eight as given in
Table 1. An increase in the number of loading frequencies
was justified, according to the authors, to enable sufficient
overlap in the jE*j data obtained at two temperatures. This
is because in order to find the frequencies at two
temperatures that yield similar jE*j values, the data must
overlap.
Bonaquist and Christensen (2005) and Bonaquist
(2008) also recognised the substantial effort required for

*Corresponding author. Email: alex.apeagyei@vdot.virginia.gov

ISSN 1029-8436 print/ISSN 1477-268X online
q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.566612
http://www.tandfonline.com
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Table 1. Comparison of modified jE*j testing protocols with AASHTO TP 62.
Testing condition AASHTO TP62 Witczak (2003)
Temperature (8C) 210, 4, 21, 38, 54 2 10, 21, 54
Frequency (Hz) 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1 33, 2.22, 0.15, 0.01 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1, 0.05, 0.01
a
As reported in Bonaquist and Christensen (2005).
developing jE*j master curves under TP 62. They noted
that testing time, especially at the lowest specified
temperature of 2 108C, was a major problem and proposed
an abbreviated testing temperature (ABBREV) procedure
requiring only three testing temperatures. The concepts
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
used to justify the modified procedures included (1)
significant overlap in measured jE*j suggesting that jE*j
may not be needed when numerical methods are used to
perform the time –temperature shifting for the master
curve; (2) the Hirsch model (Christensen et al. 2003) could
be used to estimate limiting maximum modulus of HMA
based on binder stiffness and mixture volumetric data,
thereby eliminating the need to conduct low-temperature
testing at 2 108C; (3) estimating the maximum stiffness
to be 1.0 GPa (145,000 psi) for unmodified asphalt binders
and (4) limiting the highest test temperature to 468C to
avoid the common problem of glued gauge points
becoming loose during the jE*j test. A model for
predicting the maximum jE*j of HMA based on the
Hirsch model was, therefore, given as shown in Equation
(1). Using Equation (1), the authors reported a limiting
maximum jE*j of HMA to be in the range of 20.6–
26.2 GPa (3,000,000– 3,800,000 psi). The authors showed
that using the Hirsch model to estimate the limiting maxi-
mum modulus, reasonable jE*j master curves could be
obtained without the low-temperature (2 108C) test data.



VMA VFA* VMA
E*max ¼ Pe 4; 200; 000 1 2 þ 435; 000
100 10; 000
1 2 Pe
þ
ðð1 2 ðVMA=100ÞÞ=4; 200; 000Þ þ ðVMA=435; 000ðVFAÞÞ
where
jE*jmax is the limiting maximum mixture jE*j (psi),
VMA is the voids in the mineral aggregate (%) and
VFA is the voids filled with asphalt (%) and
  0:58
20 þ 435; 000ðVFAÞ=VMA
Pe ¼  0:58 :
650 þ 435; 000ðVFAÞ=VMA
The model has been extensively evaluated in previous
studies (Dongré et al. 2005, Kim et al. 2005) and found to
99
Modified AASHTO TP 62
a
Kim et al. (2004) Bonaquist and Christensen (2005)
210, 10, 35 4, 21, 46
10, 1, 0.1, 0.01
be reasonably accurate even though predictions at the
temperature extremes appear to be less accurate.
Schwartz (2005) evaluated the accuracy and robust-
ness of the Witczak jE*j predictive model and noted that
although the Witczak model could provide sufficiently
accurate and robust estimates of jE*j, the model may
overestimate jE*j at higher temperatures. The author
concluded that due to the high effect of temperature on
jE*j, the Witczak model is unable to distinguish between
performance of different mixtures under similar environ-
mental conditions. For such conditions, Schwartz
suggested that accurate determination of jE*j, as would
be obtained from laboratory testing, may be needed.
Review of the existing studies on jE*j suggest that
there is still the need for further studies on prediction of
jE*j for developing master curves especially at the lowest
and highest testing temperatures.
2. Purpose, scope and background
2.1 Purpose and scope
The primary objective of this study was to determine
whether the HMA jE*j master curve obtained from testing
in accordance with AASHTO TP 62 could be produced
from testing at only three temperatures (4, 21 and 388C)
and estimating the jE*j at 2 10 and 548C. The same
number of frequencies as specified under AASHTO TP 62
was used. The results were used to determine whether the
three-temperature ABBREV approach would be appro-
priate for use with typical HMA mixtures produced in
;
Virginia and elsewhere. It was anticipated that the results
ð1Þ would help expedite determination of jE*j data needed for
the implementation of the MEPDG by reducing the time
required for testing. Potential savings in testing time were,
therefore, a key motivation for the study.
The scope of work included measuring jE*j at three
temperatures (4, 21 and 388C) and estimating jE*j at two
temperatures (2 12 and 548C) for nine typical HMA
mixtures used in Virginia. From this, jE*j master curves and
the corresponding temperature-shift factors for the selected
mixtures were developed. The nine HMA mixtures
considered in this study are typically used by VDOT and
included (1) three 9.5 mm nominal maximum aggregate
size (NMAS) surface mixtures (SM9.5), (2) three 19.0
NMAS intermediate mixtures (IM19.0) and (3) three 25.0
 100 A.K. Apeagyei et al.

Table 2. Mixture details (after Flintsch et al. 2007).

Per cent passing sieve size (mm)

AC RAP
Mixture ID 25 19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 (%) (%)
SM-1 100.0 100.0 97.4 89.9 57.2 37.9 27.9 19.4 10.9 6.8 5.0 4.93 20
SM-2 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.3 57.1 37.6 28.1 20.2 12.8 8.5 6.3 5.91 15
SM-3 100.0 100.0 99.2 91.4 55.8 39.5 30.0 21.5 13.4 9.1 6.3 6.32 0
IM-1 100.0 100.0 95.8 87.5 53.0 37.7 29.4 21.8 14.5 9.9 6.6 5.26 20
IM-2 100.0 97.6 84.6 73.3 41.5 29.8 24.2 18.1 11.5 6.6 3.8 4.52 20
IM-3 100.0 96.4 79.8 69.5 45.6 30.4 21.1 15.4 10.4 7.2 5.5 4.89 20
BM-1 99.2 94.4 75.9 66.0 46.3 31.3 23.0 16.6 10.6 7.4 5.4 4.62 25
BM-2 84.1 73.8 69.6 66.6 42.9 26.5 17.0 11.4 8.2 6.5 5.5 4.86 0
BM-3 97.3 87.6 73.3 64.8 48.0 24.2 17.1 13.1 8.9 7.1 6.1 3.91 15
IM-4 100.0 95.5 82.5 70.7 41.1 30.3 24.7 18.2 11.0 6.2 3.9 5.43 0
BM-4 100.0 98.8 85.3 75.4 58.5 40.0 30.3 23.4 14.4 8.0 5.9 4.51 15
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015

Note: AC, asphalt content.

NMAS base mixtures (BM25.0). All jE*j test data used for
the initial development of the ABBREV approach were
obtained from published data (Flintsch et al. 2007). The
ABBREV approach was then verified using data from four
additional HMA mixtures that were not used in the
development of the ABBREV prediction models. Finally,
unified jE*j predictive models based on 36 mixtures data
were developed using regression analyses to enable
widespread applicability of the ABBREV approach.
Details about the mixtures used in this study to develop
the initial ABBREV models are summarised in Table 2
and include (1) mixture type, (2) NMAS, (3) per cent
binder, (4) per cent air voids and (5) amount of recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP) used. A PG 64– 22 asphalt binder
was used in all the mixes; however, the amount of RAP
ranged from 0 to 25%. Additional details of the mixtures
are provided in Flintsch et al. (2007).
2.2 Background
Recently, testing of 11 typical HMA mixtures used in
Virginia was conducted (Flintsch et al. 2007, 2008) to
determine among other properties, the jE*j for design of
pavements. The tests were conducted using standard
procedures (AASHTO TP 62) at five test temperatures.
The limited number of mixes tested underscored the
potential need for further evaluation of additional mixtures
to include different binder types, aggregate types and
mixture types to reflect the multiplicity of mixes used in
Virginia. Preliminary estimates suggest that to test
comprehensively all relevant HMA mixes in Virginia,
approximately 3240 individual jE*j tests would be
required (36 mixes £ 3 replicates £ 5 temperatures £ 6
frequencies). In addition to the number of individual jE*j
tests, it was estimated that about 4 additional hours per
sample would be needed just to condition the specimens at
the lowest temperature of 2 108C specified in TP 62
compared with testing at the intermediate temperatures
(4, 21 and 388C). Another potential problem identified was
how to maintain the integrity of deformation measure-
ments taken at the highest test temperature of 548C.
Previous studies suggested that gauge points for
deformation gauges used during jE*j testing may not
bond well to HMA at these temperatures (Bonaquist and
Christensen 2005). The ABBREV approach, a modified
AASHTO TP 62 procedure, was investigated as a potential
remedy to circumvent some of these identified issues and
to expedite the testing of mixtures.
2.2.1 AASHTO TP 62 jE*j master curve
HMA is considered as a viscoelastic material, and
therefore, the modulus or stress – strain behaviour depends
on temperature and loading rate. The temperature and
loading-rate effects of HMA are characterised by the jE*j
master curve under MEPDG. The basis for constructing an
HMA jE*j master curve is the time – temperature super-
position principle. The procedures for constructing the
jE*j master curve involve several steps. First, jE*j data at
multiple testing temperatures and loading frequencies are
compiled. Next, a reference temperature, typically 218C, is
specified. A graph of jE*j versus frequency is plotted for
all test temperatures. Next, the jE*j data at all
temperatures other than the reference temperature are
shifted horizontally with respect to the loading-frequency
axis to produce a single sigmoidal shaped curve. A model
describing the resulting sigmoidal curve is called a master
curve. Shifting is usually performed using commercial
optimisation algorithms (such as Microsoft EXCEL
solver), and results in the determination of model
parameters. The temperature dependency of the material
is indicated by the amount of shifting (shift factor aT) at
each temperature, and the master curve itself indicates the
loading-rate dependency. Thus, both the master curve and
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
the corresponding temperature-shift factors are needed to
characterise fully the loading-rate and temperature effects
of HMA. The sigmoidal model shown in Equation (2) and
temperature-shift factor relationships (Equations (4)
through (6)) are commonly used to characterise jE*j of
HMA (Pellinen and Witczak 2002). In this study, the
Arrhenius model (Equation (4)), the Williams –Landel –
Ferry Equations (Equation (5)) and the global ageing
model (Mirza and Witczak 1995) (Equation (6)) were all
found to model the temperature-shift factor well. The
Arrhenius model was used in this study for convenience.
a Table 3 shows the jE*j test data chosen for this study to
log jE* j ¼ d þ ; ð2Þ
1 þ e bþgðlog f r Þ
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
where jE*j is the dynamic modulus; d, the minimum value
of jE*j; d þ a, the maximum value of jE*j; b and g are the
parameters describing the shape of the sigmoidal function
and fr the reduced frequency.
f r ¼ f ðaT Þ; ð3Þ
where aT is the shift factor as a function of temperature T,


DEa 1 1
log aT ¼ 2 ; ð4Þ
2:303R T T d
where DEa is the apparent activation energy (J/mol); R, the
universal gas constant (¼ 8.314 J/K2mol); T, the tempera-
ture (K); Tref, the temperature at reference temperature
(K).
C 1 ðT 2 T d Þ
log aT ¼ ; ð5Þ
C2 þ ðT 2 T ref Þ
where C1 and C2 are the regression constants and Td is the
defining temperature (K).
 
log aT ¼ c 10AþVTS log T r 2 log ðh70 RTFOT Þ ; ð6Þ
where c is the regression constant, A and VTS are the
viscosity –temperature susceptibility parameters for roll-
ing thin film oven test-aged binder; Tr, the temperature in R
and h70 RTFOT , the viscosity of RTFOT-aged binder at
reference temperature (cP).
As previously stated, under typical pavement loading
and temperatures, HMA could be considered as a
rheologically simple material. Thus, the time – temperature
superposition principle applies to HMA. This is the basis
for constructing jE*j master curves used to account for the
temperature and loading-rate effects of HMA during the
design of pavements under the MEPDG protocols. Using
this procedure, we used a sigmoidal model of the form
depicted in Equation (2) to shift jE*j data obtained under
standard testing conditions (five temperatures and six
frequencies) to form a single line called the master curve.
The amount of shifting required at each test temperature is
101
a function of the temperature dependency of the mixture,
and can be approximated by any one of the models shown
in Equation (4) through (6). Together with the master
curve, the relationship between shift factor and tempera-
ture can be used to describe completely the stress –strain
linear viscoelastic response of HMA at a reference
temperature of 218C.
3. Materials and methods
3.1 jE*j for selected Virginia mixes
develop models for the ABBREV procedure. The data
represent results of jE*j testing conducted at five test
temperatures and six loading frequencies using typical
HMA mixtures produced in Virginia with the minimum
test temperature being 2 128C. The data, obtained from
Flintsch et al. (2007), were selected to represent varying
amounts of RAP, NMAS and binder contents typically
used in Virginia. As shown in Table 3, the nine mixtures
were grouped into three categories: surface mixture (SM),
intermediate mixture (IM) and base mixture (BM) having
a NMAS of 9.5, 19.0 and 25.0 mm, respectively.
Procedures proposed by Pellinen and Witczak (2002)
for constructing jE*j master curves using numerical
optimisation techniques were followed. Both shift factors
and sigmoidal model parameters were determined
simultaneously by minimising the sum of squares of
errors between the predicted and the measured jE*j. The
Microsoft Excel Solver code was used for the optimisation
process. Using the jE*j data as given in Table 3, we
developed master curves for each mixture. Figure 1 shows
typical master curve for an SM. Unless otherwise noted,
the reference temperature used for constructing the jE*j
master curves presented in this paper was 218C.
3.2 jE*j using the ABBREV approach
The ABBREV procedure is proposed to estimate the HMA
jE*j master curve using test data from only three
temperatures (4, 21 and 388C) instead of the standard
five test temperatures specified in AASHTO TP 62. First,
jE*j data at the lowest testing temperature are estimated
from the 48C jE*j data, whereas data at 548C are estimated
from 388C jE*j data. Next, the ABBREV-estimated jE*j
data at the lowest and highest temperatures are combined
with measured jE*j data at the three intermediate
temperatures. Following this, the process for determining
jE*j master curve and the corresponding shift factors in the
ABBREV method follows similar approach as the
standard five temperature data-based AASHTO TP 62
approach. The data given in Table 3 were used to develop
regression models that relate jE*j at 4 and 388C to 2 12
and 548C, respectively.
 102 A.K. Apeagyei et al.

Table 3. AASHTO TP 62-based jE*j for typical Virginia mixtures (after Flintsch et al. 2007).

jE*j (MPa)
Temperature (8C) Frequency (Hz) SM-1 SM-2 SM-3 IM-1 IM-2 IM-3 BM-1 BM-2 BM-3
2 12 25 29,882 25,545 21,505 23,863 19,409 30,523 29,454 31,330 32,757
10 27,972 24,132 20,450 22,842 18,223 29,123 28,793 30,420 31,716
5 27,303 23,187 19,567 22,249 17,526 28,317 28,020 29,254 30,875
1 24,773 21,594 17,292 20,533 15,941 26,476 25,890 26,579 28,737
0.5 23,428 21,063 16,299 19,795 15,162 25,600 24,697 25,187 27,786
0.1 21,429 17,954 13,783 17,733 13,486 22,939 22,187 20,739 25,242
4 25 17,664 17,968 12,804 18,092 14,920 22,160 19,098 17,547 22,946
10 15,941 16,196 11,238 16,506 13,576 20,291 16,396 15,368 21,360
5 14,741 14,865 10,115 15,348 12,583 19,030 15,175 14,052 20,181
1 11,907 11,962 7619 12,645 10,253 15,892 12,893 10,673 17,182
0.5 10,618 10,597 6529 11,473 9218 14,493 11,618 9039 18,002
0.1 7977 7798 4420 8860 7026 11,280 9101 6060 14,258
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015

21 25 9391 8253 5433 9115 7729 10,845 9784 6447 16,203

10 7743 6771 4316 7743 6584 9060 8184 5137 14,017
5 6605 5743 3537 6729 5661 7770 7033 4240 12,307
1 4351 3702 2137 4619 3785 5295 4737 2592 8605
0.5 3440 2875 1620 3723 2992 4254 3792 2006 6998
0.1 2110 1724 986 2324 1875 2661 2372 1248 4392
38 25 3137 2737 1503 3592 2910 3744 3296 1937 5964
10 2427 2013 1062 2758 2220 2861 2620 1427 4509
5 1910 1538 834 2172 1751 2255 2062 1138 3585
1 1062 848 496 1220 1000 1276 1179 738 2034
0.5 793 662 400 903 765 965 896 634 1531
0.1 503 441 290 558 503 607 579 510 938
54 25 910 710 469 1069 924 1103 1076 731 1634
10 655 524 345 758 655 800 786 565 1151
5 524 434 283 593 517 641 634 490 903
1 359 303 200 365 345 421 407 393 565
0.5 317 269 172 303 296 365 352 372 476
0.1 276 234 138 228 241 303 283 331 365

For the mixtures given in Table 3, two model types
were identified to describe the relationship between jE*j at
4 to 2 128C and jE*j at 38 to 548C. The models were (1) a
second-order polynomial of the form y ¼ Ax 2 þ Bx þ C
for relating jE*j at 388C to jE*j at 548C and (2) a power-
law model of the form y ¼ Dx E relating jE*j at 48C to jE*j
at the lowest testing temperature. It should be noted that
Figure 1. Typical HMA jE*j master curve for Virginia mixes
(Tref ¼ 218C).
even though the preceding models were used in this study,
any other models that could relate jE*j data at any two
temperatures could be used.
The ABBREV models were developed for each
mixture using the functional forms as discussed above.
The second-order polynomial model was used to estimate
jE*j at 548C from jE*j at 388C values whereas to estimate
jE*j values at 2 128C, the power-law model was used to
describe the relationship between jE*j at 2 12 and 48C.
The results of the ABBREV predictions are given in Table
4 and typified in Figures 2 (mixture SM-1) and 3 (mixture
BM-1). Close inspection of the results indicates that the
ABBREV predictions are in close agreement with the
results obtained by the standard TP 62 testing procedures.
The results show that reasonable relationship exists
between jE*j values obtained at the 48C and the lowest
testing temperature, and between jE*j at 388C and the
highest testing temperature. However, because different
models were obtained for the different mixtures, there
exists a need to develop unified models using all the
mixtures for models of high-predictive value. The develop-
ment of ABBREV models considering all the mixtures
combined is presented next.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 103

Table 4. Comparison of ABBREV-predicted jE*j with AASHTO TP 62-based jE*j at two temperatures. jE*j is measured in MPa.

Temperature (8C) 212 54

Frequency (Hz) 25 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 25 10 5 1 0.5 0.1
SM-1 TP 62 29,880 27,973 27,304 24,775 23,429 21,426 912 657 527 358 319 279
ABBREV 29,426 28,192 27,290 24,963 23,795 21,123 1351 933 688 404 344 296
SM-2 TP 62 25,547 24,135 23,188 21,594 21,060 17,956 713 527 431 303 270 231
ABBREV 25,364 24,338 23,518 21,569 20,554 18,185 710 531 429 299 268 234
SM-3 TP 62 21,502 20,448 19,568 17,295 16,302 13,781 471 346 284 197 171 137
ABBREV 22,161 21,037 20,173 18,020 16,946 14,503 533 405 352 295 283 271
IM-1 TP 62 23,866 22,840 22,251 20,535 19,792 17,732 1065 758 593 364 301 224
ABBREV 23,795 22,913 22,238 20,538 19,730 17,740 1121 803 614 365 298 234
IM-2 TP 62 19,411 18,220 17,526 15,937 15,160 13,484 923 656 519 345 299 243
ABBREV 19,142 18,300 17,653 16,016 15,226 13,380 919 664 519 338 294 251
IM-3 TP 62 30,521 29,122 28,316 26,476 25,601 22,936 1106 803 641 422 368 303
ABBREV 30,322 29,243 28,480 26,448 25,465 22,967 1108 812 642 419 364 307
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015

BM-1 TP 62 29,453 28,791 28,021 25,893 24,695 22,184 1077 789 632 405 349 280
ABBREV 30,201 28,399 27,529 25,781 24,724 22,409 1064 805 623 398 343 289
BM-2 TP 62 31,333 30,417 29,258 26,582 25,190 20,741 731 564 487 396 370 330
ABBREV 31,881 30,288 29,256 26,304 24,667 21,131 728 567 488 389 365 338
BM-3 TP 62 32,755 31,714 30,874 28,737 27,786 25,242 1631 1153 906 569 478 369
ABBREV 32,844 31,573 30,599 28,730 28,000 25,263 1612 1152 903 560 470 377

Note: TP 62, AASHTO TP 62; ABBREV, Abbreviated testing temperature.

For the nine mixtures as given in Table 3, numerical models,

optimisation methods were used to estimate the model
parameters by minimising the sum of square errors jE * j54C ¼ 2:79 £ 1025 ðjE * j38C Þ2 þ 0:1076jE * j38C
between predicted jE*j and measured jE*j. The resulting þ 214:3837; ð7Þ
models (Equations (7) and (8)) for the combined jE*j data
R 2 ¼ 0:94;
from all nine mixtures showed some promise as predictive

where jE*j54C ¼ jE*j at 548C at a given frequency (MPa);

jE*j38C ¼ jE*j at 388C at the same frequency as jE*j54C
(MPa),

jE * j212C ¼ 187:7003ðjE * j4C Þ0:5102 ; R 2 ¼ 0:66; ð8Þ

where jE*j212C ¼ jE*j at 2 128C at a given frequency

(MPa) and jE*j4C ¼ jE*j at 48C at a given frequency
(MPa).
As indicated above, with the ABBREV approach,
predicted jE*j at the highest and lowest testing
temperatures is combined with those at the intermediate
temperatures to construct master curves. Figure 4 shows
the master curve obtained using the ABBREV models
(Equations (7) and (8)), for an SM. As shown in Figure 4,
shift factors obtained for both AASHTO TP 62 and
ABBREV master curves were quite close. The plot in
Figure 4 was typical of master curves for mixtures
considered in this study, showing good jE*j predictions
based on the ABBREV procedure. It can be seen from
Figure 4 that the ABBREV-predicted jE*j master curve
Figure 2. Comparison of ABBREV jE*j with TP 62 jE*j at compares quite well with the TP 62-measured jE*j master
548C. curve.
 104 A.K. Apeagyei et al.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
Figure 3. Comparison of ABBREV jE*j with TP 62 jE*j at
2 108C.
A summarised comparison of the ABBREV-based
jE*j predictions and the TP 62-measured jE*j master
curves is shown in Figure 5 for all nine mixes used in the
ABBREV model development. The comparisons in
Figure 5 were possible because for each mixture shown,
temperature-shift factors used for both TP 62 and
ABBREV master curves were similar. It can be seen that
Figure 4. Comparison of ABBREV jE*j master curve with
AASHTO TP 62 jE*j master curve for surface mix (SM2).
Figure 5. Comparison of ABBREV jE*j with AASHTO TP 62
jE*j.
the ABBREV procedure predicted the TP 62-measured
jE*j quite well. In general, the ABBREV predictions for
the surface mixes were better than those for the
intermediate and base mixes. The effects of gradation
and binder type appeared to influence prediction of jE*j
using the ABBREV approach as expected. This is a
drawback to most empirically based approaches.
Additional mixtures from other published sources are
discussed in subsequent sections to provide additional
models to enable comprehensive ABBREV jE*j predic-
tions. The models described above are recognised to be
very simple, and the predictive abilities of such simplistic
regression models cannot be reasonably estimated.
However, the approach revealed important factors that
could be used to conduct more rigorous statistical analysis
as discussed next.
3.2.1 Determination of unified jE*j prediction models for
VA mixtures
Even though the prediction models presented in Equations
(7) and (8) showed some potential, like most simplified
regression models, the predictive ability tends to be quite
limited. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, more robust models
with quantifiable predicted abilities are required to ensure
widespread applicability of the ABBREV models.
Statistical analyses using multiple linear regression
methods were, therefore, conducted to determine unified
prediction models capable of predicting jE*j in a larger
data-set. The analyses were conducted using commercially
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 105

available statistical analysis software (SAS 2007). Data for
the nine Virginia mixtures given in Table 3 were used.
Several models utilising factors such as frequency, and
jE*j at various temperatures were evaluated using multiple
regression, and the ‘best’ models were selected as those
having the highest R 2, lowest Mallows’ Cp and low P-
values. A model with a low Cp usually has high-predictive
ability, whereas high R 2 and low P-values indicate that the
model is useful in explaining the variability in the data.
The resulting models for predicting jE*j at the low and
high temperatures are presented in Equations (9) and (10),
respectively.
jE * j210C ¼ 25987:2344 þ 1:00539jE * j4C
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
3.3 Application of the ABBREV approach to four
mixtures
To estimate how well the ABBREV approach predicts
jE*j, four mixtures that were not used in the development
of the ABBREV models were selected for the verification
of the ABBREV models. First, two mixtures from Flintsch
et al. (2007) were used. The mixtures included one BM-4
and one IM-4. It must be noted that mixture IM-4
contained hydrated lime but no RAP, and was thus quite
unique compared with the other mixtures. Two additional
Virginia mixtures (08-1019D and 081036D) tested during
the current study were also used to verify the ABBREV
models. These two additional mixtures were all SMs and
contained 10 – 15% RAP.

The ABBREV-predicted jE*j values compared with

þ 6537:1562 £ log f þ 3:3966
jE * j4C;25 2 jE * j4C;0:1
£ ;
1 þ elog f
ðR 2 ¼ 0:81; C p ¼ 0:56; P-value , 0:001Þ:
where jE*j210C ¼ jE*j at 2 108C at a given frequency
(MPa); jE*j4C ¼ jE*j at 48C at the same frequency as
jE*j210C (MPa); f is the testing frequency (Hz);
jE*j4C,25 ¼ jE*j at 48C and frequency of 25 Hz (MPa)
and jE*j4C,0.1 ¼ jE*j at 48C and frequency of 0.1 Hz
(MPa),
jE * j54C ¼ 242:0873 þ 0:2334jE * j38C 2 22:6443
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
£ log f 2 25:0850 £ ð25 2 f Þ:
ðR 2 ¼ 0:97; Cp ¼ 3:43; P-value , 0:001Þ;
where jE* j54C ¼ jE*j at 548C at a given frequency (MPa);
jE*j38C ¼ jE*j at 388C at the same frequency as jE*j54C
(MPa) and f is the testing frequency (Hz).
the AASHTO TP 62-based jE*j values for the four
mixtures are given in Table 5. It can be seen from Table 5
ð9Þ
that at the lowest testing temperatures, on average, the
differences between the ABBREV-approach and TP 62-
measured jE*j ranged from 3.1 to 16% for all the mixtures
except for Mixture IM-4, where the average difference was
about 30%. The corresponding differences between
ABBREV predictions and measured jE*j ranged from
0.8 to 31% for the four mixtures at the highest testing
temperature of 548C. The average differences for both the
high and low temperatures averaged about 12.6% for all
the mixtures combined. The worst prediction was for IM-4
at the colder temperatures, where differences of up to 30%
were observed. As previously indicated, mixture IM-4 was
uniquely different which may account for the relatively
poorer prediction. It appears that the unified models
presented in Equations (9) and (10) predict jE*j quite well.
ð10Þ Data presented in Table 5 together with the measured
jE*j data obtained at the three intermediate temperatures
and various testing frequencies were used to construct jE*j
master curves. The results of the master curves from the
combined data are plotted in Figure 6, where the jE*j
master curve from TP 62 and the Hirsch (HSC) model are
compared with the ABBREV-based jE*j. As previously
stated, the Hirsch model is currently one of the widely used

Table 5. Comparison of ABBREV-predicted jE*j (MPa) using the unified models with TP 62-based jE*j.

Temperature (8C) 212, 2 10a 54

Frequency (Hz) 25 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 25 10 5 1 0.5 0.1
IM-4 TP 62 23,097 21,339 20,760 19,188 18,478 17,058 724 517 414 296 262 221
ABBREV 29,613 27,668 26,614 25,035 24,395 22,382 818 561 448 301 265 233
BM-4 TP 62 27,786 26,407 25,531 23,159 22,091 19,581 896 641 510 338 290 228
ABBREV 29,431 27,587 26,554 24,879 24,223 22,328 881 636 518 348 300 253
08-1019D TP 62 23,214 22,401 21,614 19,727 18,873 16,881 1589 1307 1043 558 378 255
ABBREV 25,503 23,520 22,240 19,897 18,926 16,361 1166 887 742 502 405 308
08-1036D TP 62 19,938 18,655 17,700 15,587 14,673 12,657 1078 939 771 414 296 213
ABBREV 20,555 18,224 16,835 14,179 13,102 10,604 896 673 558 405 332 278
a
Mixtures 08-1019D and 08-1036D were tested at 2108C.
 106 A.K. Apeagyei et al.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015

Figure 6. Comparison of ABBREV-based master curve (ABB) with AASHTO TP 62 (TP62), Hirsch (HSC) and Witczak (WZK)
models. Top left: Mixture BM-4. Top right: Mixture IM-4. Bottom left: Mixture 08-1019D. Bottom right: 08-1036D.

abbreviated temperature testing approaches for developing
jE*j master curves of HMA.
The results obtained for the four mixtures using the
Witczak jE*j predicted model as implemented in the
MEPDG software version 1.10 are also shown in Figure 6.
The Witczak model predictions were included in Figure 6
as part of the comparisons between ABBREV and existing
jE*j master development methods because the model is
one of the commonly used jE*j prediction models in the
MEPDG, which is fast becoming the state of practice in
pavement design. A level three analysis was conducted to
estimate jE*j master curves using the input values
presented in Table 6.
All the four approaches produced master curves with
very high R 2 (generally better than 0.99). There appears to
be close agreement between the ABBREV-based jE*j and
both TP 62 and Hirsch model-based jE*j values. The
differences between the ABBREV-predicted and TP 62
averaged between 2.7 and 11.5%. However, the data
suggest that the Witczak model predicted jE*j values that
were comparatively lower than the other three methods in
most of the mixtures considered. These results demon-
strate, in the four mixtures, the veracity of the unified
ABBREV models and suggest the need for the use of a
larger data-set for model development.
3.4 Adapting the ABBREV approach for general
applications
The foregoing results based on the ABBREV approach
developed for nine Virginia mixtures showed some
promise as an expedited alternative to the use of TP 62.
To enable widespread applicability of the approach
beyond mixtures used in the model development (i.e. the
nine Virginia mixtures in Table 3), additional ABBREV
models were developed using 36 additional mixtures
(including the nine Virginia mixtures) with very different
binder types and mixture properties. The mixtures were

Table 6. Input parameters for Witczak jE*j predictive model.

Mix ID Performance grade A VTS P34 P38 P4 P200 Va Vbe

IM-4 PG 64-22 10.98 2 3.680 1.2 24.6 41.5 5.9 7.2 12.8
BM-4 PG 64-22 10.98 2 3.680 4.5 29.4 58.9 3.9 5.6 10.5
08-1019D PG 76-22 9.715 2 3.208 0.0 2.80 39.5 5.8 6.8 12.1
08-1036D PG 76-22 9.715 2 3.208 0.0 16.1 48.7 5.6 7.0 11.8

Note: A and VTS, binder viscosity regression parameters; P34, cumulative percentage retained on 19.0 mm sieve; P38, cumulative percentage retained on 9.5 mm sieve; P4,
cumulative percentage retained on 4.75 mm sieve; P200, percentage passing the 0.075 mm sieve; Va, per cent air voids; Vbe, effective binder content by volume, Vbe, voids in
mineral aggregate minus Va.
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
Figure 7. Comparison of unified ABBREV jE*j-prediction models with AASHTO TP 62 jE*j for 36 different mixtures. Left jE*j
predictions at 548C. Right jE*j predictions at 2 108C.
obtained from published sources (Pellinen 2001, Dougan
et al. 2003, Bhasin et al. 2004, Flintsch et al. 2007). The
resulting unified model for the 36 mixtures is presented in
Equations (11) and (12).
jE * j210C ¼ 1; 665; 951 2 63:2391jE * j4C
2
þ 0:0005325jE * j4C þ 16; 608
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
£ jE * j4C 2 685; 254 £ log jE * j4C
þ X:
ðR 2 ¼ 0:82; C p ¼ 6:16; P-value , 0:001Þ;
where
pffiffiffi
X ¼ 8982:0952 £ log f 2 1224:3290 £ f þ 3:0684
jE * j4C;25 2 jE * j4C;0:1
£ ;
1 þ e log f
jE * j54C ¼ 24771:2832 þ 1:9830jE * j38C
2
2 0:0000755jE * j38C 2 173:4241
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
£ jE * j38C þ 2952:81 £ log jE * j38C
þY
Y ¼ 4:6928f 2 192:035 £ log f
jE * j38C;25 2 jE * j38C;0:1
2 0:1241* : to be generally within 10% of those measured by
1 þ elog f
ðR 2 ¼ 0:83; C p ¼ 6:03; P-value , 0:001Þ;
where jE*j38C,25 ¼ jE*j at 388C and 25 Hz frequency
(MPa) and jE*j38C,0.01 ¼ jE*j at 388C and 0.1 Hz
frequency as jE*j54C (MPa).
107
Figure 7 shows a comparison of the unified ABBREV
models (Equations (11) and (12)) predictions and AASHTO
TP 62 procedures. A total of 216 data points (representing 36
mixtures and 6 frequencies) are plotted at each temperature
as shown in Figure 7. The close agreement between the
ABBREV predictions and AASHTO TP measured jE*j for
the 36 different mixtures can be seen from the figure even
though large differences could be seen for a few of the
mixtures. Of particular interest is the prediction for NMVado
ð11Þ mixtures at high temperatures and AFL-2 at low
temperatures. These two mixtures have both been high-
lighted with filled squares in Figure 7. The NMVado mixture
contained a PG 82-16 asphalt binder and showed the largest
jE*j at the highest testing temperature of the 36 mixtures that
are used to develop the ABBREV models. The other mixture,
which showed poor ABBREV-predictions, was AFL-2
mixture that contained AC-20 asphalt binder.
4. Discussions
The foregoing results and analyses suggest that the
ABBREV procedure presented in this study could be used
to estimate the jE*j of HMA without the need to perform
actual tests at the highest and lowest testing temperatures
recommended in AASHTO TP 62. By combining the
predicted jE*j at the lowest and highest temperatures with
ð12Þ measured jE*j at intermediate temperatures (4, 21 and
388C), the ABBREV master curves were found to be
comparable with those of AASHTO TP 62. On average,
the predicted jE*j using the ABBREV approach was found
AASHTO TP 62 procedures. The limited data obtained
in this study showed that ABBREV jE*j master curves
were comparable to those produced with using either the
Hirsch model or the AASHTO TP 62 protocols.
As previously noted, the quality of jE*j predictions
based on the ABBREV approach as with most empirically
 108 A.K. Apeagyei et al.
based approaches is dependent on the data-set used to
develop the prediction models. The accuracy of the
ABBREV approach could be improved with additional test
data. The predictive ability of the ABBREV models was
clearly improved with the unified models developed from
the 36 different mixtures. The accuracy of the ABBREV-
approach predictions compares quite well with that of
those previously published. The results suggest that jE*j
master curve for HMA could be developed without the
need to conduct tests at the lowest and highest testing
temperatures recommended under AASHTO TP 62. The
ABBREV approach presented in this study could be used
as an expedited alternative to the approach of AASHTO
TP 62. The ABBREV approach adds to the current
methods for determining jE*j master curves using
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
ABBREVs. With the ABBREV approach, jE*j master
curves could be obtained without the need to assume the
maximum and minimum limiting stiffness modulus for
asphalt concrete, as is currently done with some existing
approaches. Another potential advantage of the ABBREV
approach compared with existing jE*j predictive models
concerns mixtures containing RAP or polymer-modified
asphalt binders. For these mixtures, when using the
ABBREV approach, no binder extraction testing may be
required.
Even though there appears to be close agreement
between AASHTO TP 62 jE*j master curves and those of
ABBREV for majority of the 36 mixtures considered, it is
suggested that the empirical models developed in this
study be used for mixtures similar to those used in the
model development in terms of stiffness, binder type and
gradation, among others. It is the expectation of the
authors that agencies/individuals wanting to use the
approach presented in the paper could easily develop
models for their own conditions. One approach for
improving the widespread application of the approach
developed in this study is to expand the database of jE*j
used in the model development.
5. Conclusions
An ABBREV approach for estimating the jE*j of HMA
was presented. The approach utilises the unique
relationship that exists between jE*j values obtained at
different temperatures. The following conclusions were
drawn based on the results of the study:
. The jE*j master curves of mixes obtained at the
standard five testing temperatures could be obtained
by testing at only three temperatures (4, 21 and
388C) and using the ABBREV approach to estimate
jE*j at the warmest and coldest temperatures.
. Unified ABBREV models were developed that
demonstrated good predictive abilities.
. The results agree with those of previous studies
involving ABBREV of HMA for jE*j; however, the
ABBREV approach does not require the assumption
of a common limiting (maximum and minimum)
stiffness for all HMA.
Additional studies are recommended to improve and
validate the ABBREV approach for production use. The
results of the study suggest that the ABBREV approach
could be used for mixes with characteristics similar to
those of the mixes considered in this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the assistance of the following Virginia
Transportation Research Council personnel in this study: Donnie
Dodds and Troy Deeds for material testing and Linda Evans for
assistance with the editorial process.
Notes
1. Email: brian.diefenderfer@vdot.virginia.gov
2. Email: stacey.diefenderfer@vdot.virginia.gov
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 2008. Mechanistic-empirical pavement design
guide – a manual of practice. Interim ed. Washington, DC.
Bhasin, A., Button, J.W., and Chowdhury, A., 2004. Evaluation
of simple performance tests on HMA mixtures from the South
Central United States. Report 9-558-1. Austin, TX:
Department of Transportation.
Bonaquist, R., 2008. Refining the simple performance tester for
use in routine practice. NCHRP Report 614. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
142.
Bonaquist, R. and Christensen, D.W., 2005. Practical procedure
for developing dynamic modulus master curves for pavement
structural design. Transportation research record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board. No. 1929, Transpor-
tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing-
ton, DC, 208– 217.
Christensen, D.W., Pellinen, T.K., and Bonaquist, R.F., 2003.
Hirsch model for estimating the modulus of asphalt concrete.
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
72, 97 – 121.
Dongré, R., et al., 2005. Field evaluation of Witczak and Hirsch
models for predicting dynamic modulus of hot-mix asphalt.
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
74, 381– 442.
Dougan, C., et al., 2003. jE*j-dynamic modulus test protocol-
problems and solutions, Publication CT-SPR-0003084-
F03-3.Connecticut Department of Transportation and Fed-
eral Highway Administration.
Flintsch, G.W., et al., 2007. Asphalt materials characterization in
support of implementation of the proposed mechanistic-
empirical pavement design guide. Report VTRC 07-CR10.
Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Transportation Research
Council.
Flintsch, G.W., et al., 2008. Asphalt material characterization in
support of mechanistic – empirical pavement design guide
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
implementation in Virginia. Transportation research record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2057.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, 114– 125.
Kim, Y.R., et al., 2004. Dynamic modulus testing of asphalt
concrete in indirect tension mode. Transportation research
record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No.
1891.Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, 163– 173.
Kim, Y.R., et al., 2005. Typical dynamic moduli values of hot
mix asphalt in North Carolina and their prediction.
Proceedings 84th annual meeting of the transportation
research board. Paper No. 05-2568. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Mirza, M.W. and Witczak, M.W., 1995. Development of a global
aging system for short and long term aging of asphalt
cements. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 01:34 04 January 2015
Technologists, 64, 393– 430.
109
Pellinen, T.K., 2001. Investigation of the use of dynamic modulus
as an indicator of hot-mix asphalt performance, Dissertation
(PhD). Arizona State University.
Pellinen, T.K. and Witczak, M.W., 2002. Stress dependent
master curve construction for dynamic modulus. Journal of
the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 71,
281– 309.
SAS Institute Inc, 2007. SAS, Version 9.1.3. Cary, N.C.
Schwartz, C.W., 2005. Evaluation of the witczak dynamic
modulus prediction model. Proceedings 84th annual meeting
of the transportation research board. Paper No. 05-2112.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Materials Division,
2007. VDOT Preparation plan for the implementation of the
mechanistic-empirical guide for design of new and
rehabilitated pavement structures. Richmond, VA: Memor-
andum.