ABSTRACT

Asphalt binder whose properties are modified by the addition of a polymer is

Polymer Modified asphalt.
Polymer is combination of a large number of similar small molecules or monomers
into large molecules. Polymers can be divided into two; Natural polymers and Synthetic
polymers. Natural polymers occur naturally in nature. Examples include hair, rubber,
diamonds and sulphur. Synthetic polymers are polymers that have been manufactured in a
chemical process to combine particular molecules in a way that would not occur naturally.
The synthetic polymers are used in modifying asphalt. The various polymers used to
modify asphalt include Thermoplastic Rubbers, Styrene Butadiene Styrene, Ethylene Vinyl
Acetate, Amorphous Polyalphaolefin, Cellulose fiber, Polyolefin, Bituminous cellulose
fiber etc.
The polymer additives do not chemically combine or change the chemical nature of
the asphalt being modified, apart from being present in and throughout the asphalt. The way
the additive/polymer usually influences the asphalt characteristics is by dissolving into
certain component fractions of the asphalt itself, spreading out its long chain polymer
molecules to create an inter-connecting matrix of the polymer through the asphalt. It is this
matrix of the long chain molecules of the added polymer that modifies the physical
properties of the bitumen. The improved properties of the asphalt include lesser stiffness,
greater workability, better strength, coating capabilities etc.
The polymers changes the physical nature of asphalt, and modifies the physical
properties of the asphalt like softening point and brittleness of the asphalt. Elastic
recovery/ductility is also found to be improved. This in turn will alter the properties of the
aggregate-bitumen mixture in which the modified bitumen is used. Pavement with polymer
modification exhibits greater resistance to rutting and thermal cracking, and decreased
fatigue damage, stripping and temperature susceptibility. Polymer modified binders have
been used with success at locations of high stress, such as intersections of busy streets,
airports, vehicle weigh stations, and race tracks.
This report aims in explaining the influence of polymer modified asphalt on rutting
and stripping of hot mix asphalt by reviewing various studies conducted in the past.

CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT

1
1
1

1.2RUTTING IN ASPHALT PAVEMENTS

1.3 STRIPPING IN ASPHALT PAVEMENTS

2
3

2.RUTTING RESISTANCE OF POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT MIXTURES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

4
4

2.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY CONDUCTED BY SUREYYA TAYFUR ET. AL IN 2005

5
2.2.1 MATERIALS

2.2.2DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM ASPHALT CONTENT

2.2.3 PERFORMANCE TESTS

2.2.3.1 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH TEST

2.2.3.2 INDIRECT TENSILE TEST

10

2.2.3.3 STATIC CREEP TEST

13

2.2.3.4 REPEATED CREEP TEST

15

2.2.3.5 LCPC RUTTING TEST

17

2.2.4 SUMMARY

19

3. STRIPPING RESISTANCE OF POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT MIX

3.1 INTRODUCTION

21
21

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY CONDUCTED BY CAGRI GORKEM ET AL. IN 2009

23
3.2.1 MATERIALS

23

3.2.2 PREPARATION OF SBS, EVA MODIFIED BITUMEN

26

3.2.3 TEST METHODS

27

3.2.3.1 NICHOLSON STRIPPING TEST

27

3.2.3.2 AASHTO T 283 TEST

28

3.2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

29

3.2.4.1 NICHOLSON STRIPPING TEST (ASTM D 1664 ) RESULTS

29

3.2.4.2 MODIFIED LOTTMAN TEST (AASHTO T 283) RESULTS

33

3.2.5 SUMMARY

36

4. CONCLUSIONS

38

REFERENCES

39

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT

Asphalt binder whose properties are modified by the addition of a polymer is
Polymer Modified asphalt.
Polymer is combination of a large number of similar small molecules or monomers
into large molecules. The polymer will have different properties than the monomer. There
are a large number of naturally occurring polymers; these can be organic or mineral
substances. Such natural examples of polymers include hair, rubber, diamonds and sulphur.
Asphalt can also be regarded as a polymer because of the long-chain nature of some of the
organic molecules that are the constituent parts of asphalt. Synthetic polymers are polymers
that have been manufactured in a chemical process to combine particular molecules in a
way that would not occur naturally. The synthetic polymers are used in modifying asphalt.
The various polymers used to modify asphalt include Thermoplastic Rubbers, Styrene
Butadiene Styrene, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate, Amorphous Polyalphaolefin, Cellulose fiber,
Polyolefin, Bituminous cellulose fiber etc.
The polymer additives do not chemically combine or change the chemical nature of
the asphalt being modified, apart from being present in and throughout the asphalt. The way
the additive/polymer usually influences the asphalt characteristics is by dissolving into
certain component fractions of the asphalt itself, spreading out its long chain polymer
molecules to create an inter-connecting matrix of the polymer through the asphalt. It is this
matrix of the long chain molecules of the added polymer that modifies the physical
properties of the bitumen. The improved properties of the asphalt include lesser stiffness,
greater workability, better strength, coating capabilities etc. The polymers changes the
physical nature of asphalt, and modifies the physical properties of the asphalt like softening
point and brittleness of the asphalt. Elastic recovery/ductility is also found to be improved.
This in turn will alter the properties of the aggregate-bitumen mixture in which the
modified asphalt is used. Pavement with polymer modification exhibits greater resistance to
rutting and thermal cracking, and decreased fatigue damage, stripping and temperature
susceptibility. Polymer modified binders have been used with success at locations of high
stress, such as intersections of busy streets, airports, vehicle weigh stations, and race tracks.
This report aims in explaining the influence of polymer modified asphalt on rutting
and stripping of hot mix asphalt by reviewing various studies conducted in the past.
1.2 RUTTING IN ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
4

Rutting is surface depression in the wheel path. Pavement uplift (shearing) may
occur along the sides of the rut. Ruts are particularly evident after a rain when they are
filled with water. There are two basic types of rutting: mix rutting and subgrade rutting.
Mix rutting occurs when the subgrade does not rut yet the pavement surface exhibits wheel
path depressions as a result of compaction/mix design problems. Subgrade rutting occurs
when the subgrade exhibits wheel path depressions due to loading. In this case, the
pavement settles into the subgrade ruts causing surface depressions in the wheel path. Ruts
filled with water can cause vehicle hydroplaning, can be hazardous because ruts tend to pull
a vehicle towards the rut path as it is steered across the rut.
The reason for rutting is permanent deformation in any of pavement's layers or
subgrade usually caused by consolidation or lateral movement of the materials due to traffic
loading. Specific causes of rutting can be:

Insufficient compaction of HMA layers during construction. If it is not

compacted enough initially, HMA pavement may continue to densify under
traffic loads.

Subgrade rutting (e.g., as a result of inadequate pavement structure)

Improper mix design or manufacture (e.g., excessively high asphalt content,

excessive mineral filler, insufficient amount of angular aggregate particles)

Fig.1.1 Rutting in asphalt pavements

Source:www.tehamacountypublicworks.com
1.3 STRIPPING IN ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
5

The loss of bond between aggregates and asphalt binder that typically begins at the
bottom of the HMA layer and progresses upward is called stripping. When stripping begins
at the surface and progresses downward it is usually called raveling.
Stripping

decreases

structural

support

and

it

also

leads

to

rutting,

shoving/corrugations, raveling, or cracking (alligator and longitudinal).Bottom-up stripping

is very difficult to recognize because it manifests itself on the pavement surface as other
forms of distress including rutting, shoving/corrugations, raveling, or cracking. Typically, a
core must be taken to positively identify stripping as a pavement distress. The reasons for
stripping are

Poor aggregate surface chemistry

Water in the HMA causing moisture damage

Overlays over an existing open-graded surface course. These overlays will tend
to strip.

Fig.1.2 Stripping in asphalt pavements

Source: www.tehamacountypublicworks.com
2.RUTTING RESISTANCE OF POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT MIXTURES
6

2.1 Introduction
One of the most common forms of distress of asphalt concrete pavements is rutting
(permanent deformation). Rutting is the defined as the progressive accumulation of
permanent deformation of each layer of the pavement structure under repetitive loading.
Tests used to assess the resistance of bituminous mixes to flow rutting are mainly
the Marshall Test, the static creep test, the dynamic creep test, the wheel tracking test and
the indirect tensile test. These tests are useful to compare alternative mix compositions
from a qualitative point of view; in addition, determination tests provide access to some
intrinsic mix properties, which can be used in the theoretical and semi theoretical
performance models. The implementation of a suitable test for assessing resistance to
accumulated permanent deformation under repeated loading, which leads to wheel track
rutting, is probably the most important requirement for performance-based specifications.

2.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY CONDUCTED BY SUREYYA TAYFUR et. al in 2005

2.2.1 Materials
Asphalt and five different additives were used for the study. Coarse aggregate was
basalt and fine-filler aggregate was old calcareous. Some properties of asphalt used and
coarse and fine aggregate were given in Table 2.1 and Table2.2.
Table 2.1 Properties of Asphalt
TEST
0

Specific gravity (25 C)

Flash point (Cleveland)
Penetration (250C)
Ductility (250C)
Heating loss-1630C
Heating loss Pen./original
Pen.
Ductility after heating loss
Softening point

METHOD
ASTM D-70
ASTM D-92
ASTM D-5
ASTM D-113

UNIT
g/cm^3
0
C
0.1 mm
cm
%

VALUE
1.024
300
64
100+
0.05

ASTM D-5
ASTM D-113
ASTM D-36

%
cm
0
C

57.8
51.5+
55

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Table 2.2 Properties of coarse and fine aggregates
PROPERTIES

TEST METHOD
7

VALUE

Coarse aggregate
L.A abrasion (%)
Soundness in NaSO4 (%)
Flakiness (%)
Stripping resistance (%)
Water absorption (%)
Polishing value

ASTM C-131
ASTM C-88
BS182 (Part 105)
ASTM D-1664
ASTM C-127
BS-813

Fine aggregate
Plasticity index

13
4.47
10.8
60-70
0.86
0.6

Non-plastic
Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Five different additives were used. These additives are amorphous polialfaolefin
(AP), cellulosed fiber (SE), cellulosed fiber mixed with bitumen (BE), poliolefin (PE) and
stiren-butadien-stiren copolymer (SB).
AP takes parts in plastomer group. It has a granular type and directly added to the
mixture in mixer. It is added about percent 57 of bitumen weight. AP was added 6% of
bitumen weight. Penetration value was 1622, while softening point was 981100C and
viscosity was 500012,000 MPa. SE was added 0.4% of mineral aggregate weight. It was
added directly mixer in plant. BE was added 0.6% of total mixture weight. Like SE, BE
was added directly mixer in plant. PE was used in the mixture between percent 0.4% and
1%. PE was used 0.6% of total aggregate weight. SB additive can be mixed between 3%
and 7% of bitumen weight. SB was added to bitumen 5%. All additives were dispersed
homogeneously in the mixture. Gradation values of the aggregate are given in Table 2.3 and
gradation curve are represented in Fig.2.1.

Table 2.3 Gradation in this study and limits

SIEVE
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
No.4
No.10
No.40

SIEVE(mm)
12.7
9.52
4.76
2
0.42

PASSING (%)
100
72.5
30
21.5
15
8

LOWER-UPPER LIMITS
100
65 to 80
25 to 35
18 to 25
12 to 18

No.80
No.200

0.117
0.074

11.5
10

9 to 14
8 to 12
Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Fig.2.1 Aggregate distribution on gradation chart

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005
2.2.2Determination of Optimum Asphalt content
Marshall method (ASTM D1559) was used for determining optimal bitumen
content for conventional and modified asphalt mixtures. Three identical samples were
produced for all alternatives. Bitumen range region was regulated according to the bitumen
demand for each mixture. Six designs were realized and 108 asphalt briquettes were
fabricated. Compacting energy was applied as 50 blows. The results of Marshall Test are
shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Marshall design results
PROPERTY
Asphalt (%)
Stability (kg)
Bulk specific gravity (g/cm^3)
Void content (%)
Flow (mm)
Void filled asphalt (%)
Maximum specific gravity
(g/cm^3)

NR
5.96
675
2.474
4.2
3.1
75

AP
6.13
650
2.472
4.1
3
76

SE
6.98
695
2.44
3.9
4.35
79

PE
6.5
730
2.45
4.4
3.65
76

BE
6.6
690
2.468
3.6
3
79

SB
6.69
690
2.458
3.8
3.9
79

2.583

2.577

2.546

2.564

2.56

2.557

Voids filled mineral aggregate (%)

16.95

17.2

18.6
18.14
17.64
18
Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

As it shown in Table 2.4 optimum bitumen content has been increasing for modified
mixtures. SE mixture has the highest bitumen content. Stability values for modified
mixtures has been increasing for SE, PE, BE and SB mixtures but decreasing for AP
mixtures. Marshall flows were increased for SE, PE, SB mixtures but decreased AP and BE
mixtures. Voids filled with binder and voids filled with mineral aggregate values for
modified mixtures were increased. The highest optimal bitumen content obtained from
Marshall Test was found in mixture with the cellulose fiber. This was an expecting result
because of wise specific surface area and highly bitumen demand of cellulose fibers. Void
in mineral aggregate reached 17% for all mixtures.
2.2.3 Performance tests
Conventional and modified mixtures were evaluated with the indirect tension
strength test, indirect tension test, static creep test, repeated creep test and LCPC rutting
test. Tests were realized at optimum asphalt content for all mixtures.
2.2.3.1 Indirect tensile strength test
The indirect tensile strength test was used to determine the tensile properties of the
asphalt concrete which can be further related to the cracking properties of the pavement. In
this test a compressive load was applied along a diametrical plane through two opposite
loading strips. This type of loading produced a relatively uniform tensile stress which acts
perpendicular to the applied load plane, and the specimen usually fails by splitting along
the loaded plane.
Test was simple and Marshall Specimens were used. Surface irregularities do not
seriously affect the results and the coefficient of the variation of the test results was low.
This test was applied at 250C on briquettes both on conventional mixture and modified
ones. Duration of the test load and deformation values was saved until breaking point.
Poisson ratio was used as 0.35 and calculated horizontal deformations. Variation of indirect
tension strengths of the mixtures were illustrated in Fig.2.2.

10

Fig.2.2 Indirect tension strength of the mixtures

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005
The typical values of the indirect tensile strength of specimens (18 Marshall
Specimens) obtained ranged from 683 to 917 kPa. Modified mixtures showed an increase
in the tensile strength at 250C. PE and SB modified mixtures gave the highest strengths.
The use of low density polyethylene (plastiphalt) as bitumen modifier has been
investigated and the results showed that an improvement in the quality of the binder and
mix properties. The indirect tensile strength values were found to be much higher. A higher
tensile strength corresponds to a stronger low temperature cracking resistance.
The indirect tensile strengths of the modified mixtures were also higher than the
control mix. This indicated that the mixtures containing additives have higher values of
tensile strength at failure indirect tensile strength under static loading. This would further
imply that modified mixtures appear to be capable of withstanding larger tensile strains
prior to cracking. Conventional dense graded mixes normally combine high stability with
low flow values and hence high MQ values indicating a high stiffness mix with a greater
ability to spread the applied load and resist creep deformation. Care must be exercised with
very high stiffness mixes due to their lower tensile strain capacity to failure, i.e., such
mixes are more likely to fail by cracking particularly when laid over foundations which fail
to provide adequate support. Although the Marshall stability of the plastiphalt mix was
much higher than the control mix, the flow values of plastiphalt mixes was also greater
11

indicating higher strain capacities to achieve failure. The value of MQ of the plastiphalt
was higher than of the control mix. It was well recognized that the MQ is a measure of the
materials resistance to shear stresses, permanent deformation and hence rutting.
2.2.3.2 Indirect tensile test
Resilient modulus of asphalt mixtures, measured in the indirect tensile mode
(ASTM D4123), was the most popular form of stressstrain measurement used to evaluate
elastic properties. The resiliency modulus along with other information was then used as
input to the elastic theories model to generate an optimum thickness design. Therefore the
effectiveness of the thickness design procedure was directly related to the accuracy and
precision in measuring the resiliency modulus of the asphalt mixture. The accuracy and
precision were also important in areas where resilient modulus is used as an index for
evaluating stripping, fatigue and low temperature cracking of asphalt mixtures. Indirect
tensile tests were applied for both conventional and modified mixtures. Variations of
temperatures in the experiments were used as 5, 25 and 40 0C. Applied load was 1500 N that
this load was nearly 20% of the indirect tensile strength test at 25 0C. Variation of the
experiment parameters were shown in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Loading conditions of the test
LOADING PERIOD
FREQUENCY (Hz)
PULSE PERIOD (ms)
0.33
3000
0.5
2000
1
1000

RISE TIME (ms)

40,60,80
40,60,80
40,60,80

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Pulse time was chosen 1000 ms for high trafficked roads volume roads and 3000 ms
for low trafficked volume roads. Also vehicle speeds were observed and 40 ms rise time for
high speed and 80 ms rise time for low speed were used. The average results of the resilient
modulus are shown in Fig.2.3.

12

Fig.2.3 Average resilient modulus for all mixtures

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005
Each value was obtained as 54 different resilient modulus ratios. Elasticity modulus
values were the highest at 5 and lowest at 40 0C. These values were suitable with the
viscoelastic behavior.
Resilient modulus values for mixtures were presented in Figs.2.4, 2.5 and 2.6.
Average values were used for three identical briquettes for same mixture.

13

Fig.2.4 Resilient modulus for conventional and modified mixtures(50C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Fig.2.5 Resilient modulus for conventional and modified mixtures(250C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Fig.2.6 Resilient modulus for conventional and modified mixtures(400C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

14

While lower modulus values were obtained at low temperature (50C) higher
modulus values were obtained at high temperature (400C) for modified mixtures. Hence
modified mixtures showed more low temperature cracking and rutting performance.
According to the indirect tension test conventional mixtures had higher elasticity
modulus as 35% at 50C that is that mixtures had the lowest cracking resistance. Pulse time
changing (traffic density) increased elasticity modulus as much as 8% for all temperatures
while rise time (traffic speed) increased 25% especially at 25 and 400C.Indirect tensile
stiffness modulus values tend to converge at 40 and 60 0C for control and modified asphalt
mixtures. Fig.2.3 shows the summarized indirect tensile stiffness modulus results for both
the modified and control mixtures at 5, 25, 400C. The results indicated that the stiffness
modulus values of the control mixtures especially at 5 0C are higher than the modified
mixtures but that at higher temperatures (25,400C) the values tend to converge also.
2.2.3.3 Static creep test
Test were done to determine permanent deformation of asphalt mixtures. Creep
deformation of a cylindrical specimen under a uniaxial, static load was measured as a
function of time, the sample dimensions and test conditions were standardized.
Deformation values were measured with time by a linear variable transformer (LVDT). Test
was carried out for all mixtures at the dosage of optimal bitumen. Because the permanent
deformation risk was more under the heavy load and high temperature test parameters were
selected: uniaxial load was 425 KPa (0.4 MPa), temperatures were 25 and 40 0C, load
duration was 3600 s. The values of static creep compliance obtained from the test are given
in Figs.2.7 and 2.8.

15

Fig.2.7 Time versus deformation in static creep test (250C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Fig.2.8 Time versus deformation in static creep test (400C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005
Values were thought according to the SMA mixtures that had high creep modulus.
The performance of SMA flexible pavements can be considerably be improved by using
premium bituminous binders as prepared by modification. The rutting calculation model in
16

the present method did not correctly predict the improvements in rutting behaviour with
premium binders. The repeated creep and LCPC rutting test showed that SBS modified
mixtures had higher performance than the others. There are controversial results in view of
the static creep tests especially for high (400C) temperature as it shown in Figs.2.7 and 2.8.
Hence it has been suggested that static creep test does not reflect the performance of
modifiers, which improve the elastic recovery of a materials, as well as repeated loading
conditions.
2.2.3.4 Repeated creep test
Strength of the bituminous mixtures to the plastic deformation was determined with
the repeated creep test. Test equipment was the same as the static creep test but repeated
load were carried out differently. Efficiency of some selected chemical additives were
evaluated with the repeated creep test also rutting investigation of modified mixtures were
done. Experiments were done at 25 and 400C test temperatures during 1000 ms pulse
period. Samples were exposed to 780 N (100 KPa) starting load. Average 1100 N (138
KPa) load was put into practice during the duration of test. Loads and permanent
deformations were saved at least 20 h. For high temperature (60 0C) repeated creep test
failed because of the sample destruction. Misleading results were obtained. Tests were
realized at 25and 400C. Figs.2.9 and 2.10 shows the repeated creep curves. SB modified
mixtures showed best result.

17

Fig.2.9 Number of cycles versus permanent deformation(250C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

Fig.2.10 Number of cycles versus permanent deformation(400C)

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

2.2.3.5 LCPC Rutting test

18

Rutting Test was verified with the LCPC method. This test was capable of
simultaneously testing two HMA slabs. Slab dimensions are typically 180 mm wide, 500
mm long, and 20100 mm thick. Research indicates good correlation between LCPC test
results and actual field performance.
Samples were prepared at 500 mm length 180mm width and 100 mm height. Test
temperature was 600C. Samples were kept at least 12 h at that temperature. Each type was
applied 5000 N load. Tyre pressure was 0.6 MPa (87 psi). Samples were compacted at a
determined degree of compacting. Test briquettes were compacted at 98% field compacting
scale. Before the temperature was reached at 600C pre-compacting (1000 cycle) was done.
Pre-conditioning temperature was regulated and values were saved. After the values were
saved rutting was calculated. Two identical samples were used for each alternative (see
Fig.2.11).

Fig.2.11 Asphalt mixture slabs after the LCPC rutting test

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005

LCPC rutting test results for conventional and modified mixtures are shown in Fig.2.12.

19

Fig.2.12 LCPC wheel tracking test results

Source: Sureyya Tayfur et. al ,2005
SBS mixtures show the highest resistance to the permanent deformation and good
results are obtained with the repeated creep tests. In the study, optimum asphalt contents for
modified mixtures are higher than the conventional mixture. Modified mixtures reveal
more resistance to the permanent deformation in LCPC wheel tracking test at 600C. It is
believed by them that modifiers contribute to adhesion ability to deformation resistance.
2.2.4 Summary
The conclusions obtained by reviewing the study are:

The indirect tensile strengths of the modified mixtures were higher than the control
mix. This indicated that the mixtures containing additives have higher values of
tensile strength at failure. This further implyed that modified mixtures appear to be

capable of withstanding larger tensile strains prior to cracking (internal resistance).

Marshall stability values of modified mixes were found to be higher than the control
mixtures. Only AP mixture gave lower stability. AP and BE mixtures had lower

flow value.
According to the indirect tension test conventional mixtures had higher elasticity
modulus as 35% at 50C that is that mixtures had the lowest cracking resistance.
Pulse time changing (traffic density) increased elasticity modulus as much as 8% for
20

all temperatures while rise time (traffic speed) increased 25% especially at 25 and
400C. Stiffness modulus values of the control mixtures especially at 5 0C are higher
than the modified mixtures but that at higher temperatures (25, 400C) the values

tend to converge.
Static creep test does not reflect the performance of modifiers, which improve the

elastic recovery of a materials, as well as repeated loading conditions.

SBS mixtures showed the highest resistance to the permanent deformation shown

by repeated creep tests.

Optimum asphalt contents for modified mixtures are higher than the conventional
mixture. Modified mixtures reveal more resistance to the permanent deformation in
LCPC wheel tracking test at 600C. Modifiers contribute much to adhesion ability

among aggregates of hot asphalt mixtures.

The type of asphalt modifier does significantly affect the permanent deformation
performance.

3. STRIPPING RESISTANCE OF POLYMER MODIFIED ASPHALT MIX

3.1 Introduction
21

Environmental factors such as temperature, air, and water can have a profound
effect on the durability of asphalt concrete mixtures. In mild climatic conditions where
good-quality aggregates and asphalt cement are available, the major contribution to the
deterioration may be traffic loading, and the resultant distress manifests as fatigue cracking,
rutting (permanent deformation), and raveling. However, when a severe climate is in
question, these stresses increase with poor materials, under inadequate control, with traffic
as well as with water which are key elements in the degradation of asphalt concrete
pavements. Water causes loss of adhesion at the bitumenaggregate interface. This
premature failure of adhesion is commonly referred to as stripping in asphalt concrete
pavements. The strength is impaired since the mixtureceases to act as a coherent structural
unit. Loss of adhesion renders cohesive resistance of the interstitial bitumen body useless.
Water may enter the interface through diffusion across bitumen films and access directly in
partially coated aggregate. Water can cause stripping in five different mechanisms such as
detachment, displacement, spontaneous emulsification, pore pressure, and hydraulic scour.
Many variables affect the amount of moisture damage which occurs in an asphalt
concrete mixture. Some of these variables are related to the materials forming hot mix
asphalt (HMA) such as aggregate (physical characteristics, composition, dust, and clay
coatings) and bitumen (chemical composition, grade, hardness, crude source, and refining
process). Others are related to mixture design and construction (air void level, film
thickness, permeability, and drainage), environmental factors (temperature, pavement age,
freezethaw cycles, and presence of ions in the water), traffic conditions and type, and
properties of the additives.
Anti-stripping additives are used to increase physico-chemical bond between the
bitumen and aggregate and to improve wetting by lowering the surface tension of the
bitumen. The additives that are used in practice are: (i) traditional liquid additives, (ii)
metal ion surfactants, (iii) hydrated lime and quick lime, (iv) silane coupling agents, and (v)
silicone.
Methods of treatment to reduce moisture damage also include the utilization of
polymer modified bitumen (PMB). Polymer is a derived word meaning many parts.
Polymers are made up of many smaller chemicals (monomers) joint together end-on-end.
The physical and chemical properties of a polymer depend on the nature of the individual
molecular units, the number of them in each polymer chain and their combination with
other molecular types.
22

Two basic types of polymers are used in modified bitumen of road applications: (i)
elastomers and (ii) plastomers.
SBS (Styrene butadiene styrene) block copolymers are classified as elastomers that
increase the elasticity of bitumen and they are probably the most appropriate polymers for
bitumen modification. Although low temperature flexibility is increased, it is found that a
decrease in strength and resistance to penetration is observed at higher temperatures.
SBS copolymers derive their strength and elasticity from physical and cross linking
of the molecules into a three-dimensional network. The polystyrene end blocks impart the
strength to the polymer while the polybutadiene rubbery matrix blocks give the material its
exceptional viscosity.
EVA(Ethylene vinyl acetate) based polymers are classified as plastomer that modify
bitumen by forming a tough, rigid, three-dimensional network to resist deformation. Their
characteristics lie between those of low density polyethylene, semi rigid, translucent
product and those of a transparent and rubbery material similar to plasticized PVC and
certain types of rubbers.
Both SBS and EVA type polymers are usually provided in the form of pellets or
powder which can be subsequently diluted to the required polymer content by blending
with base bitumen by means of low to high shear mixer. Blending pellets of with base
bitumen results in a special polymer concentration suitable for different applications.
Although, the utilization of PMBs for controlling the moisture damage is limited, there is
evidence that some polymers can act as anti-stripping agents.

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY CONDUCTED BY CAGRI GORKEM et al. in 2009

3.2.1 Materials
The base bitumen with a 50/70 penetration grade was used. In order to characterize
the properties of the base bitumen, conventional test methods such as: penetration test,
softening point test, ductility, tests were performed. The results are shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Properties of base bitumen
TEST
Penetration (250C; 0.1 mm)

SPECIFICATION
ASTM D5 EN 1426
23

RESUL-TS SPECIFICATION LIMITS

63
50 to 70

Softening point ( 0C)

Viscosity at (135 0C)-Pa.s

ASTM D36 EN 1427

ASTM D4402

49
0.51

46 to 54

Thin film oven test (TFOT)(1630 C;5h) ASTM D1753 EN 12607-1

Change of mass (%)
0.07
0.5 (max)
Retained penetration (%)
ASTM D5 EN 1426
51
50 (min)
0
Softening point after TFOT ( C)
ASTM D36 EN 1427
51
48 (min)
Ductility (250C)-cm
ASTM D 113
100
Specific gravity
ASTM D70
1.03
0
Flash point ( C)
ASTM D92 EN 22592
260
230 (min)
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009
Two types of aggregates were utilized for producing the asphalt mixtures:
Limestone aggregate (as coarse, fine, and filler fraction) constitute the first type; whereas
basalt aggregate (substituting the coarse fraction of limestone aggregate) constitute the
second type aggregate. In order to find out the properties of the aggregate used in this study,
specific gravity, Los Angeles abrasion resistance, sodium sulfate soundness, fine aggregate
angularity and flat and elongated particles tests were conducted on both aggregate types.
The results are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Properties of limestone and basalt aggregate

TEST

Specific gravity (coarse

agg.)

SPECIFICATION

SPECIFICATION LIMIT

RESULT
LIMESTONE

BASALT

2.686
2.701
2.727

2.666
2.81
2.706

ASTM C 127

Bulk
SSD
Apparent

24

Specific gravity (fine

agg.)
Bulk
SSD
Apparent

ASTM C 128
2.687
2.703
2.732

2.652
2.77
2.688

2.725

2.731

ASTM C 131

24.4

14.2

Max 45

ASTM D 4791

7.5

5.5

Max 10

ASTM C 88

1.47

2.6

Max 10-20

ASTM C 1252

47.85

58.1

Min 40

Specific gravity (filler)

Los angeles abrasion
(%)
Flat and elongated
particles (%)
Sodium sulfate
soundness (%)
Fine aggregate
angularity

Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 present the final gradation chosen for limestone and basaltlimestone
aggregate mixture.

Table 3.3 Gradation of limestone

TEST
GRADATION (%)
GRADATION
3/4"
100
1/2"
90.5
3/8"
80.5
No 4
47.3
No 10
33
No 40
13.5
No 80
9
No 200
5.3

SPECIFICATION
ASTM C 136

SPECIFICATION
LIMITS

100
83 to 100
70 to 90
40 to 55
25 to 38
10 to 20
6 to 15
4 to 10
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

Table 3.4 Gradation of basalt-limestone aggregate mixture

TEST
19-12.5 mm (Basalt) 12.5-5 mm (Basalt) 5-0 mm (Limestone) COMBINED GRA
Mixture ratio (%)
15
45
40
25

GRADATION
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
No 4
No 10
No 40
No 80
No 200

100
35.7
2.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.1

100
100
89
16
1.2
0.7
0.4
0.2

100
100
100
100
81
33
22
13
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

The elastomeric type polymer used was SBS Kraton. It is a linear polymer in
powder form that consists of different combinations made from blocks of polystyrene
(31%) and polybutadiene of a very precise molecular weight. These blocks are either
sequentially polymerized from styrene and butadiene and/or coupled to produce a mixture
of these chained blocks.
The plastomeric type of polymer used was EVA, supplied in pellet form which
contains vinyl acetate content of 2729% is a highly flexible plastomer designed for
bitumen modification and especially for road paving.
3.2.2 Preparation of SBS, EVA modified bitumen
The SBS and EVA modified bitumen samples were prepared by means of a high and
a low shear laboratory type mixer rotating at 1100 rpm and 125 rpm, respectively. In
preparation, the base bitumen was heated to fluid condition (1801850C), and poured into a
2000 ml spherical flask. The SBS and EVA polymers were then added slowly to the base
bitumen.
The SBS concentrations in the base bitumen were chosen as 26%. The content was
selected based on past research which concluded that improvement in the properties of base
bitumen was observed when the SBS content was increased from 26% by weight. The
EVA concentrations on the other hand were chosen as 37% according to the
manufacturers.
On reaching 1850C, the temperature was kept constant and the mixing process
continued for two hours. The uniformity of dispersion of SBS and EVA in the base bitumen
was confirmed by passing the mixture through an ASTM 100# sieve. After completion, the
samples were removed from the flask and divided into small containers, covered with
26

100
90.5
80.5
47.3
33
13.5
9
5.3

aluminum foil and stored for testing. The conventional properties of the SBS and EVA
based PMB are presented in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Properties of SBS and EVA PMB

PROPERTY

TYPE

Penetration (1/10 mm)

Softening point ( C)

SBS

Penetration index (PI)

Change of mass (%)
Retained penetration after TFOT (%)
Softening point difference after TFOT
( C)
Storage stability ( C)
Penetration (1/10 mm)
Softening point ( C)

EVA

Penetration index (PI)

Change of mass (%)
Retained penetration after TFOT (%)
Softening point difference after TFOT
( C)
Storage stability ( C)

0
63
49
0.92
0.07
51

2
61
50
0.73
0.06
41

4
3

CONTENT
3
4
5
51
49
48
54
57
67
0.16 0.35 2.18
0.06 0.07 0.07
31
24
21

6
48
69
2.46
0.07
21

4
3

2
2

3
3

2
2

63
49
0.92
0.07
51

53
54
0.13
0.04
30

52
57

49
59

48
61

47
62

0.49
0.06
31

0.79
0.05
32

1.14
0.07
33

1.24
0.06
34

1
1
0
1
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

3.2.3 Test methods

Following the determination of the properties of the materials used in this study and
the preparation of the samples, the Nicholson stripping test and the modified Lottman test
were conducted on loose mixtures and compacted samples, respectively.

27

3.2.3.1 Nicholson stripping test

ASTM D1664 Test Method for Coating and Stripping Test of Bitumen Aggregate
Mixture was used to evaluate the degree of stripping of asphalt mixtures. In this method,
coarse aggregate (9.56.3 mm) of both basalt and limestone was coated with PMB. The
loose mixture was then immersed in distilled water for 24 h and the degree of stripping was
observed under water to visually estimate the total surface area of the aggregate on which
bitumen coating remains.
3.2.3.2 AASHTO T 283: standard method of test for resistance of compacted hot mix
asphalt (HMA) to moisture induced damage
The modified Lottman test was performed on the compacted samples including two
types of aggregate (basaltlimestone mixture and limestone). The samples were prepared
with the SBS and the EVA based PMG. The optimum bitumen content was determined as
4.82% (by weight of aggregate) for mixtures prepared with SBS and EVA PMB.
The aim of the modified Lottman Test was to evaluate susceptibility characteristics
of the mixture to water damage. This test was performed by compacting specimens to an air
void level of 7% 1.0. Three specimen are selected as dry (unconditioned) and tested
without moisture conditioning; and three more were selected to be conditioned by
saturating with water (5580% saturation level) followed by a freeze cycle (-18 0C for 16 h)
and subsequently having a warm-water soaking cycle (60 0C water bath for 24 h). The
specimens are tested for indirect tensile strength (ITS) by loading the specimens at a
constant rate (50 mm/min vertical deformation at 250C) and the force required to break the
specimen was measured. Moisture susceptibility of the compacted specimens was evaluated
by tensile strength ratio (TSR) which is calculated by following equation:

where S1 is the average indirect tensile stress of dry (unconditioned) specimens and S2 is
the average indirect tensile stress of conditioned specimens. Specimens were sorted into
two subsets (both dry and conditioned) of three specimens each so that average air voids
(7%) of two subsets are equal. The design parameters related to modified Lottman test are
presented in Table 3.6.

28

Table 3.6 Design parameters

TYPE OF BITUMEN
Type of aggregate

Type of additive and content

Target air void level (%)

Test performed
Total number of specimens tested

AC 50/70 PENETRATION GRADE

Two types aggregate
Basalt-limestone aggregate
mixture
Limestone aggregate
Two types of additive
SBS(2-6%)
EVA(3-7%)
7
Indirect tensile strength at 250C
Five different SBS concentration *
two types of aggregate (basalt,
limestone) *2 (dry and cond.) * three
replicates =60
Five different EVA concentration *
two types of aggregate (basalt,
limestone) *2 (dry and cond.) * three
replicates =60
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

3.2.4 Results and discussion

3.2.4.1 Nicholson stripping test (ASTM D 1664 ) results
The visually inspected results of the prepared samples are presented in Table 3.7

29

Table 3.7 Visual stripping resistance of basalt and limestone aggregate

ADDITIVE
SBS

EVA

CONTENT
0
2
3
4
5
6
0
3
4
5
6
7

LIMESTONE
50-55
55-60
70-75
75-80
80-85
80-85
50-55
65-70
70-75
75-80
75-80
75-80

BASALT
35-40
40-45
55-60
60-65
70-75
70-75
35-40
40-45
40-45
45-50
45-50
45-50
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

As presented in Table 3.7, among the unmodified samples (with no polymer), the
level of coating related to limestone and basalt aggregate lies between 5055 and 3540,
respectively. This indicated that basalt aggregate exhibits more stripping potential
compared to limestone aggregate. The reason for this pattern is the hydrophilic (attracting
water) character of basalt type aggregate that has a higher affinity to form hydrogen
bonding with water and consequently promotes stripping.
The resistance to stripping increases with increasing polymer content for both
aggregate types as presented in Table 3.7. Besides, no significant stripping variation is
observed in the values on reaching the SBS and EVA polymer contents of 5%.
Among the samples prepared with basalt aggregate, a clear distinction regarding to
the degree of stripping was observed between SBS and EVA modified samples as seen in
Table 3.7. Based on the basalt aggregate mixture prepared with 4% polymer content, the
mixture involving EVA polymer exhibits more moisture susceptibility compared to the
mixture involving SBS polymer.
The samples were also examined at room temperature under Leica S8AP0 stereo
microscope after Nicholson stripping test. Images were taken by a 7.2 Mp Leica DFC 320
color camera (fitted in line with the optic axis of the microscope by means of attachment).
30

The camera digitizes the image and stores the data as an image file in the permanent
memory of the workstation. Figs.3.1 and 3.2 present the examples of the samples captured
by using digital camera.

Fig.3.1 Additives with basalt aggregate samples captured by stereo microscope

Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

31

Fig.3.2 Additives with limestone aggregate samples captured by stereo

microscope
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

A distinction can be made between the basalt and limestone aggregate for all
samples. This indicates that the adhesion between aggregate and asphalt in HMA prepared
using limestone aggregate is higher than that of mixes prepared using basalt aggregate. In
32

other words, the HMA prepared using limestone aggregate have higher resistance to
stripping since the bond strength between asphalt and limestone aggregate is stronger than
that between asphalt and basalt aggregate.
As indicated in Figs. 3.1 and 3.2, the images show a clear variation in the level of
coating on basalt and limestone aggregate as the polymer content increases. Besides, based
on the same type of aggregate and polymer content, the difference in the level of coating
can be observed between the SBS and EVA polymer. The mixture with EVA polymer
exhibits more stripping potential compared to the mixture with SBS polymer. It is possible
to consider that for evaluating the stripping potential of the aggregates, same trends are
achieved from captured images as well as from Nicholson stripping test.
3.2.4.2 Modified Lottman test (AASHTO T 283) results
The ITS test results of the specimens involving SBS, EVA polymer and hydrated
lime are given in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Indirect tensile strength test results of the compacted samples
ADD
LIMESTONE AGGREGATE
CONTENT
ITIV
(%)
UNCONDITIO CONDITIONED
E
NED (kPa)
(kPa)
SBS
0
1118.169
995.375
2
1363.124
1266.343
3
1420.984
1340.13
4
1479.322
1412.158
5
1708.318
1643.061
6
1531.799
1478.952
EVA
0
1118.16
995.375
3
1318.994
1228.116
4
1372.931
1296.047
5
1429.81
1360.035
6
1492.572
1425.854
7
1529.155
1462.172

BASALT-LIMESTONE
AGGREGATE
UNCONDITI CONDITIONE
ONED (kPa)
D (kPa)
1164.815
1024.039
1399.579
1287.613
1498.456
1401.656
1593.581
1508.324
1902.49
1814.976
1650.459
1577.839
1164.815
1024.039
1417.053
1301.422
1482.241
1379.818
1556.479
1461.845
1614.604
1523.541
1659.931
1568.475
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

In order to evaluate the effect of SBS and EVA type polymer on the moisture
susceptibility characteristics of samples prepared with different types of aggregate (basalt
limestone mixture and limestone), the additive content is plotted against the values of the
ITS for both control (dry) and conditioned specimens. The TSR is also introduced in the
same figure based on each additive content. The results are presented in Figs.3.3 and 3.4.

33

Fig.3.3 ITS and TSR results for each types of aggregate with SBS PMA
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009

34

Fig.3.4 ITS and TSR results for each types of aggregate with EVA PMA
Source: Cagri Gorkem et al. ,2009
As depicted in Figs.3.3 and 3.4 and Table 3.8, for all samples involving SBS and
EVA polymer, the ITS of the samples prepared with basaltlimestone aggregate was greater
than the ITS of the samples prepared with limestone aggregate. This difference may be
attributed to the rigidity of the basalt aggregate. Besides, the ITS of the samples containing
polymer was greater than the ITS of the unmodified mixtures. This indicated that the
mixtures containing additives have higher values of tensile strength at failure under static
loading. The greater the tensile strength of the modified mixtures as compared to
unmodified mixture also indicates greater cohesive strength of the SBS and EVA.
The ITS test results are also used to evaluate the cracking properties of the
pavement. Numerous previous study have shown that higher tensile strength values
correspond to higher cracking resistance. As presented in Figs.3.3 and 3.4 and Table 3.8;
polymer and hydrated lime modified mixtures with higher ITS values appear to be capable
of withstanding larger tensile strains prior to cracking compared to unmodified mixtures. In
addition, among the samples prepared with the same type of aggregate, the samples

35

prepared SBS PMB exhibited greater resistance to cracking compared to EVA PMB
samples.
As presented in Figs.3.3 and 3.4, for both types of aggregate as the SBS and the
EVA polymer content increases, the TSR values increase as well. This indicated that the
resistance of asphalt mixes to the detrimental effect of water increases with the increase in
polymer content. However, no significant change in the values of TSR was observed on
reaching the SBS and EVA content of 5% and 6%, respectively.
For all SBS and EVA polymer contents, the TSR of basaltlimestone aggregate was
smaller than the TSR values related to limestone illustrated in Figs.3.3 and 3.4. This
indicated that the introduction of basalt aggregate into the limestone increases the
susceptibility of the mixture to moisture damage.
As seen in Figs.3.3 and 3.4, for both types of aggregate prepared with the same
polymer content, the TSR of mixtures prepared with the SBS PMB was greater than the
TSR of mixtures prepared with the EVA PMB. This indicates that mixtures including the
EVA PMB exhibit more stripping potential compared to the SBS PMB.
3.2.5 Summary
Moisture damage in asphalt mixtures is a complex mechanism and has many
interacting factors such as mixture design, proper construction, traffic, and environment.
Among these factors, the properties of the additives was important. From the study the
following conclusions were drawn.
o Mixtures prepared with SBS and EVA PMB display reduced stripping
potential and moisture susceptibility than mixtures prepared with base
bitumen for all types of aggregate (basaltlimestone aggregate mixture and
limestone aggregate). As a consequence, it can be concluded that, polymer
modified bitumen provides increased adhesion to the aggregate and creates a
network structure within the base bitumen.
o SBS polymer addition has shown a greater degree of improvement in
resistance of asphalt mixture to the detrimental effect of water compared to
EVA polymer addition.
o A clear distinction between the mixtures prepared with the same polymer
type indicates that at a given polymer content such as 3%, the mixtures
prepared

with

basaltlimestone

aggregate

exhibit

more

moisture

susceptibility than the mixture prepared with limestone aggregate. This

36

difference may be attributed to the formation of a weak bond between the

basalt aggregate and the bitumen both of which are acidic in character.

4. CONCLUSIONS
By reviewing the literature the following conclusions were obtained:

37

 Marshall stability values of modified mixes was higher than the control mixtures. Only
AP mixture gave lower stability. A maximum stability value of 730kg was obtained for
PE mix. AP and BE mixtures had lower flow value.
Polymer modified asphalt had higher values of tensile strength at failure. The PE mix
had maximum tensile strength of about 900Kpa.This indicates that modified mixtures
have better capability to withstand larger tensile strains prior to cracking.
Polymer modified asphalt had more cracking resistance at lower temperatures (50C). At
higher temperature the value of stiffness modulus of conventional and modified mixes
converges.
Static creep test does not reflect the performance of modified asphalt.
Modified mixtures had more resistance to permanent deformation. SBS mixture showed
highest resistance to permanent deformation.
Mixtures prepared with SBS and EVA PMB showed reduced stripping potential and
moisture susceptibility than mixtures prepared with base bitumen for all types of
aggregate (basaltlimestone aggregate mixture and limestone aggregate).
Polymer modified bitumen provides increased adhesion to the aggregate and creates a
network structure within the base bitumen.
SBS polymer addition has shown a greater degree of improvement in resistance of
asphalt mixture to the detrimental effect of water compared to EVA polymer addition.
Mixtures prepared with basaltlimestone aggregate exhibit more moisture susceptibility
than the mixture prepared with limestone aggregate.

REFERENCES
1. Cagri Gorkem, Burak Sengoz, (2009), Predicting stripping and moisture induced
damage of asphalt concrete prepared with polymer modified bitumen and hydrated
lime, Source-www.elsevier.com, Construction and Building Materials-23, Pages2227 to 2236.
2. Sureyya Tayfur , Halit Ozen , Atakan Aksoy, (2007), Investigation of rutting
performance of asphalt mixtures containing polymer modifiers, Sourcewww.elsevier.com, Construction and Building Materials-21, Pages-328 to 337.
3. Won Jun Woo, Edward Ofori-Abebresse, Arif Chowdhury, (2007)
Polymer Modified Asphalt Durability In Pavements, Sourse-www.ntis.gov
38

4. Yetkim Yildirim, (2007)Polymer modified asphalt binders, Source-www.

elsevier.com, Construction and Building Materials-21, Pages-66 to 72.
5. Flexible

pavement

distress,

Source:www.tehamacountypublicworks.ac.gov

/operations/ pavement management.htm

39