Effects of Binder Modification on Rutting Performance of Asphalt Binders

  • A. Seitllari
  • M. Ghazavi
  • M. E. KutayEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 76)


Asphalt binder is the driving economical factor in asphalt pavement design. As a result, it is a good target to optimize the design by minimizing the overall cost while maximizing the performance. Modifying asphalt binders with polymers has been historically a successful method of optimization of pavement design. However, fluctuations in polymer prices and concerns related to sustainability lead many engineers to consider scrap tire rubber as a full or partial replacement of the polymers. Polymer coated rubber (PCR), a hybrid blend of crumb rubber and polymer, is a relatively new alternative material to improve asphalt mixture performance. The objective of the study reported in this paper is to investigate the relative performances of the neat asphalt binder, polymer modified (PM) binder and PCR modified binder using the wet process (PCR-Wet). The influence of the modifications on the viscosity, stiffness and rutting performance were explored. The experimental program included rotational viscosity measurements, linear viscoelastic characterization using frequency sweep (|G*|) test and rutting resistance using multiple stress recovery (MSCR) test on the base binder and the PCR modified binder. Findings from this study suggest that the more sustainable and rut-resistant asphalt binders can be achieved by using the PCR-Wet process.


Polymer coated rubber Dynamic shear modulus Rutting performance MSCR Viscosity Aging effects 


  1. Bukowski J, Youtcheff J, Harman T (2011) The multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) procedureGoogle Scholar
  2. Diefenderfer SD, Bowers BF (2019) Initial approach to performance (balanced) mix design: the virginia experience. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2673(2):335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gibson N, Qi X, Shenoy A, Al-Khateeb G, Kutay ME, Andriescu A, Stuart K, Youtcheff J, Harman T (2012) Performance testing for superpave and structural validationGoogle Scholar
  4. Hansen KR, Copeland A (2015) Asphalt pavement industry survey on recycled materials and warm-mix asphalt usage: 2014Google Scholar
  5. Heitzman MA (1992) State of the practice-design and construction of asphalt paving materials with crumb rubber modifierGoogle Scholar
  6. Jamrah A (2018) Novel parametric approach to characterize crumb rubber modified asphalt binder performance based on parallel plate dynamic shear rheometryGoogle Scholar
  7. Jamrah A, Kutay ME (2015) A method for quantifying the extent of crumb rubber pre-treatment. In: 6th conference of the european asphalt technology association (EATA), Stockholm: Sweden, 15–17 June 2015Google Scholar
  8. Kocak S (2016) Interaction between recycled tire rubber, polymers and high amount of reclaimed asphalt pavementsGoogle Scholar
  9. Kocak S, Kutay ME (2016) Combined effect of SBS and devulcanized rubber (DVR) modification on performance grade and fatigue cracking resistance of asphalt binders. In: Chabot A, Buttlar W, Dave E, Petit C, Tebaldi G (eds) 8th RILEM international conference on mechanisms of cracking and debonding in pavements. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 269–274Google Scholar
  10. Kurgan G, Dongre R (2015) International trends in low-carbon/low-energy pavement constructionGoogle Scholar
  11. Santagata E, Lanotte M, Baglieri O, Dalmazzo D, Zanetti MC (2016) Analysis of bitumen–crumb rubber affinity for the formulation of rubberized dry mixtures. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions 49(5):1947–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Seitllari A, Kutay ME (2019) Development of 3-point bending beam fatigue test system and implementation of viscoelastic continuum damage (VECD) theory. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 88:783–810Google Scholar
  13. Seitllari A, Lanotte MA, Kutay ME (2019) Calibration of the MEPDG rutting model: issues and consequences on rutting prediction. In: Transportation research board 98th annual meeting, Washington DC: no 19–02795, 6 p.Google Scholar
  14. Seitllari A, Lanotte MA, Kutay ME (2019) Comparison of uniaxial tension-compression fatigue test results with SCB test performance indicators developed for performance-based mix design procedure. In: Bituminous mixtures and pavements VII: proceedings of the 7th international conference ‘bituminous mixtures and pavements’ (7ICONFBMP)Google Scholar
  15. Stroup-Gardiner M, Chadbourn B, Newcomb DE (1996) Babbitt, Minnesota: case study of pretreated crumb rubber modified asphalt concrete. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1530(1):34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Way GB (2000) Flagstaff I-40 asphalt rubber overlay project: Nine years of success. Transp Res Rec 1723:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seitllari A, Boz I, Habbouche J, Diefenderfer SD Assessment of cracking performance indices of asphalt mixtures at intermediate temperatures. Int. J. Pavement Eng:1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations