Low-temperature performance grading of asphalt binder through dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) testing: a case study in China
Source abstract
Abstract
Asphalt binder performance grading (PG) is key for selecting suitable pavement materials. Currently, standard test methods to determine the high and low-temperature PG values of asphalt binder are the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) test and the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) test. However, in China, BBR is rarely used due to high costs and complexity, hindering widespread PG adoption. Instead, penetration, softening point and ductility prevail, but their test temperatures misalign with in-service low conditions, failing to accurately reflect true low-temperature performance. This study developed a method to predict low-temperature PG of typical Chinese asphalt binders via DSR: using the 8-mm parallel geometry for low and intermediate temperature data, fitting with the 2S2P1D model, converting frequency to the time domain and calibrating creep stiffness at selected key time points to determine BBR parameters and low-temperature PG. It can effectively address BBR limitations, aiding binder selection and quality assurance in China.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Asphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Transport Systems and Technology
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Hainan University
Funding
Hubei Provincial Department of Transportation · Fujian Provincial Department of Transportation · Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities · Scientific Research Startup Foundation of Hainan University
References (56)
Show source-provided references
1. AASHTO R 28. (2012). Standard practice for accelerated aging of asphalt binder using a pressurized aging vessel (pav). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
2. AASHTO T. 240. (2013). Standard method of test for effect of heat and air on a moving film of asphalt (rolling thin-film oven test). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
3. AASHTO T 313-12. (2016). Standard test method for determining the flexural creep stiffness of asphalt binder using the bending beam rheometer(bbr). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
4. Airey, G. D., Rahimzadeh, B., & Collop, A. C. (2002). Evaluation of the linear and non-linear viscoelastic behaviour of bituminous binders and asphalt mixtures. In A. G. Correia & F. E. F Branco (Eds.), Bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields (pp. 799–811). London: CRC Press
5. Anderson, D. A., et al. (1994). Binder characterization and evaluation. Volume 3. Physical characterizationed.
6. Aschenbrener T. (1995). Investigation of low temperature thermal cracking in hot mix asphalt. Colorado Department of Transportation.
7. 10.1080/14680629.2020.185129110.1080/14680629.2020.1851291 ↗
8. 10.1139/cjce-2017-058610.1139/cjce-2017-0586 ↗
9. 10.1080/14680629.2015.102969610.1080/14680629.2015.1029696 ↗
10. 10.1016/B978-0-12-174252-2.50003-X10.1016/B978-0-12-174252-2.50003-X ↗
11. Christensen D. W. & Anderson D. A. (1992). Interpretation of dynamic mechanical test data for paving grade asphalt cementsed. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 61 67–116.
12. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.01810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.018 ↗
13. Falchetto, A. C., & Moon, K. H. (2015). Comparisons of analytical and approximate interconversion methods for thermal stress computation. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 42(10), 715–719.
14. Farrar M. Sui C. Salmans S. & Qin Q. (2015). Determining the low-temperature rheological properties of asphalt binder using a dynamic shear rheometer (dsr) fundamental properties of asphalts and modified asphalts iii product: Fp 08 prepared for federal highway administration.
15. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11902410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119024 ↗
16. Garcia G. & Thompson M. R. (2007). Hma dynamic modulus predictive models (a review). Civil Engineering Studies Illinois Center for Transportation Series.
17. 10.1080/14680629.2019.163463610.1080/14680629.2019.1634636 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jreng.2023.11.00110.1016/j.jreng.2023.11.001 ↗
19. 10.1177/036119811985533210.1177/0361198119855332 ↗
20. 10.1063/1.172288510.1063/1.1722885 ↗
21. JTG F40. (2004). Technical specifications for construction of highway asphalt pavements. Beijing: Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China.
22. Kennedy T. W. Huber G. Harrigan E. Cominsky R. J. Hughes C. S. Quintus H. L. V. & Moulthrop J. S. (1994). Superior performing asphalt pavements (superpave): The product of the shrp asphalt research program. Washington DC: SHRP.
23. 10.1520/JTE2021027710.1520/JTE20210277 ↗
24. 10.1007/s00397-017-1020-510.1007/s00397-017-1020-5 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.16010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.160 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12491510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124915 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijprt.2016.08.01010.1016/j.ijprt.2016.08.010 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.10.00510.1016/j.matdes.2015.10.005 ↗
29. Marasteanu M. O. & Anderson D. (1999). Comparison of moduli for asphalt binders obtained from different test devices. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 69 574–607.
30. Marasteanu M. Buttlar W. Bahia H. & Williams C. (2012). Investigation of low temperature cracking in asphalt pavements. Report for Minnesota Department of Transportation National Pooled-Fund Study Phase II.
31. 10.1080/10298436.2017.134743610.1080/10298436.2017.1347436 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.10661710.1016/j.jobe.2023.106617 ↗
33. 10.1520/JTE2012018110.1520/JTE20120181 ↗
34. 10.1061/9780784483183.02610.1061/9780784483183.026 ↗
35. 10.1016/0095-8522(59)90067-410.1016/0095-8522(59)90067-4 ↗
36. Olard, F., & Di Benedetto, H. (2011). General “2s2p1d” model and relation between the linear viscoelastic behaviours of bituminous binders and mixes. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 4(2), 185–224.
37. Oshone M. (2018). Performance based evaluation of cracking in asphalt concrete using viscoelastic and fracture properties.
38. Pink H. S. Merz R. E. & Bosniack D. S. (1980). Asphalt rheology: Experimental determination of dynamic moduli at low temperature. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists Proceedings. 49 64–94.
39. 10.1061/JMCEE7.MTENG-1766110.1061/JMCEE7.MTENG-17661 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.13020210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.130202 ↗
41. 10.1201/9781315100333-3510.1201/9781315100333-35 ↗
42. 10.1080/14680629.2017.138907210.1080/14680629.2017.1389072 ↗
43. Robertson W. D. (1995). Using the shrp specification to select asphalt binders for low temperature service. In Proc. Canadian Technical Asphalt Association (Vol. 40 pp. 170–195).
44. 10.3141/2127-1910.3141/2127-19 ↗
45. Rowe G. (2014). Interrelationships in rheology for asphalt binder specificationsed.
46. 10.3141/2179-0310.3141/2179-03 ↗
47. 10.3141/2207-0610.3141/2207-06 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.04710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.047 ↗
49. 10.1007/978-3-642-73602-510.1007/978-3-642-73602-5 ↗
50. 10.1177/036119811983491210.1177/0361198119834912 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2022.10372110.1016/j.coldregions.2022.103721 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12197210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121972 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.13521310.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135213 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13819610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138196 ↗
55. 10.1080/10298436.2020.177476610.1080/10298436.2020.1774766 ↗
56. 10.1617/s11527-024-02427-610.1617/s11527-024-02427-6 ↗