See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334272035

Implementation of the AASHTO Performance Graded Asphalt Binder

Specification in the New Zealand Operating Environment

Preprint · July 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34825.19040

CITATIONS READS

0 1,566

2 authors, including:

Sean Bearsley
Higgins Group
10 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sean Bearsley on 06 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Implementation of the AASHTO Performance Graded
Asphalt Binder Specification in the New Zealand Operating
Environment
Sean Bearsley1, Grant Bosma2
1. Higgins Group, Palmerston North, New Zealand
2. New Zealand Transport Agency, Nelson, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

The New Zealand roading industry has been exploring the use of Performance Graded (PG)
asphalt binder specifications for over a decade. PG binder specifications such as AASHTO
M332 allow for a higher level of integration between pavement and surfacing design. The PG
binder specification provides for a more mechanistic, rational approach to binder selection.
Asphalt binders that display particular performance characteristics are selected on the basis
of the traffic loads on the pavement and characteristic pavement temperatures. However,
differences in pavement design philosophies between AASHTO and Austroads means that it
is not possible to simply adopt the AASHTO specification verbatim. It is necessary to ‘interpret’
the PG binder specification in light of Austroads pavement design inputs and failure modes
that are significant to New Zealand. Relationships between AASHTO and Austroads traffic
load spectra are derived along with an exploration of differences and similarities between the
low temperature failure criterion for binders in USA and NZ. Justification for the selection of
appropriate high and low temperature zones in New Zealand is discussed. Understanding of
these elements that are critical to binder performance allow for a meaningful implementation
of the AASHTO M 332 specification to be made in New Zealand.
Keywords: performance grade, creep stiffness, load equivalency factor, MSCR, durability.

1 INTRODUCTION

Until recently, bitumen as a road binder has been regulated in New Zealand using traditional
criteria as specified by NZTA M/1 [1]. This has been successful in a stable supply environment
but over the last 10 years changes in the supply chain has allowed bitumen into the market
that complied with the traditional criteria but performed differently in the field.
A working group consisting of client (NZTA), industry and consultants identified this disconnect
between the traditional empirical asphalt binder specification and field performance and set
about developing a performance-related asphalt binder specification for the New Zealand
market. Review of research work conducted in the USA [2] and the subsequent development
of AASHTO M332 [3] identified an approach that could be used as the basis for a New Zealand
asphalt binder specification. Such a specification was drafted and published in 2016 as NZTA
M/1A [4].
Implementation of NZTA M/1A has allowed the identification of opportunities for further
refinement and improvement. The working group has developed an update to NZTA M/1A
that allows improved alignment between AASHTO M332 and New Zealand’s pavement design
philosophy, traffic loadings and site climate characteristics. This paper discusses how
AASHTO M332 has been interpreted for the New Zealand situation and forms the basis of
changes to NZTA M/1A.

2 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Since the mid-1960s, Refining NZ has supplied bitumen to the New Zealand road surfacing
industry. Refining NZ is New Zealand’s only oil refinery and is located near Whangarei in the
North of the North Island. A limited number of crude oil feedstocks were used to produce
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

bitumen which effectively meant that the bitumen quality remained very consistent. This
situation continued for over 40 years, which allowed the performance of this highly consistent
material to be well understood by users.
The bitumen was produced over this period to comply with several iterations of NZTA M/1
specification [1]. The bitumen penetration test is used as the classification criterion and
controls the bitumen rheology along with other properties such as viscosity, ductility and at one
point in history, the softening point test. Such empirical criteria, and in particular the penetration
test, served well to control the compliance and quality of the bitumen given the consistent crude
oil feedstock and manufacturing process.
Changes in the market place over the past two decades, both globally and within New Zealand,
have included restrictions on particular crude oil feedstock availability, local capacity
constraints in the supply and distribution of bitumen, changes to production routes and
increased demand for harder grades that are used to make asphalt binders. This has
necessitated the use of a wider range of crude oil for bitumen manufacture and the importation
of bitumen from other refineries. While these bitumens have been compliant with the empirical
NZTA M/1 specification, their performance differed from historical expectations. Premature
asphalt failures were observed with the cause being attributed to some of the new bitumen [5].
Deformation and rutting has been the primary failure mode of concern for NZ asphalt
designers. Unfortunately, experience has shown that a good relationship between penetration
and rutting resistance does not necessarily hold true and it became apparent that a better
specification for protecting against rutting failures was required. While a viscosity graded
system such as AS 2008 [6] did show promise for controlling deformation, it did not meet NZ’s
need for a PMB specification.
It had long been recognised that NZ did not have an adequate system for specifying polymer
modified bitumen, which was increasingly being used to address deformation related concerns.
There was widespread resistance to adopting the Austroads specification [7] for two primary
reasons. Firstly, it would require the industry to invest in equipment that was only used in
Australia and was not internationally recognised. This was seen as undesirable given NZ’s
increasing exposure to international bitumen markets. And secondly, there was little
confidence in the ability for the Elastomer derived property, Consistency, for predicting rut
resistance [8]. The relationships that numerous researchers had attempted to establish
between PMB properties obtained using the Elastometer and asphalt performance were not
convincing and were treated with caution.

3 WHY AASHTO M332

The need to find better ways to specify bitumen as an asphalt binder, and also for chip sealing
has long been realised with NZTA researching performance graded (PG) specifications for
over 10 years [9]. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) in the United States of
America considered the same issues. Outputs from SHRP led to the development of a new
PG bitumen specification in the form of AASHTO M320 [10]. This specification used the
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) to characterise bitumen in such a way that its performance
as an asphalt binder could be predicted.
AASHTO M320 had been seen as a promising direction to take, but the lack of a satisfactory
correlation (e.g. R2 = 0.22 to 0.40) between |G*|/sin δ and rutting performance for data that
includes modified binders [2, 11 – 12] had hindered NZ’s adoption of the specification.
Experience with AASHTO M320 has shown that the approach works well with unmodified
bitumens, but it has been less successful in predicating performance for asphalt made using
polymer modified binders [5, 11 – 12].
More recent work [2, 12, 13 – 14] has focused on improving asphalt deformation by exploring
the use of multiple stress, creep and recovery (MSCR) tests for controlling high-temperature
bitumen properties. These efforts have resulted in the evolution of PG binder specifications
and the subsequent development of AASHTO M332 [3], which has improved the accuracy in
predicting the rutting performance of asphalt that contains polymer modified binders.

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 2 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

Very good relationships have been established between asphalt rutting and the non-
recoverable creep compliance parameter Jnr as measured in the MSCR test. Coefficients of
determination ranging from 0.73 to 0.93 have been reported [2, 12 – 14]. Similar coefficients
of determination for AC10 (R2 = 0.77) and AC14 (R2 = 0.75) asphalt that is typically used in NZ
has been confirmed in FIGURE 1 by re-presenting data that has previously been reported [5].

FIGURE 1. Relationship between MSCR test and asphalt deformation [5].

Adoption of AASHTO M332 satisfies the main requirements of the NZ asphalt industry for a
binder specification that can control asphalt deformation. The additional benefits that can also
be recognised by adopting AASHTO M332 include:
1. ability to use a single specification for characterising both modified and unmodified
binders,
2. possessing a rational approach for specifying binders that is based on the fundamental
parameters that affect asphalt performance: temperature and traffic loading,
3. use of equivalent standard axle (ESA) classification for both pavement structural design
and asphalt surfacing design,
4. provision of specification parameters that are strongly correlated to asphalt
performance at high and low temperatures,
5. protection against the use of stress dependent binders that might otherwise give poor
rutting performance.

4 CONNECTION BETWEEN M1 AND M332

Although empirical specifications such as NZTA M/1 and PG specifications such as AASHTO
M332 have dissimilar outputs and present differently, the intent behind both types of
specification is remarkably similar. Both specifications attempt to control asphalt deformation
behaviour during hot temperatures, control fatigue related characteristics at intermediate
temperatures, and control cracking mechanisms at low temperatures.
NZTA M/1 uses dynamic viscosity at 60°C as a control parameter for regulating susceptibility
to asphalt deformation at high pavement temperatures, whereas AASHTO M332 uses the non-
recoverable creep compliance (Jnr) at the upper PG temperature. Fatigue is regulated using
the empirical penetration test in NZTA M/1, while AASHTO M332 takes a more mechanistic
approach by putting limits on the viscous modulus (G” = |G*|.sin δ). Low temperature cracking

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 3 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

is controlled using the DSR based T/13 Durability test in NZTA M/1, while AASHTO M332 uses
the creep stiffness, S(t) obtained from the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR).
In a significant departure from conventional practice, AASHTO M332 includes the traffic
volumes as a part of the classification criteria in the bitumen specification. Bitumen is classified
as being suitable for “Standard”, “Heavy”, “Very Heavy” or “Extreme” traffic conditions. NZTA
manages this classification outside of the bitumen specification and includes it as part of the
asphalt specification [15]. NZTA follows the Austroads traffic categories, which appear to differ
from AASHTO in both nomenclature and traffic volume.
Hence it is necessary to examine the differences and similarities in rheological characterisation
and traffic classification between NZTA M/1 and AASHTO M332 so that the impact of adopting
the PG specification can be evaluated. Understanding of the differences and similarities will
determine how bitumen is managed under the specifications.

5 HIGH TEMPERATURE PERFORMANCE

A temperature range of PG64–16 had previously been reported as being suitable for use in
NZ [5, 16]. While analysis of temperature data by others [9, 17] suggests that some areas of
NZ could use bitumen with a grading as low as PG58–4 or PG52–10, the initial
recommendation for a PG64–16 grading was borne out of pragmatism: all bitumen tested as
meeting this grading had a history of good performance and those that failed the PG64
requirement tended to exhibit deformation issues and early failure [5]. The significance of the
low temperature grading of -16˚C is discussed in Section 6.
As previously mentioned, the primary failure mode of concern amongst NZ asphalt designers
was high temperature permanent deformation. The effect of bitumen viscosity on asphalt
deformation is generally well accepted with previous researchers [8, 11, 18 – 19] agreeing that
asphalt deformation is strongly correlated to the viscous flow properties of the binder, however
it may be measured.
Because previous work [2, 5, 12 – 14] had identified a similarly strong correlation between the
non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr and asphalt deformation, it seemed reasonable to
assume that a correlation could also be established between dynamic viscosity at 60˚C as
specified in NZTA M/1 and non-recoverable creep compliance as specified in AASHTO M332.
To explore this assumption, the dynamic viscosity and non-recoverable creep compliance were
compared for 70 bitumens. This range of bitumens included 35 unmodified bitumens from eight
sources that had been used in NZ since 2013. The sample set included 40/50, 60/70, 80/100
and 180/200 penetration grades. Seven grades of polymer modified bitumen (PMB) (31
samples) and two types of multigrade (four samples) were also included to provide a
comprehensive sample set that spanned all types of bitumen that are available in NZ.
Dynamic viscosity (ή) of unmodified bitumen was measured at 60˚C by flow through capillary
tubes as specified in AS/NZS 2341.2. A DHR-2 dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) operating in
oscillatory mode was used to determine the complex viscosity (η*) of the PMB and multigrade
samples. Complex viscosity was measured on unaged samples at 60˚C using a 25mm parallel
plate geometry, 1mm gap, 12% strain and angular frequency of 1.0 rad/s. The same DSR was
used to measure the non-recoverable creep compliance of all bitumens, PMBs and
multigrades using the method described by AASHTO T350. Creep compliance testing was
conducted at 64˚C on Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO) aged samples (ASTM D2872).
It is not practical to determine the dynamic viscosity of elastomeric PMB using traditional
methods such as AS/NZS 2341.2 because of the long flow times and dependence of viscosity
on strain rate. Instead the steady shear viscosity (η) of the modified bitumens and multigrades
was implied through use of the Cox-Merz rule (Equation (1)), which allowed a direct
comparison with Jnr for all types of bitumens. This empirical relationship has its basis in the
observed correspondence between viscosity, η(γ̇ ) determined under steady shear flow
conditions and complex viscosity, η*(ω) determined under oscillatory loading.

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 4 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

The Cox-Merz rule applies for purely viscous fluids that have no elastic flow component and
hence assumptions that validate the rule do not necessarily apply when testing PMBs.
However, by testing the PMB samples in the DSR at a relatively high temperature of 60°C and
at a relatively low angular frequency, the elastic contribution to the complex viscosity was
reduced such that the viscous flow component outweighed the elastic component (tan δ > 1).
The PMB phase angles ranged from 61 – 85˚ under the test conditions that were used.
𝜂(𝛾̇ ) = |𝜂 ∗ (𝜔)| where 𝛾̇ → 𝜔
Equation 1

FIGURE 2. Relationship between viscosity and MSCR tests.

The correlation between post RTFO non-recoverable creep compliance (Jnr) at 64°C and
viscosity (ή or |η*|) is shown in FIGURE 2 and can be described as a log-log relationship of the
form shown in Equation (2). The coefficients of the equation depend slightly on the type of
binder as described in TABLE 1.
log(𝜂) = 𝑏. log(𝐽𝑛𝑟 ) + 𝑐
Equation 2
Where η = steady shear viscosity represented by dynamic (ή) or complex viscosity (η*),
Pa.s
Jnr = post RTFO, non-recoverable creep compliance at 64°C and 3.2kPa stress,
(1/kPa)
b, c = linear regression coefficients.
While numerous assumptions that validate the application of the Cox-Merz rule where not
strictly adhered to during this current testing, the strong correlation found in FIGURE 2
indicates that deviations from these assumptions has had only a minor effect on results. These
deviations are most pronounced for the PMB data (R2 = 0.76) and are likely a result of
significant elastic recovery being achieved during MSCR testing.
Furthermore, complex viscosity testing is undertaken in the linear viscoelastic reason, while
MSCR tests are conducted in the non-linear region. While this is less important for unmodified
bitumens that tend to possess more Newtonian behaviour under these test conditions, PMBs
exhibit complex flow and the apparent viscosity and non-recoverable creep compliance are

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 5 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

significantly affected by shear rate, strain magnitude and elastic response. Hence, numerous
explanations are apparent for the observed scatter in the PMB data.
TABLE 1. Regression coefficients for viscosity and Jnr data
Unmodified
PMB Multigrade All Data
Bitumen
Specification NZTA M/1 AS2008
Number of Samples 35 31 4 70
Number of Sources 8 1 1 10
Number of Grades 4 7 2 13
Slope Coefficient (b) -0.8391 -0.7413 -1.0462 -0.7857
Intercept Coefficient (c ) 2.7303 2.7065 2.8536 2.7076
Coefficient of Determination (R2) 0.99 0.76 0.92 0.95

In addition, assumptions underpinning the Cox-Merz rule were violated in the following
circumstances:
1. Exact knowledge of the shear rate is required. Accurate shear rates can be determined
using cone and plate geometries but the shear rate varies across the face of the parallel
plate geometries employed. Also, the shear rate in the capillary tubes used for
measuring dynamic viscosity varies across the tube diameter and length of the bulb.
2. Establishment of steady shear flow conditions is also necessary. Elastomer PMBs and
some harder grades of bitumen can take a significantly long time to establish steady
shear flow conditions. It is unlikely that steady shear flow conditions were achieved for
most of the samples being tested because of the nature of the test methods used.
3. The Cox-Merz rule does not hold particularly well for crosslinked or gelled polymer
systems. The PMBs possessed varying cross-link densities. Production of multigrades
is also known to move the bitumen from a ‘sol’ structure towards a ‘gel’ structure which
increases the elastic response of the bitumen.
Notwithstanding, the very strong correlation between viscosity and Jnr, and the strong
correlation that has been established between Jnr and rutting, indicates that the adoption of the
non-recoverable creep compliance as a specification parameter can proceed with relative
confidence.

6 LOW TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISATION

The low temperature cracking failure mode is controlled in NZ using the NZTA T/13 Durability
test [20]. The test was initiated to control traffic-induced, flexural cracking in chip seals caused
by low pavement temperatures and excessive aging of bitumen in service. Testing requires
bitumen to be aged in a pressure ageing vessel (PAV) at 60˚C for 80 hrs and the complex
shear modulus as measured at 5˚C and 9 Hz to be compared to a critical value.
AASHTO M332 takes a different approach and uses the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) test
for controlling low temperature cracking. The BBR test requires aging of the bitumen in the
RTFO followed by 20 hours at 100˚C in the PAV. Creep stiffness as a function of loading time,
S(t) is measured at various temperatures to determine a critical value above which the bitumen
is considered suitable for use. The critical low temperature is that temperature where S(t) =
300 MPa or the absolute rate of change of S(t) with time (the m-value), |∂S(t)/∂t| = 0.300 at t =
60s.
The BBR test was originally developed to control thermal cracking in asphalt, which has never
been considered a significant failure mode in NZ for two reasons. Firstly, the pavement
temperatures seldom approach those required to induce thermal cracking, and secondly, there
is relatively little asphalt used in NZ. Consequently, adoption of the BBR test by NZ has been
treated with caution as its significance is poorly understood.
Nonetheless, the relationship between durability and creep stiffness was explored to gain an
understanding of how this parameter might influence the specification of bitumen in NZ. The

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 6 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

low temperature creep stiffness properties of 18 bitumen samples were compared to the NZTA
T/13 Durability values. The bitumen samples spanned four penetration grades from eight
refineries that had been used in NZ between 2009 and 2018. The intent was to determine if a
correlation between the two low temperature properties existed and thereby provide
confidence that use of AASHTO M332 would not unduly increase the risk of flexural cracking
failure in NZ.
Creep stiffness, S(t), was estimated by using a 4mm DSR technique adapted from work
reported by others [21 – 24] who all found good correlations between creep stiffness
determined using the bending beam rheometer (BBR) and shear modulus properties
determined using the DSR. Frequency sweeps were conducted at temperatures of 5, 0, -6 and
-12°C and an Arrhenius function was used to calculate shift factors for use in construction of
the complex shear modulus (|G*|) and phase angle (δ) mastercurves at a reference
temperature of -12°C (FIGURE 3).

FIGURE 3. |G*| and phase angle mastercurves (Tref = -12˚C).

A series of creep stiffness, S(t) plots (FIGURE 4) were derived from the complex shear
modulus mastercurve through an empirical relationship (Equation (3)) that was developed
during the SHRP program [25]. The creep stiffness plots were modelled as quadratic equations
with excellent fit and the S(t) value determined for t = 60s. The first derivative of the quadratic
equation was used to determine the slope (m) of the curve at t = 60s. Plots of S(t) and m as a
function of temperature (FIGURE 5) were constructed which allowed an estimate of PG
grading and limiting creep stiffness temperature (where S(t) = 300MPa) to be made.
3.𝐺 ∗ (𝜔) 1
𝑆(𝑡) = (1+0.2 for 𝑡 →
sin 2𝛿) 𝜔

Equation 3
Where S(t) = Creep Stiffness as a function of loading time, MPa
G*(ω) = Complex shear modulus as a function of angular frequency, MPa
δ = phase angle, ˚
t = load time, s
ω = Angular frequency, rad/s

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 7 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

FIGURE 4. Creep stiffness interconverted from |G*| mastercurve.

FIGURE 5. Creep stiffness and m-value determined from DSR.

A comparison between the limiting (creep) stiffness temperature (LST) and the NZTA T/13
Durability value (FIGURE 6) shows a very strong correlation (R2 = 0.95). If it is considered that
the maximum Durability value allowable under NZTA M/1 specification is 130 MPa, then the
maximum allowable LST for bitumen can be readily determined by extrapolating the least
squares line of best fit for this data. This simple calculation indicates that if the LST is lower
than -20.6˚C, then the bitumen is highly likely to also pass the durability criteria. Bitumen with
a LST of -20.6˚C do not meet the PGXX-22 criteria, but can be classified as PGXX-16.
Hence, the previous, pragmatic adoption of a low temperature PGXX-16 requirement has been
validated. Adoption of this low temperature classification had its origins in the fact that firstly,
NZ temperatures never fell below -16˚C and secondly, such a classification would allow the
continued use of all bitumens that were being supplied into NZ at that time. Of the 18 bitumens

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 8 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

tested, all met the PGXX-16 criteria and only one failed to meet the PGXX-22 grading. There
is a risk that bitumen meeting the PGXX-16 classification will fail the durability criteria if the
LST > -20.6 ˚C. Additional conservativism could be adopted if NZTA limits bitumen to having
a minimum low temperature grading of PGXX-22. NZTA could be assured that a PGXX-22
binder will pass traditional durability requirements without the need for conducting the T/13
Durability test.

FIGURE 6. Relationship between LST and Durability value.

Having established limiting stiffness temperatures, the analysis was taken a step further.
Durability values were estimated from the creep stiffness data using the time-temperature
superposition principle. The equivalent load time (t2) at 5°C was estimated from S(t) at -12°C
by derivation of Equation (4) from the Arrhenius relationship. S(t) at 5°C and load time t2 was
interconverted to an equivalent complex shear modulus using Equation (3). The corresponding
|G*(ω)| at 9 Hz was then estimated by applying an adjustment factor of 1.33, which is
essentially the slope of a plot (with intercept = 0) of measured NZTA T/13 durability and
1
estimated complex modulus at 5˚C and 𝜔 = as determined from Equation (3) and (4).
𝑡2
Application of the adjustment factor accounts for the differences in aging procedures and
assumptions made regarding appropriate testing frequencies employed by AASHTO [3] and
NZTA [20]. It allows the data represented in FIGURE 7 to fall along the line of equality.
𝐸 1 1
ln(𝑡2 ) = [ − ] + ln(𝑡1 )
𝑅 (𝑇2 + 273.15) (𝑇1 + 273.15)
Equation 4
Where t1 = load time at T1, s
t2 = load time at T2, s
T1 = Temperature used to measure S(t), ˚C
T2 = Temperature where desired frequency is to be estimated, ˚C
E = Activation energy determined from Arrhenius function, (J/mol)
R = Ideal gas constant (8.3145 J/K.mol)
A very strong correlation (R2 = 0.95) is observed between the estimated and measured
durability values (FIGURE 7) which provides confidence that durability can be estimated from
creep stiffness data and visa-versa. Although the AASHTO BBR and NZTA Durability tests
both act to protect against cracking, the cracking is caused by different mechanisms, at
18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 9 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

different temperatures and under different loading conditions. However, they are related
through the time-temperature superposition principle (TTSP) and the creep stiffness can be
used to safeguard against durability related failures in NZ.

FIGURE 7. Estimating NZTA T/13 Durability Value from Creep Stiffness.

7 TRAFFIC LEVELS

An important part of the use AASHTO M332 for selecting and specifying the appropriate
bitumen to use is correct identification of the traffic category. Superpave traffic categories are
used by AASHTO M332 and are defined according to traffic volume and speed (TABLE 2).
Bitumen is selected on the basis of the 20 year AASHTO design traffic volume as measured
by equivalent standard axles (ESA) and an assumed “standard” operating speed >70 kph.
Bitumen grades are progressively “bumped” up to the next highest grade for “slow moving”
traffic (20 – 70 kph), and bumped up two grades for “standing” traffic (<20 kph).
“Standard” traffic speeds are expected to occur on free-flowing motorways and rural highway.
“Slow moving” traffic is typical of urban and suburban arterials and connector routes, and are
often experienced on congested motorways or steep inclines. “Standing” traffic speeds occur
at intersections and toll plazas, or in industrial areas such as freight yards and ports.
TABLE 2. Austroads and Superpave traffic categories.
AUSTROADS SUPERPAVE
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
Category Volume Speed Category Volume Speed
ESA ESAL
Light <0.5 x 106 >25 kph 0 – 0.3 x 106 <20 kph
<0.5 x 106 <25 kph Standard 0.3 – 3 x 106 20 – 70kph
Medium
0.5 – 5 x 106 >25 kph 3 – 10 x 106 >70 kph
0.3 – 3 x 106 <20 kph
0.5 – 5 x 106 <25 kph
Heavy Heavy 3 – 10 x 106 20 – 70kph
5 – 20 x 106 >25 kph
10 – 30 x 106 >70 kph
3 – 10 x 106 <20 kph
5 – 20 x 106 <25 kph
Very Heavy 10 – 30 x 106 20 – 70kph
Very Heavy >20 x 106 >25 kph
>30 x 106 >70 kph
>20 x 106 <25 kph Extreme >30 x 106 <20 kph

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 10 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

Austroads operates a similar classification system although a prima facie examination

suggests there are distinct differences in the traffic volume classifications, and the operating
speeds are less defined (TABLE 2). Perhaps most importantly though, it appears that AASHTO
allows a much greater traffic volume in each category. Further investigation has been
undertaken to understand the implications of these apparently different classifications and how
it might influence bitumen selection and specification in NZ.
Both AASHTO and Austroads report the structural design traffic volume of a pavement in units
of Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA). However, two differences between AASHTO and
Austroads design procedures have been identified that have an impact on the calculated ESA
and consequently the traffic category. Firstly, typical default design lives that are used by
engineers differ between the AASHTO and Austroads practice and secondly, the load
equivalency factors (LEF) used by Austroads are significantly higher than those determined by
the 1993 AASHTO procedures [26].
The Austroads pavement design procedure [27] calculates the design equivalent standard axle
(DESA) for a pavement from Equation (5) and Equation (6). The cumulative growth factor
(CGF), which is used to determine the number of heavy vehicle axle groups and subsequently
DESA, is partially determined by the design period (Equation (7)). NZ follows Austroads
practice and typically uses a default design period of 25 years, but the ESA used to determine
traffic categories in AASHTO M332 is based on a 20 year design period. If it is assumed that
a typical NZ traffic growth rate of 2% is used, it can be shown that the Austroads CGF= 32.0
and the AASHTO CGF = 24.3. Hence the Austroads default design life will increase DESA by
a factor of 1.32 compared to the AASHTO default design life. Obviously this factor will be
influenced by project specific values and can range from 1.00 to 1.36 if design periods and
growth rates typical to NZ are used.
%HV
NDT = 365 x AADT x DF x x LDF x CGF x NHVAG
100
Equation 5
Where NDT = cumulative number of heavy vehicle axle groups
AADT = average annual daily traffic
DF = direction factor
%HV = percentage of heavy vehicles in traffic volume
LDF = lane distribution factor
CGF = cumulative growth factor
NHVAG = average number of heavy vehicle axle groups per vehicle
𝐸𝑆𝐴
𝐷𝐸𝑆𝐴 = [ ] 𝑥 𝑁𝐷𝑇
𝐻𝑉𝐴𝐺
Equation 6
Where DESA = design equivalent standard axles
ESA/HVAG = average number of equivalent standard axles per heavy vehicle axle
group.
(1 + 0.01𝑅)𝑃 − 1
𝐶𝐺𝐹 =
0.01𝑅
Equation 7
Where CGF = cumulative growth factor
R = annual growth rate (%)
P = design period (years)
The second important point of difference between AASHTO and Austroads in determining
DESA involves calculation of load equivalency factors (LEF) that are used to determine the
ESA/HVAG parameter in Equation (6). The difference primarily arises because Austroads
accounts for the increased damaging effect of single tyres, whereas AASHTO uses the same
parameters for both single and dual tyres in the design equations. An aggravating factor is that

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 11 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

AASHTO also typically has higher standard axle group loads compared to Austroads. For
example, for tandem axle, dual tyre (TADT) groups, Austroads applies a standard load of
135kN, whereas AASHTO typically allows 147kN (33 kips). Austroads’ standard load for a
tridem axle, dual tyre (TRDT) group is 181kN, whereas AASHTO typically allows 209kN (47
kips).
To illustrate this point the LEF for single, tandem and tridem axle groups where calculated
using the two design procedures. The results of the comparison are shown in FIGURE 8,
FIGURE 9 and FIGURE 10. This comparison confirms previous findings [26] and clearly
illustrate the differences in the two procedures. For the purposes of this comparison a
pavement structural number, SN = 3 and terminal serviceability index, pt = 2.5 were chosen
for the AASHTO procedure because these are typical of arterial routes and urban
environments where asphalt may be expected to be used. A load damage exponent (LDE) of
4 was used in calculating the LEF for the Austroads procedure.
The respective LEFs were used to calculate ESA/HVAG factors (TABLE 3) for three traffic load
spectra (TLS). These TLS are assumed to be representative of the typical NZ operating
environment. Austroads ESA/HVAG appear to be 1.9 – 2.3 times greater than those
determined by AASHTO depending upon the TLS. Consequently, the DESA determined by
Austroads can be expected to be, on average, 2.1 times greater than that determined by
AASHTO as a result of differences in how LEFs are calculated.

FIGURE 8. Load equivalency factors for single axle single (SAST) and dual (SADT) tyre
groups.

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 12 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

FIGURE 9. Load equivalency factors for tandem axle single (TAST) and dual (TADT)
tyre groups.

FIGURE 10. Load equivalency factors for tridem axle dual tyre (TRDT) groups.

TABLE 3. Austroads and AASHTO ESA/HVAG factors.

Traffic Load Spectra Data Source Austroads AASHTO Ratio
ESA/HVAG ESA/HVAG
Presumptive 1 [27] 0.75 0.40 1.89
Presumptive 2 0.79 0.34 2.31
Presumptive 3 [28] 0.61 0.27 2.23

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 13 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

By accounting for the differences between Austroads and AASHTO in default design lives and
in determining LEFs, an overall factor can be determined for converting between Austroads
ESA and AASHTO ESAL for typical traffic load spectra in NZ. Obviously, this will be influenced
by the project specific traffic load spectra, but for all intents and purposes the conversion factor
in Equation (8) is proposed. The conversion factor is determined by multiplying the factor
associated with differences in ESA/HVAG by the factor associated with differences in the
default design life. Although typical conversion factors may range from 2 to 3, the current
analysis has assumed a factor of 2.1 x 1.32 = 2.8.
1.0 𝐴𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑠 𝐸𝑆𝐴 ≅ 2.8 𝐴𝐴𝑆𝐻𝑇𝑂 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿
Equation 8
Consequently, pavement traffic volumes reported under Austroads are significantly greater
than those that would be reported using AASHTO for the same traffic load spectrum. For
example, an Austroads ESA of 5.0 x 106 might be reported as 1.8 x 106 ESAL using the
AASHTO procedure. With this is mind, and by applying the principles of “grade bumping”
because of traffic speeds that differ from “standard”, an approximate equivalency between
Austroads and Superpave traffic categories can be determined. Although there may be some
debate around the exactness of converting between categories, TABLE 2 shows how the traffic
categories relate to each other.
1. Austroads “Light” and “Medium” traffic = Superpave “Standard” traffic
2. Austroads “Heavy” traffic = Superpave “Heavy” traffic
3. Austroads “Very Heavy” traffic = Superpave “Very Heavy” traffic
Superpave “Extreme” traffic category can also be used where Austroads traffic volume
exceeds 20 x 106 ESA (“Very Heavy” traffic category) and the speed is <25 kph.

8 CONCLUSIONS

Before NZ adopted AASHTO M332, it was necessary to interpret the specification in light of
existing NZTA and Austroads practices. Differences in test parameters and pavement design
practices needed to be resolved and the impact on bitumen properties needed to be
understood. It was not possible for NZTA to simply adopt AASHTO M332 verbatim because of
different pavement design processes and the significance of different failure modes.
The apparently dissimilar high temperature bitumen properties of viscosity and J nr, and low
temperature properties of durability and creep stiffness are in fact highly related in a rheological
sense. The Jnr parameter at 64˚C is a good indicator of deformation resistance and it can be
used with as much confidence as the traditional viscosity parameter in NZTA M/1.
The low temperature grading of bitumen used in NZ should not be greater than PGXX-16
despite the fact that many parts of the country never reach this temperature. While thermal
cracking is not an issue in NZ, the -16˚C criteria protects against traffic-induced, flexural
cracking during winter, which has traditionally been safe-guarded against by use of the NZTA
T/13 Durability test. Furthermore, there is some evidence that adoption of a minimum low
temperature grading of PGXX-22 is appropriate
Apparent differences between AASHTO and Austroads’ definitions of traffic categories have
been investigated. An approximate equivalence between categories has been proposed that
allows direct adoption of the AASHTO M332 “S”, “H”, and “V” grading for the respective
Austroads “Medium”, “Heavy” and “Very Heavy” categories.
The differences and similarities between the NZTA and AASHTO specifications have been
explored and understood. AASHTO terminology has been interpreted into the Austroads
lexicon that NZTA is more familiar with, and in so doing the adoption of AASHTO M332 can
proceed with confidence. AASHTO M332 allows the NZ roading industry to have a single,
unified specification for the selection and control of all types of binders including PMBs.

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 14 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for the research reported herein was provided in kind by Higgins Group.
Acknowledgement and appreciation of the efforts of Mr Isaac Waite must also be noted, without
whom it would not have been possible to generate all of the rheological data.

10 REFERENCES

1. NZTA M/1, “Specification for Roading Bitumens”, New Zealand Transport Agency,
Wellington, 2011.
2. D’Angelo J., Kluttz R., Dongré R., Stephens K., Zanzotto L., “Revision of the Superpave
high temperature binder specification: the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery test”, Journal
of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 76, pp. 123 – 162, 2007
3. AASHTO M332, “Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple
Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test”, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington DC, 2014.
4. NZTA M/1A, “Performance Specification for Asphalt Binders”, New Zealand Transport
Agency, Wellington, 2016.
5. Holleran G., Holleran I., Donbavand J., Vercoe, J., D’Angelo A., Bearsley S. and Stevens
A., “Bitumen in New Zealand – performance-based asphalt binder specification”, AAPA
International Flexible Pavements Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 2015.
6. AS 2008, “Bitumen for Pavements”, Standards Australia, Sydney, 2013.
7. AG:PT/T190, “Specification Framework for Polymer Modified Binders”, Austroads,
Sydney, 2014.
8. Tredrea P., “Viscosity in high performance binders and its contribution to asphalt
deformation control”, 21st ARRB and 11th REAAA Conference, Cairns, Australia, 2003
9. Waters J., “Developing and trialling a climate based selection guideline for chip seal
binders”, NZTA Research Report 358, New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington,
2008.
10. AASHTO M320, “Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder”,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC,
2017.
11. Oliver J. and Tredrea P., “Relationship between asphalt rut resistance and binder
rheological properties,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 67,
pp. 623 - 643, 1998
12. D’Angelo J., “The relationship of the MSCR test to rutting”, Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 10(Sup1), pp. 61 – 80, 2009.
13. Reinke G., “Use of Hamburg rut testing data to validate the use of J nr as a performance
parameter for high-temperature permanent deformation”, Transportation Research
Circular E-C147, pp. 14 – 24, TRB, Washington DC, 2010.
14. D’Angelo J., “New high-temperature binder specification using multistress creep and
recovery”, Transportation Research Circular E-C147, pp. 1 – 13, TRB, Washington DC,
2010.
15. NZTA M/10 Notes, “Notes to the Specification for Dense Graded and Stone Mastic
Asphalts”, New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, 2014.
16. Kodippily S., Holleran I. and Holleran G., “Characterising bitumen binders for pavements
in the Auckland region,” Road and Transport Research, 25(4), pp. 27 – 37, 2016.
17. Herrington P. “Performance based specification for chip seal bitumen”, Discussion
Paper, Opus Research, Wellington, 2016.

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 15 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 Implementation of the AASHTO PG Asphalt Binder Specification in the NZ Operating Environment

18. Choi Y., “Laboratory Study on Relationship between Binder Properties and Asphalt
Rutting”, Project No. TT1354, Austroads, Sydney, 2010
19. Choi Y., “Visco-elastic analysis of the elastomeric binder shear resistance in relation to
asphalt rutting”, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 12(4), pp. 767 – 794, 2011
20. NZTA T/13, “Durability Test Method for Bitumen”, New Zealand Transport Agency,
Wellington, 2011.
21. Sui C., Farrer M., Harnsberger P., Tuminello W. and Turner T., “New low-temperature
performance grading method using 4mm parallel plates on a dynamic shear rheometer”,
Transportation Research Record 2207, pp. 43 – 48, 2011.
22. Farrer M., Salmans S. and Planche J.-P. “Recovery and laboratory testing of asphalt
emulsion residue: application of simple ageing test and 4-mm dynamic shear rheometer
test”, Transportation Research Record 2370, pp. 69 – 83, 2013.
23. Farrar M., Sui C., Salmans S. and Qin Q., “Determining the Low Temperature
Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR)”,
Western Research Institute, Laramie, WY, 2015.
24. Lu X., Uhlback P. and Soenen, H., “Investigation of bitumen low temperature properties
using a dynamic shear rheometer with 4mm parallel plates”, International Journal of
Pavement Research and Technology, 10, pp.15-22, 2017.
25. Anderson D., Christensen D., Bahia H., Dongre R., Sharma M., Antle C. and Button J.,
“Binder Characterization and Evaluation, Volume 3: Physical Characterization”, SHRP-
A-369, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. 1994.
26. Moffatt, M., “The Influence of Multiple Axle Group Loads on Flexible Pavement Design”,
Austroads Research Report AP-R486-15, Austroads, Sydney, 2015.
27. Austroads, “Guide to Pavement Technology – Part 2: Pavement Structural Design”,
Appendix H, Austroads, Sydney, 2012.
28. NZTA, “NZ Supplement to the 2004 Austroads Pavement Design Guide”, New Zealand
Transport Agency, Wellington, 2007.

18th AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference 2019 16 Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

View publication stats