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

net/publication/280581437

Use of the Resilient Modulus Test to Characterize Asphalt Mixtures with

Recycled Materials and Recycling Agents

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · November 2015
DOI: 10.3141/2506-05

CITATIONS READS

21 4,665

4 authors:

Juan S. Carvajal-Muñoz Fawaz Kaseer

University of Nottingham Michigan Department of Transportation
36 PUBLICATIONS   211 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   509 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Edith Arambula Amy Epps Martin

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,398 CITATIONS    110 PUBLICATIONS   1,998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Recycling Tyre Rubber in Civil Engineering applications View project

Understanding Raveling Phenomena in Porous Friction Courses (PFC) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan S. Carvajal-Muñoz on 07 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Use of the Resilient Modulus Test to
Characterize Asphalt Mixtures with
Recycled Materials and Recycling Agents
Juan S. Carvajal Munoz, Fawaz Kaseer, Edith Arambula,
and Amy Epps Martin
Asphalt mixture stiffness is an important parameter used during pave-
ment design and the evaluation of pavement performance. This study used
the resilient modulus (MR) test (ASTM D7369) to measure the stiffness of
several types of asphalt mixtures and various specimen types. Five types of
asphalt mixtures were studied: virgin mixture without recycled materials;
control mixture with recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), recycled asphalt
shingles (RAS), and warm-mix asphalt additive; and three other mixtures
with RAP, RAS, and different types of recycling agents. The specimen types
used in the study were field cores, on-site plant mix laboratory-compacted
specimens, and reheated plant mix laboratory-compacted specimens. The
objectives of the study were to assess the effect on MR values of (a) smooth-
ness of field core surfaces and (b) measurement angle in field cores and
laboratory-compacted specimens. In addition, the study compared the MR
results for the various mixture and specimen types. The results indicated
that smoothness and measurement angle had no statistically significant
effect on MR at the 95% confidence level. However, the test was able to
identify statistically significant differences between mixture and specimen
types. Finally, a comparison between MR and dynamic modulus (DM)
test (AASHTO TP79) results showed equivalent ranking of the mixtures,
confirming that MR is a practical alternative to DM testing.
The resilient modulus (MR) test provides a measure of material stiff-
ness used to characterize bound and unbound pavement materials,
including asphalt mixtures. The latest standard describing the test
procedure for asphalt mixtures is ASTM D7369, which was followed
in this study with linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs)
placed along the specimen diameter (gauge length as a fraction of
specimen diameter = 1). The test is nondestructive and practical
because of the relative simplicity of the specimen setup; single test
temperature of 25°C (77°F); and ability to characterize thin specimens,
including field cores, in indirect tension.
Many variables can affect the MR results such as: (a) tempera-
ture, (b) loading history, (c) type of loading, (d) loading frequency,
(e) aging, and ( f ) mixture type (1). Several studies have focused
on understanding the effect of certain factors on MR values (2–6)
J. S. Carvajal Munoz, 501H CE/TTI; F. Kaseer, 501G CE/TTI; and E. Arambula,
310G CE/TTI; Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 3135 TAMU, Texas A&M
University System, and A. Epps Martin, Zachry Department of Civil Engineering,
Texas A&M University, 310D CE/TTI, 3136 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-
3136. Corresponding author: E. Arambula, e-arambula@ttimail.tamu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2506, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 45–53.
DOI: 10.3141/2506-05
45
as well as the effect of different materials on the stiffness of asphalt
mixtures (1, 7–9). Other studies have focused on studying the cor-
relation between field and laboratory MR values (10, 11). In addi-
tion, comparison of the results of dynamic modulus (DM) and MR
has been a topic of interest (12).
Kennedy and Perez (13) compared the MR stiffness of recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP) mixtures with and without recycling agents
and virgin mixtures. The MR results at 25°C (77°F) ranged between
1,720 MPa [250 kips per square inch (ksi)] and 6,915 MPa (1,003
ksi), and the researchers noted that the values for the RAP mixtures
were higher than those for the virgin mixtures. A similar study con-
ducted by Noureldin and Wood compared the MR stiffness of virgin
and RAP mixtures with three types of recycling agents (14). These
mixtures were tested at different asphalt contents (5.5%, 6.0%, and
6.5%). The results showed that RAP mixtures with recycling agents
had lower MR values than the virgin mixture, possibly because of
decreased asphalt viscosity.
Sondag et al. also examined the effect of the amount of RAP (0%
to 40%) from different sources combined with virgin binders of
various performance grades (PG 58-28, PG 52-34, and PG 46-40)
on MR values (15). As expected, the test results showed that increas-
ing RAP content yielded a higher MR value. At 25°C (77°F), adding
40% RAP to the PG 46-40 and PG 58-28 virgin mixtures resulted
in an increase of 164% and 74%, respectively, in MR value. Kandhal
et al. compared the MR of five paired virgin and RAP field cores
from roads in Georgia after a few years in service (16). They found
that the average MR at 25°C (77°F) was 6,530 MPa (947 ksi) and
6,150 MPa (892 ksi) for the virgin and RAP mixtures, respectively.
They indicated that these results were not statistically different on
the basis of a paired t-test with a 95% confidence level.
Despite the relevance of the available literature and the detailed
studies on MR, there are no reports that describe the effects of several
factors on MR. There are no reports on field core surface smoothness
and measurement angle. There are no comparisons of MR values for
mixtures with and without RAP, recycled asphalt shingles (RAS), recy-
cling agents, or warm-mix asphalt (WMA) additives of different speci-
men types [e.g., field cores, on-site plant mix laboratory-compacted
(PMLC) specimens, and reheated PMLC (RPMLC) specimens].
Objectives
The goal of this study was to evaluate the MR test method and results
to fulfill the following objectives:
1. Investigate the effect of surface smoothness and measurement
angle on MR results.
46
2. Compare the MR values of five types of asphalt mixtures,
including a virgin mixture with no recycled materials; a control
mixture with RAP, RAS, and WMA additive; and mixtures with
RAP and RAS and three recycling agents.
3. Compare the MR values of three specimen types, including
field cores, on-site PMLC, and RPMLC specimens.
4. Compare the MR values obtained for RPMLC specimens of
each mixture type against equivalent DM results.
Materials
Five asphalt mixtures employed in the construction of a highway
section in Tyler, Texas, that was built in May 2014 were used in this
study. The mixtures, identified as M1 through M5, used two asphalt
binders (PG 70-22 and PG 64-22), RAP and RAS, three recycling
agents (Tall Oil 1, Tall Oil 2, and an emulsion product), and two
WMA additives (chemical-based). A summary of the characteristics
of the mixtures is presented in Table 1. M1, the virgin mixture with
no RAP or RAS, was considered as a benchmark when comparing
the laboratory test results.
The materials and mix design complied with the Texas Depart-
ment of Transportation specifications and procedures (17, 18). The
nominal maximum aggregate size of all mixtures was 12.5 mm
(0.5 in.). The aggregate types used were dolomitic limestone and
sandstone. A total of 15 field cores and 30 laboratory compacted
specimens were tested to determine MR. The diameter of all speci-
mens was 150 mm (6 in.), and the height was kept constant for the
laboratory compacted specimens (PMLC and RPMLC) at 61 mm
(2.4 in.), while the height of the field cores was variable.
The PMLC specimens were compacted at the construction site,
after stabilizing the mixture to the compaction temperature. The plant
mix for the RPMLC specimens, in contrast, was allowed to cool down
to room temperature before reheating to the compaction temperature
to fabricate the specimens at an off-site location. The compaction
temperature for the PMLC and RPMLC was 132°C (270°F) for
M1, whereas M2 through M5 were compacted at 121°C (250°F).
These temperatures were selected based on the field compaction
temperature of the mixtures.
The use of WMA additives in an asphalt mixture is a common
practice because of the possible reduction in production and compac-
tion temperatures as compared with conventional hot-mix asphalt
mixtures with enhanced aggregate coatability and mixture workabil-
ity and compactability, among other environmental and economic
benefits as reported elsewhere (19–26). The study used two types
TABLE 1   Characteristics of Asphalt Mixtures
M1 M2
Factor (virgin) (control)
Materials used
  Binder grade PG 70-22 PG 64-22
   RAP or RAS No Yes
   WMA additive — Chemical Additive 1
   Recycling agent (RA) — —
Mixture proportions (%)
   Optimum asphalt content 4.9 4.9
   RAP or RAS — 10.0/5.0
   WMA additive dosage — 0.5 by wt. of total binder
   Recycling agent dosage — —
Note: — = component was not part of the mix; wt. = weight.
Transportation Research Record 2506
of commonly used WMA additives. Recycling agents are incorpo-
rated in asphalt mixtures with RAP or RAS primarily to restore the
mechanical properties of the aged RAP or RAS binder and improve
blending of the RAP or RAS with the virgin materials. Two of the
recycling agents used in the study are categorized as tall oil, and
the third is an emulsion product (27).
Experimental Design
MR tests were performed on field cores, PMLC, and RPMLC speci-
mens of asphalt mixtures with and without RAP or RAS, recycling
agents, or WMA additives. For each specimen type, three replicates
per mixture type were considered. DM tests were only performed
on the RPMLC specimens. To compare the laboratory test results,
a statistical analysis at the 95% confidence level was performed
including analysis of variance (ANOVA) for finding the effect of
factors with two levels, while ANOVA plus Tukey’s honest signifi-
cant differences was used to explore the effect of factors with three
levels. Figure 1 presents the detailed methodology followed in the
experimental design.
Procedure for Specimen Trimming
To evaluate the effect of the surface irregularities of field cores on
the MR results, a small portion of the surface of the specimen was
trimmed to create a smooth surface, and MR measurements before
and after the trimming process, as shown in Figure 2, were com-
pared. The trimming process was done in wet condition by shav-
ing off the irregular portion of the specimen with a round metal
saw (Figure 2b). As shown in Figure 2a, the field cores had several
surface irregularities that required trimming to ease and expedite
the test setup in the MR device (Figure 3). The irregular surface
of the field cores could also have an effect on the accuracy of the
MR results because of the difference in the core thickness that was
exposed to each LVDT.
Procedure for Angle Measurement
The effect on MR of the measurement angle for each specimen type
(field cores, PMLC, and RPMLC specimens) and mixture type was
explored. ASTM D7369 prescribes measuring the MR twice on a
single specimen, with the second measurement oriented 90° from
M3 M4 M5
(with RA1) (with RA2) (with RA3)
PG 64-22 PG 64-22 PG 64-22
Yes Yes Yes
— Chemical Additive 2 —
Tall Oil 1 Tall Oil 2 Emulsion product
4.9 4.9 4.9
10.0/5.0 10.0/5.0 10.0/5.0
— 0.5 by wt. of total binder —
0.13 by wt. of total mix 3.7 by wt. of total binder 1.3 by wt. of total binder
Carvajal Munoz, Kaseer, Arambula, and Epps Martin 47

Mix Design

Asphalt Mixture 2 Asphalt Mixture 4

Asphalt Mixture 1 Asphalt Mixture 5
(M2) Asphalt Mixture 3 (M4)
(M1) (M5)
Control (RAP, RAS, (M3) Control with
Virgin Aggregate Control with
PG 64-22 with Control with Tall Oil 1 chemical-based WMA
(PG 70-22, no RAP, emulsion product
chemical-based recycling agent additive and Tall Oil 2
RAS, or additive) recycling agent
WMA additive) recycling agent

Construction of highway section in Tyler, Texas

Extraction of field cores

Fabrication of on-site Fabrication of RPMLC
PMLC specimens specimens

MR Test at 77°F
to evaluate the effect
of measurement angle
MR Test at 77°F
MR Test at 77°F
to compare specimen
to compare mixture
types (field cores,
type (M1 through M5)
PMLC, and RPMLC)

MR Test at 77°F Determination of air Dynamic Modulus Test

to evaluate the effect voids content AASHTO TP79 at 0.1, 1, and 10 Hz and
of surface smoothness (AASHTO T166 and 40°F, 68°F, and 104°F to construct
AASHTO T209) master curves and subsequently
compare stiffness with MR

Statistical Analysis (ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD) to

assess the effect of the factors on the MR results
and compare MR with DM

FIGURE 1   Methodology (HSD 5 honest significant differences).

48 Transportation Research Record 2506

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 2   Field cores (a) before trimming, (b) during trimming, and (c) after trimming.

the vertical diametral plane used in the first measurement. How-
ever, there are instances where these two results differ, and other
vertical diametral planes can be explored to improve the repeat-
ability of the results. In this study, MR was measured four times on
a single specimen, with each additional measurement oriented 45°
with respect to the vertical diametral plane of the previous mea-
surement. Despite considering the magnitude of the applied load
nondestructive, a 5-min rest period was allowed between measure-
ments to let the specimen recover and to make all measurements
consistent.
Laboratory Tests
Resilient Modulus
The MR test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D7369. The
original test method was developed by Schmidt (1) and published
as ASTM D4123, which was later revised and replaced by ASTM
D7369. The equipment that was used in this study is presented in
Figure 3. The test consists of applying a repetitive haversine com-
pressive load pulse of 34 kgf (75 lbf) every 0.1 s with a rest period

(a) (b) (c)

FIGURE 3   M R device depicting (a) load cell, (b) mounting support for the specimen, and (c) detailed view of pins and wooden sticks used
for supporting the specimen.
(continued)
Carvajal Munoz, Kaseer, Arambula, and Epps Martin
(d)
FIGURE 3 (continued)  M R device depicting (d) specimen on mounting support, (e) mounting support and load cell assembly, and (f) general
view of the device ready for testing.
of 0.9 s (5). The load is applied in the vertical diametral plane of the
cylindrical specimen (Figure 3, e and f ). Poisson’s ratio is assumed
to be constant between 0.25 and 0.45, depending on the testing
temperature. In this particular case, a Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 was
selected for the test temperature of 25°C (77°F). The horizontal
deformation occurring in the specimen because of the repeated load
was registered through a set of two LVDTs aligned in the diametral
plane, perpendicular to the load, as depicted in Figure 3, b and d.
The deformation was registered on the computer attached to the
device (Figure 3f ).
In accordance with ASTM D7369, MR is calculated with the
assumed Poisson’s ratio and the recoverable horizontal deformation
registered by the LVDTs (28):
Pcyclic
MR = ( I1 − I 2 p µ ) (1)
t p δh
where
MR = instantaneous or total resilient modulus of elasticity [MPa
pounds per square inch (psi)],
Pcyclic = cyclic load applied to the specimen [N (lb)],
t = thickness of the specimen [mm (in.)],
δh = recoverable horizontal (instantaneous or total) deforma-
tion [mm (in.)],
I1, I2 = constant values for gauge length as a fraction of specimen
diameter = 1 (I1 = 0.27 and I2 = −1.00), and
µ = instantaneous or total Poisson’s ratio.
The steps to conduct the MR test include the following, with the
software input and output screens shown in Figure 4:
1. Stabilize the temperature of the specimens to 25°C (77°F)
inside a temperature-controlled room for at least 6 h before testing.
49
(e) (f)
2. Initiate the computer and start the corresponding software for
gathering and analyzing the data collected during testing.
3. Input the specimen identification in the software, including
the Poisson’s ratio and specimen thickness in inches (Figure 4a).
4. Mount the specimen as presented in Figure 3d as the 0°
orientation.
5. Adjust the LVDTs to be in the zero scale deformation (Fig-
ure 4b).
6. Start the test. Loading will automatically stop once 106 cycles
are applied to the specimen (Figure 4c).
7. Save the detailed data and statistical analysis results as a text
output file.
8. Rotate the specimen by 90° and restart the process (after a
5-min rest period). Other measurement angles, such as 45° or 135°,
may be needed depending on the variability of the results.
The testing time per specimen is about 8 min when the specimen
is rotated 90° after the first measurement as prescribed by the stan-
dard. When more than one measurement angle is required because
of variability in the results, the testing time is extended to 15 to
20 min per specimen.
Dynamic Modulus
The DM test was performed in accordance with AASHTO TP79.
RPMLC specimens 100 mm (4 in.) in diameter by 150 mm (6 in.)
height were fabricated and tested for each of the five mixtures. The
specimens were fabricated to a target air void (AV) content of 7%
±1.0%. The DM tests were conducted at three test temperatures
[4°C (39°F), 20°C (68°F), and 40°C (104°F)] and three test fre-
quencies (0.1, 1, and 10 Hz). Master curves were generated from
the DM test results at the various test temperatures and frequencies.
From each curve, a value at 25°C (77°F) and 10 Hz was obtained to
compare against the MR results.
50 Transportation Research Record 2506

(a) (b)

(c)

FIGURE 4   Data acquisition software for M R device depicting (a) material inputs, (b) LVDT adjustment window, and (c) output summary.

Results and Discussion

This section presents the MR and DM results for the five mixture
types considered in this study along with the corresponding statisti- 800
cal analysis as detailed in Figure 1. The results include the effects of Before trimming After trimming
700
various factors on MR, including surface smoothness of field cores
and measurement angle. In addition, a comparison of specimen and 600
mixture types is performed. A discussion of the differences between 500
MR (ksi)

MR and DM is also offered based on the statistical analysis results.

400
300
Resilient Modulus
200
Specimen Trimming 100

The results before and after trimming are depicted in Figure 5. Each 0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
bar represents the average of three replicates, and the error bars span
Mixture Type
± one standard deviation from the average value. Based on Figure 5,
the variability for mixtures M3 and M5 was higher compared with FIGURE 5   Comparison of M R results for field cores before and
the other mixtures. The coefficient of variation (CV) for mixtures after trimming.
Carvajal Munoz, Kaseer, Arambula, and Epps Martin 51

M1, M2, and M4 was below 7%, while the CV of mixtures M3 and 0° 45° 90° 135°
M5 exceeded this value (approximately 10%) before and after trim- 800
ming, which indicates partial compliance with ASTM D7369, which 700
prescribes 7% acceptable repeatability between replicates. Neverthe- 600
less, considering that a CV of 15% to 20% is common in asphalt 500

MR (ksi)
mixture testing, these values were considered acceptable.
400
Judging from the range of the error bars of the MR results shown in
Figure 5, the results before and after trimming are practically equiva- 300
lent. Moreover, on the basis of ANOVA, the differences were not sta- 200
tistically significant. In spite of this conclusion, achieving a smooth 100
field core surface is highly recommended for practical reasons, 0
primarily for specimen setup (Figure 3, c and d). M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Measurement Angle

Measurement Angle
The statistical ANOVA and Tukey’s honest significant differences for
the field cores and RPMLC specimens resulted in no significant dif-
ferences for the four measurement angles for any of the mixtures.
Only the PMLC specimens showed statistical differences for M3 and
M4. The MR results for the PMLC specimens are shown in Figure 6.
The results indicate that within each specimen and mixture type, the
CV was between 1.5% and 12.5% when only two of the four measure-
ment angles were considered. Cases above 7% exceeded the repeat-
ability threshold prescribed by ASTM D7369. The smallest variability
was observed for the PMLC specimens (with all mixtures below 7%),
followed by the RPMLC specimens, and then the field cores.
These results suggest that the measurement angle does not sig-
nificantly affect the final MR result, and that two measurements at
90° from each other should suffice to estimate the MR value of any
given specimen. Other angles may be included if the variability of
the first two measurements is higher than the threshold prescribed
by ASTM D7369, which was the case for some MR measurements
for all specimen types.
Mixture Type
The ranking of the MR values for the five types of mixtures within
each specimen type was evaluated. For the PMLC specimens, the
ranking from low to high MR was M1, M4, M5 and M3, and M2;
FIGURE 6   M R results at various measurement angles for PMLC
specimens.
similarly, the ranking for RPMLC specimens from low to high MR
was M1, M5, M3 and M4, and M2. Mixtures M3, M4, and M5 had
lower MR values compared with mixture M2, likely because of the
effect of the recycling agents. For all specimen types, the MR value
of the virgin mixture (M1) was statistically lower compared with the
other types of mixtures, as expected.
It was also expected that mixture M2 would achieve the highest
MR values because this control mixture contained RAP or RAS but
no recycling agents, which are added to soften the aged binder and
yield a softer mixture. This was true for the laboratory-compacted
specimens (PMLC and RPMLC) but not for the field cores. All the
PMLC and RPMLC specimens were fabricated to a target AV con-
tent of 7% ±1.0%, whereas the field cores had variable AVs. Dif-
ferences in AV content are expected in field cores because of the
inherent variability in the construction process, where changes in
the compaction temperature, number of roller passes, and compac-
tion patterns dictate the final density obtained in the pavement. As
shown in Figure 7, the AV content of the field cores for the five
mixtures ranged from 8.2% for mixture M4 to 9.9% for mixture M5.
Mixture M2 had the second highest AV content at 9.8%. The aver-
age AV content for the field cores for all five mixtures was 9.4%.
In general, specimens with higher AV content usually have lower

Field cores PMLC RPMLC

1,000

800 AV AV
6.6% AV
6.9%
7.1%
AV
AV 7%
600
MR (ksi)

7±1% AV AV
7±1% 7±1%
AV AV AV AV
7.3% AV 9.6% 8.2% 7±1%
400 9.8% AV
AV
7±1% 9.9%

200 AV
9.3%

0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Mixture Type

FIGURE 7   Average AV content by specimen type.

52
stiffness values, which may explain why this type of mixture in the
case of the field cores did not achieve the highest MR values (29).
Modulus (ksi)
Specimen Type
The main difference between the stiffness results for the various
specimen types was that the RPMLC specimens had the highest MR
values for all mixture types compared with the other two types of
specimens (Figure 7). This difference was statistically significant in
all cases. This finding illustrates the effect of reheating on aging and
sub­sequent stiffening of the plant mix. Previous studies reported the
influence of reheating on the aging and mechanical properties of hot-
mix asphalt mixtures with and without RAP and RAS (29, 30). There-
fore, mixtures containing recycled materials require careful handling
for preparing plant mix specimens to minimize oxidative aging.
The statistical analysis showed that the MR values for field cores
of mixtures M1, M2, and M5 were significantly lower than those for
the corresponding PMLC mixtures. Only mixtures M3 and M4 were
statistically equivalent in both specimen types. Coincidentally, these
two mixtures also showed statistical differences when the effect of
the measurement angle on PMLC specimens was explored. The dif-
ference between the stiffness of field cores and PMLC specimens is
likely the result of dissimilar aggregate orientation resulting from
the different compaction methods used in the field and in the labora-
tory, which affect the stiffness of the mixtures (29). In addition, the
AV content for mixtures M1, M2, and M5 was significantly higher
than the AV content of the PMLC specimens as shown in Figure 7.
Dynamic Modulus
Compared with the MR test procedure, the DM test is a more involved,
multistep method, requiring coring and trimming of laboratory com-
pacted specimens and field cores as well as conditioning of the speci-
mens at multiple test temperatures. Therefore, the MR test provides
certain practical benefits, especially in time savings in specimen prep-
aration, conditioning, and setup. More important, the nondestructive
character of the MR test allows for further performance testing (e.g.,
rutting, fatigue, moisture susceptibility, and low-temperature crack-
ing) of the specimens used in the test, which is efficient. Further-
more, previous studies indicated that the use of DM instead of MR
in asphalt layer characterization results in an underestimation of the
responses in the pavement, having an impact on performance pre-
dictions (31, 32). Moreover, the mode of loading is different for the
two tests: in compression for DM and in indirect tension for MR. In
addition, some agencies have suggested the use of MR as an input for
analysis and design of pavements instead of DM for several technical
and practical considerations (4, 12).
For these reasons, the MR test results were compared against the
DM results in an effort to evaluate their correlation and explore the
possibility of recommending the use of the more practical MR test
in lieu of the DM test. The comparison of test results was done for
RPMLC specimens by constructing a DM master curve, from the
following master curve equation (Equation 2) to estimate the stiff-
ness of the specimen at 25°C (77°F) and 10 Hz (to match the MR test
conditions) and compare this value against the MR measurement:
α values, supporting the use of MR as a more practical alternative for
log E * = δ + β+ γ ( log tr )
(2)
1+ e
Transportation Research Record 2506
MR DM
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Mixture Type
FIGURE 8   Comparison of M R and DM values for RPMLC specimens.
where
E* = dynamic modulus [MPa (psi)],
tr = reduced time of loading at reference temperature,
δ = minimum modulus value,
δ + α = maximum modulus value, and
β, γ = parameters describing the shape of the sigmoidal function.
As shown in Figure 8, the MR and DM results at 25°C (77°F) and
10 Hz were very similar and all five mixtures were ranked similarly
(the numbers above the bars in Figure 8 correspond to the rank of
the mixtures). From the statistical analysis, the only difference was
observed for mixture M1, whereas for the other mixtures the DM
and MR values were statistically equivalent. However, based on Fig-
ure 8, the MR and DM values for mixture M1 could be considered
practically equivalent.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This paper presented an evaluation of several factors that could have
a significant effect on MR test results, and compared the MR test results
for three specimen types and five mixture types containing RAP,
RAS, recycling agents, and WMA additives. According to the test
results and observations, the following conclusions were obtained:
• The surface smoothness of field cores had a negligible effect on
the MR results. However, for practical considerations, it is suggested
that any surface irregularities be trimmed before testing.
• The measurement angle used during MR testing had no signifi-
cant effect on the results. Therefore, the recommended 0° and 90°
test orientations currently included in ASTM D7369 should be fol-
lowed. Additional measurement angles could be considered when
high variability between the two initial measurements is obtained.
• The MR test results showed differences between the virgin mix-
ture without recycled materials (having a significantly lower stiff-
ness) and the control mixture with recycled materials but no recycling
agents (having the highest stiffness). The only exception to this obser-
vation was with the field cores, where variability in the AV content
had a dominant effect on MR stiffness.
• The MR test results on various specimen types showed a clear
effect of aging caused by reheating of RPMLC specimens prepared
off-site.
• Comparison of DM and MR results showed very similar
characterizing asphalt mixtures.
 Carvajal Munoz, Kaseer, Arambula, and Epps Martin
On the basis of these results, the MR test is recommended as a
practical tool for characterizing asphalt mixture stiffness. Therefore,
additional research focused on this test is encouraged to validate these
findings and provide a deeper understanding on the benefits provided
by MR in contrast to DM or other mechanical characterization tests.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank NCHRP for providing the funds for this research.
The authors are thankful for the field assistance provided by Fujie
Zhou and Arif Chowdhury, as well as the support of laboratory
technicians Ross Taylor and Tony Barbosa of the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute. Additional gratitude is expressed to Eyoab
Zegeye of the FHWA Mobile Laboratory Trailer for his assistance
in performing the dynamic modulus tests.
References
  1. Schmidt, R. J. A Practical Method for Measuring the Resilient Modu-
lus of Asphalt-Treated Mixes. In Highway Research Record 404, HRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1972, pp. 22–32.
  2. Ozsahin, T. S., and S. Oruc. Neural Network Model for Resilient Modulus
of Emulsified Asphalt Mixtures. Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 22, No. 7, 2008, pp. 1436–1445.
  3. Pan, T., E. Tutumluer, and S. H. Carpenter. Effect of Coarse Aggregate
Morphology on the Resilient Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt. In Transpor-
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1929, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 1–9.
  4. Fakhri, M., and A. R. Ghanizadeh. An Experimental Study on the Effect
of Loading History Parameters on the Resilient Modulus of Conven-
tional and SBS-Modified Asphalt Mixes. Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 53, 2014, pp. 284–293.
  5. Yin, F., and L. Garcia. Resilient Modulus Test. McNew Laboratory
Manual, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System,
College Station, 2012.
  6. Ji, S. J. Investigation of Factors Affecting Resilient Modulus for Hot Mix
Asphalt. MS thesis. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
2006.
  7. Xiao, F., and S. N. Amirkhanian. Resilient Modulus Behavior of Rubber-
ized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Mixtures Containing Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement (RAP). Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 9, No. 4,
2008, pp. 633–649.
  8. Oruc, S., F. Celik, and M. V. Akpinar. Effect of Cement on Emulsified
Asphalt Mixtures. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance,
Vol. 16, No. 5, 2007, pp. 578–583.
  9. Hamzah, M. O., and T. C. Yi. Effects of Temperature on Resilient Modu-
lus of Dense Asphalt Mixtures Incorporating Steel Slag Subjected to
Short Term Oven Drying. World Academy of Science, Engineering, and
Technology, Vol. 46, 2008, pp. 221–225.
10. Katicha, S. W. Development of Laboratory to Field Shift Factors for
Hot-Mix Asphalt Resilient Modulus. MS thesis. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 2003.
11. Demirci, C. Evaluation of Resilient Modulus Estimation Methods
for Asphalt Mixtures Based on Laboratory Measurements. MS thesis.
Middle East Technical University, Çankaya Ankara, Turkey, 2010.
12. Clyne, T. R., X. Li, M. O. Marasteanu, and E. L. Skok. Dynamic and
Resilient Modulus of MN/DOT Asphalt Mixtures. Publication MN/
RC–2003-09, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul,
2003.
13. Kennedy, T. W., and I. Perez. Preliminary Mixture Design Procedure for
Recycle Asphalt Materials. Recycling of Bituminous Pavements, Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials Special Technical Publication
No. 662, 1978, pp. 47–67.
14. Noureldin, A. S., and L. E. Wood. Laboratory Evaluation of Recycled
Asphalt Pavement Using Nondestructive Tests. In Transportation
Research Record 1269, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1990, pp. 92–100.
View publication stats
53
15. Sondag, M. S., B. A. Chadbourn, and A. Drescher. Investigation of Recycled
Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Mixtures. Publication MN/RC–2002-15,
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, 2002.
16. Kandhal, P. S., S. S. Rao, D. E. Watson, and B. Young. Performance
of Recycled Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixtures in Georgia. In Transportation
Research Record 1507, TRB, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1995, pp. 67–77.
17. Texas Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Con-
struction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. Austin,
Tex., 2004.
18. Texas Department of Transportation. 200-F, Bituminous Test Procedures
Manual. 2011. http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants
/test_procedures/tms_series.htm?series=200-F. Accessed July 2014.
19. Challa, H., and S. B. Cooper. Laboratory Performance of Green Asphalt
in Flexible Pavement Systems. Presented at AAPT 2012 Student Poster
Session, Austin, Tex.
20. Alvarez, A. E., J. S. Carvajal Munoz, and O. J. Reyes. Internal Structure
of Laboratory Compacted Warm Mix Asphalt. Dyna, Vol. 79, No. 172,
2012, pp. 38–45.
21. Button, J. W., C. Estakhri, and A. Wimsatt. A Synthesis of Warm-Mix
Asphalt. Publication FHWA/TX-07/0-5597-1, Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station, 2007.
22. Estakhri, C., R. Cao, A. Alvarez, and J. W. Button. Production, Place-
ment, and Performance Evaluation of Warm Mix Asphalt in Texas. ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication: Material, Design, Construction,
Maintenance, and Testing of Pavement, No. 193, 2009, pp. 1–8.
23. Estakhri, C., J. Button, and A. E. Alvarez. Field and Laboratory Inves-
tigation of Warm Mix Asphalt in Texas. Publication FHWA/TX-10/
0-5597-2, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University
System, College Station, 2010.
24. Milar, B. Asphalt Mixes with RAP, RAS, and Chemical Additives–
A Study by MeadWestvaco MWV. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint
/Pavement/RPC/Task_Groups/PDF/ATG_STG_RAP-RAS_Mtg
_2013-10-11_Handout_1_Recycled_Mix_Additives_BMM.pdf.
Accessed July 14, 2014.
25. Alvarez, A. E., J. S. Carvajal Munoz, O. Reyes-Ortiz, L. F. Walubita,
and C. K. Estakhri. Image Analysis of Internal Structure of Warm-Mix
Asphalt (WMA) Mixtures. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
26. Prowell, B. D., G. C. Hurley, and B. Frank. Warm-Mix Asphalt: Best
Practices. NAPA Quality Improvement Publication 125, 2nd ed. National
Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Md., 2011.
27. National Center for Asphalt Technology. NCAT Researchers Explore
Multiple Uses of Rejuvenators. Asphalt Technology E-news, Vol. 26,
No. 1. http://www.eng.auburn.edu/research/centers/ncat/info-pubs/news
letters/spring-2014/rejuvenators.html. Accessed July 29, 2014.
28. Standard Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of
Bituminous Mixtures by Indirect Tension Test. ASTM D7369, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2003. www.astm.org.
29. Yin, F., L. Garcia Cucalon, A. Epps Martin, E. Arambula, A. Chowdhury,
and E. S. Park. Laboratory Conditioning Protocols for Warm-Mix Asphalt.
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 82,
2013, pp. 177–211.
30. West, R., and M. Marasteanu. NCHRP Report 752: Improved Mix
Design, Evaluation, and Materials Management Practices for Hot Mix
Asphalt with High Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Content. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013.
31. Al-Qadi, I. L., M. A. Elseifi, P. J. Yoo, S. H. Dessouky, N. Gibson,
T. Harman, J. D’Angelo, and K. Petros. Accuracy of Current Complex
Modulus Selection Procedure from Vehicular Load Pulse: NCHRP Proj-
ect 1-37A Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide. In Transpor-
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2087, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 81–90.
32. Zhou, F., E. Fernando, and T. Scullion. Development, Calibration, and
Validation of Performance Prediction Models for the Texas ME Flexible
Pavement Design System. Publication FHWA/TX-10/0-5798-2, Texas
Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College
Station, 2010.
The Standing Committee on Characteristics of Nonasphalt Components of
Asphalt Paving Mixtures peer-reviewed this paper.