Evaluate the new approach for characterizing the

performance of asphalt binders through the multiple

stress creep and recovery test

Aline Vale∗1, Juceline Bastos2, and Jorge Soares1

1Universidade Federal do Ceará, Campus do Pici – Bloco 703, 60455-760 Fortaleza-CE, Brazil
2Instituto Federal do Ceará – IFCE, Campus Fortaleza, Av. Treze de Maio, 2081, Fortaleza-CE,
60040-531, Brazil
alinefialhovale@gmail.com

Abstract. This research provides an efficient procedure for selecting and ranking
binders to prevent rutting on asphalt pavements. Widely used to analyze asphalt
binder permanent deformation, the Multiple Stress and Recovery (MSCR) test
provides the non-recoverable compliance (Jnr). To evaluate the relation between
Jnr from 6 different binders with the behavior of corresponding asphalt mixtures,
this paper analyzes the Flow Number (FN) of 8 distinct mixtures. The MSCR
standard protocol was compared to a new protocol (based on 30 loading cycles
of 3.2 kPa) to verify Jnr and to obtain the non-recoverable strain rate (εnr). Differ-
ent testing temperatures are considered. Correlations between Jnr from both
MSCR test methodologies indicate a similar binder classification. The uniformity
of the Jnr for the new test protocol with 30 constant loading cycles provides a
more consistent average. For mixtures using the same binder with different ag-
gregates and different grading curves, Jnr was a proper parameter to identify the
potential for permanent deformation. However, an adequate choice of aggregate
distribution enhances mixture mechanical behavior, which was evidenced when
analyzing mixtures with distinct gradation but with the same binder.

Keywords: Asphalt Binder; MSCR; Mixtures; Permanent Deformation.

1 Introduction

Permanent deformation is a major distresses on asphaltic surface layers in roadways.

When it comes to preventing such distress, binder selection [7 and 12], aggregate prop-
erties and mixture structure [9 and 11] must be taken into consideration. In the past,
binder selection was mostly performed by simple empirical tests such as Penetration,
Softening Point, and Ductility. Such tests were in most part substituted by binder rheo-
logical properties related to stiffness [3 and 7]. However, low correlation between stiff-
ness parameters and rutting has been found [5]. The United States Federal Highway
Administration (FWHA) [6] proposed the MSCR test to obtain properties beyond the
binder linear viscoelastic range. This test method provided a link between binder test
results and HMA mixture performance [1 and 2].
2

For asphalt mixtures evaluation, the Uniaxial Repeated Load test provides the Flow
Number (FN) [14], which represents the beginning of the shear flow with constant vol-
ume. For Brazilian mixtures, for the sake of pavement design, links between field mon-
itoring and laboratory tests converged to relating FN and traffic volumes [4].
[13] affirm that the parameter Jnr,diff from MSCR test does not indicate the mechani-
cal behavior of the material. [12] proposed a new approach for the MSCR test, indicat-
ing different parameters to evaluate binder’s performance. The present paper aims to
compare parameters from both standard [1] and new test [12] methodologies, relating
them to FN values from different mixtures.

2 Materials

Six different binders and eight mixtures (Table 1) were considered, including one mix-
ture with fly ash addition. Binder characteristics are summarized in Table 2, and mix-
ture design information is provided in Table 3.

Table 1. List and identification of materials

Aggregates / Binders B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
A1 M1 M6
A2 M2
A3 M3/ M4*
A4 M7 M8
A5 M5
*M4 has fly ash addition to the aggregate grading curve
**M7 and M8 have the same grading curve and the same aggregates

Table 2. Binder characteristics

Binder ID Modifier Penetration at 25°C (mm) Softening point (°C) PG grade* [3]
B1 - 50-70 >46 64-xx
B2 Rubber 50-70 >50 76-xx
B3 - 50-70 >46 64-xx
B4 - 50-70 >46 64-xx
B5 - 50-70 >46 64-xx
B6 SBS 50-70 >60 76-xx
*In Brazil, the low temperature limit is not considered due to climate characteristics throughout the country

Table 3. Mixture design specifications

Mixture ID M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
Type of binder B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B4 B4 B6
Binder content (%) 4.20 5.00 4.80 5.30 4.00 4.20 5.72 5.88
Bulk density (g/cm³) 2.467 2.586 2.423 2.408 2.490 2.458 2.342 2.352
Air voids (%) 4.1 4.0 5.0 4.2 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.0
NMAS (mm) 19.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 19.0 19.0 19.0
 3

Binders B1, B3, B4 and B5 are originated from different refineries. Despite present-
ing similar properties, it is important to analyze the impact of different origins on
binder’s performance.
Mixtures M1, M5 and M6 were provided from a cooperative research project be-
tween Federal University of Ceará (UFC) and Petrobras. Mixture M2 was used on a
heavy vehicle simulator by Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES). Mixtures M3
and M4 are part of a research project funded by refineries Energia Pecém and Pecém
II. All mixtures have different design specifications.

3 Standard MSCR test

Figures 1 (a) and (b) show Jnr,3200 and the recovery percentage for all 6 binders using
the MSCR test protocol from standards M322 [1] and T350-14 [2] at 5 different tem-
peratures. All binders were subjected to RTFOT (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test). Pa-
rameter Jnr is presented on the high temperature of binder PG (Performance Grade).

(a) 10 (b) 100

Recovery (%)

50
Jnr,3200

(3200Pa)

5
Stan. 0
Hea. 58°C 64°C 70°C 76°C 82°C
V. he.
0 Ext. -50
64°C 76°C Temperature
PG temperature B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
Figure 1. Standard MSCR: (a) Jnr,3200 and traffic volume indications and (b) R(%)

Test results indicate that binders B2 and B6 have higher resistance to permanent
deformation. Although B2 presents lower values of Jnr,3200, B6 presents higher percent-
age of recovery, indicating that B2 has a better mechanical behavior with respect to
permanent deformation. The other binders have similar behavior towards the recovery
percentage at different temperatures.

4 Uniaxial Repeated Load test

For FN values, the test data were treated with the Francken model [8 and 10]. The
vertical stress was of 204kPa at 60°C [4]. Figure 2 shows the FN value for each mixture
along with traffic volumes within Brazil [4]. Mixture M8 showed higher resistance to
rutting. Although MSCR results of Jnr,3200 for B2 indicated that M2 should have similar
behavior to M8, it presented proper FN values for pavements with medium traffic vol-
ume, as well as mixtures M1, M4, M5, M6 and M7, while M3 presented the lowest FN
(84). Such results suggest that for permanent deformation, the binder recoverable per-
centage is a better indicator than Jnr,3200.
4

It is possible to identify that the addition of fly ash improved FN, from 84 (M3) to
188 (M4). Therefore, using such thermoelectric power plant residue may not only serve
as waste destination, but also as an improvement for mixture mechanical behavior.

800
600
Number
Flow

400 Heavy traffic volume

200 Medium
0 Low
Mixtures
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
Figure 2. Flow Number values for the 8 mixtures

5 The new approach for MSCR test

The standard MSCR test protocol is divided in 3 steps. The conditioning step applies
10 cycles of 100Pa load for 1s, and rest periods of 9s. The current test applies 20 cycles,
the first 10 with 100Pa, and then other 10, with 3200Pa during 1s and 9s of rest period
[2]. The new test protocol [12] applies 30 cycles with 3200Pa of load during 1s, with
rest period of 9s. Since this paper focuses on plastic deformation, both test methodolo-
gies were performed at high temperatures (58°C, 64°C, 70°C, 76°C and 82°C). Figures
3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) show graphics with Jnr (calculated from the 10 initial cycles), %R
(total percent of recovery), Δεnr (Eq. 1), and RC15-30 (obtained from the average of per-
cent of recovery from cycles 15 through 30).

(a) 10 (b) 100

Percent of Recovery,

50
5
%R (%)
Jnr

0
58°C 64°C 70°C 76°C 82°C
0
64°C 76°C -50
PG Temperatures Temperature
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
(c) 2 (d) 100
Non-Recoverable Strain

Average Recovery Strain,

1
Rate, Δεnr (%/cycle)

50
RS15-30 (%/cycle)

0
0
58°C 64°C 70°C 76°C 82°C
-1
58°C 64°C 70°C 76°C 82°C -50
Temperature Temperature
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
Figure 3. Test results: (a) Jnr, (b) %R, (c) Δεnr and (d) RC15-30
 5

𝛥𝜀𝑛𝑟 = (1)

Through the analysis of %R and RC15-30, binders B2 and B6 presented higher %R.
Jnr and %R from the standard MSCR test protocol showed similar values for the new
protocol suggested. However, the new approach has other parameters to be analyzed.
Figures 4 (a), (b) and (c) show parameters RC (Recovery Capacity), F-index (Flow
index) and T-index (Temperature index), respectively.
The deformation recovery capacity is considered higher for greater values of RC.
While higher values of F-index demonstrate less capacity for absorbing energy without
deforming, regardless of the binders recovery capacity. For the T-index, the tempera-
tures analyzed were 58 and 82°C, indicating greater susceptibility to change behavior
with temperature changes.

(a) 2
RC

0
58°C 64°C 70°C 76°C 82°C
Temperature
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
(b) (c)
80 140
120
60 100
F-index

T-index

40 80
60
20 40
20
0 0
58°C 64°C 70°C 76°C 82°C -20
Temperature Mixtures
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
Figure 4. Test results: (a) RC, (b) F-index and (c) T-index

6 Conclusions

The parameters from the new MSCR approach show similarities to the standard proto-
col, which means it may represent binder behavior. Jnr for binders B4 and B6 suggests
better behavior for B6, which was confirmed by the FN values for mixtures M7 and
M8. When it comes to binder B2, MSCR results pointed to a mixture with high re-
sistance to rutting. However, FN for mixture M2 corresponds only to medium traffic
volume, requiring further investigation of the influence of the aggregate choice for that
specific mixture. For the new MSCR approach, F-index and T-index indicate that bind-
ers with better performance towards permanent deformation are usually susceptible to
temperature variations, absorbs more energy without deforming, and have a higher re-
coverable deformation. In short, parameters proposed for the new MSCR approach are
6

more detailed than the standard parameters, even though, for binder selection to rutting
resistance, the standard Jnr and %R are still efficient.

References
1. AASHTO M 332. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Standard specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep
Recovery (MSCR) Test. Washington (2018a).
2. AASHTO T 350. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear
Rheometer (DSR). Washington (2018b).
3. ASTM D7643-16. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification for
Performance Graded Asphalt Binder (2016).
4. Bastos, J. B. S.; Silva, S. A. T.; Soares, J. B.; Nascimento, L. A. H. & Kim, Y. R. Triaxial
stress sweep test protocol considerations for permanent deformation characterization of as-
phalt mixtures. Road Materials and Pavement Design. v. 19, n. 2, p. 431-444 (2016).
5. Bukowski, J.; Youtcheff, J. & Harman, T. The Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR)
procedure. Federal Highway Administration (2011).
6. 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, v. 76, p. 123-162 (2007).
7. Domingos, M. D. I. & Faxina, A. L. Susceptibility of Asphalt Binders to Rutting: Literature
Review. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. V. 28. I. 2. (2016).
8. Dongre, R., D’angelo, J.; Copeland, A. Refinement of flow number as determined by the
asphalt mixture performance tester for use in routine QC/QA practice. Transportation Re-
search Record: Journal of TRB, Vol. 2127, 127–136. Washington, D.C., 2009.
9. Ferreira, J. L. S.; Bastos, J. B. S. & Soares, J. B. Métodos de seleção granulométrica com
foco na resistência à deformação permanente. Revista Transportes, v. 24, n. 2, p. 46-52 (in
Portuguese) (2016).
10. Francken, L. Pavement Deformation Law of Bituminous Road Mixes in Repeated Load Tri-
axial Compression. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Structural
Design of Asphalt Pavements, Vol. I, pp. 483-496. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan (1977).
11. Kim, S. Identification and assessment of the dominant aggregate size range (DASR) of as-
phalt mixture. Dissertation. Florida University, Gainesville, Florida (2006).
12. Moreno-Navarro, F.; Tauste, R.; Sol-Sánchez, M. & Rubio-Gámez, M. C. New approach for
characterizing the performance of asphalt binders through the multiple stress creep and re-
covery test, Road Materials and Pavement Design (2019).
13. Stempihar, J.; Gundla, A. & Underwood, B. S. Interpreting Stress Sensitivity in the Multiple
Stress Creep and Recovery Test. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. V. 30. I. 2. (2017)
14. Witczak, M. W.; Kaloush, K.; Pellinen, T.; El-Basyouny, M. & Von Quintus, H. NCHRP
Report 465: Simple performance test for superpave mix design. Transportation Research
Board. Washington, DC (2002).