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

net/publication/368691001

Multiple stress creep and recovery test for bituminous binders – influence of
several key experimental parameters

Article in Road Materials and Pavement Design · February 2023

DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2023.2180992

CITATIONS READS

6 308

5 authors, including:

Di Wang Laurent Porot

University of Ottawa Kraton
133 PUBLICATIONS 1,149 CITATIONS 97 PUBLICATIONS 1,235 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Augusto Cannone Falchetto

209 PUBLICATIONS 2,964 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Di Wang on 22 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Multiple stress creep and recovery test for

bituminous binders – influence of several key
experimental parameters

Di Wang, Jiqing Zhu, Laurent Porot, Augusto Cannone Falchetto & Sjaak
Damen

To cite this article: Di Wang, Jiqing Zhu, Laurent Porot, Augusto Cannone Falchetto &
Sjaak Damen (2023): Multiple stress creep and recovery test for bituminous binders –
influence of several key experimental parameters, Road Materials and Pavement Design, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2023.2180992

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2023.2180992

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 21 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2023.2180992

Multiple stress creep and recovery test for bituminous binders –

influence of several key experimental parameters
Di Wang a∗ , Jiqing Zhu b , Laurent Porot c , Augusto Cannone Falchetto a and Sjaak
Damenc
a Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland; b Swedish National Road and Transport Research
Institute (VTI), Linköping, Sweden; c Kraton Polymers B.V., Almere, Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery test is recognised to better char- Received 11 October 2022
acterise the high-temperature property of bituminous binders than the Accepted 9 February 2023
traditional methods, especially for polymer modified bitumen (PmB). How- KEYWORDS
ever, some experimental parameters may affect the test results, such as the Polymer modified bitumen;
preloading, measurement location, stress level. In this study, the effects of high-temperature creep and
these parameters were evaluated through an interlaboratory experiment. recovery; MSCR; preloading;
Four bituminous binders were short-term aged and analysed by five differ- measurement location; stress
ent laboratories. The variability in most results met the requirements of the sensitivity
European standard, while some failed to pass the American precision crite-
ria. The preloading at 0.1 kPa with ten cycles was found to have a recordable
impact on PmB samples, but a less significant effect was observed for the
unmodified ones. With the measurement locations, the influence is limited
compared to other parameters. As for stress sensitivity, higher stresses lead
to remarkable differences.

1. Introduction
The increase in traffic and urbanisation brought many opportunities and challenges to the road indus-
try, particularly in the field of asphalt pavement since it is one of the most critical components of the
highway and urban road networks. It is well known that the permanent deformation (i.e. rutting) at
high service temperatures is one of the dominant distresses in asphalt pavements. Hence, a better
understanding of asphalt mixtures’ high-temperature creep and recovery performance may bene-
fit the design of high-quality asphalt pavements with better driving safety environment. Numerous
studies validated that the bituminous binder, significantly contributing to the mastic phase, has pre-
dominant effects on the final performance, especially rutting resistance, of asphalt mixtures (Bahia
et al., 2001a; Cosme et al., 2016; Subhy et al., 2022; White, 2017; Zhang et al., 2015). Therefore, an accu-
rate characterisation of high-temperature property of binders could be further used to evaluate the
characteristics of the related asphalt mixtures.
In the past decades, the asphalt paving industry has developed novel materials and technologies
towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. Among others, the development
and increased use of polymer modified bitumen (PmB) provided an efficient answer towards improved
rutting resistance in the 1980s. Many testing protocols and criteria have been proposed to characterise
the permanent deformation under cyclic loadings in the binder phase. One of the most commonly

CONTACT Jiqing Zhu jiqing.zhu@vti.se

∗ Formerly at Technical University of Braunschweig, Beethovenstraße 51b, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 D. WANG ET AL.

used criteria is the SuperpaveTM performance grading (PG) system developed during the SHRP pro-
gramme in the 1990s (Anderson & Kennedy, 1993). Rheology-based parameter |G∗ |/sinδ obtained with
the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) at high temperatures at a frequency of 10 rad/s has been used
to evaluate the rutting performance. Theoretically speaking, this viscoelastic parameter can be used
to indicate the total dissipated energy during the loading cycles, which is considered to be related
to rutting. Hence, a sufficiently high |G∗ |/sinδ should be achieved for binders at both fresh and short-
term aged states under a test within the linear viscoelasticity (LVE) range. However, several follow-up
studies indicated that the limitations of the |G∗ |/sinδ criteria in correlating with the mixture’s rutting
resistance, especially for PmB (Bahia et al., 2001b; Chen & Wang, 2008; Delgadillo et al., 2006; Domingos
et al., 2017; Salim et al., 2019).
In the attempt to more closely evaluate the permanent deformation under cyclic loadings, the
Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) test was introduced successfully, allowing better discrimi-
nation of the actual behaviour of PmB (D’Angelo et al., 2007). The MSCR test consists of an initial series
of cyclic loadings at a low stress level, 0.1 kPa, probably in the LVE domain, followed by a second series
of cyclic loadings at a higher stress level, 3.2 kPa, most possibly in the nonlinear domain at high tem-
peratures. Throughout the test, the shear strain is recorded by DSR. Two parameters are reported,
the non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr (in kPa−1 ), and percent recovery, R (in %), to evaluate the
deformation potential and elastic recovery of the binder. The Jnr value can be calculated as the binder’s
non-recovered strain ratio at the end of the creep-recovery cycle to the applied shear stress. In Europe,
under the standardisation committee CEN, it is envisaged to promote the transition from the ring and
ball softening point test (EN 1427:2015) to more fundamental characterisation using DSR either with
an oscillatory test or using the MSCR test (Durand et al., 2021). Moreover, Masad et al. (2009) used non-
linear viscoelastic analysis to evaluate the deformation caused by the viscoelastic strain and claimed
that the new index shows much better correlation with the mixtures’ responses. In a study conducted
by Shirodkar et al. (2012), the entire creep and recovery curve was used instead of the two parameters
and better correlations were found in the non-LVE range for PmB.
Even though the initial MSCR test method has been standardised for over a decade, there are still
debates and ongoing developments about the testing protocol and experimental conditions, such
as the testing temperature, preloading process, measurement location, and stress level, which may
affect the test results. For example, based on AASHTO and ASTM standard specifications (AASHTO M
332-21, ASTM D8239-21), the high PG temperature is the suggested MSCR testing temperature, while
in the European standard (EN, 16659:2015), 50, 60, 70, and 80 °C are recommended. In addition, con-
sidering the highly delayed elastic response caused by the Mullins phenomenon, especially for PmB
(Golalipour, 2011), the ASTM standard D7405-15 introduced ten cycles of preloading at 0.1 kPa stress
level to keep the test material in a steady state. However, this method has not been generally accepted
in the MSCR test, especially in Europe. Besides the preloading procedure, the DSR instruments and soft-
ware from different manufacturers may not necessarily be uniform. For example, the location of stress
resolution and strain recorded by the instrument – e.g. at 2/3 or the extremity of the plate radius – may
not always be the same. In addition, D’Angelo (2009) found remarkably better correlations between
the MSCR parameters under stress levels much higher than 3.2 kPa and the anti-rutting characteristic
of bituminous binders. This observation is especially valid for PmB.

2. Objectives
Limited research has been performed over the years on the key parameters of the MSCR test and its
experimental setting aspects (Golalipour, 2011; Shirodkar et al., 2012; Soenen et al., 2008; Wasage et al.,
2011). Therefore, the testing protocol and conditions that may affect the MSCR results were experi-
mentally evaluated in this study. A single and unified testing temperature was selected for comparison
purposes, namely 60 °C.
Another aim of the MSCR test evaluation in this study was to better distinguish bituminous binders,
especially between complex binders that include modifiers. Nowadays, more and more modifiers are
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 3

used to enhance the physical or chemical properties of bituminous binders. Such modifiers may be
liquid additives or polymer-based, viscous, or solid particles (PIARC, 1999). As a result, binders used
for asphalt applications are becoming more complex materials, showing potential different phase
morphologies (Soenen et al., 2008). With this background, the RILEM Technical Committee TC-272
PIM (Phase and Interphase behaviour of bituminous Materials), more specifically the Task Group 1
(Porot et al., 2020), focused on the evaluation of complex bituminous binders (Porot et al., 2021). An
interlaboratory study was set up with 17 participating laboratories. The test materials included seven
bituminous binders in two groups, one on polymer modification and one on liquid additives in bitu-
minous binders. They were thoroughly evaluated, including empirical properties and more advanced
characterisation.
Five laboratories performed the MSCR test after short-term ageing and analysed the results (Porot
et al., 2022). As the different laboratories conducted the test according to their local methods, the
focus was on evaluating the influencing factors on the MSCR test to better characterise the anti-creep
properties of PmB at a high temperature. This subject was not widely considered, especially when com-
paring results using potentially different testing protocols from different standards such as AASHTO
or EN standards, and with different devices and test settings. In this sense, the present research sig-
nificantly benefits from the experimental round-robin activity conducted under the umbrella of the
RILEM TC 272 PIM TG1.

3. Materials and experimental plan

3.1. Materials
The Task Group 1 of RILEM TC 272 PIM included in its experiment programme seven bituminous
binders in two groups – one with polymer modification and one with liquid additives – including a
reference unmodified binder for comparison. As the MSCR test is more suitable to characterise the
behaviour of PmB, the results discussed in the present study are only related to the first group with
the two unmodified binders for reference and two PmB binders.
Four bituminous binders, Bit1, PmB1, PmB2, and Bit2, were selected as the test materials. Bit1
and Bit2 are unmodified petroleum-based binders with penetration grades of 35/55 and 70/100 (EN
12591:2009), respectively. Both PmB binders were selected and designed to have a similar consistency
at the intermediate temperature as the reference binder Bit1, based on penetration value at 25 °C.
PmB1 is a commercially available PmB, while PmB2 is a lab-produced PmB blended with the base
binder Bit2 and 7.5% high-vinyl linear styrene–butadiene-styrene (SBS) copolymer in a laboratory envi-
ronment. It ensures a continuous rich polymer phase to enhance rutting and fatigue properties of the
binder (Habbouche et al., 2020). Table 1 provides the conventional properties for the four binders,
including penetration value (EN 1426:2015), softening point temperature (EN 1427:2015), and perfor-
mance grade (PG) temperature range (AASHTO M320-21). Based on the existing MSCR standards (EN
16659:2015, AASHTO T 350-19, ASTM D7405-20), RTFOT-aged binders (EN 12607-1:2014) were tested
and analysed in this study.

3.2. Test protocols

The following interlaboratory test protocol was conducted in the present study on the four different
short-term aged bituminous binders (listed in Table 1) by five participating European laboratories.
Firstly, a standard MSCR test was performed at 60 °C for all binders. Then, the influences of preloading
and measurement location on the results were analysed and discussed. Next, an enhanced MSCR test
with more and higher stress levels was performed to better understand the anti-creep performance
and recovery response of PmB binders at a high temperature (60 °C). The research approach included:

• Preloading with 10 cylces at 0.1 kPa vs. no preloading;

4 D. WANG ET AL.

Table 1. Conventional properties and PG of the four binders tested in this study.

Penetration (1/10 Softening point

Label Binder Penetration grade mm) at 25 °C (°C) PG grade
Bit1 Unmodified 35/50 35/50 40 54.0 70–22
PmB1 Standard PmB 25-55/70 40 73.7 76–16
PmB2 Highly PmB 25-55/80∗ 34 90.5 82∗ −28
Bit2 Unmodified 70/100 70/100 79 46.4 64–22
∗ The measured values were higher than the maximal class for respective specifications.

Table 2. Experimental matrix for lab participation in the MSCR testing

of this study.
Lab Bit1 PmB1 PmB2 Bit2
√ √ √ √
Lab 1 √ √
Lab 10 √
Lab 13 √ √ √ √
Lab 16 √ √ √
Lab 17
Total number of labs 3 3 3 5

• Measurement location at 2/3 of the plate radius vs. at the extremity of the radius; and
• Stress levels, standard stress levels vs. additional levels up to 51.2 kPa.

3.2.1. Standard MSCR tests at 60 °C

Five different laboratories performed MSCR tests on the selected binders in this study. Thus, not all
the laboratories participating in the RILEM TC 272 PIM TG1 experiment tested all the binders. Before
the MSCR test, short-term ageing was conducted by each laboratory with the Rolling Thin Film Oven
Test (RTFOT) according to EN 12607-1:2014. The RTFOT ageing was at 163 °C and for 75 min. All MSCR
test results presented in this study are based on RTFOT-aged binders. Table 2 shows the experimental
matrix for the MSCR experiment as run at 60 °C after RTFOT. The test temperature was selected to be a
common temperature for all binders. It is currently one possible temperature to be selected by the EN
standard characteristic framework for PmB binders. The labelling of the participating laboratories was
originally from the RILEM TC PIM TG1, meaning that the missing laboratories did not perform MSCR
test on the selected binders at 60 °C after RTFOT.
In the standard MSCR protocols, such as AASHTO T 350, ASTM D7405, and EN 16659, a binder sam-
ple is tested with DSR in a plate-plate geometry of 25 mm diameter with 1 mm gap. The DSR performs
a repeated shear creep-recovery test on the disc-shaped binder sample in a stress-controlled mode. A
certain torque M is applied to the sample by the DSR instrument, and then the torque is unloaded. The
resulting deflection angle θ is recorded during the whole creep-recovery period, based on which the
shear strain  is calculated. Figure 1a illustrates the MSCR test configuration, while Figure 1b displays
the resulting deflection angle θ in DSR. In Figure 1, h represents the height of the sample; r represents
the radius of the sample; and u represents the distance from the centre of the sample.
In a standard MSCR test, repetitive loadings without any rest period in between, are applied to the
binder sample at two shear stress levels, 0.1, and 3.2 kPa. In the AASHTO T 350-19 and ASTM D7405
(2015 version and later) protocols, 20 loading cycles at 0.1 kPa are conducted, where the first ten are for
preloading the sample and the last ten are used for calculating test results. However, in the EN 16659
protocol (the so far latest 2015 version), no preloading should be conducted, and only ten cycles are
imposed at 0.1 kPa. At 3.2 kPa, ten repetitive cycles are performed according to all the current standard
MSCR protocols. Each creep-recovery cycle includes a creep period with constant stress of 1 s and a
recovery period with zero stress of 9 s.
The total shear strain consists of a recoverable and a non-recoverable portion for each creep-
recovery cycle (Figure 2).  0 represents the initial shear strain at the beginning of the loading cycle;
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 5

Figure 1. Illustration of MSCR test: (a) test configuration; (b) the resulting deflection angle.

Figure 2. Typical MSCR shear strain during a creep-recovery cycle.

 c and  r are the shear strain at the end of the creep and recovery periods. The percent recovery
R and non-recoverable creep compliance Jnr based on the final residual strain, both as the average
of the last ten testing cycles at each stress level, are used as indicators for the binder behaviour
against permanent deformation. The percent recovery R and non-recoverable creep compliance Jnr
are defined as:

R = (ε1 − ε10 )/ε1 (1)

Jnr = ε10 /τ (2)

 10 represents the final residual strain according to Figure 2; and τ represents the applied shear
stress level. It is worth noting that the standard MSCR protocols (EN 16659:2015, AASHTO T 350-19,
ASTM D7405-20) use  for denoting the shear strain, not the more commonly used γ in mechanics.
Besides R and Jnr , the standard MSCR protocols also define the percent difference in recovery and
non-recoverable creep compliance between the two shear stress levels, as follows:

Rdiff = (R0.1kPa − R3.2kPa )/R0.1kPa (3)

Jnr−diff = (Jnr−3.2kPa − Jnr−0.1kPa )/Jnr−0.1kPa (4)
6 D. WANG ET AL.

Table 3. Overview of the laboratories, standard MSCR protocols, and experimental parameters.
Lab MSCR protocol Loading cycles at 0.1 kPa Location of stress and strain record Instrument and software
1 AASHTO T 350–19 20 2/3 of radius Anton Paar, RheoCompass
10 AASHTO T 350–19 20 2/3 of radius Anton Paar, RheoCompass
13 EN 16659:2015 10 Extremity of radius Bohlin, Rotational
16 AASHTO T 350–19 20 Extremity of radius Anton Paar, RheoCompass
17 EN 16659:2015 10 Extremity of radius Malvern, rSpace

Rdiff represents the percent difference in recovery; Jnr−diff is the percent difference in non-recoverable
creep compliance; and the subscripts represent shear stress levels. These percent difference parame-
ters are used as indicators for the stress sensitivity of binders. It is worth noticing that, when Jnr values
themselves were low, it usually induces very high values for Jnr−diff , which has less meaning for the
binder evaluation. This is particularly the case for PmB, which may question the legitimacy of this
parameter.

3.2.2. Preloading at 0.1 kPa and measurement location

In this study, different testing protocols were applied to evaluate the influences of experimental
parameters. There was thus a difference among the participating laboratories in terms of the preload-
ing cycles at 0.1 kPa. In addition, the DSR instruments and software used by the laboratories were not
uniform. The location of stress resolution and strain record by the instrument was not all the same. The
influences of the varying testing parameters, including the preloading cycles and location of stress
resolution and strain record, are discussed based on the standard MSCR tests at 60 °C by different
laboratories. An overview of the laboratories, test protocols, and parameters is presented in Table 3.

3.2.3. Stress level and sensitivity

The MSCR method was originally developed to evaluate the asphalt mixture’s rutting resistance by
conducting tests on the binder phase. Hence, determining the suitable stress levels at which the binder
is exposed in the mixture is one of the most important matters for the MSCR test (Delgadillo et al., 2012).
Relying on the experimental work conducted on numerous unmodified and PmB binders (D’Angelo
et al., 2007), a low stress level of 0.1 kPa (the minimum stress that many of the PmB binders within LVE
range) and a high stress level of 3.2 kPa (many of the PmB binders start to show slippage of polymer
chains) were selected ultimately. These two stress levels are suggested in the currently active MSCR
standards (ASTM D7405-20; AASHTO T 350-19, EN 16659:2015). However, debates are still ongoing
on whether the two proposed stress levels are suitable and optimal. A previous study claimed that
the exposed stresses and strains in the binder phase of a real asphalt pavement might be much higher
than the LVE range (Golalipour, 2011). As D’Angelo et al. (2007; 2009) and Golalipour (2011) suggested,
additional and higher stress levels, up to 100 kPa, should be used to detect the yield behaviour of PmB
binders. In this study, Lab17 applied more shear stress levels in addition to the standard levels: 0.1,
0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.4, 12.8, 25.6, and 51.2 kPa. Such a testing protocol was conducted with Bit1, Bit2,
and PmB1. Due to the lack of materials, PmB2 was not tested with this extended protocol. Ten creep-
recovery loading cycles were applied for each stress level without preloading at 0.1 kPa. The stress and
measured strain were applied and recorded at the extremity of the radius. It is worth noting that only
PmB1 reached 51.2 kPa while the unmodified binders both failed immediately after the stress levels
reached 25.6 kPa.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Standard test results at 60 °C and variation
The standard MSCR test results at 60 °C by different laboratories are presented in Table 4, including Jnr
and R at both stress levels and percent differences between the stress levels after RTFOT. The number of
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 7

Table 4. MSCR test results at 60 °C after RTFOT, according to AASHTO and EN standards.
MSCR test parameter Lab1 Lab 10 Lab 13 Lab 16 Lab 17
Bit1 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 4.50 × 10−1 N/A N/A 5.13 × 10−1 3.92 × 10−1
R 12.6% N/A N/A 13.1% 13.5%
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 4.85 × 10−1 N/A N/A 5.48 × 10−1 4.12 × 10−1
R 8.0% N/A N/A 9.0% 10.8%
Jnr−diff 7.7% N/A N/A 6.9% 5.1%
Rdiff 36.8% N/A N/A 31.2% 20.0%
PmB1 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.14 × 10−1 N/A N/A 9.00 × 10−2 2.00 × 10−1
R 59.2% N/A N/A 65.0% 48.8%
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.38 × 10−1 N/A N/A 1.20 × 10−1 2.36 × 10−1
R 51.8% N/A N/A 54.6% 42.9%
Jnr−diff 20.9% N/A N/A 33.8% 18.0%
Rdiff 12.5% N/A N/A 16.1% 12.2%
PmB2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 2.21 × 10−3 3.76 × 10−3 N/A 2.13 × 10−3 N/A
R 98.0% 97.4% N/A 98.2% N/A
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 5.17 × 10−3 8.05 × 10−3 N/A 5.50 × 10−3 N/A
R 95.3% 94.3% N/A 95.2% N/A
Jnr−diff 133.6% 114.1% N/A 158.2% N/A
Rdiff 2.7% 3.1% N/A 3.0% N/A
Bit2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.02 × 100 2.25 × 100 2.12 × 100 1.65 × 100 1.73 × 100
R 7.9% 3.1% 5.2% 6.4% 5.3%
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.15 × 100 2.53 × 100 2.48 × 100 1.83 × 100 1.97 × 100
R 2.1% 0.0% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3%
Jnr−diff 13.1% 12.5% 17.3% 11.3% 13.9%
Rdiff 73.5% 100.0% 67.4% 77.6% 75.5%
∗ Lab 1, Lab 10, and Lab 16 conducted the MSCR tests according to AASHTO T 350-19, while Lab 13 and Lab 17 performed the tests
by following EN 16659:2015.

Table 5. Variation and acceptance of MSCR test results by different standard protocols.
Acceptance
Lab MSCR test parameter Actual difference Acceptable range (Yes/No)
Lab 1 vs. Lab 10 (AASHTO T 350-19) PmB2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.55 × 10−3 9.89 × 10−4 No
R 0.6% 13.2% Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 2.88 × 10−3 2.03 × 10−3 No
R 1.0% 12.0% Yes
Bit2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.23 × 100 5.41 × 10−1 No
R 4.9% 0.7% No
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.38 × 100 5.65 × 10−1 No
R 2.1% 0.1% No
Lab 13 vs. Lab 17 (EN 16659:2015) Bit2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 3.84 × 10−1 6.35 × 10−1 Yes
R 0.1% 5% Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 5.11 × 10−1 7.35 × 10−1 Yes
R 0.4% 5% Yes

testing laboratories in this study varies between 3 and 5 for the different binders, which is not enough
to conduct an accurate and representative statistical analysis for the test method. However, the vari-
ation between laboratory results could be evaluated by comparing the differences between two
individual laboratories with the reproducibility acceptance criteria in the standards. Table 5 presents
the variation and acceptance of MSCR test results by different standard protocols, i.e. AASHTO T 350-
19 and EN 16659:2015. Among the listed laboratories, Lab 1 and Lab 10 had exactly the experimental
settings (i.e. the same loading cycles at 0.1 kPa and the same measurement location) for MSCR using
AASHTO T 350-19. So did Lab 13 and Lab 17 with EN 16659:2015. The evaluations between these
laboratories provide a reference line for further analysis of the impacts of key experimental settings.
Table 5 shows that some of the test results obtained by the two laboratories using AASHTO T
350–19 exceed the reproducibility acceptance criteria in the standard. As other round-robin analyses,
such as the interlaboratory study by Soenen et al. (2013), also reported similar reproducibility issues
8 D. WANG ET AL.

Table 6. Variation and acceptance of MSCR test results with different loading cycles at 0.1 kPa.
Acceptable range Acceptance (Yes/No)

Actual AASHTO T EN 16659: AASHTO T EN 16659:

Lab MSCR test parameter difference 350–19 2015 350–19 2015
Lab 13 vs. Lab 16 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 )
Bit2 4.68 × 10−1 6.23 × 10−1 6.21 × 10−1 Yes Yes
R 1.2% 0.8% 5% No Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.49 × 10−1 6.63 × 10−1 7.12 × 10−1 Yes Yes
R 0.3% 0.2% 5% No Yes
Lab 16 vs. Lab 17 Bit1 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.21 × 10−1 1.50 × 10−1 1.49 × 10−1 Yes Yes
R 0.5% 1.8% 5% Yes Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.36 × 10−1 1.47 × 10−1 1.58 × 10−1 Yes Yes
R 1.8% 1.3% 5% No Yes
PmB1 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.10 × 10−1 4.80 × 10−2 6.24 × 10−2 No No
R 16.2% 7.7% 12% No No
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.16 × 10−1 5.47 × 10−2 7.66 × 10−2 No No
R 11.7% 6.2% 12% No Yes
Bit2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 8.43 × 10−2 5.59 × 10−1 5.58 × 10−1 Yes Yes
R 1.1% 0.8% 5% No Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.38 × 10−1 5.84 × 10−1 6.28 × 10−1 Yes Yes
R 0.1% 0.2% 5% Yes Yes
∗ Lab 13 and Lab 17 had 10 loading cycles at 0.1 kPa according to EN 16659:2015. Lab 16 had 20 loading cycles at 0.1 kPa according
to AASHTO T 350-19.

for MSCR testing, the unacceptance of some results in Table 5 is not entirely unexpected. On the other
hand, the Bit2 test results obtained by Lab 13 and Lab 17 using EN 16659:2015 are acceptable accord-
ing to the standard. However, it is worth noting that the acceptance criteria for R in EN 16659:2015–5%
for unmodified binder and 12% for PmB – can be significantly higher than that in AASHTO T 350-19,
especially for an unmodified binder like Bit2.
Similar analyses can be conducted to investigate the impacts of key experimental settings for MSCR
testing when considering the evaluations in Table 5 as the reference line. Table 6 presents the variation
and acceptance of MSCR test results with different loading cycles at 0.1 kPa. In this study, Lab 13 and
Lab 17 had 10 loading cycles at 0.1 kPa (without preloading) according to EN 16659:2015, while Lab 16
had 20 loading cycles at 0.1 kPa (with 10 preloading cycles) according to AASHTO T 350-19. All three
laboratories measured at the extremity of the radius. The acceptance evaluations were done according
to the criteria in both standards.
As mentioned above, the acceptance criteria for R in EN 16659:2015 can be significantly higher than
in AASHTO T 350-19. This limit leads to the different conclusions in Table 6 on acceptance between the
two standards. However, some laboratory test results exceed the reproducibility acceptance criteria for
both standards. Comparing with the evaluations in Tables 5 and 6, it shows that the Bit2 test results
are still all acceptable by EN 16659:2015. However, by AASHTO T 350-19, some of the Bit2 test results
are acceptable, while others are not. This condition suggests an acceptance improvement compared
to the corresponding evaluations for Bit2 in Table 5, although such a conclusion might be sensitive to
measurement results by certain individual laboratories and the relatively soft binder.
Table 7 presents the variation and acceptance of MSCR test results with different locations of stress
resolution and strain record. Lab 1 and Lab 10 measured at 2/3 of the radius, while Lab 16 measured
at the extremity of the radius. All three laboratories conducted the MSCR tests according to AASHTO
T 350–19 and had 20 loading cycles at 0.1 kPa (with 10 preloading cycles). The acceptance evalua-
tions were conducted according to the criteria in AASHTO T 350-19. Some of the laboratory test results
exceed the reproducibility acceptance criteria, especially the results for Bit2.
Disregarding the standard acceptance criteria and looking only into the actual differences, Figure 3
presents the impacts of preloading and measurement location on the MSCR test results of binders with
a reference line (namely PmB2 and Bit2 as in Table 5). The bars represent actual differences between
laboratories, while the lines represent percent differences between the respective grand average
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 9

Table 7. Variation and acceptance of MSCR test results measured at different locations.
Acceptance
Lab MSCR test parameter Actual difference Acceptable range (Yes/No)
Lab 1 vs. Lab 16 (AASHTO T 350-19) Bit1 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.32 × 10−2 1.59 × 10−1 Yes
R 0.4% 1.7% Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.38 × 10−2 1.59 × 10−1 Yes
R 1.0% 1.1% Yes
PmB1 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 2.38 × 10−2 3.37 × 10−2 Yes
R 5.9% 8.4% Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.73 × 10−2 3.96 × 10−2 Yes
R 2.8% 6.8% Yes
PmB2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 8.42 × 10−5 7.19 × 10−4 Yes
R 0.2% 13.2% Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 3.27 × 10−4 1.64 × 10−3 Yes
R 0.1% 12.1% Yes
Bit2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.32 × 10−1 4.41 × 10−1 No
R 1.6% 1.0% No
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.85 × 10−1 4.58 × 10−1 No
R 0.7% 0.2% No
Lab 10 vs. Lab 16 (AASHTO T 350-19) PmB2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 1.63 × 10−3 9.75 × 10−4 No
R 0.8% 13.2% Yes
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 2.55 × 10−3 2.08 × 10−3 No
R 0.9% 12.0% Yes
Bit2 0.1 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.02 × 10−1 6.45 × 10−1 Yes
R 3.3% 0.6% No
3.2 kPa Jnr (kPa−1 ) 6.97 × 10−1 6.70 × 10−1 No
R 1.4% 0.1% No
∗ Lab 1 and Lab 10 measured at 2/3 of the radius. Lab 16 measured at extremity of the radius.

value. It indicates that neither the different preloading settings nor the measurement locations caused
significantly increased variability issues. Although supported by the test results, such a conclusion is
nevertheless an overall effect driven simultaneously by various factors. In the following sections, the
influence of each key experimental setting will be analysed and discussed separately.

4.2. Influence of preloading at 0.1 kPa

In Figure 4, the normalised creep and recovery data (D’Angelo et al., 2007) at 0.1 kPa were plotted
against the testing duration to visually evaluate the effect of the preloading protocol, namely the strain
starting from zero for each loading-unloading period. For both unmodified binders, no significant
visual differences can be found between the preloading and actual testing cycles. This observation
is valid for all laboratories. Hence, it can be concluded that the preloading cycles do not lead to sig-
nificantly different MSCR results for the unmodified binders. However, this is not true for the modified
binders. For PmB1, the creep strain ( c as in Figure 2) values were similar among all the loading cycles;
nevertheless, the recovery strain and ( r as in Figure 2) values were completely different between the
initial cycles and later cycles. An increasing recovery percentage was observed in the first 3–5 cycles.
This phenomenon is more significant for PmB1 – its recovery percentage became stable at around the
10th cycle – while steady results were found at the 6th cycle for PmB2. Therefore, the preloading proto-
col could significantly influence the results of individual loading cycles at 0.1 kPa during the MSCR test.
A visual comparison was conducted with Figure 4, but a more detailed analysis was performed with
the results of PmB binders to better understand their creep-recovery responses under the preloading.
The percent differences in R and Jnr (1) between two adjacent, (2) between the first and the tenth,
and (3) between the eleventh and twentieth creep-recovery loading cycles for both PmB binders were
calculated and listed in Table 8. The percentage differences in average results of the first ten cycles
and the following ten cycles were also listed at the bottom of Table 8. Based on EN 16659:2015, the
acceptable precision results for R and Jnr at 60 °C are 2% (in %) and 9% (in % of Jnr ) for PmB binders,
10 D. WANG ET AL.

Figure 3. Actual and percent differences between laboratories in MSCR test results of PmB2 and Bit2.

while the acceptable precision limitations (d2s%) are 4.4% and 12.5% based on AASHTO T350-19. The
differences higher than these values were marked in bold. For PmB1, the key parameter was R. Three
to six cycles were needed to reach R stability, while only two cycles were necessary for stabilising Jnr . In
the case of PmB2, the key parameter changed to Jnr . It was found that 20 cycles were not even enough
to reach a stable state at all three laboratories, while only two cycles were essential based on the eval-
uation of R. This may be attributed to the absolute value of Jnr . The Jnr results ranged in the magnitude
order of 10−3 in PmB2, while for PmB1 it was 10−2 . Hence, even though PmB2 failed to pass the Jnr
precision limitation, its absolute differences were much smaller than PmB1. The differences between
the first and tenth cycles, and between the eleventh and twentieth cycles were also listed in Table 8.
Not unexpectedly, the loading cycle 1 vs. 10 precision results in the preloading period all failed to pass
the criteria, and most of the loading cycle 11 vs. 20 precision results in the testing period also failed.
However, a dramatic decrease, ranging from 12% to 140%, was observed in the loading cycle 11 vs.
20 differences compared to the loading cycle 1 vs. 10. It is to say that after preloading, the test mate-
rials became much steadier than before. For comparing the average results between the preloading
and actual testing cycles, it was interesting that most of the R and Jnr results failed to pass the preci-
sion requirements; the only exceptions were R measured by Lab 1 and Lab 16 for PmB2. Hence, the
preloading process is necessary for PmB binders, although the number of essential preloading cycles
may differ from 10 cycles, highly relying on the polymer additives used and the available DSR devices.

4.3. Location of stress resolution and strain record

In this study, the participating laboratories used different DSR instruments and software versions to
perform the MSCR tests. As listed in Table 3, the locations of stress resolution and strain record by the
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 11

Figure 4. Normalised creep-recovery data over the preloading and data recording period at 0.1 kPa for: (a) Bit1 of Lab 1; (b) Bit1 of
Lab 16; (c) Bit1 of Lab 17; (d) PmB1 of Lab 1; (e) PmB1 of Lab 16; (f) PmB1 of Lab 17; (g) PmB2 of Lab 1; (h) PmB2 of Lab 10; (i) PmB2
of Lab 16; (j) Bit2 of Lab 1; (k) Bit2 of Lab 10; (l) Bit2 of Lab 13; (m) Bit2 of Lab 16; (n) Bit2 of Lab 17.

instruments were not the same for all laboratories. This condition is a result of intrinsic parameters
of DSR software that normal practitioners do not necessarily consider. A theoretical analysis was con-
ducted and presented in this section to evaluate the possible influence of this difference; then, the test
results from different laboratories are compared and discussed.
A certain torque is applied to the binder sample by the DSR instrument to conduct the MSCR test
at high temperatures. For a given torque M and a sample size (radius r and height h), the shear stress
12 D. WANG ET AL.

Figure 4. Continued.

Table 8. Impact of the preloading process (0.1 kPa) on the percent recovery R and non-recoverable creep compliance Jnr : percent
difference between measurement results (unit: %).
PmB1 PmB2

Lab 1 Lab 16 Lab 17 Lab 1 Lab 10 Lab 16

AASHTO T350-19 EN 16659 AASHTO T350-19

Loading cycle R Jnr R Jnr R Jnr R Jnr R Jnr R Jnr

2 vs. 1 14.1 13.3 14.7 15.6 2.8 2.2 6.2 58.8 6.2 48.6 7.1 71.0
3 vs. 2 9.1 8.8 6.8 8.2 1.6 2.4 3.1 47.0 4.0 45.8 2.0 31.1
4 vs. 3 4.0 3.4 4.5 6.5 2.6 1.9 1.1 19.2 2.8 43.3 1.7 34.2
5 vs. 4 2.8 4.2 4.0 5.7 0.7 1.7 1.1 28.0 1.4 28.6 0.8 18.4
6 vs. 5 4.8 5.9 2.3 2.5 0.4 0.8 0.3 6.2 0.8 18.1 0.8 20.4
7 vs. 6 0.8 0.3 2.3 3.7 1.0 2.0 1.1 29.1 0.6 12.4 0.6 18.1
8 vs. 7 1.7 3.7 2.5 4.2 1.9 2.5 0.3 6.2 0.3 6.5 0.3 6.8
9 vs. 8 3.4 4.2 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 30.0 0.3 7.6 0.8 32.2
10 vs. 9 0.0 0.8 1.4 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 12.4 1.4 6.5 0.0 3.7
1 vs.10 40.3 42.6 39.5 50.7 12.0 13.2 13.2 173.3 16.6 183.6 13.3 182.3
11 vs. 10 2.5 3.7 1.4 2.5 N/A N/A 0.6 21.5 0.0 18.1 0.3 15.8
12 vs. 11 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 N/A N/A 0.0 4.5 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6
13 vs. 12 2.3 4.2 0.6 2.0 N/A N/A 0.3 8.8 0.0 17.5 0.3 17.5
14 vs. 13 0.6 0.0 1.1 1.7 N/A N/A 0.0 1.7 0.3 2.0 0.0 2.0
15 vs. 14 1.7 3.4 1.4 3.4 N/A N/A 0.3 17.3 0.0 14.4 0.3 14.4
16 vs. 15 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.3 N/A N/A 0.0 4.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2
17 vs. 16 0.3 3.1 0.8 2.3 N/A N/A 0.0 6.5 0.3 3.7 0.0 3.7
18 vs. 17 1.4 2.0 0.8 2.0 N/A N/A 0.3 10.7 0.3 24.6 0.3 24.6
19 vs.18 1.1 2.3 0.6 0.6 N/A N/A 0.8 42.1 0.3 18.4 0.3 18.4
20 vs. 19 1.4 0.6 0.8 2.3 N/A N/A 0.6 30.8 0.3 17.0 0.3 17.0
11 vs. 20 8.4 12.8 7.8 15.2 N/A N/A 0.8 35.5 0.9 49.7 0.9 49.7
Average 18.1 24.3 17.5 28.8 N/A N/A 4.0 116.8 12.2 119.4 4.0 119.4

τ generated by the DSR is not uniform in the horizontal plane. It depends on the distance u from the
centre of the sample, such as.

2Mu
τ= (5)
π r4
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 13

Figure 5. Shear stress and strain distribution for a binder sample loaded by DSR.

τ represents the generated shear stress; M represents the applied torque; u represents the distance
from the centre of the sample; and r represents the radius of the sample (12.5 mm for the standard
MSCR test). The resulting shear strain γ is not uniform either. It also depends on the distance u from
the centre of the sample, such as:
u
γ = θ (6)
h
γ represents the shear strain; h represents the height of the sample (1 mm for the standard MSCR
test); and θ represents the recorded deflection angle. So, the shear stress and strain distribution are
illustrated in Figure 5.
For an MSCR test at stress level τ 0 (either 0.1 kPa or 3.2 kPa for the standard protocol), the DSR
instrument resolves a torque M0 at a specific location and applies it to the binder sample. The torque
M0 depends on the stress resolution location, which should be the exact location for the strain record
and can vary for different DSR instruments and software. For a given location u0 (distance from the
centre of sample, 2/3r or r in most cases), M0 is resolved as.

τ0 πr4
M0 = (7)
2u0
M0 represents the resolved torque; τ 0 represents the target stress level; and u0 represents the location
of stress resolution and strain record. When DSR uses different locations for the target stress resolution,
the applied torque will be different. The torque resolved at 2/3r will be 1.5 times the torque determined
at r. In other words, if the same torque should have been applied for both configurations, the shear
stress at r would be 50% higher than the one recorded at 2/3r. Thus, the stress state of the binder
sample will be different when there is a difference in the location of stress resolution and strain record.
The data collected from participating laboratories confirm the difference in applied torque, as in
Table 9. The torque applied by Lab 1 and Lab 10 was about 1.5 times the torque applied by Lab 13, Lab
16, and Lab 17. The resulting difference in the stress state of the binder sample is illustrated in Figure
6. It shows that the binder sample measured at 2/3r (Figure 6 left) experiences higher overall stresses
than the sample measured at r (Figure 6 right), although the shear stress is the same at their respective
location of measurement. Considering both the linear and nonlinear mechanical behaviour, the shear
modulus G(τ ) can be determined as:
τ 2Mh
G(τ ) = = (8)
γ θπr4
G(τ ) represents the shear modulus, which can depend on the stress level in the nonlinear range. It
suggests that the shear modulus is not dependent on the distance u from the centre of sample. Thus,
the location of stress resolution and strain record does not affect the measurement of complex shear
modulus G∗ (τ ) when oscillatory loading is applied, as long as the stress resolution and strain record is
at the same location.
14 D. WANG ET AL.

Figure 6. Stress states of binder samples with torque resolved at different locations. Left: resolution at 2/3r; Right: resolution at r.

Table 9. Torque applied by different laboratories to reach the stan-

dard shear stress levels.

Torque at 0.1 kPa shear Torque at 3.2 kPa shear

Lab ID stress (N·m) stress (N·m)
Lab 1 4.6 × 10−4 1.5 × 10−2
Lab 10 4.6 × 10−4 1.5 × 10−2
Lab 13 3.1 × 10−4 9.8 × 10−3
Lab 16 3.1 × 10−4 9.8 × 10−3
Lab 17 3.1 × 10−4 9.8 × 10−3

For a sample of a given size (radius r and height h) in the linear range, the shear modulus is constant
and not dependent on the stress level. Thus, the resulting deflection angle θ will be proportional to
the applied torque M. In the nonlinear range, however, the resulting deflection angle θ will not be
proportional to the applied torque M. For an MSCR test at stress level τ 0 (resolved torque M0 ), the
recorded shear strain γ at the given location u0 is determined as.

u0 u0 2M0 h τ0
γ = θ = · = (9)
h h G(τ0 )πr4 G(τ0 )

Thus, the recorded shear strain does not depend on the stress resolution and strain record location
as long as the stress resolution and strain record are at the same location. For measurements in the
linear range, the recorded shear strain is not affected by the stress resolution location and strain
record. However, when the measurement reaches the nonlinear range, which can be the case for
MSCR test at 3.2 kPa, the difference in resolved torque at different locations may lead to different
stress states of the sample and result in differences in the shear modulus at different locations of
the sample. If considering only the location of measurement (for example, at 2/3r or r), it seems that
the measurement of shear strain is not affected. Due to non-uniform shear stress and strain distribu-
tion, however, the influence from the surrounding locations is uncertain. This is because the binder
sample in DSR is a continuum. Its behaviour at one location can be influenced by the surrounding
locations. In certain cases, for an MSCR test that reaches the nonlinear range, this influence may fol-
low into the measurement of non-recovered shear strain and affect the final result of non-recoverable
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 15

Figure 7. (a) R and (b) Jnr responses under different stress levels; (c) the inter-relation between R and Jnr under different stress
levels.

creep compliance. Deepened theoretical analysis may be needed to further clarify the possible
influence.
Nevertheless, many other factors in practice can also affect the measurement of shear strain for the
MSCR test, such as the sample preparation method, placement method, gap setting, normal force, etc.
The influence of the measurement location cannot be observed by simply comparing the test results
by different laboratories in this study (Table 7). However, it can be seen in Table 4 and Figure 3 that the
largest differences in MSCR results between two laboratories were mostly from laboratories measur-
ing at the same location without being significantly influenced by the measurement location. As the
theoretical analysis suggests the potential influence of measurement location in the nonlinear range,
it is thus recommended to harmonise the location of stress resolution and strain in MSCR standards.
However, it should be noted that controlling other factors might be more crucial for improving the
reproducibility of MSCR test results.

4.4. Stress level and sensitivity

In Figure 7a and b, the R and Jnr results under different stresses measured for Bit1, PmB1, and Bit2 by
Lab 17 (using EN 16659:2015 without preloading, measurement at the extremity of radius) were plot-
ted. Their inter-relation under different stresses was displayed in Figure 7c. It should be noticed that
two negative R values were obtained for Bit2 at 12.8 and 25.6 kPa. Although there is still a discussion
on the possible reasons for this, the inertial effect likely continued driving the soft binder (low viscosity
at such a high temperature) a bit forward, even without the applied stress. Another possible reason
for this could be that the DSR device was unable to catch the change in accumulated strains. This phe-
nomenon can commonly be observed in unmodified soft binders at high temperatures and/or stress
levels. Thus, the negative recovery values of soft binders at high temperatures mean zero recovery.
Based on a previous study (Wang et al., 2021), these values were recorded as zero for analysis.
In Figure 7a and b, it was found that the R value decreased while Jnr increased as the loading stresses
increased. The changing trends for these two parameters are significantly different. For R, it remained
plateaued in the beginning and then decreased remarkably after certain specific stress level, while
16 D. WANG ET AL.

linear and almost parallel increase trends (in log plot) were observed in all three binders when the
stress was higher than 0.2 kPa. In the case of R, different critical stresses were observed among three
binders, but all greater than 3.2 kPa. These results indicate that higher stress levels than the standard
would lead to significantly different MSCR test results. Figure 7c provides more information on the
inter-relation of the two parameters. For Bit1 and PmB1, the results tend to the right bottom corner in
a linear trend when the stress was higher than 3.2 kPa. In the case of Bit2, the R values were very close to
zero. Additionally, it was also observed that when PmB1 underwent 51.2 kPa shear stress, its R was still
higher than the other unmodified binders’ results at 0.1 kPa. As D’Angelo et al. (2007) stated, the yield
behaviour in a PmB can be observed under a high stress level, while a reduced R would be observed
after such a loading. Hence, it is to say that the PmB has not reached the yield limit. A higher testing
temperature may be required to explore the extreme of PmB binders. Overall speaking, however, the
PmB shows much better anti-creep properties at the high temperature compared to the unmodified
binders. This difference could be distinguished with the MSCR test results.

5. Conclusions and future perspectives

This study investigated the influences of several key experimental parameters on the determination
of high-temperature creep and recovery properties of bituminous binders with the MSCR test. Two
unmodified and two PmB binders were analysed by five different laboratories. The 10 cycles of preload-
ing at 0.1 kPa, the location of stress resolution and strain record, and the stress levels were selected as
potentially affecting factors in the study. Overall, PmB binders show better anti-creep properties than
unmodified binders at the high temperature.
Due to the limited experimental results, only variability between individual laboratories based on
the current MSCR standards were used for evaluation instead of statistical analyses. The precision of
most results met the requirements of the European standard while some of them went beyond the
limitations of the AASHTO standard. This is especially valid for the unmodified binders.
The preloading procedure at 0.1 kPa is necessary for PmBs to reach a stable stage. Based on this
study, 10 cycles of preloading at 0.1 kPa were enough for the studied PmBs. However, whether 10
cycles are enough for all PmBs and the preloading procedure is needed at 3.2 kPa should be further
investigated.
The location of stress resolution and strain record only lead to limited influence, as compared to
other parameters, on the MSCR results when the test material remains in the LVE range. Further exper-
imental studies with high stress levels and deeper theoretical analysis are essential for understanding
and addressing this issue.
MSCR is a stress-sensitive testing. The increase in stress level leads to significant differences in both
unmodified and modified binders. This is valid for both R and Jnr . When the stress is higher than 3.2 kPa,
a sharp reduction in R was found in the PmB, while a relatively stable R was observed in two unmodified
binders.
This experimental study provides evidence of how these testing parameters affect the MSCR results.
The paper was centred on evaluating critical parameters of the MSCR test that received little attention
at the practical level. Therefore, it provides a dedicated vision of the testing procedure and results
and the validity of these parameters across diverse bituminous binders (unmodified and PmB). At the
same time, it must be highlighted that from a practical perspective, a more sophisticated experimental
approach would require performing an extended amplitude sweep test to the level of strain experi-
enced in the MSCR test and calculating the stress–strain evolution depending on the location along
the radius of the specimen as a cumulative contribution to the total torque. This aspect makes the
current largely simplified test approach more functional for practitioners and engineers.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that only limited binder types and available DSR devices were
tested in the laboratory environment. Extra test materials and an expanded experiment programme
would be necessary to further evaluate the capacity and limitations of the MSCR test. In addition,
although this interlaboratory analysis was designed to comprehensively understand the influences
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 17

of preloading, measurement location, and stress level on MSCR testing of PmB binders, more open
questions were found during the study. For example, it was found that the preloading process at 0.1
kPa (based on updated ASTM D7405 standard published in 2015) leads to remarkable effects on the
MSCR results, and the measurement location may lead to certain influence when the stress is beyond
the LVE range. Hence, the binders’ rheological behaviour under 3.2 kPa is more complex, and therefore,
the impact of preloading on 3.2 kPa might be potentially even greater but to a large extent unknown
so far.
Moreover, the yield limits of PmB binders were not reached in the study, which may be attributed to
the relatively low testing temperature for the modified binders analysed in this study. Hence, the effect
of testing temperatures is also a key point in future studies. Furthermore, in the authors’ future work,
the influence of available devices, including DSR calibration and instrument compliance correction,
will be further considered, as they might partially affect the results in a large interlaboratory study.
Last but not least, the testing protocol under high stress levels will be addressed more in-depth to
overcome potential experimental limitations.

Acknowledgments
The RILEM Technical Committee on Phase and Interphase behaviour of innovative bituminous Materials (TC 272-PIM) and
the Task Group 1 members are gratefully acknowledged.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Di Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9018-0719
Jiqing Zhu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1779-1710
Laurent Porot http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7173-9035
Augusto Cannone Falchetto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-6158

References
AASHTO M320-21. (2021). Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO M 332-21. (2021). Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder using multiple stress creep recovery
(MSCR) test. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 350. (2019). Standard method of test for multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test of asphalt binder using a dynamic
shear rheometer (DSR). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 350-19. (2019). Standard method of test for multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test of asphalt binder using a
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Anderson, D. A., & Kennedy, T. W. (1993). Development of SHRP binder specification (with discussion). Journal of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 62.
ASTM D7405. (2020). Standard test method for multiple stress creep and recovery (MSCR) of asphalt binder using a dynamic
shear rheometer. ASTM International.
ASTM D7405-20. (2020). Standard test method for multiple stress creep and recovery (MSCR) of asphalt binder using a dynamic
shear rheometer. ASTM International.
ASTM D8239-21. (2021). Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder using the multiple stress creep and
recovery (MSCR) test. ASTM International.
Bahia, H. U., Hanson, D. I., Zeng, M., Zhai, H., Khatri, M. A., & Anderson, R. M. (2001a). Characterization of modified asphalt
binders in Superpave mix design (No. Project 9-10 FY‘96).
Bahia, H. U., Zhai, H., Zeng, M., Hu, Y., & Turner, P. (2001b). Development of binder specification parameters based on
characterization of damage behavior (with discussion). Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 70.
Chen, H., & Wang, B. (2008). Modification of rutting factor of styrene butadiene styrene block copolymer modified asphalt.
Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 36(10), 1384–1387. in Chinese. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0253-374X.
2008.10.014
18 D. WANG ET AL.

Cosme, R. L., Teixeira, J. E. S. L., & Calmon, J. L. (2016). Use of frequency sweep and MSCR tests to characterize asphalt
mastics containing ornamental stone residues and LD steel slag. Construction and Building Materials, 122, 556–566.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.126
D’Angelo, J., Kluttz, R., Dongre, R. N., Stephens, K., & Zanzotto, L. (2007). Revision of the superpave high temperature
binder specification: The multiple stress creep recovery test (with discussion). Journal of the Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists, 76.
D’Angelo, J. A. (2009). The relationship of the MSCR test to rutting. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 10(sup1), 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2009.9690236
Delgadillo, R., Bahia, H. U., & Lakes, R. (2012). A nonlinear constitutive relationship for asphalt binders. Materials and
Structures, 45(3), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-011-9777-y
Delgadillo, R., Nam, K., & Bahia, H. (2006). Why do we need to change G∗ /sinδ and how? Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 7(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2006.9690024
Domingos, M. D. I., Faxina, A. L., & Bernucci, L. L. B. (2017). Characterization of the rutting potential of modified
asphalt binders and its correlation with the mixture’s rut resistance. Construction and Building Materials, 144, 207–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.171
Durand, G., Gillet, J. P., Robert, M., & Morin, E. (2021). Which are the best rheological criteria for characterisation of PMB?, In
7th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, 15 - 17 June, 2021, virtual conference.
EN 12591:2009. (2009). Bitumen and bituminous binders - Specifications for paving grade bitumens. European Committee
for Standardization.
EN 12607-1:2014. (2014). Bitumen and bituminous binders - Determination of the resistance to hardening under influence of
heat and air - Part 1: RTFOT method. European Committee for Standardization.
EN 1427:2015. (2015). Bitumen and bituminous binders - Determination of the softening point - Ring and Ball method.
European Committee for Standardization.
EN 16659:2015. (2015). Bitumen and bituminous binders - multiple stress creep and recovery test (MSCRT). European Commit-
tee for Standardization.
Golalipour, A. (2011). Modification of multiple stress creep-recovery test procedure and usage in specification. Master disser-
tation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Habbouche, J., Hajj, E. Y., Sebaaly, P. E., & Piratheepan, M. (2020). A critical review of high polymer-modified asphalt binders
and mixtures. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 21(6), 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.
1503273
Masad, E. A., Huang, C. W., DAngelo, J., & Little, D. N. (2009). Characterization of asphalt binder resistance to perma-
nent deformation based on nonlinear viscoelastic analysis of multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test. Journal of
the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 78.
PIARC. (1999). Use of modified bituminous binders, special binders and binders with additives in road pavements. Permanent
International Association of Road Congr. [in French].
Porot, L., Chailleux, E., Apostolidis, P., Zhu, J., Margaritis, A., & Tsantilis, L. (2020). Complex bituminous binders, are current
test methods suitable for?. In H. Di Benedetto, H. Baaj, E. Chailleux, G. Tebaldi, C. Sauzéat, & S. Mangiafico (Eds.), In RILEM
international symposium on bituminous materials (pp. 37–43). Springer.
Porot, L., Vansteenkiste, S., Makowska, M., Carbonneau, X., Zhu, J., Damen, S., & Plug, K. (2021). Characterisation of complex
polymer modified bitumen with rheological parameters. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 22(sup1), S297–S309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1910070
Porot, L., Zhu, J., Wang, D., & Cannone Falchetto, A. (2022). Multiple stress creep recovery test to differentiate polymer
modified bitumen at high temperature. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 51(4), https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20220306
Salim, R., Gundla, A., Zalghout, A., Underwood, B. S., & Kaloush, K. E. (2019). Relationship between asphalt binder parame-
ters and asphalt mixture rutting. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(6),
431–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119842129
Shirodkar, P., Mehta, Y., Nolan, A., Dahm, K., Dusseau, R., & McCarthy, L. (2012). Characterization of creep and recovery curve
of polymer modified binder. Construction and Building Materials, 34, 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2012.02.018
Soenen, H., Blomberg, T., Pellinen, T., & Laukkanen, O. V. (2013). The multiple stress creep-recovery test: A detailed analysis
of repeatability and reproducibility. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 14(S1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680
629.2013.774742
Soenen, H., Lu, X., & Redelius, P. (2008). The morphology of bitumen-SBS blends by UV microscopy. Road Materials and
Pavement Design, 9(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2008.9690109
Subhy, A., Lo Presti, D., Airey, G., & Widyatmoko, I. (2022). Rutting analysis of different rubberised stone
mastic asphalt mixtures: From binders to mixtures. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 23(9), 2098–2114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1950818
Wang, H., Liu, X., Apostolidis, P., Wang, D., Leng, Z., Lu, G., Erkens, S., & Skarpas, A. (2021). Investigating the high- and
Low-temperature performance of warm crumb rubber–modified bituminous binders using rheological tests. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, Part B: Pavements, 147(4), 04021067. https://doi.org/10.1061/JPEODX.0000326
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 19

Wasage, T. L. J., Stastna, J., & Zanzotto, L. (2011). Rheological analysis of multi-stress creep recovery (MSCR) test.
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 12(6), 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2011.573557
White, G. (2017). Grading highly modified binders by multiple stress creep recovery. Road Materials and Pavement Design,
18(6), 1322–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1212730
Zhang, J., Walubita, L. F., Faruk, A. N., Karki, P., & Simate, G. S. (2015). Use of the MSCR test to characterize the asphalt binder
properties relative to HMA rutting performance – A laboratory study. Construction and Building Materials, 94, 218–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.044

View publication stats