materials

Article
Establishing Indicators and an Analytic Method for
Moisture Susceptibility and Rutting Resistance
Evaluation Using a Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test
Wei-Han Wang and Chien-Wei Huang *
Department of Civil Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung 40227, Taiwan;
a8505099@gmail.com
* Correspondence: stanhuang917@nchu.edu.tw




Received: 7 July 2020; Accepted: 20 July 2020; Published: 23 July 2020


Abstract: The Hamburg wheel tracking test (HWTT) is widely used to evaluate the performance of
asphalt mixtures. According to HWTT specifications, the stripping inflection point (SIP) and the
rut depth at a certain number of load cycles are two common indicators for evaluating the moisture
susceptibility and rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures, respectively. Although these indicators have
been used extensively by several transportation institutions, the reliability and stability in evaluating
asphalt mixture behaviors of these indicators have been questioned. To more effectively evaluate the
performance of asphalt mixture in the HWTT, this study introduces a novel method of analysis for the
HWTT and novel indicators of rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility. The proposed method
and indicators were employed to analyze the HWTT results of 14 field core specimens, and the
proposed indicators were compared with conventional HWTT indicators to assess their capability of
distinction between asphalt mixtures with different performance behaviors in the HWTT. The results
indicate that the conventional HWTT indicators cannot effectively evaluate the asphalt mixtures with
different performance in the HWTT. By contrast, the proposed analytic method and indicators have
significant advantages to effectively evaluate and distinguish the rutting resistance and moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures.

Keywords: Hamburg wheel tracking test; moisture susceptibility; rutting resistance; asphalt mixtures

1. Introduction
The Hamburg wheel tracking test (HWTT) was developed by Esso A.G. in Hamburg, Germany [1].
The test involves immersing an asphalt concrete specimen in a water bath at a specific temperature,
generally 50 ◦ C, and then using a steel wheel for repeated loading to determine the relationship
between the load cycle and rut depth. Specimens used in the HWTT can be either a slab specimen or
cylindrical specimen. Slab specimens are generally fabricated in a laboratory with a slab compactor,
whereas cylindrical specimens can be prepared using a Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) in the
laboratory or obtained from cores onsite [2].
The HWTT has been widely used in laboratories to evaluate the rutting resistance and moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixture. Numerous studies have assessed the effectiveness of various wheel
tracking tests in evaluating the rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture.
Han et al. [3] compared the effectiveness of the asphalt pavement analyzer (APA) test and HWTT in
evaluating the susceptibility of asphalt mixture to moisture damage. The results revealed significant
stripping of specimens in the APA tests; however, APA tests did not indicate any stripping inflection
point (SIP), whereas the HWTT results did. Furthermore, the HWTT results indicated considerable
improvement in the antistripping performance of the asphalt mixture by the addition of antistripping

Materials 2020, 13, 3269; doi:10.3390/ma13153269 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 3269 2 of 19

additives; therefore, the HWTT is more effective than the APA in determining the susceptibility of an
asphalt mixture to moisture damage. Stuart et al. [4] used the HWTT, French pavement rutting tester,
and Georgia loaded-wheel tester to evaluate the rutting resistance of an asphalt mixture mixed with
different asphalt binder grades. The experimental results revealed that the Georgia loaded-wheel tester
demonstrated a significant relationship between rutting and the rheological properties of the binders;
the HWTT and French pavement rutting tester failed to yield the same result. In addition, a number of
researchers employed the HWTT to evaluate the effects of aggregate properties, aggregate gradation,
types of asphalt, short-term aging, and temperature on asphalt mixtures [5–10] and proposed different
rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility indicators for the HWTT. Uppu et al. [11] used the
number of wheel passes, creep slope, and SIP as indicators to evaluate the moisture susceptibility
of reclaimed asphalt material with different asphalt binder contents. The research determined that
the aforementioned HWTT indicators can indicate the moisture susceptibility of reclaimed asphalt
material with different asphalt binder contents. Kim et al. [12] used the number of loading passes at
failure, rut depth at 20,000 wheel passes, SIP, creep slope, and stripping slope in the HWTT to evaluate
the rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixture. The results revealed that the
number of loading passes at failure, rut depth at 20,000 wheel passes, and SIP are related to the nominal
maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and that the creep slope is not significantly related to NMAS. Larrain
et al. [13,14] used rut depth and the maximum number of load cycles in the HWTT as indicators to
evaluate the effects of binder grade, test temperature, aggregate gradation, and aggregate types on the
rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures. The results suggested that test temperature, type of aggregate,
and aggregate gradation significantly influenced the aforementioned indicators. Schram et al. [15]
proposed using HWTT results (i.e., SIP, creep slope, stripping slope, and the ratio between the stripping
slope and creep slope) to evaluate the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture with different binder
grades and NMAS and compared them with field performance observations. Izzo et al. [6] adopted
creep slope, stripping slope, and SIP indicators to evaluate the moisture susceptibility of asphalt
mixtures mixed with antistripping additives. Walubita et al. [16] proposed analyzing the results of
the HWTT by using the shape factor, rutting area, and normalized rutting area to evaluate the rutting
resistance of asphalt mixture; this research also compared the newly formulated and conventional
parameters with field observation results.
Multiple researchers have proposed methods for the analysis of HWTT data. Al-Khateeb et al. [17]
analyzed HWTT results by using a third-order-type three-stage model to determine the number of load
cycles at which the three phases of the HWTT curve (post-compaction, creep, and stripping phase)
change; the objective of the study was to evaluate the rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures and compare
them with the rutting indicators of asphalt binders. Tsai et al. [18] suggested using the three-stage
Weibull model to analyze the fatigue damage behavior of asphalt mixtures and subsequently applied
the three-stage Weibull model to analyze the HWTT rutting curve [19]. The study indicated that
the model can improve existing HWTT rutting curve evaluation methods and provide a systematic
analysis for SIP evaluation. Yin et al. [20] used a viscoplastic model to fit the HWTT rutting curve of
asphalt mixtures that had not been damaged by moisture. The research proposed using the curve of
the viscoplastic model to evaluate the viscoplastic strain of asphalt mixtures at a given number of load
cycles (as an indicator of rutting resistance). Yin et al. then extended the viscoplastic curve to propose
the number of load cycles (indicating moisture susceptibility) required when rutting in the HWTT
reaches a particular value.
Although many transportation agencies have extensively used the HWTT to evaluate the rutting
resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures, a number of problems remain in relation
to data analysis based on HWTT specifications and the reliability and stability of rutting resistance
and moisture susceptibility indicators [19–21]. For example, the HWTT rutting curve can be divided
into three main phases, namely, post-compaction, creep, and stripping phases; each phase has its
own mechanical behaviors and mechanisms [19,20]. Furthermore, the HWTT rutting curve includes
permanent deformation due to moisture damage and due to repeated loading. Hence, at a given
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 3 of 19

load cycle, rut depth cannot be used effectively to evaluate the resistance of the asphalt mixture to
rutting [20]. In addition, a specimen reaches a failure state at a later HWTT stage, when its aggregate
already displays obvious signs of stripping, which causes the aggregate to fall onto the wheel path.
This condition leads
Materials 2020, 13, xto vibration
FOR PEER REVIEWof the wheel, creating instability in the data of the later 3stage
of 21 of the

HWTT, which affects the calculation of the SIP [21]. Therefore, establishing a method for systematic
[20]. In addition, a specimen reaches a failure state at a later HWTT stage, when its aggregate already
analysisdisplays
and proposing
obvious signsnovel
of indicators are necessary
stripping, which causes the for effective
aggregate useonto
to fall of the
the HWTT to evaluate
wheel path. This the
moisture susceptibility and rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture.
condition leads to vibration of the wheel, creating instability in the data of the later stage of the
HWTT, which affects the calculation of the SIP [21]. Therefore, establishing a method for systematic
2. Objectives
analysis and proposing novel indicators are necessary for effective use of the HWTT to evaluate the
moisture susceptibility and rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture.
The objective of this study was to develop a novel method for analyzing HWTT results. Two new
indicators were introduced to evaluate the rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt
2. Objectives
mixtures. In the study, the HWTT was conducted on 14 field core specimens. The results were
The objective of this study was to develop a novel method for analyzing HWTT results. Two
analyzed using both the
new indicators werecurrent HWTT
introduced protocolthe
to evaluate and the proposed
rutting resistance method. Finally,
and moisture the proposed
susceptibility of and
conventional HWTT indicators were compared to demonstrate their effectiveness in evaluating
asphalt mixtures. In the study, the HWTT was conducted on 14 field core specimens. The results were the
analyzed using both the current HWTT protocol and the proposed method. Finally, the proposed
rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures with different performance behaviors
and conventional HWTT indicators were compared to demonstrate their effectiveness in evaluating
in the HWTT.
the rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures with different performance
behaviors
3. Specimen in the HWTT.
Preparation and the HWTT
3. Specimen
Field Preparation
core specimens wereand the HWTT
prepared and tested following the AASHTO T324-17 HWTT specification
(AASHTO, Washington,
Field core specimens were prepared 1a
DC, USA) [2]. Figure andshows
testedthe HWTT the
following device (Cooper,
AASHTO Ripley,
T324-17 UK). In the
HWTT
HWTT, specification
a steel wheel with a Washington,
(AASHTO, diameter ofD.C.,203.2 ± 2.0States)
United mm [2].andFigure
a width of 47the
1a shows mm wasdevice
HWTT applied at a
(Cooper,
frequency of 52 Ripley, U.K.).per
± 2 passes In the HWTT,
min. The aload
steel of
wheel
the with
wheel a diameter
is 705 ±of4.5
203.2
N. ±The
2.0 mm andreciprocates
wheel a width of over
47 mm was applied at a frequency of 52 ± 2 passes per min. The load of the wheel is 705 ± 4.5 N. The
the specimen and the position of the wheel varies sinusoidally over time. The maximum speed of the
wheel reciprocates over the specimen and the position of the wheel varies sinusoidally over time. The
wheel ismaximum
approximately 0.305 m/s at the midpoint of the specimen.
speed of the wheel is approximately 0.305 m/s at the midpoint of the specimen.

(a)

Figure 1. Cont.
Materials Materials
2020, 13,2020,
326913, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
4 of 19

(b) (c)

FigureFigure 1. HWTT
1. HWTT device
device andand specimens. (a)
specimens. (a) HWTT
HWTTdevice;
device;(b) (b)
before test; (c)
before after
test; (c)test.
after test.

The core Thespecimens

core specimens of asphalt
of asphalt mixture(Taichung,
mixture (Taichung, Taiwan)
Taiwan) adopted
adopted in this
in study were 150
this study weremm150 mm
in diameter and thicker than 40 mm. According to HWTT specifications, the field core cylindrical
in diameter and thicker than 40 mm. According to HWTT specifications, the field core cylindrical
specimens were sawed to a thickness of 40 mm. Two specimens were then sawed along equal secant
specimens
lineswere sawedtogether
and joined to a thickness
along theof cut40edge
mm. in Two
a mold,specimens
as shown were then
in Figure 1b.sawed
Plasteralong
(Chungequal
Fan secant
lines and joinedCO.,
Gypsum together along Taiwan)
LTD., Taipei, the cut was
edge in a mold,
poured as gap
to fill the shown in Figure
between 1b.of Plaster
the sides the mold(Chung
and Fan
Gypsum CO., LTD.,
specimen Taipei,atTaiwan)
and allowed least 1 h towas
set. poured
Finally, the to prepared
fill the gap between
specimens werethe sides of
immersed in athe mold and
water
specimenbath (Cooper,
and allowedRipley, U.K.) at
at least 1h 50to
°Cset.
for 30 min before
Finally, thethe test commenced.
prepared specimens Figure 1c shows
were the HWTT
immersed in a water
specimens after testing. ◦
bath (Cooper, Ripley, UK) at 50 C for 30 min before the test commenced. Figure 1c shows the HWTT
The HWTT records the relationship between rut depth and load cycle as shown in Figure 2.
specimens after testing.
According to HWTT specifications, the rutting resistance of asphalt mixtures is evaluated by the rut
The HWTT
depth records
at a certain the relationship
number of load cycles between
[2]. A greaterrutrutdepth
depthand load that
indicates cycletheas shown
asphalt in Figure 2.
mixture
According
has to HWTT
a lower specifications,
resistance to rutting. theInrutting
addition, resistance of asphalt mixtures
HWTT specifications use the SIPisto evaluated
evaluate the by the rut
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures [2]. The SIP is defined as the number
depth at a certain number of load cycles [2]. A greater rut depth indicates that the asphalt mixture has of load cycles at the
a lowerpoint of intersection
resistance between
to rutting. two fitted straight
In addition, HWTTlines from the firstuse
specifications andthe
second
SIPsteady-state
to evaluate portions
the moisture
of the HWTT curve (dashed line with circles in Figure 2). The SIP is described by Equation (1):
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures [2]. The SIP is defined as the number of load cycles at the point of
intersection between two fitted straight linesSIPfrom b −b
= the first and second steady-state portions (1) of the
HWTT curve (dashed line with circles in Figure 2).s The −s
SIP is described by Equation (1):
where b and s are the interception and slope of the fitted straight lines, respectively. The superscript
of b and s denotes the first and second steady-statebportions
2
− b1 of the curve. A high SIP indicates that the
SIP =damage.
asphalt mixture has robust resistance to moisture 1 2
(1)
s −s
where b and s are the interception and slope of the fitted straight lines, respectively. The superscript of
b and s denotes the first and second steady-state portions of the curve. A high SIP indicates that the
asphalt mixture has robust resistance to moisture damage.
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 5 of 19
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

Figure 2. Relationship between the

2. Relationship the HWTT rut depth and load cycles.
Figure
Figure 2. Relationshipbetween HWTTrut
between the HWTT rutdepth
depth and
and load
load cycles.
cycles.

4. Data Analysis
4. Data Methodology
Analysis Methodology
4. Data Analysis Methodology
First,
First,First, the depth
the rut
the rut depth
rut depth obtained
obtained fromthe
from
obtained from theHWTT
the HWTT (Figure
HWTT (Figure 2)
(Figure 2)2)was
was converted
wasconverted
convertedintointo
into permanent strainstrain
permanent
permanent strain by by
by
using
usingusing Equation
Equation
Equation (2).
(2). (2). Figure
Figure 3 portrays
3 portrays
Figure the
3 portraysthe relationship
therelationship between the
betweenthe
relationship between calculated
thecalculated
calculatedpermanent strain
permanent
permanent and
strain
strain and and
load cycles:
cycles:
load cycles:
load
|RD ||
|RD
εpε == |RDN| (2) (2)
ε = T T (2)
T
where
wherewhere RD
RDN RD isrut
is theis the depth
the rut depth
rut depth
(mm)(mm)
at the
(mm) at NthN
at the
the th load cycle, T is the specimen thickness (mm), and ε
Nload
th loadcycle,
cycle,TTisisthe
thespecimen
specimen thickness (mm),and
thickness (mm), isis the
andε εpis
the
permanentpermanent strain.
strain. strain.
the permanent

Figure 3. A schematic of the relationship between permanent strain and load cycles in the HWTT.
Figure
Figure 3. A3.schematic
A schematic
of of
thethe relationshipbetween
relationship between permanent
permanentstrain and
strain load
and cycles
load in the
cycles in HWTT.
the HWTT.

4.1. Determination of the Critical Loading Number in HWTT

Since the HWTT applies repeated loading on a specimen in the presence of water, the total
permanent strain in the HWTT simultaneously contains two components: viscoplastic strain (rutting)
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 6 of 19

of the asphalt mixture itself due to repeated loading and permanent strain by the moisture effect
(moisture damage). However, rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures have
different mechanical behaviors and mechanisms. Specifically, the rutting resistance of the asphalt
mixture is more related to the distribution of aggregate in the asphalt mixture and to the properties of
asphalt binders (e.g., aggregate gradation, aggregate property, and binder grade), whereas moisture
susceptibility is affected by the surface properties of aggregate and bonding force of asphalt binders
(e.g., hydrophilic or hydrophobic properties of the aggregate, and bonding energy between the
aggregate and binder) [20].
Moreover, the permanent strain of asphalt mixture in the HWTT can be divided into three phases:
(a) post-compaction phase, (b) creep phase, and (c) damage phase, as shown in Figure 3. The permanent
strain in the post-compaction phase is mainly contributed by the consolidation of the specimen
that occurs as the repeated loading densifies the mixtures and the air voids significantly decrease,
causing permanent strain to increase as the load cycle increases. In the creep phase, the permanent strain
is caused by viscous flow of the asphalt mixture and increases at an approximately constant rate with
increasing load cycles. In the damage phase, the asphalt mixture is subjected to substantial moisture
damage resulting in considerable loss of bonding between the asphalt binder and the aggregate, which
causes visible damage to the asphalt mixture, such as stripping or raveling, and permanent strain to
increase drastically with additional load cycles [22].
The behaviors and mechanisms at each phase of the HWTT curve thus differ completely. Therefore,
to effectively use the HWTT for evaluating the rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of asphalt
mixture, it is necessary to determine the load cycle at which moisture damage to the asphalt mixture
begins and the transition loading number for the three phases of the curve.

4.1.1. Determination of the Stripping Number NSN

To determine the number of load cycles at which moisture damage to asphalt mixture begins in
the HWTT, the Francken model [23], presented in Equation (3), was adopted to fit the curve of the
relationship between the calculated permanent strain and the number of load cycles:

εp = a1 Na2 + a3 [exp(a4 × N) − 1] (3)

where N is the number of load cycles; a1 , a2 , a3 , and a4 are the Francken model parameters.
The Francken model parameters can be obtained by fitting the HWTT measurements.
The Francken model consists of two parts: a negative curvature followed by a positive curvature,
as illustrated in Figure 3. A negative curvature means that the asphalt mixture hardens by repeated
loading; here, permanent strain is provided mainly by the viscoplastic strain of the asphalt mixture
itself. Therefore, this part of the curve can be used to evaluate the rutting resistance of asphalt mixture
in the presence of water. In the part of the curve with positive curvature, the asphalt mixture is
affected by water penetration, which weakens the bond between the aggregate and the asphalt binder,
causing a reduction of the strength of the asphalt mixture. The behaviors then are related not only
to the viscoplastic strain of the asphalt mixture itself but also to the effect of moisture damage on
the asphalt mixture. Hence, the curve here can be used to evaluate the moisture susceptibility of the
asphalt mixture [20,24]. In sum, the number of load cycles required for the HWTT permanent strain
curvature to change from negative to positive can be considered the number of load cycles at which
moisture damage to the asphalt mixture begins to occur (stripping number, NSN ). In other words, the
permanent strain of asphalt mixture before NSN is mainly provided by the viscoplastic strain of the
material itself, whereas the permanent strain after NSN is contributed simultaneously by viscoplastic
strain and permanent strain induced by moisture damage.
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 7 of 19

The curvature of the Francken model can be obtained by the second derivative of Equation (3).
To determine NSN , the curvature of the Francken model as shown in Equation (4) is set to zero.

∂2 εp
2
= a1 a2 (a2 − 1)Na2 −2 + a3 a24 exp(a4 × N) (4)
∂N

4.1.2. Determination of the Transition Loading Number between Post-Compaction and Creep
Phase NP−C
To determine the transition loading number in the three phases of the HWTT curve, a three-stage
model [22] was adopted to analyze the HWTT measurements. According to the experimental
measurements, the permanent strain before NSN contained both the post-compaction phase and creep
phase, as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, the permanent strain before NSN was first analyzed to determine
the transition loading number NP−C , at which point the post-compaction phase transitions to the creep
phase. The three-stage model expresses the permanent strain in the post-compaction phase and the
creep phase by the power law and linear model, respectively, as described in Equations (5) and (6):

c2
εst1
p = c1 N N ≤ NP−C (5)

εst2 PS
p = εp + c3 (N − NP−C ) NP−C ≤ N ≤ NSN (6)

where εst1 st2

p and εp are the permanent strain in the post-compaction phase and creep phase, respectively.
εPS
p is permanent strain at the end of the post-compaction phase. c1 , c2 and c3 are model parameters.
Since the HWTT curve is continuous, Equations (5) and (6) demonstrate that when N = NP−C ,
c2
εst1
p = εst2 PS
p = εp = c1 (NP−C ) . In addition, the point at which the post-compaction phase intersects the
creep phase (N = NP−C ) must also satisfy the continuity condition that slopes are equal, as expressed
in Equation (7):
∂εst1
p ∂εst2
p
= when N = NP−C (7)
∂N ∂N
In Equation (7), the first derivative of εst1 st2
p and εp is expressed as Equations (8) and (9), respectively.

∂εst1
p
= c1 c2 Nc2 −1 (8)
∂N

∂εst2
p
= c3 (9)
∂N
Equations (8) and (9) are substituted in Equation (7), obtaining NP−C as in Equation (10):

c3 c21−1
NP−C = ( ) (10)
c1 c2

Equations (5), (6), and (10) were used to analyze permanent strain before NSN . First, an initial Nini
P−C
was assumed, and let Nini i
P−C = NP−C . Then, Equations (5) and (6) were used to fit permanent strain
before NiP−C and the permanent strain between NiP−C and NSN , respectively. Nonlinear regression
analysis was conducted to modify the model parameters (i.e., c1 , c2 , and c3 ) so that errors of the
model-derived permanent strain (Equations (5) and (6)) and the HWTT-derived permanent strain
were minimized. The error was calculated using Equation (11). Next, the obtained model parameters
+1 +1
(i.e., c1 , c2 , and c3 ) were substituted into Equation (10) to calculate NiP−C . If NiP−C = NiP−C , NiP−C at
this point is the transition loading number NP−C between the post-compaction and creep phases.

exp,k exp,k
N
X P−C ( εp − εmodel,k
p ) N
X SN ( εp − εmodel,k
p )
Err1 = exp,k
+ exp,k
(11)
k=1 εp k=NP−C εp
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 8 of 19

exp,k
where Err1 is error of HWTT-derived and model-derived permanent strain before NSN . εp is
permanent strain at the kth
point in the HWTT. εmodel,k
is permanent strain at the
p kth point calculated
using the model (Equations (5) or (6)). The algorithm is summarized as follows.

1. Assume an initial Nini ini i

P−C and set NP−C = NP−C .
2. Use Equations (5) and (6) to fit the experimental permanent strain before NiP−C and between
NiP−C and NSN , respectively.
3. Obtain the model parameters c1 , c2 , and c3 by minimizing the error function (Equation (11)).
+1
4. Calculate NiP−C (Equation (10)) using the model parameters c1 , c2 , and c3 obtained in step 3.
+1 +1 +1
5. Compare NiP−C and NiP−C ; if NiP−C = NiP−C , then NiP−C is the desired NP−C . Otherwise, set NiP−C
as the new transition loading number between the post-compaction and creep phases and return
to step 2.

4.1.3. Determination of the Transition Loading Number between Creep and Damage Phases NC−D
Once the transition loading number NP−C was determined, permanent strain after NP−C was
analyzed using the creep and damage phases of the three-stage model to determine the transition
loading number at which the material transitions from the creep phase to the damage phase (NC−D ).
The permanent strain in the damage phase of the three-stage model is described by Equation (12):

εst3 CP 
p = εp + c4 × NC−D exp[c5 × (N − NC−D )] − 1 NC−D ≤ Nmax (12)

where εst3 CP
p is permanent strain in the damage phase and εp is permanent strain at the end of the creep
phase. Nmax is the maximum loading number in the HWTT. c4 and c5 are model parameters.
Since the HWTT curve is continuous, Equations (6) and (12) reveal that when N = NC−D ,
εst2
p = εst3 CP PS
p = εp = εp + c3 (NC−D − NP−C ), and the point at which the creep phase intersects the
damage phase (N = NC−D ) must also satisfy the following continuity condition:

∂εst2
p ∂εst3
p
= when N = NC−D (13)
∂N ∂N

The first derivative of εst3

p can be derived using Equation (12), as in Equation (14):

∂εst3
p
= c4 × c5 × NC−D exp(N − NC−D ) (14)
∂N
Equations (9) and (14) may be substituted into Equation (13), yielding NC−D as expressed in
Equation (15):
c3
NC−D = (15)
c4 × c5
The transition loading number at which the material transitions from the creep phase to the
damage phase was determined by using Equations (6), (12), and (15) to analyze permanent strain after
NP−C . Moreover, the analysis range in Equation (6) was modified between NP−C and NC−D for creep
phase. The analysis algorithm was similar to that for determining NP−C . Since c3 in Equation (15)
was obtained during the iteration of NP−C , only c4 and c5 had to be calculated for Equation (15).
An initial Nini ini i
C−D was assumed, and NC−D = NC−D was set. Then, Equation (6) was used to calculate
the permanent strain between NP−C and NiC−D , and Equation (12) was used to calculate the permanent
strain between NiC−D and Nmax . The model parameters (i.e., c4 and c5 ) were modified so that errors of
the model- and HWTT-derived permanent strains were minimized. The error was calculated using
Equation (16). Next, the obtained model parameters (i.e., c4 and c5 ) were substituted into Equation (15)
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 9 of 19

+1 +1
to calculate NiC−D . If NiC−D = NiC−D , then NiC−D at this point is the desired transition loading number
NC−D .
exp,k exp,k
NX
C−D ( εp − εmodel,k
p ) NXmax ( εp − εmodel,k
p )
Err2 = exp,k
+ exp,k
(16)
k=NP−C εp k=NC−D εp
where Err2 is accumulated error of the HWTT-derived and the model-derived permanent strain
between NP−C and Nmax .

4.2. Rutting Resistance Evaluation

Since permanent strain
Materials 2020, 13, before
x FOR PEER NSN was provided mainly by the permanent strain
REVIEW of the asphalt
9 of 21

mixture itselfwhere
under repeated loading, the data before
Err is accumulated error of the HWTT-derivedSN N was used to evaluate the rutting
and the model-derived permanent strain resistance
between N and N
of asphalt mixture. In addition, the permanent strain in the post-compaction phase is mainly due
.
to the initial 4.2.
airRutting
void Resistance
consolidation
Evaluation
and not related to the rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture.
Therefore, to eliminate the effect of the initial air void consolidation, the rutting resistance of the
Since permanent strain before N was provided mainly by the permanent strain of the asphalt
asphalt mixture was
mixture evaluated
itself using
under repeated the rate
loading, ofbefore
the data changeN in permanent
was strain
used to evaluate between
the rutting NP−C and NSN
resistance
as shown in Figure
of asphalt4.mixture.
A rutting resistance
In addition, index strain
the permanent RI was proposed
in the in this
post-compaction study
phase as shown
is mainly due to in Equation
the initial air void consolidation and not related to the rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture.
(17). The physical meaning of RI is the increased permanent strain of asphalt mixture at unit number
Therefore, to eliminate the effect of the initial air void consolidation, the rutting resistance of the
of load cycle;asphalt
higher RI means
mixture weaker
was evaluated resistance
using the rate of to rutting:
change in permanent strain between N and N
as shown in Figure 4. A rutting resistance index RI was proposed in this study as shown in Equation
N permanent
(17). The physical meaning of RI is the increased N strain of asphalt mixture at unit number
εp SN − εp C−D
of load cycle; higher RI means weakerRI resistance
= to rutting: (17)
NSN − NC−D
ε −ε
RI = (17)
N NC−D N −N
where εp SN and εp are permanent strain at NSN and NC−D , respectively.
where ε and ε are permanent strain at N and N , respectively.

A schematic of RI and D in the HWTT.

FigureFigure
4. A4.schematic of RI and Dm in the HWTT.
4.3. Moisture Susceptibility Evaluation
4.3. Moisture Susceptibility Evaluation
Permanent strain after N is provided simultaneously by the permanent strain of asphalt
Permanent strain
mixture itselfafter NSN isstrain)
(viscoplastic provided simultaneously
and permanent by by
strain induced themoisture
permanent
damage. strain of asphalt
Therefore, to mixture
effectively evaluate the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture, the permanent strain caused by
itself (viscoplastic strain) and permanent strain induced by moisture damage. Therefore, to effectively
moisture damage has to be extracted from HWTT measurements. This study employed the Tseng–
evaluate theLytton
moisture
model,susceptibility ofhas
a viscoplastic model asphalt mixture,
been commonly usedthe permanent
in asphalt strain
mixture, to caused by moisture
fit the permanent
damage has strain
to bebefore N for representing
extracted from HWTT measurements.
the viscoplastic This
strain of asphalt study
mixture. Theemployed
Tseng-Lyttonthe modelTseng–Lytton
[25] is described by Equation (18). Using nonlinear regression analysis, the parameters of the Tseng-
model, a viscoplastic model has been commonly used in asphalt mixture, to fit the permanent strain
Lytton model (i.e. α, λ, and ε ) were modified such that the error of model- and test-derived
before NSN for representing
permanent strain wasthe viscoplastic strain of asphalt mixture. The Tseng-Lytton model [25] is
minimized:
described by Equation (18). Using nonlinear regressionαanalysis, the parameters of the Tseng-Lytton
ε = ε exp − (18)
N
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 10 of 19

vp
model (i.e., α, λ, and ε∞ ) were modified such that the error of model- and test-derived permanent
strain was minimized:   λ
vp α
εvp = ε∞ exp − (18)
N
vp
where εvp is viscoplastic strain and ε∞ is saturated viscoplastic strain. α and λ are model coefficients.
The viscoplastic strain curve was then extended by substituting the obtained parameters into
the Tseng–Lytton model to determine viscoplastic strain after NSN , indicated by the dashed line in
Figure 4. This extended curve represents the viscoplastic strain in the asphalt mixture generated after
NSN due to repeated loading; therefore, the effects of moisture damage on the asphalt mixture can be
evaluated by the HWTT-based permanent strain and the Tseng–Lytton model-extended viscoplastic
curve. However, the curve of HWTT after NC−D (damage phase) is often susceptible to serious moisture
damage and therefore exhibits unstable conditions. To eliminate the effects of data instability after the
failure of the specimen, data within the interval between NSN and NC−D were adopted to evaluate
moisture susceptibility. First, the area (Am ) between the curve of the permanent strain from HWTT
and the Tseng–Lytton model-extended curve was calculated as shown in Figure 4. Second, this area
was divided by the number of load cycles required between NSN and NC−D , the product of which was
defined as Dm , an indicator of moisture susceptibility as shown in Equation (19). Dm represents the
effect of a unit load of moisture damage on asphalt mixture. The susceptibility of asphalt mixture to
moisture damage increases with Dm . A flowchart of the proposed HWTT analytic method is provided
in Figure 5. The analysis has been written into an automatic analysis program using Visual Basic in
Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, DC, USA) to facilitate subsequent analyses.

Am
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Dm = 11 of 21
(19)
NC−D − NSN

HWTT results
(relationship diagram of rut depth and load cycle)

Calculate permanent strain (Equation (2))

(relationship diagram of permanent strain and load cycle)

Use Francken model to determine N (Equation (4))

Use the N = 1– N data of the three-stage model to determine

N (Equations. (5)–(11))

Use the N = N –N data of the three-stage model to

determine N (Equations. (6), (9), and (12)–(16))

Use the data between N and Use the data between N and N
N to calculate RI (Equation (17)) to calculate D (Equation (19))

Figure 5. Flowchart of the analysis of RI and Dm in the HWTT.

Figure 5. Flowchart of the analysis of RI and D in the HWTT.

5. Results and Discussion

In this study, the HWTT was performed on 14 field core specimens (i.e. M-1, M-2, … M-14). The
results were analyzed using the proposed novel analytic method to obtain RI and D , which were
then compared with conventional HWTT indicators. Figure 6 presents the HWTT results of the M-1
and M-2 specimens. The results show that M-1 before 13,000 load cycles had larger permanent strain,
whereas the opposite trend was observed as load cycle increased. The shape of the M-2 permanent
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 11 of 19

5. Results and Discussion

In this study, the HWTT was performed on 14 field core specimens (i.e., M-1, M-2, . . . M-14).
The results were analyzed using the proposed novel analytic method to obtain RI and Dm , which were
then compared with conventional HWTT indicators. Figure 6 presents the HWTT results of the M-1
and M-2 specimens. The results show that M-1 before 13,000 load cycles had larger permanent strain,
whereas the opposite trend was observed as load cycle increased. The shape of the M-2 permanent
strain curve in Figure 6 exhibits distinct post-compaction, creep and damage phases. Thus, M-2 was
seriously damaged by moisture before 20,000 load cycles were completed, causing the permanent
strain of M-2 to increase rapidly at the later stage of the test. Table 1 presents the permanent strain at
different load cycles (i.e., 5000, 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 cycles). As the table suggests, according to the
definition of rutting resistance in HWTT specification, M-2 was more resistant to rutting at 5000 and
10,000 load cycles, but M-1 was more resistant at 15,000 and 20,000 load cycles. These results reveal
that using rut depth at a certain number of load cycles to evaluate the rutting resistance of asphalt
mixtures yields results that are significantly affected by the number of load cycles selected. Hence,
the rutting resistance defined in HWTT specification does not adequately represent the accumulative
permanent deformation behavior of the asphalt mixture.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

Figure
Figure 6. 6.HWTT
HWTT results
results for
forM-1
M-1and M-2.
and M-2.
vp
1. Rutting
TableTable at different
1. Rutting numbers
at different numbers of load
loadcycles
cyclesin in
thethe RI, and
HWTT,
HWTT, ∆𝜀 ,∆ε results.
RI, and results.
10,000
Permanent Strain at Certain Number of Load Cycles
Permanent Strain at Certain Number of Load Cycles 𝐑𝐈RI
𝒗𝒑
∆𝜺𝟏𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎∆εvp
Mixture
Mixture 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 10,000
5000 10,000 15,000 20,000
M-1 0.132 0.191 0.258 0.328 1.01×10 −5 7.82 ×10 −6

M-1 M-2
0.132 0.102
0.191 0.258
0.156 0.300
0.328 0.580
1.01 × 10−54.57 ×10
8.11 ×10−6
7.82
−6 × 10−6
M-2 0.102 0.156 0.300 0.580 8.11 × 10−6 4.57 × 10−6
As the curves in Figure 6 indicate, the permanent strain of M-1 in the creep phase accumulated
As the curvesfaster
significantly than that
in Figure of M-2, indicating
6 indicate, that M-1 strain
the permanent was weaker
of M-1thaninM-2
thewith regard
creep phaseto rutting
accumulated
resistance. The RI calculated following the flowchart of the method proposed in this study was 1.01
significantly faster than that of M-2, indicating that M-1 was weaker than M-2 with regard to rutting
×10−5 for M-1 and 8.11 ×10−6 for M-2 as shown in Table 1, which indicates that M-2 was more resistant
resistance. The aRI
to rutting, calculated
result following
that fits with the curvesthe flowchart
in Figure 6. Thisof the method
analysis proposed
suggests that in this
conventional study was
HWTT
1.01 × 10 −5 for M-1 and 8.11 × 10−6 for M-2 as shown in Table 1, which indicates that M-2 was more
indicators cannot effectively evaluate the permanent strain behavior of asphalt mixtures under
resistantrepeated
to rutting, a result
loading. Thethat fits withanalysis
proposed the curves in Figure
method and RI6. This analysis
can more suggests
effectively that conventional
evaluate and
distinguish the rutting resistance of asphalt mixture with different rutting behaviors
HWTT indicators cannot effectively evaluate the permanent strain behavior of asphalt mixtures under in the HWTT.
This study
repeated loading. Thefurther
proposedanalyzed the rutting
analysis method resistance
and RIofcanM-1more
and M-2 using theevaluate
effectively method proposed
and distinguish
by Yin et al. [20]. This method also employed the viscoplastic model to evaluate the rutting resistance
the rutting resistance of asphalt mixture with different rutting behaviors in the HWTT.
of asphalt mixtures. The rutting resistance index ∆𝜀 , was characterized by the viscoplastic strain
increment at 10,000 load cycles [20]. The ∆𝜀 , was 7.82 ×10−6 for M-1 and 4.57 ×10−6 for M-2, as
shown in Table 1, which indicates that M-2 was more resistant to rutting. This result was consistent
with the proposed RI results, revealing that it is necessary to effectively evaluate the rutting resistance
of asphalt mixture in the HWTT by the viscoplastic strain of the asphalt mixture itself under repeated
loading.
Figure 7 provides the HWTT results for the M-3 and M-4 specimens. During the test, the
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 12 of 19

This study further analyzed the rutting resistance of M-1 and M-2 using the method proposed by
Yin et al. [20]. This method also employed the viscoplastic model to evaluate the rutting resistance
vp
of asphalt mixtures. The rutting resistance index ∆ε10,000 was characterized by the viscoplastic
vp
strain increment at 10,000 load cycles [20]. The ∆ε10,000 was 7.82 × 10−6 for M-1 and 4.57 × 10−6 for
M-2, as shown in Table 1, which indicates that M-2 was more resistant to rutting. This result was
consistent with the proposed RI results, revealing that it is necessary to effectively evaluate the rutting
resistance of asphalt mixture in the HWTT by the viscoplastic strain of the asphalt mixture itself under
repeated loading.
Figure 7 provides the HWTT results for the M-3 and M-4 specimens. During the test, the specimens
were continually loaded for 20,000 load cycles regardless of whether the rut depth reached 12.5 mm.
The results were organized in two ways: (i) two sets of test data were extracted until the accumulated
rut depth was 12.5 mm (permanent strain = 0.3125), as indicated in Figure 7a, and (ii) two sets of test
data were extracted at 20,000 load cycles (Figure 7b). Subsequently, the SIP of the two datasets was
calculated following HWTT specifications. As Figure 7a reveals, the SIP of M-3 and M-4 was 11,050 and
13,470, respectively, when the ending point was at an accumulated rut depth of 12.5 mm. The results
concluded that M-4 was more resistant to moisture damage than was M-3. However, with an ending
point of 20,000 load cycles, the SIP of M-3 and M-4 was 13,914 and 13,746, respectively (Figure 7b).
This result was
Materials contrary
2020, to the
13, x FOR PEER moisture susceptibility evaluated using an accumulated
REVIEW 13 ofrut
21 depth
of 12.5 mm as the data interval. With the proposed method to calculate the moisture susceptibility
(Figure 7b). This result was contrary to the moisture susceptibility evaluated using an accumulated
indicator Dm , when the data ending point was a rut depth of 12.5 mm, the Dm of M-3 and M-4
rut depth of 12.5 mm as the data interval. With the proposed method to calculate the moisture
was 5.270 × 10−2 and 1.610 × 10−2 , respectively (Figure 7a). When the test data were analyzed with
susceptibility indicator D , when the data ending point was a rut depth of 12.5 mm, the D of M-3
an endingand point
M-4 was of 5.270
20,000 load
×10−2 and cycles,
1.610 ×10the Dm of M-3
−2, respectively and 7a).
(Figure M-4When
was the
5.100 10−2
test×data and
were 1.470 × 10−2 ,
analyzed
respectively.
with an According
ending point to these results,
of 20,000 load cycles, the D ofindicator
the proposed Dm was
M-3 and M-4 in groups (i) and
5.100 ×10 −2 (ii) demonstrates
and 1.470 ×10−2,
that M-3respectively. According totothese
was more susceptible results,
moisture the proposed
damage, Dm fromDdata
and theindicator in analysis
groups (i) and groups
of the (ii) did
demonstrates that M-3 was more susceptible to moisture damage, and the D from
not substantially differ. This result suggests that the proposed Dm in this study was not significantly data analysis of
the groups did not substantially differ. This result suggests that the proposed D in this study was
affected by the ending point of data analysis or the range of data analyzed. Hence, the proposed
not significantly affected by the ending point of data analysis or the range of data analyzed. Hence,
novel method and Dm canmethod
the proposed novel
more effectively evaluate the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures in
and D can more effectively evaluate the moisture susceptibility of
the HWTT.asphalt mixtures in the HWTT.

(a)

Figure 7. Cont.
 Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 13 of 19

(b)

Figure
Figure 7. HWTT7. HWTT
results results for M-3
for M-3 andand M-4.(a)
M-4. (a)With
With aa rut
rutdepth
depth of of
12.5 mmmm
12.5 as the
asending point of
the ending the of the
point
data analysis. (b) With 20,000 load cycles as the ending point of the data
data analysis. (b) With 20,000 load cycles as the ending point of the data analysis. analysis.

The analysis
The analysis of moisture
of moisture susceptibilityofofM-3
susceptibility M-3 and
andM-4M-4was wasfurther conducted
further conductedusing using
the method
the method
proposed by Yin et al. [20]. The analysis also determined the LC , the loading number at which the
proposed by Yin et al. [20]. The analysis also determined the LCSN , the loading number at which the
moisture damage begins to affect the asphalt mixture in the HWTT, like the proposed N in this
moisture damage
study. Then,begins to affect
the moisture the asphaltindex
susceptibility mixture
LC in thedefined
was HWTT, aslike the proposed
the number NSN inload
of additional this study.
Then, the moisture susceptibility index
cycles needed for the rut depth accumulated LC was defined as the
ST to reach 12.5 mm after LC number in the HWTT [20]. The cycles
of additional load
results of SIP, D , and LC
needed for the rut depth accumulated to reach 12.5 mm after LCSN in the HWTT
were summarized in Table 2. When the ending point [20].
was at a rutThe results of
depth
of 12.5 mm, the LC
SIP, Dm , and LCST were summarized in Table 2. When the ending point was at a rut depth ofof
was 13,915 and 16,723 for M-3 and M-4, respectively. With the ending point 12.5 mm,
cycles, the LC was 14,996 for M-3 and 17,285 for M-4. The results demonstrate that M-
the LCST20,000
wasload
13,915 and 16,723 for M-3 and M-4, respectively. With the ending point of 20,000 load
4 was more resistant to moisture damage in both groups (i) and (ii), which was consistent with the
cycles, the LCST was
proposed
14,996 for M-3 and 17,285 for M-4. The results demonstrate that M-4 was more
D results. According to the results of D and LC , both indicators were not
resistantsignificantly
to moisture damage
affected by theinending
both groups (i) and
point of data (ii), which
analysis, revealing was
thatconsistent with the
the determination proposed
of the
Dm results. According to the results
loading cycle at which moisture damage of D and LC ST mixture begins in the HWTT is essential foraffected
m to the asphalt, both indicators were not significantly
evaluating
by the ending the moisture
point susceptibility
of data analysis, of asphaltthat
revealing mixtures.
the determination of the loading cycle at which
moisture damage to the asphalt mixture begins in the HWTT is essential for evaluating the moisture
Table 2. The results of SIP, D and LC .
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures.
12.5 mm (Ending Point) 20,000 Cycles (Ending Point)
Mixture
𝐃𝐦2. The results
SIP (Cycles) Table of SIP, DSIP
𝐋𝐂𝐒𝐓 (Cycles) m and LCST .
(Cycles) 𝐃𝐦 𝐋𝐂𝐒𝐓 (Cycles)

M-3 11,050 5.270

12.5 mm ×10−2 Point)13,915
(Ending 13,914 20,0005.100 ×10−2(Ending14,996
Cycles Point)
Mixture
M-4 13,470
SIP (Cycles) 1.610
D ×10−2
LC 16,723
(Cycles) 13,746
SIP (Cycles) 1.470 ×10
D
−2 17,285
LC (Cycles)
m ST m ST

M-3
Figure 8 presents 5.270 ×
11,050 the HWTT 10−2 13,915
results for M-5 and M-6. The 13,914 5.100
curves in the ×
diagram 10−2
indicate14,996
that M-
M-4 13,470 phase1.610 −2
× 1020,000 16,723 13,746 by 1.470 × 10−2 damage.17,285By
6 entered the damage before load cycles, as evidenced the moisture
contrast, M-5 was not as susceptible to moisture damage; however, the SIP calculated following the
HWTT specifications was 12,148 for M-5 and 15,579 for M-6, suggesting that M-6 was more resistant
Figure 8 presents the HWTT results for M-5 and M-6. The curves in the diagram indicate that M-6
to moisture damage, which was contrary to the curve trend. This result was attributed to a minor
entered change
the damage phase before curve
in the damage-phase 20,000ofload
M-5,cycles, as evidenced
which produced byslope
a flatter the moisture damage.
when a straight line By
wascontrast,
M-5 was not as susceptible to moisture damage; however, the SIP calculated following the HWTT
specifications was 12,148 for M-5 and 15,579 for M-6, suggesting that M-6 was more resistant to
moisture damage, which was contrary to the curve trend. This result was attributed to a minor change
in the damage-phase curve of M-5, which produced a flatter slope when a straight line was used to fit
the damage phase, causing the SIP to shift forward (bold lines in Figure 8). Therefore, using the HWTT
specification to analyze asphalt mixture that does not develop a noticeable damage phase can easily
lead to an incorrect evaluation of moisture susceptibility. With the proposed moisture susceptibility
indicator, Dm was 5.610 × 10−3 for M-5 and 8.030 × 10−3 for M-6, suggesting that M-5 was more resistant
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

used to fit the damage phase, causing the SIP to shift forward (bold lines in Figure 8). Therefore, using
the HWTT
Materials 2020,specification
13, 3269 to analyze asphalt mixture that does not develop a noticeable damage 14 phase
of 19
can easily lead to an incorrect evaluation of moisture susceptibility. With the proposed moisture
susceptibility indicator, D was 5.610 ×10−3 for M-5 and 8.030 ×10−3 for M-6, suggesting that M-5 was
to
moremoisture damage
resistant than was
to moisture M-6, consistent
damage than was with
M-6,the curve trend.
consistent with This analysis
the curve revealed
trend. that the
This analysis
proposed indicator can more closely reflect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures.
revealed that the proposed indicator can more closely reflect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt In addition,
the curvesInsuggest
mixtures. addition,that
theM-5 andsuggest
curves M-6 behaved similarly
that M-5 and M-6inbehaved
the creep phase, and
similarly in thethe rutting
creep of M-5
phase, and
was slightly deeper than that of M-6. The proposed analysis in this study
the rutting of M-5 was slightly deeper than that of M-6. The proposed analysis in this study determined that RI was
8.240 × 10−6 that
determined for M-5 7.840 ××1010
and 8.240
RI was
−6 for M-6, indicating that M-5 and M-6 had comparable resistance
−6 for M-5 and 7.840 ×10−6 for M-6, indicating that M-5 and M-6 had
to rutting, with M-6 slightly more resistant.
comparable resistance to rutting, with M-6 slightly This finding
more coincides
resistant. with
This the curve
finding trend. However,
coincides with the
if the conventional HWTT specification was used, then M-6 was more resistant
curve trend. However, if the conventional HWTT specification was used, then M-6 was more to rutting at 15,000 load
resistant
cycles,
to ruttingbut at
at 20,000
15,000 load
load cycles
cycles,M-5butand M-6 had
at 20,000 comparable
load cycles M-5rutting
and M-6resistance. These results
had comparable add
rutting
evidence that the conventional rutting resistance in HWTT specification are clearly
resistance. These results add evidence that the conventional rutting resistance in HWTT specification affected by the
number of load cycles selected.
are clearly affected by the number of load cycles selected.

Figure 8. HWTT results for M-5 and M-6.

Figure
Figure 99presents
presentsthe theHWTT
HWTTresults
resultsfor
forspecimens
specimens M-7M-7and andM-8 asphalt
M-8 mixtures.
asphalt mixtures. In the figure,
In the the
figure,
development trend of the curves signifies that M-7 and M-8 accumulated
the development trend of the curves signifies that M-7 and M-8 accumulated permanent strain in apermanent strain in a similar
−3 for M-7
manner. According
similar manner. to the results
According to theobtained using theusing
results obtained proposed method, D
the proposed m was 4.474
method, D was × 104.474 ×10−3
and × 10
4.469and −3
for M-7 4.469for×10
M-8, indicating
−3 for that M-7that
M-8, indicating andM-7M-8andexhibited comparable
M-8 exhibited susceptibility
comparable to moisture
susceptibility to
damage, which was consistent with the curve trend. However, analysis
moisture damage, which was consistent with the curve trend. However, analysis of moisture of moisture susceptibility using
HWTT determined
susceptibility usingthat
HWTT the determined
SIP of M-7 and thatM-8
the was 4318
SIP of M-7andand11,041,
M-8 wasrespectively, suggesting
4318 and 11,041, that M-8
respectively,
was considerably
suggesting that M-8more wasresistant to moisture
considerably more damage.
resistant This inconsistency
to moisture damage. wasThis
attributed to unstable
inconsistency was
data on asphalt mixture in the damage phase. The end of the M-7 curve (dashed
attributed to unstable data on asphalt mixture in the damage phase. The end of the M-7 curve (dashed line with circles in the
figure) signifies
line with circles that
in thethe permanent
figure) strain
signifies thatof M-7
the increasedstrain
permanent slowlyof at
M-7 theincreased
end. Thisslowly
behavior differs
at the end.
from the failure behavior of the asphalt mixture (the rate of permanent strain
This behavior differs from the failure behavior of the asphalt mixture (the rate of permanent strain should increase in the
damage phase). The
should increase SIPdamage
in the in the HWTTphase).is the
Thepoint
SIP inof intersection
the HWTT is of the
the regression lines of theof
point of intersection creep
the
and damage
regression phases.
lines of theTherefore,
creep andinstability in the damage
damage phases. Therefore,phase data often
instability causes
in the bias phase
damage in the regression
data often
straight linein
causes bias ofthe
thisregression
phase (thestraight
bold lines
lineinofFigure 9), leading
this phase (the boldto incorrect results9),
lines in Figure regarding
leading to theincorrect
SIP and
impeding the evaluation
results regarding the SIPofandmoisture susceptibility.
impeding The proposed
the evaluation indicator
of moisture of moistureThe
susceptibility. susceptibility
proposed
was not affected
indicator by instability
of moisture in the
susceptibility data
was notataffected
the damage phase and
by instability can data
in the effectively determine
at the damage the
phase
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture. Regarding rutting resistance,
and can effectively determine the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixture. Regarding rutting the RI of M-7 and M-8 were
4.040 × 10−6 and 3.950 × 10−6 , respectively, indicating similar rutting resistance. This result coincided
with the trend of the curves.
 Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

Materials 2020, 13, 3269 15 of 19

resistance, the RI of M-7 and M-8 were 4.040 ×10−6 and 3.950 ×10−6, respectively, indicating similar
rutting resistance. This result coincided with the trend of the curves.

Figure 9. HWTT results for M-7 and M-8.

Figure 9. HWTT results for M-7 and M-8.
Figure 10 displays the HWTT results for M-9 and M-10. The curves in the diagram indicate M-9
Figure 10
wasdisplays the HWTT
more resistant to moisture results
damagefor M-9
than wasand
M-10M-10. The curves
(the permanent strain ininthe
thelastdiagram
portion ofindicate M-9
the M-10 curve increase considerably faster). However,
was more resistant to moisture damage than was M-10 (the permanent strain in thean analysis of the SIP based on the HWTT last portion of
specification indicated that M-10 had more considerable resistance to moisture than M-9 (the SIP was
the M-10 curve increase considerably faster). However, an analysis of the SIP based on the HWTT
12,944 for M-9 and 15,417 for M-10). This inconsistency was attributed to an exponential increase in
specification the
indicated
M-10 curvethat M-10
in the damagehadphase;
moretherefore,
considerable
a straightresistance to moisture
line cannot effectively fit thethan M-9of (the SIP was
test data
this phase (the bold lines in Figure 10), rendering the SIP undeterminable.
12,944 for M-9 and 15,417 for M-10). This inconsistency was attributed to an exponential The results of the new D increase in
indicator were 9.840 ×10−4 for M-9 and 4.230 ×10−3 for M-10, revealing that M-9 was more resistant to
the M-10 curve in the damage phase; therefore, a straight line cannot effectively fit the test data of
moisture damage. This result clearly demonstrates that the D can effectively characterize the
this phase (the bold susceptibility
moisture lines in Figure 10),mixtures.
of asphalt rendering the SIP
In addition, undeterminable.
with the proposed RI, M-9 Theandresults
M-10 hadofa the new Dm
indicator wereresistance
9.840 of 10−4×for
× 6.480 10−6 and
M-95.460 −6 to rutting,−3
and×104.230 × 10 respectively.
for M-10,This indicates that
revealing thatM-10
M-9was was more
more resistant
resistant to rutting, consistent with the trends of the curves. The rutting resistance in the HWTT
to moisture damage. This result clearly demonstrates that the
suggested that M-10 was not as resistant to rutting (e.g., rut depth at 20,000
D can effectively
m load cycles) as M-9 was. characterize the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt
However, the permanent mixtures.
strain at 20,000 loadIn cycles
addition,
includes with the proposed
the viscoplastic strain ofRI,
theM-9 and M-10 had
material
itself
a resistance of 6.480 × 10−6 and
and permanent strain5.460
due to × 10−6 to
moisture damage. Sincerespectively.
rutting, M-10 was more susceptible
This indicates to moisture
that M-10 was
damage, permanent strain induced by moisture damage increased dramatically at the later stage of
more resistant to rutting, consistent with the trends of the curves. The rutting resistance in the HWTT
the test, which resulted in a final rut depth greater than that of M-9, resulting in incorrect results
suggested that M-10rutting
regarding was not as resistant to rutting (e.g., rut depth at 20,000 load cycles) as M-9 was.
resistance.
However, the permanent strain at 20,000 load cycles includes the viscoplastic strain of the material
itself and permanent strain due to moisture damage. Since M-10 was more susceptible to moisture
damage, permanent strain induced by moisture damage increased dramatically at the later stage of the
test, which resulted in a final rut depth greater than that of M-9, resulting in incorrect results regarding
rutting resistance.
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

Figure 10. HWTT results for M-9 and M-10.

Figure 10. HWTT results for M-9 and M-10.
Figure 11 presents the HWTT results for M-11 and M-12. According to the test results, M-12 had
stronger resistance to moisture damage than did M-11, and the proposed moisture susceptibility
indicator also determined that M-12 had stronger resistance to moisture damage, as shown in Figure
11. This result was consistent with the trends of the HWTT curves. However, the results for the SIP
based on the HWTT specification indicated that M-11 was more resistant to moisture damage.
Regarding rutting, the results revealed that the specimens exhibited similar permanent strain
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 16 of 19

Figure 11 presents the HWTT results for M-11 and M-12. According to the test results, M-12 had
stronger resistance to moisture damage than did M-11, and the proposed moisture susceptibility
indicator also determined that M-12 had stronger resistance to moisture damage, as shown in Figure 11.
This result was consistent with the trends of the HWTT curves. However, the results for the SIP based
on the HWTT specification indicated that M-11 was more resistant to moisture damage. Regarding
rutting, the results revealed that the specimens exhibited similar permanent strain behavior in the
post-composition and creep phases. This phenomenon suggests that before moisture damage occurred,
the specimens had comparable resistance to rutting. The proposed rutting indicator also determined
that M-11 and M-12 had comparable resistance to rutting, as illustrated in Figure 11. However, based on
permanent strain at a particular number of load cycles (e.g., at 20,000 load cycles), M-11 had weaker
resistance to rutting. This
Materials 2020, result
13, x FOR further verified the reliability of the rutting resistance
PEER REVIEW 18 of 21 and moisture

susceptibility indicators proposed in this study.

Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

FigureFigure 11. HWTT results for M-11 and M-12.

11. HWTT results for M-11 and M-12.
Figure 12 displays the HWTT curves for M-13 and M-14. The curves indicate that M-13 and M-
Figure 12 14
displays
accumulatedthepermanent
HWTT curves for M-13
strain differently. and M-14.
Nevertheless, M-13The
and curves
M-14 hadindicate
similar rutthat
depthsM-13 and M-14
during the final 20,000 load cycles. Based
Figure 11. on
HWTTthis rut
resultsdepth,
for the
M-11 specimens
and M-12.
accumulated permanent strain differently. Nevertheless, M-13 and M-14 had similar rut depths duringhad comparable resistance
to rutting; however, the novel RI revealed that M-13 was more resistant to rutting (RI was 4.140 ×10−6
the final 20,000
for load
Figure
M-13 cycles.
and125.330 Based
displays
×10 −6the
for HWTTon This
M-14). thisresult
curves rut depth,
for M-13
was the with
and M-14.
consistent specimens
The the
curves hadthat
indicate
curve trends. comparable
In M-13the
sum, M- resistance to
andnew
rutting; however, the novel RI revealed that M-13 was more resistant to rutting (RI was 4.140 × 10−6 for
14
RI accumulated
can effectivelypermanent
evaluate strain
the differently.
behavior of Nevertheless,
asphalt mixtures M-13 and M-14
accumulating had similar
permanent rut
straindepths
under
during
repeated the final 20,000 load cycles. Based on this rut depth, the specimens had comparable resistance
loading.
M-13 and 5.330 × 10−6 for M-14). This result was consistent with the curve trends. In sum, the new
to rutting; however, the novel RI revealed that M-13 was more resistant to rutting (RI was 4.140 ×10−6
RI can effectively evaluate
for M-13 and 5.330the
×10−6 behavior
for M-14). Thisofresult
asphalt mixtures
was consistent withaccumulating
the curve trends. Inpermanent
sum, the new strain under
RI can effectively evaluate the behavior of asphalt mixtures accumulating permanent strain under
repeated loading.
repeated loading.

Figure 12. HWTT results for M-13 and M-14.

FigureFigure 12. HWTT results for M-13 and M-14.

12. HWTT results for M-13 and M-14.
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 17 of 19

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The HWTT is widely used in laboratories to evaluate the rutting resistance and moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures; however, the indicators of rutting resistance (rut depth at a particular
number of load cycles) and moisture susceptibility (number of load cycles at SIP) defined by the HWTT
specifications cannot consistently and effectively evaluate the behaviors of asphalt mixtures in the
HWTT. This study established a systematic method of analysis for the HWTT and introduced two
new indicators, Dm and RI, which were then used to evaluate the rutting resistance and moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures. The novel method was used to analyze the HWTT results of 14 field
core asphalt mixture specimens with different behaviors. The objective was to apply Dm and RI to
assess the rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility performance of asphalt mixtures. The proposed
indicators were then compared with the conventional HWTT indicators. The conclusions of the study
and recommendations for future research are provided as follows:

1. In the HWTT, different mechanical behaviors and mechanisms are involved in the accumulation
of permanent strain in various phases. This study used the Francken model and the three-stage
model to propose a systematic analytic method that calculates the critical loading number of
asphalt mixtures (i.e., NSN , NP−C and NC−D ) at the intersection of each phase in the HWTT.
It also proposed that the new rutting resistance index RI be the rate of change in permanent
strain between NP−C and NSN . According to the results of the analysis, when the conventional
HWTT indicator of rutting resistance was used to evaluate asphalt mixtures with different
rutting accumulation behaviors, the selected number of load cycles may generate completely
opposite results. Therefore, the conventional HWTT indicator is greatly affected by the number
of load cycles selected. By contrast, the new indicator (RI) can effectively characterize the rutting
resistance of asphalt mixtures.
2. The SIP, which is a moisture susceptibility indicator in the HWTT, is defined as the number of
load cycles at the point of intersection of straight lines fitted for the creep and damage phases.
Therefore, the determination of the SIP is strongly affected by the data for these two phases.
According to the analysis, using different data ranges (e.g., 20,000 load cycles or maximum rut
depth of 12.5 mm) in the analysis yields different SIP results regarding moisture susceptibility.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the SIP is highly dependent on the data conditions of the
damage phase. For instance, minor changes in the damage-phase curve, dramatic changes
in damage-phase data, or unreasonable curves often render SIP ineffective for evaluating the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures. This study proposed a novel indicator of moisture
susceptibility, Dm , to be the effect of moisture damage at unit load between NSN and NC−D .
The analysis determined that the indicator Dm can effectively describe the moisture susceptibility
of asphalt mixtures and is relatively stable.
3. The advantage of the novel indicator RI is that it performs analysis on the entire range of data
between NP−C and NSN , unlike the current HWTT protocol, which uses rut depth at a particular
number of load cycles (single-point data) as the indicator of rutting resistance. In addition,
the proposed RI also excludes the effects of initial porosity on rutting resistance. The novel
indicator Dm performs analysis on the entire curve from NSN to NC−D , unlike the current HWTT,
which defines the SIP as the number of load cycles (single-point data). Moreover, Dm is based
on the area of difference between the HWTT curves of permanent strain (permanent strain due
to repeated loading on the asphalt mixture and permanent strain due to moisture damage) and
viscoplastic strain (permanent strain due to repeated loading on the asphalt mixture). Therefore,
Dm can determine based on the effect only by moisture damage and can more effectively evaluate
the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixture. The proposed indicators of rutting resistance
and moisture susceptibility can provide an overall evaluation of the asphalt mixture behaviors
based on the curve development in each phase. By contrast, the current HWTT protocol adopts
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 18 of 19

single-point determinations, which cannot provide an overall evaluation of asphalt mixture

behaviors and can easily generate erroneous results.
4. The novel indicators RI and Dm must be compared with field performance observations to
further verify their reliability. In addition, the new analytic method and indicators require further
verification with more HWTT results.
5. Field core specimens were analyzed in this study. Future researchers could prepare specimens in
the laboratory, where properties relevant to the performance of asphalt mixtures (e.g., porosity,
aggregate gradation, asphalt binder grade) can be controlled to further verify the method and
indicators introduced in this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: C.-W.H.; methodology: C.-W.H.; software: W.-H.W.; validation:

C.-W.H. and W.-H.W.; formal analysis: C.-W.H.; investigation: W.-H.W.; resources: C.-W.H.; data curation:
W.-H.W.; writing—original draft preparation: W.-H.W.; writing—review and editing: C.-W.H.; visualization:
C.-W.H.; supervision: C.-W.H.; project administration: C.-W.H.; funding acquisition: C.-W.H. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Romero, P.; Stuart, K. Evaluating Accelerated Rut Testers; Public Roads, Federal Highway Administration:
Washington, DC, USA, 1998; pp. 50–54.
2. AASHTO.324-17. Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
3. Han, J.; Shiwakoti, H. Wheel tracking methods to evaluate moisture sensitivity of hot-mix asphalt mixtures.
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2016, 10, 30–43. [CrossRef]
4. Stuart, K.D.; Izzo, R.P. Correlation of Superpave G*/sin Delta with Rutting Susceptibility from Laboratory
Mixture Tests. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, 1492, 176–183.
5. Aschenbrener, T. Evaluation of Hamburg wheel-tracking device to predict moisture damage in hot-mix
asphalt. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, 1492, 193–201.
6. Izzo, R.P. Use of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device for Evaluating Moisture Susceptibility of Hot-Mix
Asphalt. Transp. Res. Rec. 1999, 1681, 76–85. [CrossRef]
7. Kim, S.; Shen, J.; Myung Jeong, M. Evaluation of Aggregate Sizes on Performance of Georgia Asphalt
Mixture Evaluated by Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device. In Proceedings of the TRB 96th Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 8–12 January 2017.
8. Rahman, F.; Hossain, M. Review and Analysis of Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Test Data; Rep. No. KS-14-1;
Kansas Dept. of Transportation, Transportation Center, Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2014.
9. Shen, J.; Kim, S.; Myung Jeong, M. Evaluation of Georgia Asphalt Mixture Properties Using a Hamburg
Wheel Tracking Device; FHWA-GA-17-1503; Georgia Dept. of Transportation, Georgia Southern University:
Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017.
10. Walubita, L.F.; Zhang, J.; Das, G.; Mushota, C.; Alvarez, A.E.; Scullion, T. Hot-mix asphalt permanent
deformation evaluated by Hamburg wheel tracking, dynamic modulus, and repeated load tests. Transp. Res.
Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2012, 2296, 46–56. [CrossRef]
11. Uppu, K.K.; Hossain, M.; Ingram, L.S.; Kreider, R. Moisture Susceptibility of Superpave Mixtures with Varying
Binder Contents. In Proceedings of the Airfield and Highway Pavements, Miami, FL, USA, 7–10 June 2015.
12. Kim, S.; Shen, J.; Myung Jeong, M. Effects of Aggregate Size on the Rutting and Stripping Resistance of
Recycled Asphalt Mixtures. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04017280. [CrossRef]
13. Larrain, M.M.M.; Tarefder, R.A. Rutting Potential of Parameters Using Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device
(HWTD). In Proceedings of the International Airfield and Highway Pavements Conference, Chicago, IL, USA,
21–24 July 2019.
14. Larrain, M.M.M.; Tarefder, R.A. Effects of Asphalt Concrete Gradation, Air Voids, and Test Temperatures on
Rutting Susceptibility by Using the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD). In Proceedings of the Fourth
Geo-China International Conference, Shandong, China, 25–27 July 2016.
Materials 2020, 13, 3269 19 of 19

15. Schram, S.; Williams, R.C. Ranking of HMA Moisture Sensitivity Tests in Iowa. In Proceedings of the 92nd
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 January 2012.
16. Walubita, L.F.; Faruk, A.M.; Zhang, J.; Komba, J.J.; Alrashydah, E.I.; Simate, G.S. The Hamburg Rutting Test
(HWTT) alternative data analysis methods and HMA screening criteria. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2019,
12, 110–116. [CrossRef]
17. Al-Khateeb, G.G.; Basheer, I.A. A Three-Stage Rutting Model Utilizing Rutting Performance Data from the
Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device (WTD). Road Transp. Res. 2009, 18, 32–45.
18. Tsai, B.-W.; Harvey, J.T.; Monismith, C.L. Using the Three-Stage Weibull Equation and Tree-Based Model to
Characterize the Mix Fatigue Damage Process. Transp. Res. Rec. 2005, 1929, 227–237. [CrossRef]
19. Tsai, B.-W.; Coleri, E.; Harvey, J.T.; Monismith, C.L. Evaluation of AASHTO T 324 Hamburg-Wheel Track
Device test. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 114, 248–260. [CrossRef]
20. Yin, F.; Arambula, E.; Lytton, R.; Martin, A.E.; Cucalon, L.G. Novel Method for Moisture Susceptibility
and Rutting Evaluation Using Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014,
2446, 1–7. [CrossRef]
21. Schram, S.; Williams, R.C.; Buss, A. Reporting Results from the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device.
Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2014, 2446, 89–98. [CrossRef]
22. Zhou, F.; Scullion, T.; Sun, L. Verification and Modeling of Three-Stage Permanent Deformation Behavior of
Asphalt Mixes. J. Transp. Eng. 2004, 130, 486–494. [CrossRef]
23. Francken, L.; Vanelstraete, A.; Verhasselt, A. Long term ageing of pure and modified bitumen: Influence on
the rheological properties and relation with the mechanical performance of asphalt mixtures. In Proceedings
of the Eight International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, WA, USA, 10–14 August 1997.
24. Chaturabong, P.; Bahia, H. The evaluation of relative effect of moisture in Hamburg wheel tracking test.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 337–345. [CrossRef]
25. Tseng, T.-H.; Lytton, R.L. Prediction of Permanent Deformation in Flexible Pavement Materials. In Implication
of Aggregates in the Design, Construction, and Performance of Flexible Pavements; American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1989; pp. 154–172.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright of Materials (1996-1944) is the property of MDPI Publishing and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.