Construction

and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Polymer modified asphalt binders

Yetkin Yildirim *

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 3208 Red River CTR 318, Austin, TX 78705, USA

Received 19 August 2004; received in revised form 5 July 2005; accepted 21 July 2005
Available online 19 September 2005

Abstract

This paper is a review of research that has been conducted on polymer modified binders over the last three decades. Polymer
modification of asphalt binders has increasingly become the norm in designing optimally performing pavements, particularly in
the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. Specific polymers that have been used include rubber, SBR, SBS and ElvaloyÒ.
Specifications have been designed and pre-existing ones modified to capture the rheological properties of polymer modified binders.
The elastic recovery test is good at determining the presence of polymers in an asphalt binder, but is less successful at predicting field
performance of the pavement.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Polymer modified binder; Asphalt; Binder specifications; Elastic recovery; SBR; SBS; Elvaloy; Rubber

1. Introduction 2. History, use, and benefits

The addition of polymers, chains of repeated small
molecules, to asphalt has been shown to improve per-
formance. Pavement with polymer modification exhib-
its greater resistance to rutting and thermal cracking,
and decreased fatigue damage, stripping and tempera-
ture susceptibility. Polymer modified binders have
been used with success at locations of high stress, such
as intersections of busy streets, airports, vehicle weigh
stations, and race tracks [1]. Polymers that have been
used to modify asphalt include styrene–butadiene–sty-
rene (SBS), styrene–butadiene rubber (SBR), ElvaloyÒ,
rubber, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyethylene,
and others. Desirable characteristics of polymer mod-
ified binders include greater elastic recovery, a higher
softening point, greater viscosity, greater cohesive
strength and greater ductility [1,2].
*
Tel.: +1 512 232 1845; fax: +1 512 475 7914.
E-mail address: yetkin@mail.utexas.edu.
Processes of asphalt modification involving natural
and synthetic polymers were patented as early as 1843
[3]. Test projects were underway in Europe in the
1930s, and neoprene latex began to be used in North
America in the 1950s [1]. In the late 1970s, Europe
was ahead of the United States in the use of modified as-
phalts because the European use of contractors, who
provided warranties, motivated a greater interest in de-
creased life cycle costs, even at higher initial costs. The
high preliminary expenses for polymer modified asphalt
limited its use in the US [4]. In the mid-1980s, newer
polymers were developed and European technologies
began to be used in the US [5,6]. At the same time,
the prevalence of a long-term economic outlook in the
country increased [1]. In Australia, the current National
Asphalt Specification includes guides and specifications
regarding polymer modified binders [7].
The United States Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed a life cycle cost analysis ap-
proach, which can be used to evaluate the life cycle costs

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.07.007
 Y. Yildirim / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72
of pavement containing asphalt rubber binders as well
as other treatments. The findings indicated that asphalt
rubber is cost effective as it is used, for example, in Ari-
zona and California, although the estimated life of the
pavement is based on interviews and engineering judg-
ment, and can be refined as the pavement ages and
long-term field performance is included in the model [8].
A 1997 survey of state departments of transportation
in the United States found that 47 states of the 50 re-
ported that they would be using modified binders in
the future, 35 of them saying that they would use greater
amounts [9]. Several research teams around the world
have worked on evaluating the benefits of polymer mod-
ification on pavement performance, and tests and spec-
ifications for binders are continually being developed.
In a 2001 study for the Ohio Department of Trans-
portation, Sargand and Kim [10] compared the fatigue
and rutting resistance of three PG 70–22 binders, one
unmodified, one SBS modified, and one SBR modified.
It was found that the modified binders were more resis-
tant to both fatigue and rutting than the neat binder,
even though all three had the same performance grade.
According to a 2003 Nevada study, the viscosity of
polymer modified binders tends to be significantly
greater than that of non-modified binders at 60 °C,
although penetration changes only slightly at all temper-
atures [11].
In 2003, Newcomb [12] discussed the concept of per-
petual pavements in Hot Mix Asphalt, claiming that it is
a misconception that fatigue cracking is inevitable.
Many full-depth hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavements
built 30–40 years ago have yet to exhibit any fatigue
cracking, and Newcomb claims that research shows that
increasing polymer modified binders at the bottom of
the asphalt layer may raise the fatigue limit of the pave-
ment.
A 2003 US Army Corps of Engineers study [13]
points out that for optimal economy, it is desirable to
choose an asphalt modifier that resists multiple dis-
tresses, such as rutting, fatigue, thermal cracking and
water damage. It was found that the choice of polymer
may have a significant impact on fatigue properties,
and that the mixtures boasting the highest fatigue life
contained reactive styrene–butadiene crosslinked poly-
mer. Other polymers tested were a chemically modified
crumb rubber, SBR, linear block SBS and a proprietary
modified SBS.
3. Test methods
As discussed by King et al. in the 1999 Journal of the
AAPT [1], there are several test methods that have been
developed or altered for modified binders. Previously,
both modified and unmodified binders alike were tested
according to the same methods, supported by the Stra-
67
tegic Highway Research Program (SHRP). Bahia et al.
in their 1998 article for the Journal of AAPT note, how-
ever, that this blanket testing method failed to test the
extreme grades required by the new, modified binders,
resulting in the initiation of new testing protocols for
modified binders [14].
New test protocols include measuring the softening
point using a ring and ball apparatus (ASTM E 28) to
determine the resistance to flow at high temperatures
and a force ductility test that measures tensile properties
[15]. Several tests have been developed to look at elastic
recovery, one of the major areas of improvement in elas-
tomer modified asphalt. Thompson and Hagman devel-
oped a torsional recovery test, included in California
specifications for identifying the presence of elastomers
[1]. The elastic recovery test using a ductilometer, de-
scribed later in this paper, is included in the Task Force
31 Specifications and is used in the US and Europe [1].
King et al. [1] point out that many tests exist to iden-
tify whether modification is present, such as the IR, low
temperature ductility and torsional recovery. The West
Coast User Producer Group tried to use performance
based asphalt (PBA) specifications, which involve a high
temperature viscosity test and low temperature penetra-
tion and ductility tests, as specifications for modified as-
phalt, but they were not as good at predicting
performance with modified asphalt as they were with
neat asphalt [1].
In 1998, Blankenship et al. [16] conducted field and
laboratory tests in Kentucky and found that PG 70–22
made using different methods of modification gave dif-
ferent results for laboratory tests. They used the Dy-
namic Shear Rheometer (DSR) and Bending Beam
Rheometer (BBR) tests to identity five different PG
70–22 binders, two SBS-modified, one SBR modified,
one chemically modified, and one neat and compared
their behavior in various tests. These binders were found
to differ as far as rutting, moisture damage and modulus
testing, although the rutting difference was no more than
10 mm between the binders.
In 2004, Yildirim et al. [17] utilized a design method
for determining the modification level of asphalt binders
using waste toner, which contains styrene acrylic copoly-
mers. Binder designs were performed including blending
time, performance grading, storage stability and, mixing
and compaction temperature calculations. Test results
indicated that the stiffness of the blend increases as the
percentage of the toner content increases.
4. Specific modifiers
4.1. Rubber
‘‘Crumb rubber modifier’’ (CRM) and ‘‘asphalt-rub-
ber’’ are terms that refer to applications in which ground
68 Y. Yildirim / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72
recycled rubber and paving asphalt are combined [1].
Characteristics of asphalt–rubber are dependent on rub-
ber type, asphalt composition, size of rubber crumbs,
and time and temperature of reaction [1]. Usually, the
rubber is recycled from used automotive tyres, which
has the additional benefits of saving landfill space that
would otherwise be occupied by tyres and reducing cost
[1,18].
Natural rubber modification results in better rutting
resistance and higher ductility but the modifier is sensi-
tive to decomposition and oxygen absorption. Due to its
high molecular weight, it has problems of low compati-
bility [18]. Recycled tyre rubber reduces reflective crack-
ing, which increases durability. There are some practical
problems in using natural rubber: it needs high temper-
atures and long digestion times in order to be dispersed
in the bitumen [18].
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act (ISTEA) section 1038 was passed into law in
the USA. In its Declaration of Policy, ISTEA states ‘‘It
is the policy of the United States to develop a National
Intermodal Transportation System that is economically
efficient, environmentally sound, provides the founda-
tion for the Nation to compete in the global economy,
and will move people and goods in an energy efficient
manner’’ [19]. The act required that, starting in 1994,
5% of roads built with federal funds must use pavement
made with crumb rubber, processed recycled tyres, or
modified asphalt. By 1997, 20% of roads built with fed-
eral funds were required to use recycled tyres in the
pavement [20].
On the other hand, the Used Tyre Working Group
[21] describes the United Kingdom as still being in the
process of evaluating a pilot project involving road sur-
facing that contains recycled tyres.
4.2. Styrene–butadiene–styrene
Styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS) is a block copoly-
mer that increases the elasticity of asphalt [18]. Accord-
ing to a 2001 review in Vision Tecnologica by Becker
et al. [18], it is probably the most appropriate polymer
for asphalt modification, although the addition of SBS
type block copolymers has economic limits and can
show serious technical limitations. Although low tem-
perature flexibility is increased, some authors claim that
a decrease in strength and resistance to penetration is
observed at higher temperatures. Nonetheless, ‘‘SBS is
the most used polymer to modify asphalts, followed by
reclaimed tire rubber’’ [18].
The Danish Road Directorate [22] found that an
SBS-modified binder course showed no superior rut
resistance compared to other Danish asphalt courses.
Asphalt cores taken from the job site indicated that
separation had occurred, and that the polymer phase
was not homogeneously distributed, which might have
been the cause of the poor performance of the pave-
ment.
As reported in the Journal of Material in Civil Engi-
neering, transmission electron microscopy was used in
2002 to better understand the behavior of SBS in asphalt
binders [23]. Depending on the sources of asphalt and
polymer, morphology varies: there can be a continuous
asphalt phase with dispersed SBS particles, a continuous
polymer phase with dispersed globules of asphalt, or
two interlocked continuous phases. It is the formation
of the critical network between the binder and polymer
that increases the complex modulus, an indication of
resistance to rutting.
In 2003, in the Journal of the AAPT, Mohammed
et al. [24] looked at the possibility of recycling SBS mod-
ified asphalt for resurfacing pavement. They found that
the impact of the extraction and recovery process on the
binder was minimal. Eight-year-old SBS modified bin-
der was recovered from Route US61 in Louisiana, and
was found to have experienced intensive oxidative age
hardening. At low temperatures, the binder was quite
brittle. Blends of virgin and recovered polymer modified
binder were found to be stiffer than anticipated at both
low and high temperatures. It was also found that as the
percentage of recovered binder increased, rutting resis-
tance increased, while fatigue resistance decreased.
In 2004, the Florida Department of Transportation
and FHWA published a report [25] looking at the effect
of SBS modification on cracking resistance and healing
characteristics of Superpavee mixes. They found that
SBS benefited cracking resistance, primarily due to a re-
duced rate of micro-damage accumulation. SBS did not,
however, have an effect on healing or aging of the as-
phalt mixture.
The possibility of using SBS-modified binders in In-
dia has been investigated recently [26]. Calculations indi-
cated that the surface life of the Delhi–Ambala
expressway would be almost doubled while the thickness
of the bituminous layers would be reduced, although the
cost per km would be greater for polymer modified
binders.
4.3. Styrene–butadiene–rubber
Styrene–butadiene–rubber (SBR) has been widely
used as a binder modifier, usually as a dispersion in
water (latex). An Engineering Brief from 1987 available
at the US Federal Aviation Administration website [2]
describes the benefits of SBR modified asphalt in
improving the properties of bituminous concrete pave-
ment and seal coats. Low-temperature ductility is im-
proved, viscosity is increased, elastic recovery is
improved and adhesive and cohesive properties of the
pavement are improved. The benefit of latex is that the
rubber particles are extremely small and regular. When
they are exposed to asphalt during mixing they disperse
 Y. Yildirim / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72
rapidly and uniformly throughout the material and form
a reinforcing network structure.
According to Becker et al., SBR latex polymers in-
crease the ductility of asphalt pavement [18], which al-
lows the pavement to be more flexible and crack
resistant at low temperatures, as found by the Florida
Department of Transportation [25]. SBR modification
also increases elasticity, improves adhesion and cohe-
sion, and reduces the rate of oxidation, which helps to
compensate for hardening and aging problems [25].
In a 1999 laboratory test at the Texas Transportation
Institute, it was found that coating smooth, rounded,
siliceous gravel aggregates with cement plus SBR latex
for use in HMA increased stability according to Hveem
and Marshall standards, as well as tensile strength, resil-
ient modulus and resistance to moisture damage. Coated
aggregates have greater resistance to rutting and crack-
ing [27].
Water-based SBR latex has been widely used to im-
prove chip retention in emulsions, but SBS has gradu-
ally replaced latex because of its effect of greater
tensile strength at strain, and because it is compatible
with a broader range of asphalts [1]. Elastomers such
as SBR and SBS have a significant effect on the results
of the ductility test at both 4 and 25 °C; while SBR mod-
ified asphalts have high ductility at all temperatures,
SBS modified asphalts tend to have lower ductility [1].
4.4. ElvaloyÒ
The Duponte website [28] describes ElvaloyÒ as an
ethylene glycidyl acrylate (EGA) terpolymer that chem-
ically reacts with asphalt. As a result of the reaction,
problems with separation during storage and transpor-
tation are avoided. Roads using ElvaloyÒ have been in
use since 1991.
In 1995 Witczak, Hafez and Qi [29] studied the labo-
ratory performance of asphalt modified with ElvaloyÒ
at the University of Maryland. Two different grades of
asphalt were each modified by 0%, 1.5% and 2.0% Elva-
loyÒ by weight of binder. The susceptibility of the mix-
tures to moisture damage was found to be greatly
decreased by the addition of ElvaloyÒ. In addition, an
Initial elongation  Observed elongation after rejoining sample
% Recovery ¼
Initial elongation
analysis of repeated load permanent deformation behav-
ior showed that increasing concentrations of ElvaloyÒ
resulted in a marked decrease in deformation.
In a study on low-temperature rheological properties
of polymer modified binders, the FHWA [30] found that
69
ElvaloyÒ in combination with granite had a significantly
higher (poorer) fracture temperature than with diabase,
limestone or granite aggregate treated with hydrated
lime.
At the DuPont Institute, Babcock et al. [31] devised a
lap shear test for high temperature binder properties,
which appears to agree with high temperature DSR
measurements. The results indicated that binder failure
at temperatures above 6 °C tends to be cohesive failure,
due the loss of integrity within asphalt. On the other
hand, around 6 °C and colder, failure is adhesive, from
a loss of adhesion between the binder and the substrate.
Since this indicates that cold temperature failure of a
road may be the result of loss of adhesion to the aggre-
gate, a chemically reactive polymer is expected to per-
form better, and reactive elastomeric terpolymer does
in fact perform better in this test than SBS or the control
neat bitumen.
5. Elastic recovery test
Elastic recovery (or elasticity) is the degree to which a
substance recovers its original shape following applica-
tion and release of stress. A degree of elastic recovery
is desirable in pavement to avoid permanent deforma-
tion. ‘‘When a tire passes over a section of pavement,
it is desirable for that pavement to have the ability to
ÔgiveÕ, but it is equally important for it to recover to its
original shape,’’ according to the Asphalt Institute web-
site [32].
5.1. Measurement and calculation
The elastic recovery of asphalt is measured with the
aid of a ductilometer, which is used to elongate an as-
phalt specimen at a constant rate. After a period of time,
the elongated specimen is cut and then allowed to rest.
After the period of rest is complete, the distance between
the ends of the cut specimen is measured [33].
The elastic recovery is the ratio between the difference
in elongation between cutting and the end of the rest
period, and the total elongation applied [33].
 100
5.2. Binder characterization
The elastic recovery test is used to test polymer mod-
ified binders by the departments of transportation of sev-
eral states in the US and several other countries, as well
70 Y. Yildirim / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72
as by researchers around the world. According to the
Spring 2002 edition of the Asphalt Technology News
[34], Kansas, Louisiana and Texas require use of the elas-
tic recovery test to ensure that binders have been modi-
fied. Michigan also uses it, although it does not require
it, and Kentucky uses it to test PG 76–22 binders. It is
also used to characterize polymer modified binders in
Quebec, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland [35].
In 1981, Oliver developed the elastic recovery test
for the Australian Road Research Board to measure
deformation response of rubber modified binders
[36,37]. He found that binders with natural (truck-tyre)
rubber showed greater elastic recovery than synthetic
(car-tyre) rubber. In 1997, it was reported to the Aus-
tralian Asphalt Pavement Association that even low
concentrations of SBS caused an increase in elastic
recovery, softening point, viscosity and cohesive
strength [38].
In 1990, Valkering and Vonk [39] compared SBS and
EVA modified binders to neat binders and found that
SBS modified binders had significantly higher elastic
recovery than neat binders. Compared to SBS, EVA
modified binders showed a lesser degree of improvement
in elastic recovery and also lost ductility and elastic
recovery much more rapidly.
Braga and Corrieri [40] used the elastic recovery test
to compare the resistance to thermal degradation of
SBS and heterophasic polyolefin (TPO) modified bind-
ers. Aged SBS polymers following showed a lower resis-
tance to thermal degradation than aged TPO binders.
Several studies have investigated the relationship be-
tween measurements of elastic recovery and other mea-
sures of performance, in both laboratory and field tests.
In the Transportation Research Record 1996, Bone-
mazzi et al. [41] compared the performance of binders
modified with an array of polymers (atactic propylene–
ethylene copolymer, low- and high-density polyethylene,
ethylene/propylene rubber, ADFLEX, ethylene methac-
rylate copolymer, EVA, thermoplasticpolyolefinic ter-
polymer, and SBS linear and radial block copolymers)
in tests of penetration and elastic recovery as well as
the rheometer dynamic test. All the tests were shown
to be good measurements of polymer contribution to
binder performance.
In 1997, Oliver [42] examined the relationship between
the rheological properties of asphalt mixes and rutting
resistance using the wheel tracking test. While a relation-
ship between polymer consistency and rut resistance was
found, no relationship was apparent between rut resis-
tance and elastic recovery or softening point.
In the Journal of the AAPT, 1998, Bahia, Perdomo
and Turner [9] compared five modified binders, measur-
ing elastic recovery, ductility and resilience. They found
that these conventional measurements were inconsistent
in ranking the suitability of polymer modified binders.
Specifically, rankings changed as strain level changed.
Superpavee testing results were equally inconsistent in
ranking modified binders.
In a 1988 Iowa Department of Transportation report,
Lee and Demirel [43] compared viscosity, penetration,
softening point, force ductility, elastic recovery and sev-
eral other characteristics of binders with SBS, polyole-
phins, neoprene, SBR latex and hydrated lime. There
was no correlation between the different types of mea-
surement.
John DÕAngelo, on the Asphalt Institute web page
[44], points out that the literature suggests that most
tests of modified binders may only measure whether a
polymer modifier is present, not its effect on the field
performance of the modified binder.
6. Conclusions
In the 1980s, polymer modified asphalts began to be
used in the US and by 1997 all but three states were al-
ready using modified binders or intended to use them in
the future and federal regulations supported their use.
Pavements made with modified binders are more resistant
to fatigue, thermal cracking, rutting, stripping, and tem-
perature susceptibility than neat binders. Polymer modi-
fied binders tend to exhibit increased viscosity and elastic
recovery, although penetration does not appear to be
influenced by modification. An ideal modifier will in-
crease binder resistance to multiple types of distresses.
Modification is not without its drawbacks, however, since
compatibility between an asphalt and a modifier is not as-
sured, and separation during storage or application, if
not addressed, can result in poorly performing pavement.
Since Superpavee specifications were designed for
neat binders, they are inappropriate for polymer modi-
fied binders. In fact, asphalts modified with different
polymers can behave very differently even when they
have the same performance grade. Test methods that
have been developed or altered for modified binders in-
clude measuring the softening point and elastic recovery,
and a force ductility test. There is disagreement about
whether bending beam rheometer (BBR) tests, devel-
oped for Superpavee, are acceptable for polymer mod-
ified binders. In general, it seems that the results of
rheological tests are not indicative of the performance
of polymer modified binders. Several tests exist to iden-
tify whether modification is present, such as the IR, low
temperature ductility and torsional recovery. In 1991,
the ISTEA required that an increasing proportion of
roads use modified asphalt.
Different polymers impact characteristics of asphalt
to differing degrees.
 Natural rubber improves rutting resistance and ductil-
ity, but is sensitive to decomposition and often has
problems of compatibility.
 Y. Yildirim / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72
 The use of tyre rubber as an asphalt modifier is envi-
ronmentally responsible and results in decreased rut-
ting and reflective cracking, but special conditions,
such as high mixing temperatures and long digestion
times, need to be maintained to prevent separation
from the asphalt binder.
 The addition of SBR to asphalt improves low-tem-
perature ductility, increases viscosity, improves elas-
tic recovery and improves the adhesive and cohesive
properties of the pavement. Water-based SBR latex
was used commonly to improve chip retention in
emulsions.
 SBS has been replacing SBR due to the formerÕs
wider compatibility and greater tensile strength under
strain. SBS is now the polymer most used to modify
asphalt. SBS increases the elasticity of asphalt and
SBS modified asphalt can be recycled. SBS modified
binders have been found to perform better at low
temperatures than neat binders or binders modified
with chemically reactive polymers.
 ElvaloyÒ is a modifier that forms a chemical bond
with the asphalt, avoiding problems of separation
during storage, transportation and application. It
increases pavement moisture resistance and results
in modified asphalt performing better in high temper-
ature DSR tests.
Elastic recovery of asphalt, a measurement widely
used to test polymer modified binders, can be measured
by elongating an asphalt sample, cutting it, allowing it
to rest, and determining the degree to which the elon-
gated specimen returns to its original length.
The elastic recovery test has been shown to be a good
measurement of polymer contribution to binder perfor-
mance, although no relationship appears to exist be-
tween rut resistance and elastic recovery. Elastic
recovery and other conventional measurements are
inconsistent in ranking polymer modified binder perfor-
mance and may only measure whether or not a modifier
is present in an asphalt specimen, not its contribution to
the asphaltÕs performance.
Polymer modified binders have had proven success
in the field and the laboratory, and a continuing effort
is being made to develop a correlation between results
from laboratory tests and field performance.
References
[1] King G et al. Additives in asphalt. J Assoc Asphalt Paving
Technol A 1999;68:32–69.
[2] Bates R, Worch R. Engineering Brief No. 39, Styrene–butadiene
rubber latex modified asphalt. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, 1987. Available from: http://www.faa.gov/arp/
engineering/briefs/eb39.htm.
[3] Thompson DC. Hoiberg AJ, editor. Bituminous materials:
Asphalt tars and pitches. Robert Krieger Publishing Co.; 1979.
71
[4] Terrel R, Walter J. Modified asphalt pavement materials: The
European experience. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol
1986;55:482.
[5] Brule B. Polymer-modified asphalt cements used in the road
construction industry: Basic principles. Transportat Res Record
1996;1535.
[6] Collins J. Thermoplastic block copolymers for the enhancement of
asphaltic binders in paving applications. Presented at the Paving
and Transportation Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 1986.
[7] Australian Asphalt Pavement Association. National asphalt
specification, 2nd ed. Kew, Australia, 2004.
[8] Hicks RG, Epps JA. Life cycle cost analysis of asphalt–rubber
paving materials. In: Proceedings of the First International
Conference on the World of Asphalt Pavements, Sydney,
Australia, 2000. p. 69–88.
[9] Bahia HU, Perdomo D, Turner P. Applicability of Superpave
binder testing protocols to modified binders. Transportat Res
Record 1997;1586:16–23.
[10] Sargand SM, Kim SS. Performance evaluation of polymer
modified and unmodified Superpave mixes. In: Second Interna-
tional Symposium on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pave-
ments and Technological Control, Auburn, AL, 2001.
[11] Sebaaly PE, Bazi GM, Vivekanathan Y. Evaluation of new
pavement technologies in Nevada, University of Nevada,
2003.
[12] Newcomb D. Limit the strain at the bottom of an asphalt
pavement, and what do you get? A perpetual pavement. Hot Mix
Asphalt Technol 2003;8(6):30–2.
[13] Partl MN, Newman JK. Flexural beam fatigue properties of
airfield asphalt mixtures containing styrene–butadiene based
polymer modifiers. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Rilem Symposium, Zurich, Switzerland, 2003. p. 357–63.
[14] Bahia H, Hislop WP, Zhai H, Rangel A. Classification of asphalt
binders into simple and complex binders. J Assoc Asphalt Paving
Technol 1998;67:1–41.
[15] Chaverot P. The force ductility test: A simple means of
characterization of polymer modified asphalt. In: Proceedings
of the Fourth Eurobitume Symposium, Madrid, Spain, 1989.
p. 96–100.
[16] Blankenship P et al. Are All PG 70-22Õs the same? Lab test on KY
I-64 field samples. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol (AAPT)
1998;67:493–552.
[17] Yildirim Y, Hazlett D, Davio R. Toner-modified asphalt demon-
stration projects. Resources, conservation and recycling, vol.
42. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. pp. 39–50.
[18] Becker Y, Méndez MP, Rodrı́guez Y. Polymer modified asphalt.
Vis Technol 2001;9(1):39–50.
[19] Camph DH, Siwek S, Forestieri F. How to keep America moving:
Report on the US Department of TransportationÕs outreach on
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act (ISTEA). In: Elles-Boyle A, editor. Office of Govern-
mental Affairs, Washington, DC, 1997.
[20] Blumenthal M. Changes impacting the ground rubber industry.
Rubber Manufacturers Association, Montreal, Canada. 2002.
Available from: http://www.rubberassociation.ca/pdf_docs/
RR2002/Michael2.pdf.
[21] Used Tyre Working Group. Recycling and recovery. No date.
Available from: http://www.tyredisposal.co.uk/ disposal_routes.
asp.
[22] Wegan V, Nielsen BC. Microstructure of polymer modified
binders in bituminous mixtures. Report Number 87-90145-85-8.
Danish Road Directorate, Roskilde, Denmark, 2001.
[23] Chen JS, Liao MC, Shiah MS. Asphalt modified by styrene–
butadiene–styrene triblock copolymer: Morphology and model. J
Mater Civil Eng 2002;14(3):224–9.
[24] Mohammed LN et al. Investigation of the use of recycled
polymer modified asphalt binder in asphalt concrete pavements
72 Y. Yildirim / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 66–72
(With discussion and closure). J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol
2003;72:551–94.
[25] Roque R, Birgisson B, Tia M, Kim B, Cui Z. Guidelines for the
use of modifiers in Superpave mixtures: Executive summary and
volume 1 of 3 volumes: Evaluation of SBS modifier. State Job
99052793. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee,
FL, 2004.
[26] Shukla RS, Singh VKP, Bhanwala RS. Polymer modified bitumen
for construction of heavy traffic density corridors. Indian High-
ways 2003;31(4):55–66.
[27] Kim MG, Button JW, Park DW. Coatings to Improve low-quality
local aggregates for hot mix asphalt pavements. Report SWUTC/
99/167405-1, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, TX, 1999.
[28] DuPont. About DuPonte ElvaloyÒ RET reactive elastomeric
terpolymer. DuPont website. 2004. Available from: http://
www.dupont.com/asphalt/link1.html.
[29] Witczak MW, Hafez I, Qi X. Laboratory characterization of
ElvaloyÒ modified asphalt mixtures: vol. I – Technical report.
College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland. 1995. Available
from: http://www.dupont.com/asphalt/link5.html.
[30] Chappat M, Poirier JE, Robert M, Durand G. Appreciation by
rheological and tensile tests methods of the impact of ageing of
polymer modified binders toward low temperature behaviour.
Revue Générale des Routes 2000:22–4.
[31] Babcock GB, Statz RJ, Larson DS. Study of asphalt binders using
lap shear bonds. Wilmington, DE: DuPonte website. No date.
Available from: http://www.dupont.com/asphalt/ lapshear/lap-
shear.html.
[32] Asphalt Institute. Individual asphalt binder tests. Lexington, KY.
2003. Available from: http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/ai_pages/
Lab_Services/Lab_Services_Indiv_Binder_Tests_List.asp.
[33] Hobson K. No date. Elastic recovery testing in Oklahoma.
Available from: http://www.utexas.edu/research/ superpave/arti-
cles/er.html.
[34] Asphalt forum responses. Asphalt Technology News
2002;14(1):12–13. Available from: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/
center/ncat/newsl/newssprng_02.pdf.
[35] Zubeck H, Raad L, Ryer J. Constructability of polymer-modified
asphalts and asphalt-aggregate mixtures in Alaska: Final report.
Alaska: State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. 1999. Available from: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwd-
des/research/assets/pdf/fhwa_ak_rd_99_1.pdf.
[36] Oliver JWH. Modification of paving asphalts by digestion with
scrap rubber. Transportat Res Record 1981;821:37–44.
[37] Oliver JWH. Enhancing bitumen products with scrap rubber.
Presented at 19th ARRB Regional Symposium. Vermont South,
Australia, 1982. p. 117–31.
[38] Vonk W. Polymer modification of bitumens: Manufacture and
application of premium binders for improved spray seal perfor-
mance. Presented at 10th AAPA International Flexible Pavements
Conference, Kew, Australia, 1997.
[39] Valkering CP, Vonk W. Thermoplastic rubbers for the modifica-
tion of bitumens: Improved elastic recovery for high deformation
resistance of asphalt mixes. In: Proceedings of 15th Australian
Road Research Board Conference, Vermont South, Australia,
1990. p. 1–19.
[40] Braga V, Corrieri R. A comparative study of SBS and TPO based
PMB. In: Proceedings of the Papers Submitted for Review at
Second Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress, Breukelen, Neth-
erlands, 2000.
[41] Bonemazzi F, Braga V, Corrieri R, Giavarini C, Sartori F.
Characteristics of polymers and polymer-modified binders. Trans-
portat Res Record 1996;1535:36–47.
[42] Oliver JWH. Development of PMB specifications for asphalt rut
resistance. In: Proceedings of AAPA International Flexible
Pavements Conference, vol. I, Kew, Australia, 1997.
[43] Lee DY, Demirel T. Beneficial effects of selected additives
on asphalt cement mixes. Final Report. ISU-ERI-Ames-
88070 Report Number IDOT Project HR-278. Ames,
Iowa: Engineering Research Institute, Iowa State Univer-
sity, 1988.
[44] DÕAngelo J. Modified binders and Superpave Plus specifications.
Federal Highway Administration. No date. Available from:
http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/upload/Modified_Binders_SP_Plus_
Specification.pdf.