Materials and Structures

DOI 10.1617/s11527-015-0733-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Performance prediction analyses of styrene-butadiene

rubber and crumb rubber materials in asphalt road
applications
Rupam Gogoi . Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri .
Narayan Chandra Das

Received: 4 July 2015 / Accepted: 5 October 2015

 RILEM 2015

Abstract One of the very popular techniques of
improving asphalt pavement performance is the use of
rubber materials as modifiers in the mix. Although
rubber modification of asphalt binder has been found
to be a promising technique towards improving the
performance of asphalt mixtures, an insight impact of
locally available rubber materials on asphalt mix
performance is yet a research problem. Thus, it is
important to investigate the effect of locally available
rubber-modifiers on asphalt mixes chiefly to be able to
prescribe and recommend the optimal percent of
rubber materials in the preparation of durable rubber-
modified asphalt mixtures. Thus, the main objective of
this study was to investigate the performance of
rubber-modified asphalt mixtures, and help recom-
mend the optimal dosage of rubber materials in the
asphalt mix to be able to use locally available rubber
products in durable asphalt roads. Asphalt mixtures
R. Gogoi  N. C. Das
Rubber Technology Centre, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302,
India
e-mail: gogoi3949@gmail.com
N. C. Das
e-mail: ncdas@rtc.iitkgp.ernet.in
K. P. Biligiri (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302,
India
e-mail: kpb@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in;
krishnapbiligiri@gmail.com
with gap-graded gradation and varying rubber dosages
namely 10, 15, and 20 % were manufactured. Fatigue
life estimations indicated that 15 % rubber by weight
of the base binder provided excellent fatigue perfor-
mance. Also, rubber-modified asphalt mixture mate-
rials produced lower accumulated strain than the
conventional mix due to enhanced endurance proper-
ties of the rubber-modification. Although 10 % rubber
dosage was found to be higher rut-resistant, 15 %
rubber composite material was recommended mainly
to have a common ground to counter fatigue and
rutting distresses simultaneously. Thus, this study
showed that locally available rubber materials are very
promising candidates to serve as alternatives to the
commercially available modified binders used in
asphalt roads.
Keywords Styrene-butadiene rubber  Crumb
rubber  Asphalt materials  Performance prediction 
Fatigue cracking  Rutting
1 Introduction
Over the last few decades, performance improvement
of asphalt mixtures was accorded utmost importance
due to an ever-increasing traffic and growing
demands. One of the commonly employed techniques
to improve the performance of asphalt mixtures is to
use asphalt binder modification by utilizing materials

such as lime, carbon black, fly ash, fibres, polymer,
and rubber. Many researchers across the globe have
been studying the effect of materials and the improve-
ment in the performance of those modified asphalt
mixtures due to additives. In general, almost all of the
studies concluded that the modified asphalt mixtures
outperformed the conventional ones by helping to
mitigate rutting and fatigue cracking problems. Thus,
the study of binder modification in pavement con-
struction has become a very crucial aspect in charac-
terizing long-term pavement performance at the global
level.
One of the very popular techniques of improving
asphalt pavement performance is the use of rubber
materials as modifiers in the mix. Several successful
laboratory and field studies have indicated that rubber
as a modifier offers a good deal of flexibility in terms
of availability, modification technique, consistency,
quality control, use of similar equipment as that of the
conventional (virgin) asphalt, and so on both in the
ambit of research and construction of rubber-modified
asphalt mixtures. Therefore, it has become a common
practice to modify virgin asphalt using rubber as an
additive to enhance certain of the physical and
structural properties of asphalt mixtures.
In the past, modification of asphalt binder with
locally available crumb rubber (CR) or Styrene
Butadiene Rubber (SBR) as rubber additive types
have shown an increase in the softening point with the
increase in rubber content, which also further
increased its elastic property to recover after unload-
ing [1–5]. Both ductility and penetration values of the
modified asphalt binders decreased with increasing
CR content, while elastic recovery was least for the
5 % CR content and highest for 15 % CR asphalt
binder.
An addition of CR to asphalt binder decreased the
elastic and viscous moduli at low temperatures and
therefore caused an increase in binder flexibility [1].
On the contrary, at high temperatures, a significant
increase in both moduli and a notable drop in the loss
tangent values were observed, resulting in a more
elastic binder. In another study when CR modified
asphalt binder was blended with aggregates to produce
asphalt mixes, CR modified asphalt mixtures had
higher modulus (stiffness) compared to unmodified
conventional asphalt mixtures [2].
Likewise, SBR modified asphalt mixtures have also
been used in a few studies to achieve enhanced
Materials and Structures
resistance to permanent deformation (rutting) and
fatigue cracking. The SBR modified asphalt mixtures
showed highest reduction in rut depth as compared
with the unmodified reference mixtures [6]. An
improvement in stiffness was observed in SBR asphalt
mixtures in comparison with virgin (conventional)
asphalt mixtures and also added to a significant
improvement of fatigue behaviour as a result of
increased SBR polymer contents [3, 7].
Although there is a wealth of literature correspond-
ing to crumb rubber modifiers and blended in a
petroleum refinery using wet process (where rubber is
directly added to the asphalt binder), this paper will
not document those findings because the scope of this
study was to concentrate on recommending the use of
locally available rubber products/materials for asphalt
modification purposes. There is limited research in the
areas of locally available CR and SBR materials used
for modification worldwide, and specific to the Indian
context, there are only two types of commercially
available crumb rubber modified bitumen (CRMB),
namely, CRMB-55 and CRMB-60, both of which have
about 8–10 % rubber by weight of the base binder.
This is in contrast to the global scenario where the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
International [8, 9] prescribes at least 15 % rubber by
weight of the asphalt binder to be used to modify the
base virgin binder to be called ‘‘Asphalt-Rubber’’.
Although rubber modification of asphalt binder has
been found to be a promising technique towards
improving the performance of asphalt mixtures, an
insight impact of rubber modifiers on asphalt binder
pertinent to performance is yet a research problem.
Thus, it is important to investigate the effect of rubber-
modifiers on asphalt mixes chiefly for three reasons:
(1) to draw a comprehensive performance evaluation
of two types of rubber materials in modified asphalt
mixtures; (2) to determine the optimal dosage of CR
and SBR in the modification process of asphalt
mixtures and compare the performance of those with
the commercially available CRMB; and (3) to be able
to prescribe and recommend the use of locally
available rubber materials to be mixed with base
binder and preparation of durable rubber-modified
asphalt mixtures.
Thus, the major objective of this research study was
to investigate the fatigue and rutting performance
characteristics of CR and SBR modified-asphalt
mixtures, and recommend the optimal dosage of
Materials and Structures
rubber inclusions in the asphalt mix matrix to serve as
alternatives to the asphalt mixtures manufactured
using commercially available modified binders. The
materials used in the study encompassed eight differ-
ent asphalt mixtures with gap-graded aggregate gra-
dation: (a) three crumb-rubber (shredded from scrap
truck tyres) gap-graded mixtures with varying per-
centages of rubber such as 10, 15 and 20, and
designated: CR-Gap10, CR-Gap15 and CR-Gap20;
(b) three styrene butadiene rubber graded: SBR-
Gap10, SBR-Gap15 and SBR-Gap20; (c) one AR-
Gap mix prepared using a commercially available
crumb-rubber modified CRMB60 binder; and (d) a
conventional control unmodified gap-graded mix
called AC-Gap using virgin VG-30 binder. The scope
of the research effort included: (i) Rheological char-
acterization of all eight binders; (ii) Conduction of
indirect tensile tests on all eight different asphalt
mixtures at three temperatures; (iii) Conduction of
resilient modulus tests at three temperatures and four
frequencies on all eight asphalt mixtures; (iv) Fatigue
performance prediction of asphalt mixtures with
varying pavement conditions and parameters such as
temperature, frequency, layer thickness, and incurred
strains; (v) Conduction of dynamic creep tests to
predict rutting performance at one higher temperature
and one stress level on the various asphalt mixtures;
(vi) Recommendation of the rubber type and optimal
dosage of locally available rubber material to be
included in asphalt modification for future.
In the past, research studies have targeted only a
few selected properties of CR and SBR modification in
asphalt binders and mixtures. Thus, it is noteworthy
that this paper based on the portions of the recently
completed study [10] presents a comprehensive per-
formance evaluation of locally available rubber
materials that have potential use in asphalt mixture
modification in cases where conventional and modi-
fied asphalt mixtures produced with commercially
available asphalt binders would not render the desired
performance. It is envisioned that this work will help
understand the effect of rubber type and modification
process towards performance prediction of rubber-
modified asphalt mixtures, and advance the state-of-
the-art and knowledge in order to recommend using
the locally available rubber products in various asphalt
mixture material designs.
2 Materials and experimental program
2.1 Aggregate gradations
A gap graded gradation was used for preparing all the
seven modified and one conventional asphalt mixture
based on the design procedure provided in [11] since
this particular gradation type has been very successful
and adopted by several countries owing to its long-
term performance in the field. The aggregates chosen
in this study were collected from local quarries and
stored at the laboratory facilities, which were sieved to
the desired gradation.
2.2 Rubber material types and properties
The types of rubber materials used in this research
investigation were CR and SBR. CR was basically
shredded tyre rubber from truck tyres. CR possessed
mixed properties of all the different kinds of rubber
used in the manufacturing of a typical truck tyre. SBR
is one of the most versatile copolymer rubber
compounds. It consists of the organic compound
styrene and the chemical butadiene, with the amount
of butadiene usually being about three times more than
the amount of styrene. SBR is a stable synthetic and
resistant to abrasion. It had a low reaction viscosity but
had the attributes of natural rubber. SBR properties are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2. SBR, which is a
synthetic rubber, is used in tyre as a base material
together with natural rubber (NR). NR is present in
higher quantity as compared to SBR in a typical truck
tyre due to its superior quality. Hence, CR retains most
of the properties of NR and therefore has a better
elastic recovery as compared to SBR. Glass transition
temperature of NR is around -70 C and has a specific
gravity of 0.945, which is similar to the specific
gravity of a virgin asphalt binder as well.
Table 1 Physical properties of SBR
Property Value
Specific gravity 0.94
Tensile strength (MPa) 19
Glass transition temperature (C) -65
Hardness, shore A 40–90

Table 2 General properties of SBR
Operating range General properties
of temperature
(C)
-28 to 120 Good physical properties and abrasion
resistance. Poor resistance to petroleum-
based fluids
2.3 Rubber modified asphalt binders
Viscosity grade (VG) asphalt binder, namely, VG-30
was used as the base binder for modification purposes.
CR and SBR were used to modify the base binder in
order of 10, 15 and 20 % by weight of the base binder.
CR modified binders were designated as CR10, CR15
and CR20. The numbers represent the percentage of
CR used in the modification. Similarly, SBR modified
asphalt binders were termed SBR10, SBR15 and
SBR20 with varying rubber percentages by weight of
the base binder. A commercially available crumb
rubber modified binder, namely, CRMB60 was also
used in the study for comparative purposes. In total,
there were eight different binders including the base
binder. For the binder modification process, CR and
SBR were shredded in the size range of 1.18–2.36 mm
and were mixed with hot base binder at 170–180 C.
The mixing process was accomplished by using a
stirrer, and the temperature was controlled manually
with a heater having a regulator. The temperature in
the modification process was continuously monitored
by using an infrared gun. Figure 1a shows the
Fig. 1 a Laboratory setup for binder modification; b texture of asphalt binder after modification (top view)
Materials and Structures
General chemical resistance
Resistant to Attacked by
Most moderate chemicals, wet or dry, Ozone, strong acids, fats,
organic acids, alcohols, ketones, oils, greases, most
aldehydes hydrocarbons
laboratory setup used in the modification process and
the final texture of the asphalt binder after rubber
modification is depicted in Fig. 1b. Binder conven-
tional consistency tests were performed on all the eight
different asphalt binders using standard practices as in
[12–14].
2.4 Sample preparation and experimental program
The experimental program in this research investiga-
tion included eight different asphalt mixtures: three
CR-Gap mixes (CR-Gap10, CR-Gap15 and CR-
Gap20), three SBR-Gap mixes (SBR-Gap10, SBR-
Gap15 and SBR-Gap20), one AR-Gap, and one AC-
Gap mix. The eight mixtures were not produced at
similar state in that each of the mixes had different
mixing and compaction temperatures determined
using equiviscous method based on ASTM A-VTS
relationships described in a subsequent section. Three
samples of each mix were prepared using gyratory
compactor with 8 % binder content (AC) and 9 % air
voids (AV), totalling 24 gyratory plug samples. All the
24 gyratory plug samples were prepared with 150 mm
Materials and Structures
diameter and 170 mm height. The asphalt mix gyra-
tory plugs were prepared according to the Superpave
protocol [15]. The mixes were designated as follows:
• CR-Gap10: Gap with CR10 binder; 8 % AC; 9 %
AV.
• CR-Gap15: Gap with CR15 binder; 8 % AC; 9 %
AV.
• CR-Gap20: Gap with CR20 binder; 8 % AC; 9 %
AV.
• SBR-Gap10: Gap with SBR10 binder; 8 % AC;
9 % AV.
• SBR-Gap15: Gap with SBR15 binder; 8 % AC;
9 % AV.
• SBR-Gap20: Gap with SBR20 binder; 8 % AC;
9 % AV.
• AR-Gap: Gap with CRMB-60 binder; 8 % AC;
9 % AV.
• AC-Gap: Gap with VG-30 binder; 8 % AC; 9 %
AV.
It is extremely important to note that asphalt
mixture volumetric properties such as bulk specific
gravity (Gmb) of the compacted mix, and effective
volume of binder (Vbeff) along with AV%, and AC%
are required in the optimal asphalt mix design process.
A combination of AV% and Vbeff (%) will help
estimate voids in the mineral aggregates (VMA%) and
voids filled with asphalt (VFA%) that are pre-requi-
sites to understand the performance of different
asphalt mixtures. Not only that, the completeness of
the mix design process is achieved if all of the
parameters are understood clearly, particularly, for
those mixes that are modified with rubber. Hence, the
fundamental volumetric properties along with rubber
(%) play crucial role in the mix design process and
hence, in the performance prediction of conventional
and rubber-modified mixes as described in subsequent
sections. In this direction, Table 3 provides a sum-
mary of the asphalt mixture volumetric properties of
all the eight mixes with three replicates per mix.
Although the mix design parameters were not
similar across the mixes, the basic principle remained
the same in that all mixtures (gyratory samples) were
prepared according to [15]. The gyratory plugs were
cut into three 50 mm discs to prepare specimens of
150 mm diameter and 50 mm thickness. A typical
asphalt specimen disc each of SBR-Gap and CR-Gap
is shown in Fig. 2. Thus, a total of 72 specimens were
available for conducting the mechanical tests. Three
different mechanical experiments were conducted for
the research investigation: dynamic creep test, indirect
diametral tensile (IDT) test and resilient modulus (Mr)
test. IDT test as per [16] was performed to obtain the
seed load input for the Mr test, which was performed as
per [17]. IDT tests were conducted at 15, 25 and 35 C
with two replicate specimens for each mix, totalling 48
samples. Further, Mr tests were conducted on all the
eight mixes using three replicate samples per mix at
15, 25 and 35 C, and at 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 Hz test
frequencies totalling 24 samples. Based on Mr tests the
number of data points collected as part of the study
was:
Total data points ¼ ½8 mixes  3 replicates
 3 temperatures  4 frequencies ¼ 288
Dynamic creep test per [18] was conducted at 35 C
on all the eight asphalt mixtures with one sample
replicate to investigate the rutting performance. A
haversine load of magnitude 200 kPa with 1 s loading
and 1 s unloading was applied vertically on the
cylindrical asphalt specimen discs. The accumulated
permanent strains were measured for 1800 loading
cycles by two linear variable differential transducers
(LVDTs), thus totalling 16 average data points for
evaluation purposes.
3 Results
In order to accomplish a comprehensive evaluation of
two common locally available rubber materials, a suite
of conventional binder consistency tests and funda-
mental asphalt mixture material characterization
experiments were performed to obtain fatigue crack-
ing and rutting performance characteristics of the
rubber-modified asphalt mixes.
3.1 Asphalt binder characterization
Binder conventional consistency tests were employed
for all the eight different asphalt binders to obtain their
rheological properties. Conventional consistency tests
included penetration at 25 C [12], softening point test
[13], and Brookfield viscosity test [14] performed at
higher temperatures (135–185 C). Table 4 summa-
rizes the consistency test results of the eight different
 Materials and Structures

Table 3 Asphalt mixture Asphalt mixes Replicates Gmm Gmb Va (%) Vbeff (%) VMA (%) VFA (%)
volumetric properties
CR-Gap10 1 2.470 2.295 7.090 18.207 25.297 71.972
2 2.470 2.316 6.792 17.814 24.607 72.396
3 2.470 2.293 7.124 18.222 25.346 71.893
CR-Gap15 1 2.460 2.318 5.863 18.687 24.550 76.116
2 2.460 2.288 6.774 18.748 25.522 73.460
3 2.460 2.310 6.319 18.474 24.792 74.513
CR-Gap20 1 2.500 2.306 7.448 17.483 24.930 70.127
2 2.500 2.350 7.357 16.155 23.512 68.710
3 2.500 2.371 7.648 15.171 22.819 66.483
SBR-Gap10 1 2.530 2.355 6.732 16.599 23.331 71.146
2 2.530 2.301 6.748 18.337 25.085 73.100
3 2.530 2.294 6.929 18.398 25.327 72.641
SBR-Gap15 1 2.450 2.294 7.600 17.730 25.331 69.997
2 2.450 2.330 5.270 18.890 24.160 78.187
3 2.450 2.296 6.556 18.700 25.256 74.040
SBR-Gap20 1 2.490 2.307 6.706 18.207 24.913 73.082
2 2.490 2.314 7.698 16.983 24.681 68.809
3 2.490 2.338 7.452 16.454 23.905 68.829
Gmm Maximum theoretical ARGAP 1 2.650 2.441 8.398 12.139 20.536 59.108
specific gravity, Gmb bulk 2 2.650 2.435 7.346 13.405 20.751 64.599
specific gravity, Va air
3 2.650 2.408 8.766 12.835 21.601 59.418
voids, Vbeff effective
volume of binder, VMA ACGAP 1 2.580 2.398 7.594 14.338 21.932 65.373
voids in mineral aggregates, 2 2.580 2.417 6.008 15.312 21.319 71.820
VFA voids filled with 3 2.580 2.397 7.234 14.751 21.986 67.094
asphalt

Fig. 2 50 mm thick circular sample discs of: a SBR-Gap and b CR-Gap

asphalt binders used in the study. Further, the
conventional consistency test results of the different
binders were used to establish the viscosity–temper-
ature ASTM A-VTS relationships in accordance with
[19], and as shown in Fig. 3. Table 4 also indicates the
mixing and compaction temperatures estimated using
the A-VTS binder relationships and equiviscous
principle prescribed by [20] that helped prepare eight
different asphalt mixtures (see Sect. 2.3). These two
temperatures were strictly followed to produce com-
pacted asphalt mixtures, including, conventional and
rubber-modified ones.
Materials and Structures

Table 4 Asphalt binder consistency test results

Asphalt Pen @ 25 C Soft. Rotational viscosity (cP) Mixing Comp.
binders (0.1 mm) Pt. (C) Temp. (C) temp. (C)
145 C 155 C 165 C 175 C 185 C

CR10 26 56 611 424 393 297 231 195 185

CR15 27 64 544 350 226 128 87 198 190
CR20 26 66 613 429 331 200 157 196 188
SBR10 39 65 927 718 510 405 327 192 178
SBR15 20 86 9257 5426 2284 1557 1137 173 160
SBR20 14 71 2710 1745 1130 744 527 180 168
CRMB-60 40 65 1188 844 500 378 202 155 148
VG-30 23 50 319 204 140 100 72 193 183
Comp. temp. Compaction temperature

Theoretically, the A-VTS parameters explain the
relationship between the binder viscosities and tem-
peratures as a linear curve. Furthermore, the A-VTS
relationship helps understand the viscosity–tempera-
ture susceptibility of different binders mainly focusing
on low temperature thermal cracking and high
temperature rutting properties. A is the intercept and
VTS is the slope of the curve. Lower the VTS (flatter
the slope), the lower the viscosity–temperature sus-
ceptibility of the binder to both thermal cracking and
rutting distresses.
As observed, in all the three different percentage
modification of asphalt binder (Fig. 3 a through c),
SBR modified asphalt binders (with flattest slopes)
showed least potential to rutting at higher temperature
and were also less susceptible to low temperature
thermal cracking than the other modified binders
(CRMB-60, CR10, CR15, and CR20 binders). The
temperature susceptibility of CRMB-60 was also low
in comparison with the CR binders. It is important to
note that all the modified asphalt binders had lower
viscosity–temperature susceptibility compared to vir-
gin VG-30 binder in respect of both rutting and low
temperature thermal cracking resistance.
Based on the A-VTS relationship of varying
percentages of CR in the CR modified binder (Fig. 3d)
types, it was found that CR10 provided better rutting
resistance but less resistance to cracking than CR15
and CR20 binders. On the other hand, amongst SBR
binder types (Fig. 3e) it was observed that SBR15
provided a better performance at both high and low
temperatures which implied that SBR15 binder would
help the asphalt mixture with higher resistance against
rutting and cracking problems.
3.2 Indirect diametral tensile (IDT) strength test
Figure 4a shows an actual IDT test setup while Fig. 4b
depicts a graphical representation of IDT strength
(also called ITS) values for all the eight mixtures.
From the test data, it was observed that at 15 C, AR-
Gap had the highest ITS and CR-Gap10 had the lowest
ITS amongst all mixtures. However at 25 C, AC-Gap
showed the highest ITS and SBR-Gap15 mix had the
lowest value. At 35 C, AR-Gap again had the highest
ITS value and CR-Gap15 showed the least ITS.
Essentially, it is noteworthy that the ITS is just a seed
input value used during the Mr test for the different
corresponding mixtures, meaning that ITS by itself
would not indicate the performance characteristics of
the mixtures. However, all of the CR and SBR
modified asphalt mixtures had lower ITS than AC-
Gap and AR-Gap mixtures.
3.3 Resilient modulus (Mr) test
As part of the stiffness determination of the asphalt
mixtures, Mr test based on [17] was conducted on all of
the 24 sample replicates at 15, 25 and 35 C and at 0.5,
1, 1.5 and 2 Hz for each temperature. Since Mr test is a
non-destructive technique, same samples were used
for all the temperatures starting from the lowest and
then the higher temperatures to mainly avoid perma-
nent deformation due to high temperatures if
 Materials and Structures

(a) 1 (b) 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
log (log(η)) (cP)

log (log(η)) (cP)

SBR 15: y = -2.5373x + 7.8841
0.6 SBR 10: y = -3.0474x + 9.2646 0.6 R² = 0.988
R² = 0.9948 CRMB 60: y = -2.5373x + 7.8841
0.5 0.5 R² = 0.988
CRMB60: y = -3.0989x + 9.4074
0.4 R² = 0.9981 CR 15: y = -3.638x + 10.904
0.4 R² = 0.9995
CR 10: y = -3.2076x + 9.701
0.3 R² = 0.99 0.3 VG-30: y = -3.6835x + 11.002
R² = 0.9957
0.2 VG 30: y = -3.6835x + 11.002 0.2
R² = 0.9957
0.1 0.1
VG-30 CR10 SBR10 CRMB60 VG-30 CR15 SBR15 CRMB60
0 0
2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95
log (Temperature) (oR) log (Temperature) (oR)

(c) 1 (d) 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
SBR 20: y = -3.0005x + 9.1757
log (log(η)) (cP)

log (log(η)) (cP)

0.6 R² = 0.9981 0.6
CRMB 60 : y = -3.0989x + 9.4074 CR10: y = -3.2076x + 9.701
0.5 R² = 0.9981 0.5 R² = 0.99
CR 20: y = -3.4392x + 10.358 CR15: y = -3.638x + 10.904
0.4 R² = 0.998 0.4 R² = 0.9995
VG-30: y = -3.6835x + 11.002 0.3
0.3 R² = 0.9957 CR20: y = -3.4392x + 10.358
R² = 0.998
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
VG-30 CR20 SBR20 CRMB60 CR10 CR15 CR20
0 0
2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95
log (Temperature) (oR) log (Temperature) (oR)

(e) 1

0.9

0.8

0.7
log (log(η)) (cP)

0.6 SBR10: y = -3.0474x + 9.2646

R² = 0.9948
0.5
SBR15: y = -2.5373x + 7.8841
R² = 0.988
0.4
SBR20: y = -3.0005x + 9.1757
R² = 0.9981
0.3

0.2

0.1
SBR10 SBR15 SBR20
0
2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 2.95
log (Temperature) (oR)

Fig. 3 A-VTS relationship comparisons for binders: a VG-30, CRMB-60, CR10 and SBR10; b VG-30, CRMB-60, CR15 and SBR15;
c VG-30, CRMB-60, CR20 and SBR20; d CR10, CR15 and CR20; e SBR10, SBR15 and SBR20

conducted first in the series. The samples were first Mr test for each sample was input by calculating 10 %
conditioned at the desired testing temperature for 3 h of the peak load that was obtained previously from the
and then, the samples were placed inside the environ- IDT test, ensuring that the total horizontal deformation
mental chamber of the universal testing machine did not exceed 350 lm. Horizontal deformations were
(UTM) as shown in the Fig. 5. The load input for the measured on the surface of the specimens by mounting
Materials and Structures

(a) Loads and horizontal deformations were recorded for

each sample with a data acquisition system connected
to a storage computer.
Figure 6 presents the Mr test results of the eight
mixtures at three temperatures in a graphical format.
Based on the comparison of Mr values at various
temperatures, it was found that at 15 C (Fig. 6a), AR-
Gap had the highest Mr than all of the other seven
mixtures, which simply corresponded to having higher
ITS than other mixtures at the same temperature. As
regards the CR- group, CR-Gap20 had lower Mr
(b) 1.2
15 °C 25 °C 35 °C compared to CR-Gap15 and CR-Gap10. This may
1 have been due to the presence of high percentage of
crumb rubber content in CR-Gap20 and did not match
0.8 with the ITS values in its order. Similarly, amongst
ITS, MPa

SBR group, SBR-Gap20 had the least Mr compared to

0.6

0.4

(a) 7000
0.2 0.5 Hz 1 Hz 1.5 Hz 2 Hz
6000

0 5000
Mr (MPa)

4000

3000

2000
Fig. 4 a Actual IDT experimental setup; b ITS (MPa) of all
eight asphalt mixes at 15, 25, and 35 C 1000

0
CR-Gap20 CR-Gap15 CR-Gap10 SBR-Gap15 AC-Gap SBR-Gap20 SBR-Gap10 AR-Gap

Fig. 5 Actual Mr
experimental setup (b) 3500
0.5 Hz 1 Hz 1.5 Hz 2 Hz
3000

2500
Mr (MPa)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
CR-Gap20 SBR-Gap20 CR-Gap15 SBR-Gap15 CR-Gap10 AC-Gap AR-Gap SBR-Gap10

(c) 3500
0.5 Hz 1 Hz 1.5 Hz 2 Hz
3000

2500
Mr (MPa)

2000

1500

1000

500
LVDTs between the gauge points along the horizontal 0
AC-Gap CR-Gap20 SBR-Gap15 SBR-Gap20 CR-Gap10 AR-Gap CR-Gap15 SBR-Gap10
diameter. For analyses purposes, Poisson’s ratio was
assumed to be equal to 0.35 for all the asphalt samples. Fig. 6 Mr of asphalt mixes at: a 15 C; b 25 C; and c 35 C

SBR-Gap15 and SBR-Gap10. However, comparing
the values for the two groups of SBR-Gap and CR-
Gap, it was found that SBR-Gap showed higher Mr
than the latter group. The reason for this trend may be
due to the higher elastic recovery of CR as compared
to SBR. Further, SBR by itself has higher stiffness
properties as compared to CR also because CR has NR
as one of the ingredients that makes it softer than SBR.
Overall, at this lower temperature, artificially modified
CR and SBR gap-graded mixtures were softer (lower
Mr) which in turn would produce higher fatigue life
and are also more resistant to cracking phenomenon.
Interestingly, AC-Gap mix produced similar Mr (in-
significant difference) as that of the SBR-Gap, which
is indicative of the fact that it would produce similar
fatigue lives as that of SBR- at this temperature. As
AR-Gap had the highest Mr amongst all of the mixes, it
is expected that this mix would be least resistant to
cracking problems.
At the intermediate temperature of 25 C (Fig. 6b),
SBR-Gap10 had the highest Mr amongst all of the
mixes. CR-Gap20 mix had the lowest Mr amongst all
of the mixes similar to the trend shown at 15 C.
Furthering the discussion, CR- and SBR- had a
definitive change in Mr with CR- being less stiffer
than SBR-Gap regardless of the percentage of rubber
inclusions but in the decreasing order of 20–10 %. The
magnitudes of the Mr values of AC-Gap and AR-Gap
were in between the CR- group and SBR-Gap10 with
AC-Gap having lower Mr than AR-Gap.
At the highest test temperature of 35 C (Fig. 6c)
which is more important for rutting characterization,
SBR-Gap10 had the highest Mr than the other mixes
and AC-Gap had the lowest Mr. Thus, it is anticipated
that the rubber-modified mixes would perform better
in respect of rutting distresses with SBR-Gap20 being
the best.
Although Mr test procedure is a robust method to
characterize mixtures’ stiffness in the laboratory for
varying traffic speeds, there is a trade-off while
interpreting the mix performance between laboratory
and field test methods. Further, note that there are also
differences between each test procedure and equip-
ment used to understand those performance predic-
tions. The homogeneity of the gyratory samples used
in this study to obtain Mr test sample discs was
rationally assessed based on the volumetrics measured
using the Superpave protocol [15].
Materials and Structures
With regard to the test frequencies considered in
this study while performing Mr tests, four different
types were used, which fundamentally covered low to
medium traffic speeds. In fact, it is noteworthy that
ASTM practice [17] recommends only one test
frequency, i.e., 1 Hz but this study expanded to use
three other frequencies to obtain the effect of variation
of frequency (and traffic speeds) on the Mr stiffness
parameter.
3.4 Fatigue life estimations
Several analytical methods based on flexible pave-
ment design guidelines are available to predict fatigue
lives of asphalt mixtures. The basic concept of fatigue
life prediction of asphalt mixtures lies in the estima-
tion of fundamental material property such as stiffness
(example: Mr), tensile strain at the bottom of the
asphalt layer, temperature, frequency (akin to traffic
conditions), pavement layer thickness, and other
mixture material volumetric properties. Based on
these fundamental principles, two design guideline
approaches were followed and are briefly described
under.
3.4.1 Indian roads congress flexible pavement design
guidelines
In IRC:37, 2012 [21], flexible pavement is analyzed by
multi-layer elastic theory and fatigue life of the
pavement is estimated based on the estimated tensile
strain at the critical locations, and Mr of the asphalt
layer. It also accounts for the air voids and asphalt
content in the performance of fatigue lives. Fatigue
life is calculated by the following equation [20]:
 3:89  0:854
04 1 1
Nf ¼ 0:5161  C  10  
et Mr
ð1Þ
 
where C is the 10M, M ¼ 4:84  VbVþV b
a
 0:69, Va
is the percent volume of air void (%), Vb is the percent
volume of bitumen in a given volume of bituminous
mix (%), Nf is the fatigue life (msa), et is the maximum
tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer, Mr is
the Resilient modulus of bituminous mix (MPa).
For a corresponding frequency and temperature, the
value of tensile strain (et) is obtained by giving the
corresponding value of Mr as the input to the Indian
Materials and Structures

Institute of Technology Kharagpur pavement design best fatigue resistant mixtures. Figure 7a, b depict
software IITPAVE software based on three layer graphical representations of Nf at 35 C based on IRC
elastic theory. The calculation is done by considering and MEPDG methods, respectively. Thus, it was
two wheel loads. observed that 15 % rubber modification with virgin
binder would provide higher fatigue resistance than
any other mix within the group. It is very important to
3.4.2 United States of America mechanistic-empirical
note that this study corroborated the ASTM statement
pavement design guide
that at least 15 % rubber modification is necessary to
designate a mix as ‘‘Asphalt-Rubber’’. Furthermore,
USA mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide
the AR-Gap mixture prepared using the commercially
(MEPDG) provides fatigue life estimation based on
available CRMB-60 binder produced the least fatigue
two different types of fatigue distresses: bottom up and
life, even lower than the conventional gap (AC-Gap
top–down cracking [22]. Fatigue life calculation as per
using VG-30), which only calls for a revision in the
the guidelines considers the effect of mix volumetric,
modification process of rubber inclusions in the virgin
tensile strain, stiffness modulus and asphalt layer
binder.
thickness. Fatigue life of asphalt pavement on the
It was observed that fatigue life estimated by using
premise of bottom-up cracking is calculated using the
MEPDG was significantly higher than that of IRC
following equation [21]:
guidelines. The fundamental approaches of the two
 3:9492  1:281 models resulted in the fatigue life difference very
1 1
Nf ¼ 0:00432  bfl  C  
et Mr
ð2Þ (a) 5
4.5 0.5Hz 1Hz 1.5Hz 2Hz
bf1 ¼ b0f1  k10
Nf based on IRC (msa)

4
3.5
1 3
k10 ¼
0:000398 þ 1þe0:003602
ð11:023:49hacÞ
2.5
2
where hac is the total thickness of the asphalt concrete 1.5
layers, mm; b0f1 ¼ 1:0: 1
0.5
0
3.4.3 Fatigue lives of asphalt mixtures

Fatigue life calculation of all the eight asphalt mixes

were carried out by using the obtained Mr values and (b) 12000
0.5Hz 1Hz 1.5Hz 2Hz
based on the two methods aforementioned (Eqs. 1, 2).
Nf based on MEPDG (msa)

10000
The values of tensile strains used in the prediction of
fatigue lives were estimated by using the IITPAVE 8000
software. In both cases, it was observed that at all the
6000
three temperatures rubber-modified mixes depicted
higher fatigue lives than conventional AC-gap and 4000
AR-Gap modified with commercially available rubber
modified binder. Since fatigue life for Indian pave- 2000

ment conditions are being discussed in this study, it

0
was assumed that 35 C would be most relevant
temperature to understand fatigue properties of those
asphalt mixtures. In lieu of this, if one observes the
fatigue life predicted at 35 C using the two methods Fig. 7 Nf in million standard axles (msa) at 35 C based on:
described before, CR-Gap15 and SBR-Gap15 were the a IRC; b MEPDG
 Materials and Structures

significantly. It is important to note that Nf calculation (a) CR-Gap10 CR-Gap15 CR-Gap20 AR-Gap
SBR-Gap10 SBR-Gap15 SBR-Gap20 AC-Gap
based on MEPDG employs the use of layer thickness, 5.0

Accumulated Strain, %
4.5
which is not included in the IRC guidelines. Though 4.0
the critical tensile strains used for both procedures 3.5
were estimated based on layer thickness, MEPDG 3.0
2.5
guidelines additionally emphasize on using layer 2.0
thickness as a standalone input parameter to estimate 1.5
1.0
fatigue life unlike the IRC where layer thickness is not 0.5
part of the estimations. In addition, MEPDG guideline 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
uses a continuous sigmoidal function to calibrate the Number of Cycles
fatigue life for thinner and thicker pavements that may
not be appropriate for the asphalt mixtures used in the (b) 6
study. Furthermore, very importantly, fatigue lives of

Accumulated Strain, %
5 4.90
the different modified mixtures were estimated using
4 3.89
Mr, while the MEPDG guidelines recommend use of
3.16
dynamic modulus (E*) as the stiffness input param- 3 2.75 2.86

eter. Nevertheless, based on the final outcomes, the 2 1.87

2.13

fatigue lives of the different mixtures followed similar 1.28

1
trend in that the CR-Gap15 and SBR-Gap15 had the
0
highest fatigue lives amongst the eight different mixes
used as against the lowest fatigue life shown by the
AR-Gap (that used commercially available CRMB-60
binder with 8–10 % rubber by weight of the asphalt Fig. 8 a Dynamic creep strain versus number of cycles for
binder). eight asphalt mixes; b comparison of total accumulated strain
for the mixes
3.5 Dynamic creep test

As mentioned before, dynamic creep test at 35 C was
conducted on the eight asphalt mixtures to investigate
the rutting performance. Figure 8a illustrates the
accumulated strain behaviour versus number of cycles
of all the eight asphalt mixes at 35 C. Note that the
tests were stopped at 1800 cycles, which was sufficient
to capture the creep behaviour of the different mixes.
The improvement of modification was understood
by the permanent deformation behaviour of the base
binder VG-30 and the rubber composites (CR and
SBR) used to modify the asphalt mixtures. At 35 C,
the modified asphalt mixtures with different dosages
of modifiers produced lower accumulated strain than
the conventional asphalt mix produced with VG-30
binder. Since the modification enhanced the resilient
properties of modified asphalt mixture, the healing
behaviour improved during the unloading phase. As a
result, the accumulated permanent strain for the rubber
composites-modified mixtures reduced as compared to
the conventional asphalt mix.
Additionally, it was observed that the AR-Gap mix
prepared with commercially available CRMB-60
binder produced the least permanent strain whereas
AC-Gap mixture showed the maximum level of strain
(*3.5 times differential) at 1800 cycles. It indicated
that AR-Gap mix had the highest rutting resistance and
is expected to perform better than other modified
mixtures. In addition, SBR-modified asphalt mixtures
exhibited higher rut resistance behaviour than CR-
modified mixtures. This phenomenon can be
explained by the inherent resilient properties of the
SBR additives. At the test temperature, even though
the viscosity of the CR-binder was higher than SBR-
binder, resilient properties of SBR were possibly
higher than the CR modifiers that enhanced the healing
mechanism during the unloading phase.
Another important observation was that the increas-
ing dosages of modifiers initially increased the
percentage strain of the asphalt mixtures, and then
reduced (Fig. 8b). It can be best explained by the
proportional concentration of additives within the mix
matrix. At a lower level of modifiers (10 %), viscosity
of the mixtures increased with the presence of
additives and helped the mixtures to attain higher
Materials and Structures

stiffness. But, at an intermediate level of 15 %, characteristics of CR and SBR modified-asphalt

viscosity of the mixtures possibly did not improve mixtures, and recommend the optimal dosage of
significantly chiefly due to relatively higher concen- rubber inclusions in the asphalt mix matrix to serve
tration of additives that demand more amount of as alternatives to the asphalt mixtures manufactured
asphalt binder for substantial coating of the aggregate using commercially available modified binders. The
surfaces. As a result, the effective binder content of the materials used in the study encompassed eight differ-
mixtures drop and affects the stone-to-stone contact in ent asphalt mixtures with gap-graded aggregate gra-
the mix skeleton, thereby reducing the rut resistance. dation and varying rubber dosages such as 10, 15 and
Interestingly, at higher concentration of 20 %, the 20 %. Based on the various findings of the study, the
inherent resilient properties of additives govern the conclusions are listed under:
deformation behaviour due to its higher concentration
• Binder characterization from the binder A-VTS
and improve the rebound/self-healing performance of
relationships, it was observed that SBR modified
the asphalt mixtures. Therefore, the total percentage of
asphalt binder showed least potential to rutting at
permanent strain attenuates with further addition of
higher temperatures and was also less susceptible
modifiers exceeding 15 %. Similar trends were
to cracking than the other rubber-modified binders
observed for both the CR and SBR additives.
(CRMB-60, CR10, CR15, and CR20 binders). It is
It was noteworthy that 10 % dosage of rubber
important to note that all the rubber-modified
modification was found to be effective on the premise
asphalt binders had lower viscosity–temperature
of rutting performance although one would recom-
susceptibility compared to virgin VG-30 binder in
mend to use 15 % to have a common ground to counter
respect of both rutting and cracking.
fatigue and rutting distresses when at the same time
• Resilient Modulus (Mr) test at lower temperatures,
one can compare the poor performance of conven-
artificially modified CR and SBR gap-graded
tional gap graded mixture in respect of rutting and
mixtures were softer (lower Mr) which in turn are
fatigue cracking problems.
expected to produce higher fatigue lives, and
Since all samples followed a certain protocol during
would also be more resistant to cracking phe-
mixture preparation, the interpretation of the perfor-
nomenon. SBR-Gap10 had the highest Mr and CR-
mance depends on the obtained results corresponding
Gap20 mix had the lowest Mr amongst all of the
to the material properties for each mix. Further, the
mixes.
laboratory performance test parameter Mr character-
• Fatigue life estimation fatigue lives of the asphalt
izes rutting and fatigue cracking distresses differently.
mixtures calculated by IRC and MEPDG equations
It is true that higher Mr will produce rut-resistant
revealed that 15 % of rubber by weight of the base
mixes, but lower values will affect the bottom layers in
binder provided excellent fatigue life for the
the pavement system to be prone for fatigue cracking.
rubber-modified asphalt mixtures. Owing to their
However, a suitable engineering judgment will be
softer material properties, and lower Mr as com-
required to design a mix that will counter both
pared to the others, CR-Gap15 and SBR-Gap15
distresses simultaneously, whose fundamental prop-
showed the highest fatigue lives indicative of the
erties are obtained from binder characterization and
fact that these mixtures would provide signifi-
modification (using rubber) as shown in this study.
cantly better resistance to cracking distress with
Thus, some mixes in this study presented better fatigue
innate viscous properties that plausibly also help in
lives than the others, while those that were fatigue-
self-healing mechanism after crack initiation.
resistant were more prone to rutting. Nevertheless, the
• Rutting characterization the modified asphalt
results were as expected for each of the mixes and
mixtures with different dosages of modifiers
therefore, rational.
produced lower accumulated strain than the con-
ventional asphalt mix produced with VG-30 binder
4 Discussion, conclusion and recommendations due to enhanced resilient / endurance properties of
the rubber-modified asphalt mixtures over time.
The main objective of this research study was to SBR-modified asphalt mixtures exhibited higher
investigate the fatigue and rutting performance rut resistance than CR-modified mixtures even

though the viscosity of the CR-binder was higher
than SBR-binder due to higher endurance proper-
ties of SBR modified asphalt binders. It was
noteworthy that 10 % dosage of rubber modifica-
tion was found to be effective on the premise of
rutting performance although one would recom-
mend to use 15 % rubber composite for modifica-
tion purposes to have a common ground to counter
fatigue and rutting distresses when at the same
time one can compare the poor performance of
conventional gap graded mixture.
• Recommendations and future scope it is recom-
mended that for better performance and quality of
rubber modified asphalt binder in respect of fatigue
life and rutting, the binder should contain a
minimum of 15 % rubber by weight of the base
binder, which also justifies the ASTM D8 defini-
tion for ‘‘Asphalt-rubber’’. The study was limited
to laboratory evaluations so it is recommended that
the rubber-modified mixtures used in this study be
utilized in constructing field test sections to obtain
laboratory-field correlations in future. Only gap-
graded type of gradation was used in this study,
which certainly has been successful owing to its
ability to accommodate rubber inclusions in its
skeleton. But, it would also be worthwhile to try
dense graded gradation that is very commonly
used worldwide due to its historical importance of
success along with various rubber sizes that would
be accommodated within this type of gradation.
This study was limited to the number of material
combinations such as one base binder used for
rubber modification, similar asphalt content and air
voids level across the mixes, single aggregate type
and size, a typical gradation, but with varying
rubber percentages and type of rubber. Nonethe-
less, this study showed that locally available
rubber materials are very promising candidates to
serve as alternatives to the commercially available
modified binders used in asphalt roads and
applications.
References
1. Navarro FJ, Partal P, M-Boza F, Gallegos C (2005) Influ-
ence of crumb rubber concentration on the rheological
Materials and Structures
behavior of a crumb rubber modified bitumen. Energy Fuels
19:1984–1990
2. Al-Abdul-Wahhab H, Al-Amri G (1991) Laboratory eval-
uation of reclaimed rubber asphaltic concrete mixes. J Mater
Civil Eng 3(3):189–203
3. Albayati AH, Mohammed HK (2011) Influence of styrene
butadiene rubber on the mechanical properties of asphalt
concrete mixtures. Al-Qadisiya J Eng Sci 4(3):258–274
4. Khadivar A, Kavussi A (2013) Rheological characteristics
of SBR and NR polymer modified bitumen emulsions at
average pavement temperatures. Constr Build Mater
47:1099–1105
5. Tamimi AA, Zubaidy IAHA, Upadhye A, Ali L (2014)
Evaluation of sustainable asphalt mixture. Study Civil Eng
Archit 3:41–47
6. Shih CT, Tia M, Ruth BE (1996) Evaluation of the effect of
crumb rubber and SBR on rutting resistance of asphalt
concrete. Am Chem Soc Fuel Chem 41(4):1227–1231
7. Vasiljevic-Shikaleska A, Popovska-Pavlovska F, Cimmino
S, Duraccio D, Silvestre C (2010) Viscoelastic properties
and morphological characteristics of polymer-modified
bitumen blends. J Appl Polym Sci 118(3):1320–1330
8. ASTM D8 - 13b Standard terminology relating to materials
for roads and pavements, Active Standard ASTM D8,
developed by Subcommittee: D04.91, Book of Standards
Volume: 04.03
9. ASTM D6114 / D6114 M – 09 Standard specification for
asphalt-rubber binder, Active Standard ASTM D6114 /
D6114 M | Developed by Subcommittee: D04.40, Book of
Standards volume: 04.03
10. Gogoi R (2015) Fatigue performance characterization of
styrene butadiene rubber and crumb rubber-modified
asphalt mixtures, Master of Technology Thesis in Rubber
Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
West Bengal
11. Way GB, Kaloush KE, Biligiri KP (2012) Asphalt-rubber
standard practice guide, 2nd edn. Rubber Pavements
Association, Tempe, p 121
12. IS: 1203 (1978) Indian standard methods for testing tar and
bituminous materials: determination of penetration. Indian
Roads Congress, New Delhi
13. IS: 1205 (1978) Indian standard methods for testing tar and
bituminous materials: determination of softening point.
Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi
14. ASTM D2196–10 (2014) Standard test methods for rheo-
logical properties of non-newtonian materials by rotational
(Brookfield type) viscometer. American Society for Testing
and Materials International, West Conshohocken
15. AASHTO PP 35-1998 (R 2005) Standard practice for
evaluation of superpave gyratory compactors, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC
16. ASTM D6931-12, Standard test method for indirect tensile
(IDT) strength of bituminous mixtures, American Society
for Testing and Materials International, USA. 2012, devel-
oped by Subcommittee: D04.26; Book of Standards volume:
04.03
17. ASTM D7369-11, Standard Test Method for Determining
the Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures by Indirect
Tension Test, American Society for Testing and Materials
Materials and Structures
International, USA, 2011, Developed by Subcommittee:
D04.26; Book of Standards Volume: 04.03
18. EN 12697-25: 2005, Bituminous mixtures—test methods for
hot mix asphalt—Part 25: cyclic compression test, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium
19. ASTM (1998) Viscosity–temperature chart for Asphalts, vol
04.03. American Society for Testing and Materials 1998
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, pp 230–234
20. Asphalt Institute (2001) Superpave mix design, superpave
series no. 2 (SP-2). Asphalt Institute, Lexington
21. IRC: 37-2012 Tentative guidelines for the design of flexible
pavements. Indian Roads Congress, Ministry of Road
Transport & Highways, Government of India
22. NCHRP 1-37A-2004 Guide for mechanistic-empirical
design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures.
NCHRP Final Report, ERES Consultants Division, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC