Asphalt-Rubber Pavement Systems:

Emphasis on Performance-based
Designs and Sustainability
Dr. B. Krishna Prapoorna, Ph.D., F.IRF
Associate Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati

Kerala Highway Research Institute Webinar

22 May 2020
 Presentation Outline
• AR Historical Perspective
• Patents & Background
• Initial Paving Applications
• AR Benefits & Global Outlook
• Design Guideline
• AR Conferences
• AR-Gap Development in India
• GoI DST Research Project
• Field Implementation & Future Scope
 Presentation Outline
• AR Historical Perspective
• Patents & Background
• Initial Paving Applications
• AR Benefits & Global Outlook
• Design Guideline
• AR Conferences
• AR-Gap Development in India
• GoI DST Research Project
• Field Implementation & Future Scope
 AR Historical Perspective: Patents
Ø 1870s: patents about combining rubber and asphalt-like
material
Ø 1900s: roadway construction with polymer / asphalt; asphalt
mixes patented
Ø 1916: importance of highways; Bureau of Public Roads; now
the US Federal Highway Administration
Ø 1920s – 1960s: various rubber and asphalt patents
Ø 1930-51: noted benefits of rubber + asphalt, improved ductility,
bitumen elasticity, coherence, plasticity, reduced temperature
susceptibility, resistance to water (Sadtler, 1930; Taylor, 1951)
Ø 1965: vulcanized rubber swells; alleviating serious defects in the
bituminous surface, use of scrap tire rubber (Endres, 1965)
Ø 1970s: numerous patents attributed to Charles McDonald (City
of Phoenix, Arizona, USA) and Don Nielsen (Arizona, USA)
 AR: Definition & Ingredients
Asphalt-rubber (AR): “a blend of asphalt cement
(bitumen), reclaimed tire rubber, and certain additives in
which the rubber component is at least 15% by weight of
the total blend and has reacted in the hot asphalt cement
sufficiently to cause swelling of the rubber particles”
[ASTM D6114: Standard Specification for Asphalt-
Rubber Binder]
Rubber in AR: 100% of the particles finer than 4.75 mm
sieve; retained on 2 mm sieve (Specific Gravity ~ 1.15)
AR: 80% Bitumen; 20% GTR; Rubber & Bitumen mixed
together hot to form a binder; Binder pumped into plant
and mixed with hot aggregate; hot-mix paved as normal
AR: Blending & Production
AR Historical Perspective: Initial Paving Applications

Charles McDonald, 1980

AR Home-made Band-aid, 1980

AR Historical Perspective: Initial Paving Applications
Portland Cement
Concrete sealed
with AR

AR Band-Aid Patch,
McDonald in 1966
AR Historical Perspective: Initial Paving Applications
1989

Cracking Raveling Rutting

AR Historical Perspective: Initial Paving Applications

Early CRM Mixing, 1970s Early Chip Seal, 1970s

AR Historical Perspective: Initial Paving Applications

Chip Seal Introduced to South Africa, 1982

Don Nielsen
AR Historical Perspective: Initial Paving Applications

Other Applications of AR Binder

Way et al, 2012
Way et al, 2012
AR Historical Perspective: 1980s Marshall Mix
Gradation for Gap-Graded AR Mixtures
AR Historical Perspective: 1980s Marshall Mix
Gradation for Open-Graded AR Mixtures
Asphalt Mixture Aggregate Gradation Types
Dense Graded

AR – Gap Graded

AR – Open Graded

AR – Open Graded AR – Gap Graded

 Presentation Outline
• AR Historical Perspective
• Patents & Background
• Initial Paving Applications
• AR Benefits & Global Outlook
• Design Guideline
• AR Conferences
• AR-Gap Development in India
• GoI DST Research Project
• Field Implementation & Future Scope
 AR Family of Products

Ø Asphalt-Rubber: 15% or more recycled tire rubber

in asphalt, liquid, no patents
Ø Terminal Blend: 5-15% recycled tire rubber in
asphalt + polymer, liquid, patented, PG 76-22 TR
Ø PG Rubberized Asphalt: 9-12% (?) recycled tire
rubber in asphalt, PG 82-22, liquid, no patents
Ø Hybrid Rubberized Asphalt: 7% recycled tire
rubber + polymer, for seal coat, liquid, no patents
Ø Reacted & Activated Rubber: recycled tire rubber
+ fillers in asphalt, powder, proprietary
AR Technology: Perpetual Pavements
12½ - 50 mm ARFC

½ – 1”ARFC
50 – 75 mm ARAC

PCC
Existing / New AC
 AR Benefits
üLess Reflective Cracking
üLess Maintenance / More Durable
üLess Raveling
üGood Rut Resistance
üGood Skid Resistance
üSmooth Ride
üGood in Hot & Cold Climates
üLess Splash & Spray
üBetter Drainage
üLess Noise
üCost Effective
üEngineering Use for Old Tires
AR Practice Design Guide
 AR
State-of-the-Art
Articles
AR Materials Characterization
12½ - 50 mm ARFC

½ – 1”ARFC
50 – 75 mm ARAC

PCC
Existing / New AC

Location Project Name Type

1 I17 Badger Springs ARFC/ARAC
2 I40 Silver Springs ARFC
3 I19 Palo Parado ARFC
4 I40 Two Guns ARFC/ARAC
5 I40 Jackrabbit ARFC/ARAC
6 US93 Antelope Wash ARFC
7 US93 Burro Creek ARFC
8 US260 Kohl's Ranch P-ACFC
9 I40 Lake Havasu ARFC
10 I40 Buffalo Range ARFC/ARAC
11 I17 Ford Demo. ARAC
12 SR101-202 ARFC
13 US70 ARAC
14 US180 ARAC
15 Maricopa County ARAC
16 California ARAC/ARFC
17 Puerto Rico ARAC
18 Canada - Alberta ARAC
19 Sweden ARAC
20 FORTA Corporation, PA FRAC
 AR Binder Characterization
Penetration & Softening Point Tests:
0 sec 5 sec Penetration Softening Point
Low & Intermediate Temperatures 100g
penetration
100g

Viscosity Tests:
Higher Temperatures
Brookfield Rotational
Absolute & Kinematic
Pene
tratio
n & So
fteni
ng Poin
t Broo
kfiel
d Vis
cosit
y

Log Temperature, oR
 AR Mixture Characterization
Permanent Deformation:
Triaxial Shear Strength
Dynamic Modulus
Repeated Load
Static Creep

Fatigue Cracking:
Beam Fatigue
Crack Propagation
Semi-Circular Bending

Low Temperature Thermal Cracking:

Indirect Diametral Tensile Strength
Creep Compliance
Fracture Energy
 Sustainable Transportation
Infrastructure & Materials Research

- Continuation of AR Research → Sustainable

Infrastructure Materials Characterization
- Forum / Workshop / Seminar → icRS SPT 2021:
https://www.icrsconf.com/icrs_spt2020.html
http://rar2021.net
- Collaboration
- Research Centers / Institutes: National and International
AR Benefits: Tire / Pavement Noise
“Quiet Cities”: Sustainable Environment
 Presentation Outline
• AR Historical Perspective
• Patents & Background
• Initial Paving Applications
• AR Benefits & Global Outlook
• Design Guideline
• AR Conferences
• AR-Gap Development in India
• GoI DST Research Project
• Field Implementation & Future Scope
 AR: Futuristic Perpetual Roadways

✺ Development of Crack Propagation Criteria for Asphalt Mixtures

✺ Standard Specifications & Design Practices for AR Gap-Graded Mixtures
✺ Performance Characterization of Reacted and Activated Rubber Mixtures
✺ Advanced Pavement Materials Characterization: Testing & Quality Control
✺ Pavement Performance Assessment & Management Systems
✺ Statistical Analyses & Constitutive Modeling: Performance Prediction
✺ AR Field Test Sections: Construction Design & Performance Monitoring
✺ AR Aging & Forensics: Rate of Aging Prediction & Modeling
 Asphalt-Rubber Gap-
Graded (AR-Gap)
Pavement Systems
[Government of India
Department of Science & Technology Project]
 Research Objective
• To develop mix design practices for AR-Gap
mixtures suitable for several traffic &
environmental conditions through the
evaluation of their structural performance
characteristics:
• Establish in lines with the globally accepted Superpave
mixture design procedure for conventional dense
graded asphalt mixes
• Create a standard protocol that could be potentially
used worldwide by pavement design engineers &
practitioners
 Scope of the Effort
Development of Asphalt-Rubber Gap-Graded Mixture Design: Laboratory Performance
Investigations
Literature
Concept of AR- review
Task I AR-Gap mix design fundamental
Gap mixtures principles & relationships
Mix
performance Laboratory
parameters blending

AR binder Characterization

Performance
Laboratory study
experimental Crumb rubber Gradation AR-Gap mix
Task II
program and characterization characterization
mixtures database
Aggregate Gradation study

AR-Gap
Characterization
mixes
Performance
study

AR-Gap Performance
AR-Gap design
performance indicator
criteria
Performance characterization determination
Task III evaluation of AR-
Gap mix

Recommendations of AR-Gap mix design user practice report

AR Binder Studies – Mix Parameters
G*/sinδ VG10
Source
Base binder
Base binder
VG30 DF2 Adj. SS
179700360
Adj. MS
89850180
F-value
2525.21
p-value
<0.01
Model findings
Significant
Digestion time 2 10813088 5406544 151.95 <0.01 Significant
CR Dosage VG40 2 87844797 43922398 1234.43 <0.01 Significant
Base binder × Digestion time 4 3713724 928431 26.09 <0.01 Significant
Base binder × CR Dosage
Digestion time × CR Dosage
10 4
4
52796304
2745121
13199076
686280
370.96
19.29
<0.01
<0.01
Significant
Significant
• CRBinder
dosages,
Error performance improved with increase in all mix parameters
35 1245344 35581
• Improvement
%
Total 20 performance from 60 to 90 min of digestion time – less
in binder 53 338858737

tanδ results at 95 % confidence interval indicated that 3 mix parameters (base

significant
ANOVA
• Less significance
binder, CR dosage
Source
30&20
from DF to 30%
digestion of CRsignificantly
time)
Adj. SS dosage
Adj. MS F-valueinfluenced
p-value the binder
Model findings
Base binder 2 68.01 34 24.55 <0.01 Significant
performance indicators 56.08 G*/sinδ
Digestion time
30 2 155.38 77.69 <0.01 tanδ
Significant
CR Dosage 2 239.57 119.78 86.46 <0.01 Significant
Digestion
Base binder × Digestion time 4 23.32 5.83 4.21 <0.01 Significant
time, min× CR Dosage 60 4
Bae binder 40.87 10.21 7.37 <0.01 Significant
Digestion time × CR Dosage 4 103.55 25.88 18.69 <0.01 Significant
Statistical analyses
Error
Total
90 35
53
48.49
679.2
1.385
of mixing
parameters
Veena Venudharan, and Krishna P. Biligiri, “Statistical Evaluation of Crumb Rubber Modification Procedure in Asphalt Binder Modification”, 2nd IRF
Asia Regional Congress & Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 16-20 October 2016
 AR Binder Characterization – Recovery Modeling
5.0

Weibull distribution function

4.0 0.1 kPa
• Jnr decreased with increase
3.2 kPa
Binders ε εr = ε2 εf = ε3 ε1 X Xε2 indicative
inε1CR dosage Xε3 of
3.0
Jnr , kPa -1

VG10 1.025 0.025 0.998 0.002 0.20 2.44 resistance

better rutting 97.36
1
2.0
VG30 1.031 0.037 0.983 0.011 • 1.10
Jnr of CRMB60
3.59 ~ 1.5 to 3
95.31
1.0 VG40 1.034 0.039 0.983 0.012 times higher
1.15 3.77than V3R3,
95.07
0.95 V1R1 1.039 0.048 0.972 0.019 V4R2 and4.62
1.82 V4R3 93.56
0.0
VG 10 VG 30 VG40 V1R1 V1R2 V1R3 V3R1 V3R2 V3R3 V4R1 V4R2 V4R3 CRMB 60
V1R2 1.035 0.053
Binders 0.948 Increase
0.034in 3.31 5.12 91.57
0.9
Normalised Strain

90
V1R3 1.023 0.061 0.926 recovery
0.037 3.61 5.96 90.43
• R increased with increase in
0.8575
Inclusion
V3R1 of CR increased
1.022 0.056
0.1 kPa
the
0.942immediate
0.024 (ε1) &
2.38delayed
5.48(ε2) elastic
92.14
CR dosage indicative of
1.05

3.2 kPa
V3R2 0.075 0.871 0.066 6.52
strain; & reduced the permanent deformation 7.41) 86.07
1.012
increased (ε
60
recovery
1
3

Predicted normalized recovery strain

0.8
45 V3R3 1.015 CR 0.089
30% 0.843
~ increased 3 times0.083
of ε1 & 8.15
• 6Rtimes 8.77
of ARof ε2 ~ 83.08
binders 50 to 80
0.95
R, %

V4R1 1.047 0.096 0.921 0.030 2.87 9.17 87.96

V3R1 % higher than base binders
0.9
0.7530
VG 10 VG 30 VG 40 V1R1 V1R2 V1R3

15
V4R2
V3R2 1.042
V3R3 0.164
V4R1 V4R2 0.827V4R3 0.051
CRMB 60 4.93 15.74 79.32 0.85

R2 = 0.997
0.7 Se/Sy = 0.057
V4R31 0.1954 0.786 0.081 7.639 18.40 73.97
0.8

0
0 1.062
2 3 5 6 7 8
n = 1170

Time, s 0.75
CRMB60 0.094 0.889 0.041 3.96 9.20 86.84
VG 10 VG 30 VG40 V1R1 V1R2 V1R3 V3R1 V3R2 V3R3 V4R1 V4R2 V4R3 CRMB 60
1.024 Binders
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Observed normalized recovery strain
1 1.05

Veena Venudharan, and Krishna P. Biligiri, Conceptualization of Permanent Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Modified Asphalt Binders: Energy-based
Algorithm and Rheological Modeling, Construction and Building Materials Journal, Elsevier, UK, 126, 388-397
 Aggregate Gap Gradation Selection
•Gap gradations
Eight
30
100
30 trial gapbygradations
various country/state agencies
100
100 ARIZONA G1 CALIFORNIA
G2 G3 CAROLINA
G4
Gradation A Gradation B
INDIA Gradation
SWEDENC TEXAS
Arizona Texas
25 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8
80
25
ü Gradation
India A – ArizonaCalifornia 8

7
Arizona
Texas
India
Sweden
California
South Carolina
80
80
ü Gradation
G5 G6B – Texas
South Carolina G7 Sweden
G8
%%% %

6
passing

20
ü Gradation C – G8 (this study)
%passing,

Rut depth, mm
20
passing,

60
voids,

60 60 3

Total of 14 aggregate gap gradations were chosen for preliminary

voids,
Airpercent

2
15
15
gradation study & selection
Cumulative
percent

1
Air

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
40
Cumulative

40
40 No. of wheel passes

10
Cumulative

10

20 • Graphical adjustment of typical

20
205 5 gap gradation
• Coarse content ~ 60 – 80%
• Filler ~ 10%
0
0000 0.01
00 50 0.1 100 150
1 200 10
Source: MS-2, 2015
250 300
100
0.01 0.1
TECHNOLOGY
0.01 TRANSFER
50
0.1
100
& SYNERGISTIC
No. of
Sieve
No.
150
1
gyrations
size,
of size, mm
gyrations
ACTIVITIES
200
10 (IITKGP)
250 300
100
Sieve mm
- Demonstration Test Sections of AR-Gap Pavements: WBHDCL, PWD-NH
 AR-Gap Mixture Design
Superpave mix design – 125 gyrations for traffic more than
30 msa – No aggregate degradation due to kneading
compaction

27 AR-Gap mixtures:
ØThree gap gradations – Gradations ‘A’, ‘B’, & ‘C’
ØThree CRMBs – CRMB60, AR-Fine & AR-Coarse
ØThree binder contents – OBC (Va = 5±1%), OBC+1 (Va
= 3±1%), & OBC-1 (Va = 7±1%)

•1 control DG mix – BC-2 gradation, VG40 at OBC (Va =

4±1%)
 AR-Gap Mixture Characterization

5000 4.5
CRMB60 AR-Fine AR-Coarse BC-VG40 Gradation 'A'
4500
Gradation 'B'
Resilient Modulus, MPa

4000 4

Dynamic Modulus, MPa

Gradation 'C'
3500
BC
3000 3.5

2500
2000 3

1500
1000 2.5

500
0 2
A₋₁ B₋₁ C₋₁ A B C A₊₁ B₊₁ C₊₁ -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Mix types Reduced frequency, Hz

• Dynamic Modulus followed similar trend as Resilient Modulus

• Influenced by aggregate gradation, binder type, & binder content
• Gradation ‘C’ resulted in higher modulus values
• AR binders – higher moduli
Resilient Modulus Test Dynamic Modulus Test
 AR-Gap Mixture Performance Evaluation
100 10
CRMB60
90 CRMB60 AR-Fine AR-Coarse BC-VG40 9
AR-Fine
80 8
Tensile Strength Ratio, %

AR-Coarse
70 7
BC - VG40

Rut depth, mm
60 6

50 5

• Gradation ‘C’ performed the best in rutting and moisture resistance

40 4

30
• Though gradation ‘C’ outperformed at low-temperature cracking, gradation ‘A’
3

20 2

showed improved fatigue performance

10
0
1

• AR-Fine binder exhibited higher performance in all the four performance criteria
A₋₁ B₋₁ C₋₁ A B
Mix types
C A₊₁ B₊₁ C₊₁ A₋₁ B₋₁ C₋₁ A B
Mix types
C A₊₁ B₊₁ C₊₁

Moisture Rutting
Veena Venudharan and Krishna P. Biligiri. Investigation of Cracking Performance of
1.8
Asphalt-Rubber
20000
CRMB60 Gap-Graded
AR-Fine AR-Coarse Mixtures: Statistical OverviewCRMB60
BC-VG40 on Materials’
AR-Fine Interface”,
AR-Coarse BC-VG40
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, American Society for Testing and Materials
1.5
No. of cycles to fatigue failure, Nf

International,
15000 USA, September 2019, 47, 1.2 No. 5, pp. 3336-3354
(https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20180744)
KIC, MPa. √m

0.9
10000

0.6

5000
0.3

0 0.0
A₋₁ B₋₁ C₋₁ A B C A₊₁ B₊₁ C₊₁ A₋₁ B₋₁ C₋₁ A B C A₊₁ B₊₁ C₊₁
Mix types Mix types

Fatigue cracking Thermal cracking

 Research Inference
Ranking of asphalt mixtures
Normalized Euclidean
Asphalt mixture
distance
Rankstatistically by Euclidean distance
FC
FC+1
0.3594
0.5963
1
2
approach
FC-1 0.6757 3
CC 0.8312 4 Aggregate gradation – proposed new
CC+1
RC
1.0084
1.2057
5
6
gap-graded gradation ‘C’
BC-VG40
FB-1
1.2259
1.3005
7
8
Binder – AR with 20% fine CR with
CC-1 1.3241 9 gradation passing 300 µm sieve size
FB+1 1.3287 10
FB
RC+1
1.3459
1.3526
11
12
Mix design – Superpave mix design
FA-1 1.4563 13
CB 1.4709 14 Air voids (V ) – 4±1%
a
CB-1 1.5417 15
RC-1 1.5677 16 Binder Content – 5 to 7% by weight of
FA
CB+1
1.5739
1.5935
17
18
total mixture
FA+1 1.6162 19
CA-1 1.6474 20 Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA) –
CA
RB
1.6642
1.6845
21
22
min 17%
Veena+1Venudharan and Krishna P. Biligiri.
RB 1.7737 23 A Novel Design Toolkit to Assess Asphalt-
CA+1 1.8228 24
rubber
RA Gap-graded Mixture
1.9124 Performance:
25 Target Properties and Parametric
Relationships,
RB-1 Construction
1.9680and Building26Materials, Elsevier, UK, 219, 20 September
RApp.
2019, -1 2.0741 27
69-80 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.165)
RA+1 2.1092 28
AR SUSTAINABLE PAVEMENTS: DISSEMINATION
 AR-Gap Mixture Design Parameter
Selection
Cumulative
Sieve Size,
percent
mm
• Aggregate gradation – new gap-graded, passing, %
GRADATION ‘C’ 19 100
• Binder – AR with 20% fine CR with 12.5 65
9.5 46
gradation passing 300-µm sieve size
6.4 33
• Mix design – Superpave mix design 4.75 28
• Air voids (Va) – 4±1% 2.36 23
• Binder Content – 5 to 7% by weight of the 1.18 20
total mixture 0.6 15
0.4 -
• Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA) – the
0.3 11
minimum of 17%
0.15 7
0.075 5
 AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections

• Test sections: 200 m long & 7 m wide on SH15, West

Bengal (near Kolkata)
• Chainage of the test section was 21+187 to 21+387 at
Dakatiya Khal, West Bengal, India
• Two best AR-Gap mixtures :
• Gradation with AR-Fine binder at a binder content
of 5.3%
• Gradation with AR-Fine binder at a binder content
of 6.3%
AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections
AR-Gap

125 115 40
DBM
WMM
WMM

125
GSB (Gr- V)

150
GSB (Gr-III)

150
Subgrade

500
AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections

June 2017

Developed AR-Gap Mixture Surface

AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections
AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections

June 2017
AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections
AR-Gap MIXTURE DEMONSTRATION
PAVEMENT TEST SECTIONS
AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections
AR-Gap Mixture Demonstration Pavement
Test Sections
AR-Gap Demonstration Pavement Test Sections
– Performance Monitoring

January 2018
AR-Gap Test Sections – Performance Monitoring
 AR-Gap TEST
SECTIONS – Monitoring

November 2019
 60-65%
Crumb
Rubber 15- 20 %
Modifying
Fillers

20-25%
Bituminous binder

RAR
Sousa et al (2012)
 Vinay H. Nanjegowda*, Francisco Silva, Jorge B. Sousa, George B. Way, and Krishna
Prapoorna Biligiri, “Forensic approach to predict film thickness of Reacted and Activated
Rubber (RARX) modified asphalt mixtures”, Road Materials and Pavement Design, Taylor and
Francis, UK (DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2019.1663754)
 Previously Accelerated
established Tf loading
data Development of Arizona facility
modified Tf* equation DOT (ALF) test
Mixture design data section data
Establishment of SAF
data
& SA of materials
Established test sections & their
Job-mix formula Analytical investigation Field validation
 Optimum Tf*Field
Observed
Threshold
Observed performance
Tf* using
versusfilm both data
equations
thickness,
Previously Tf*
established Tfe

30
30

%&""
Ø 25!∗" = '()
25
×5666
Film thickness Tf* (µ)

*)*+,-778&-2& × 4
Film thickness, Tf (µ)

20 20

15 15 ThresholdThreshold film thickness

film thickness

10
Optimum film
10 %&""
Ø !5∗" =
'()*)*+,-./0-12 × 4
×5666 thickness
5

0
0
Tf* = 12µ
Tf* = average film thickness, µm
Veff = volume of effective asphalt cement,
liters
Name of the Mixes
W = weight of aggregate, kg
Name of the Mixes
Tf* Tfe
RARX as dry aggregate RARX as binder
 FUTURE EXPECTATIONS
Ø Performance of field pavement systems:
Ø Test sections: all road classes
Ø New and innovative materials
Ø Pothole patching techniques
Ø Perpetual and futuristic systems
Ø Encapsulated AR product
Ø Establishing laboratory & field correlations
Ø Develop field design specifications for construction
Ø Sustainable roadway infrastructure: LID
Ø Financial implications: LCA; LCCA; B/C ratio
Foster collaboration(s) between academia &
industry to create SUSTAINABLE roads
IITT ADVANCED PAVEMENT SYSTEMS
(APS) RESEARCH CLUSTER
https://iitt-apsrc.weebly.com
Fundamental Research
Binder
• Semi-automated Penetrometer
• Ring and Ball Apparatus
• Ductilometer
• Rotational Viscometer
Aggregates
• Los Angeles Abrasion test
apparatus
• Length and thickness gauges
Mixtures
• Asphalt Mixer
• Pan Mixer
• Marshall Compactor
• Multi-speed Marshall
Stabilometer
State-of-the-art Advanced Research
• Dynamic Shear Rheometer
• Performance grade binder
characterization
• Linear amplitude sweep
• Creep & recovery
• Superpave gyratory compactor
• Rolling thin film oven
• Pressure aging vessel
• Core drilling machine
• Universal testing machine
• Indirect tensile test
• Dynamic modulus
• Resilient modulus
Salient features of UTM: • Semi-circular bending
§ 16 channel DAQ • Triaxial
§ Computer programmable • Indirect tensile modulus
§ Ability to test asphalt, low-strength • Creep compliance
cement concrete, soil, unbound granular • Four-point bending
materials, fibres, and plastics • Uniaxial cyclic compression
§ Detachable temperature control unit
 Ongoing Research by IITT APSRC
• Vehicle-Pavement interaction studies

• Synthesis of WMA-additive as a sustainable

pavement construction material

• Analysis of hydrological characteristics of

pervious concrete

• Pavement Asset Management System using

deep learning & image processing

• Development of New Generation Asphalt-

Rubber product for pavement applications
 THANK YOU
Questions & Comments
Email: bkp@iittp.ac.in
Mobile: +91-9036955552
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Dr. Kaloush, Mr George Way, Dr. Jorge Sousa (USA); GoI DST; GoI MHRD; IIT
Kharagpur & IITT Personnel; WBHDCL Personnel; WBPWD Personnel (Mr.
Ujjwal Mukherjee, Mr. Rajib Chattaraj, etc.); Jalnidhi Bitumen Personnel; Tinna
Rubber & Infra; Dr. Veena (IIT Palakkad), Mr. Ashish (MIT, Bihar), Mr. Vinay
(IITT), & several undergraduate & postgraduate researchers