This PDF is available at [Link]

org/22272

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt

Technologies (2014)

DETAILS
240 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-30803-8 | DOI 10.17226/22272

CONTRIBUTORS

BUY THIS BOOK

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Field
Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. [Link]

Visit the National Academies Press at [Link] and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)

This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M

NCHRP REPORT 779

Field Performance of Warm
Mix Asphalt Technologies

Randy West
Carolina Rodezno
Grant Julian
National Center for Asphalt Technology
Auburn, AL
and

Brian Prowell
Advanced Materials Services, LLC
Auburn, AL

Bob Frank
Compliance Monitoring Service
Linwood, NJ

Linda V. Osborn
Tony Kriech
Heritage Research Group
Indianapolis, IN

Subscriber Categories
Construction • Environment • Materials

Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2014
[Link]

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 779

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 9-47A
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-30803-8
interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2014949286
or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly
complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These
problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
cooperative research.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein.
initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
Transportation.
from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was
requested by the Association to administer the research program
because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of
NOTICE
modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this
purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal,
The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those who are in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these
needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are
selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and
surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National
Research Council and the Transportation Research Board.
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is
intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other
highway research programs.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from:

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

and can be ordered through the Internet at:

[Link]
Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members
of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the
Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta-
tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange,
conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia,
all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu-
als interested in the development of transportation. [Link]

[Link]

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 779

Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Edward T. Harrigan, Senior Program Officer
Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Sharon Lamberton, Editor

NCHRP PROJECT 9-47A PANEL

Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Bituminous Minerals
Bouzid Choubane, Florida DOT, Gainesville, FL (Chair)
Kim A. Willoughby, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA
Cathrina Barros, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
German Claros, Rodriguez Engineering, Houston, TX
Colin Franco, Rhode Island DOT, Providence, RI
Kim J. Jenkins, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa
Julie E. Kliewer, Arizona DOT, Phoenix, AZ
Howard S. Marks, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD
Jorge A. Prozzi, University of Texas–Austin, Austin, TX
Ronald A. Sines, Oldcastle Materials, Leominster, MA
Matthew Corrigan, FHWA Liaison
Nelson H. Gibson, FHWA Liaison
Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

FOREWORD

By Edward T. Harrigan
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board

This report compares material properties and field performance of warm mix asphalt
(WMA) and control hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement sections constructed at 14 locations
across the United States between 2006 and 2010. Thus, the report will be of immediate inter-
est to materials engineers in state highway agencies and the asphalt pavement construction
industry.

Over the past decade, the use of WMA for asphalt pavement construction has dramati-
cally increased in the United States. WMA, which offers the potential to lower energy
demand during production and construction, reduce emissions at the plant and the paver,
and increase allowable haul distances, is seen as an alternative to HMA. However, questions
remain about the long-term performance and durability of WMA pavements.
The objectives of NCHRP Project 9-47A were to (1) compare the short-term performance
of WMA and control HMA pavements, (2) examine relationships among engineering prop-
erties of WMA binders and mixes and the field performance of pavements constructed with
WMA technologies, (3) compare production and laydown practices between WMA and
HMA pavements (including necessary plant adjustments to optimize plant operations when
producing WMA), and (4) provide relative emissions measurements of WMA technologies
and conventional HMA technologies. The research was performed by the National Center
for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, with major assistance from
Advanced Materials Services, LLC, Auburn, Alabama; Heritage Research Group, Indianap-
olis, Indiana; and Compliance Monitoring Service, Linwood, New Jersey.
Performance and material property data were obtained from 14 field projects. Eight proj-
ects were documented and sampled at their initial construction in 2010 and 2011 and after
approximately 2 years in service. Another six projects constructed between 2006 and 2008
were documented and evaluated after 3 to 5 years in service. Each of the 14 projects included
single- or multiple-WMA technology pavement sections and an HMA control section. A
total of 12 WMA technologies were investigated, including asphalt foaming additives, plant
foaming units, chemical additives, and organic additives. All projects used “drop in” WMA
mix designs where the WMA technology was used with an existing HMA mix design with
no significant changes to the binder content or other aspects of the mix design.
Except for the reduced mixing and compaction temperatures for WMA, there were no
substantial differences in the production and laydown practices of WMA and HMA. In-service
performance of WMA and HMA in all projects was virtually identical, with little or no
rutting, no evidence of moisture damage, and very little indication of transverse or longitu-
dinal cracking. Energy use, plant and paver emissions, and worker exposure to fumes were
extensively measured at three multiple-WMA technology projects. Compared to HMA,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

the reduced temperatures used in WMA production and laydown yielded lower energy
consumption and emissions and reduced worker exposure to respirable fumes. Overall,
then, no penalties and some potential benefits were observed in the short term when WMA
replaced HMA.
The key finding of laboratory testing of WMA binders and mixtures from the projects
sampled at construction was the expected lower stiffness of the WMA materials that would
have potential effects on pavement rutting and cracking. However, the equivalent perfor-
mance of the WMA and HMA pavement sections over several years of service suggests that
these differences in material properties, when present, were not great enough to affect the
relative performances of HMA and WMA.
This report fully documents the research in two parts bound in one report. Part 1 includes
an appendix on Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing; Part 2 includes an appendix on
Documenting Emissions and Energy Reductions of WMA and Conventional HMA During
Plant and Paving Operations.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

CONTENTS

P A R T 1  Engineering Properties and Field Performance

of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies
 3 Chapter 1 Background
3 Introduction
4 Project Objectives
4 Scope
4 Report Organization
4 Summary of Energy Usage, Emissions Measurements, and Fume Exposure of
WMA Compared to Conventional HMA
5 Fuel Usage
5 Stack Emissions
5 Worker Exposure
5 Findings and Suggested Revisions to Practice
6 Performance of WMA Experimental Sections at Accelerated Pavement Test
Facilities
6 NCAT Test Track
10 University of California Pavement Research Center
13 MnROAD
15 Summary of WMA Evaluations at Accelerated Pavement Testing Facilities
  16 Chapter 2 Experimental Plan
16 Introduction
16 Field Projects: Production and Construction Documentation
16 Existing and New Projects
16 WMA Technologies Evaluated
18 Production and Construction Information
19 Performance Monitoring
19 Initial Testing for Structural Homogeneity
19 Field Performance Data Collection
19 Field Performance Prediction
21 Laboratory Testing of Field Mixes
21 Engineering Properties
21 Recovered Binder Performance Grade
22 Mixture Stiffness
22 Moisture Susceptibility
22 Fatigue Cracking
23 Thermal Cracking
23 Permanent Deformation
23 Summary of Laboratory Performance Testing
23 Mix Design Verifications
23 Determination of Optimum Asphalt Content
24 Coating

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

25 Compactability
25 Moisture Susceptibility
25 Rutting Resistance
25 Summary Comparisons
26 Chapter 3 WMA Field Projects
26 Existing Projects
26 St. Louis, Missouri
30 Iron Mountain, Michigan
34 Silverthorne, Colorado
39 Franklin, Tennessee
45 Graham, Texas
49 George, Washington
54 New Projects
54 Walla Walla, Washington
62 Centreville, Virginia
69 Rapid River, Michigan
77 Baker, Montana
84 Munster, Indiana
95 Jefferson County, Florida
102 New York, New York
110 Casa Grande, Arizona
118 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Performance of WMA and HMA for
New Projects
118 Rutting
120 Longitudinal, Top-Down Cracking
121 Thermal Cracking
122 Summary of Performance Prediction Comparisons
122 Practical Guidelines for Production and Placement of WMA
122 Stockpile Moisture Content
122 Maintaining Adequate Baghouse Temperatures
124 Burner Performance
124 Producing Mixes with RAP and RAS
124 Placement Changes
125 Compaction
126 Chapter 4 Engineering Properties of HMA and WMA
126 Binder Properties
131 Mixture Properties
131 Mix Moisture Contents
131 Densities
136 Binder Absorption
138 Dynamic Modulus
146 Flow Number
146 Tensile Strength
151 Tensile Strength Ratio
153 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test
156 Fatigue
161 Indirect Tension Compliance and Strength
161 Comparison of Lab Test Results and Field Performance
162 Rutting
163 Moisture Damage

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

164 Fatigue Cracking

166 Low Temperature Cracking
168 Chapter 5 WMA Project Mix Verification
168 Determination of Optimum Asphalt Content
168 Rapid River, Michigan
168 Baker, Montana
168 Munster, Indiana
169 New York, New York
173 Jefferson County, Florida
173 Summary Comparisons
176 Coating
178 Compactability
178 Moisture Susceptibility
179 Flow Number Test
180 Proposed Revisions to the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35
185 Chapter 6 Cost Analysis of WMA
188 Chapter 7 Findings
188 Production and Construction of WMA
188 Energy and Emissions
189 Short-Term WMA Field Performance
189 Engineering Properties of WMA
190 Predicted Performance
191 Mix Design Verification
191 Suggestions for Modifying Practice
191 Mix Design
191 Production
191 Other Research
192 References
194 Appendix Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing

PART 2 Effects of WMA on Plant Energy and Emissions

and Worker Exposures to Respirable Fumes
205 Chapter 1 Background and Problem Statement
205 Experimental Plan
207 Chapter 2 Energy Usage
207 Background on Energy Used to Produce HMA and WMA
209 Research Approach
210 Results and Discussion
210 Fuel Savings
210 Distribution of Fuel Savings
213 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Fuel Savings
213 Influence of Aggregate Moisture Content
215 Summary
215 Recommendations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

216 Chapter 3 Stack Emissions

216 Reported Emissions Reductions from WMA
216 Research Approach
217 Results and Discussion
217 Carbon Dioxide
217 Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds
220 Sulfur Dioxide
221 Nitrogen Oxides
221 Formaldehyde
221 PM-10
223 Summary
223 Recommendations
224 Chapter 4 Worker Exposure
224 Background
225 Research Approach
225 Study Population
225 Study Design
225 Collection and Analysis of Breathing Zone Samples
226 Results
231 Discussion
232 Summary
233 Chapter 5 Findings and Conclusions
233 Findings
233 Fuel Usage
233 Stack Emissions
234 Worker Exposure
234 Conclusions
235 References
237 Appendix Documenting Emissions and Energy Reductions
of WMA and Conventional HMA During Plant
and Paving Operations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

PA RT 1

Engineering Properties and

Field Performance of Warm
Mix Asphalt Technologies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

3  

CHAPTER 1

Background

Recent surveys show that the use of warm mix asphalt (WMA) ments in the area of WMA. The first documented WMA pave-
continues to expand in the United States because of its environ- ment in the United States was constructed in 2004, and since
mental benefits, energy savings, and construction advantages. then, several hundred field trials have been completed.
In at least eight states, WMA technologies are used to produce WMA technologies allow the complete coating of aggre-
more than half of all asphalt paving mixtures (1). However, gates, placement, and compaction at lower temperatures than
as WMA moves into mainstream use, one of the obstacles to conventional HMA. Although the reduction in temperature
implementation is uncertainty about how WMA may affect varies by technology, WMA is generally produced at tempera-
short- and long-term field performance. Given that asphalt tures ranging from 25°F lower than HMA to the boiling point
binders may harden less at the lower production temperatures of water (212°F). Simply put, WMA technologies are aids to
used with WMA, there has been some concern that WMA pave- workability and compaction.
ments may have a greater potential for rutting. There has also Currently, there are three categories of WMA technolo-
been concern about WMA pavements being more susceptible gies: asphalt foaming technologies, organic additives, and
to moisture damage. Furthermore, a better understanding of chemical additives. A fourth category, referred to as hybrids,
how WMA affects engineering properties of asphalt mixtures utilizes combinations of the other categories. The asphalt
and how those properties relate to field performance is needed foaming technologies include a variety of processes to foam
to facilitate the implementation of this technology. asphalt, including water-injecting systems, damp aggregate, or
the addition of a hydrophilic material such as a zeolite. In the
asphalt plant, the water turns to steam, disperses throughout
Introduction
the asphalt, and expands the binder, providing a correspond-
Attention to the impact of human activities on the envi- ing temporary increase in volume and fluids content, similar
ronment has increased around the world. An outgrowth of in effect to increasing the binder content. Available chemi-
this interest was the Kyoto Protocol that challenged nations cal additives often include surfactants that aid in coating and
to reduce their collective emissions of six greenhouse gases lubrication of the asphalt binder in the mixture. The organic
by 5.2% of 1990 levels, with the majority of this decrease additives are typically special types of waxes that cause a
expected to come from manufacturing. In many parts of the decrease in binder viscosity above the melting point of the
world, the asphalt paving industry has begun to use WMA in wax. Therefore, wax properties are carefully selected based on
lieu of hot mix asphalt (HMA) to reduce greenhouse gases the planned in-service temperatures. Approximately 30 WMA
emitted during asphalt paving operations. technologies are currently marketed in the United States.
The primary difference between WMA and HMA is Benefits of WMA may include reduced emissions, reduced
the temperature at which it is produced. The production fuel usage, reduced binder oxidation, and paving benefits
tempera­ture of WMA is typically 25°F to 90°F (14°C to such as the potential for increased densities, less binder aging,
50°C) below that of HMA. The actual temperature reduction cool-weather paving, longer haul distances, and improved
depends upon the warm mix technology used. working conditions for the paving crew. These purported
Development of the first WMA technologies began in Europe, benefits need to be better documented. Although most aspects
where WMA use has remained limited for the past decade. In of designing and constructing WMA are similar to those
2002, representatives from the United States asphalt paving of HMA, lower production temperatures and changes in
industry traveled to Europe to learn about Europeans’ advance- binder characteristics associated with WMA could result

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

in ­differences in pavement performance relative to HMA. Phase 2 of the project involved executing the approved
Reduced oxidation of the binder may improve the cracking experimental plans to gather materials from WMA field proj-
resistance of a pavement but may reduce its moisture and rut- ects; evaluate the engineering properties of WMA and HMA;
ting resistance. Reduced oxidation and better compactabil- compare the early-life field performance of WMA and HMA;
ity of WMA may allow for higher percentages of reclaimed quantify energy, emissions, and health benefits associated with
asphalt pavement (RAP); however, the lower mixing temper- WMA; and validate the WMA mix design recommendations
atures may not facilitate the initial extent of blending of the from NCHRP Project 9-43. NCHRP Report 779 details all the
aged and virgin binder typically seen with HMA. activities and analyses to accomplish these Phase 2 objectives.
The two primary concerns associated with WMA are the
potential for rutting and moisture damage. Because the mix- Report Organization
ing and compaction temperatures are lower than those of
HMA, the binder experiences less aging and can be less stiff NCHRP Report 779 has two parts. Part 1 includes the
and potentially more prone to rutting. Moisture suscepti- experiments related to the analysis of engineering properties
bility is a concern with WMA because the aggregates are not of WMA compared to HMA and the early field performance
exposed to the higher mixing temperatures associated with of WMA and companion HMA test sections built across the
HMA and, therefore, may not be dried completely. In addi- United States. Chapter 1 introduces the report, presenting the
tion, binders are less oxidized during the mix production pro- objectives of the project, scope of work, and a summary of
cess, and softer binders can be more susceptible to moisture accelerated pavement testing of WMA pavement test sections.
damage susceptibility (2). The experimental plans for laboratory and field testing are pre-
Evidence of the environmental benefits of WMA also needs sented in Chapter 2, which also contains the plans for perfor-
to be better documented. If WMA is demonstrated to reduce mance monitoring and mix design verifications. Chapters 3, 4,
fuel consumption and stack emissions while facilitating and 5 present the results and analyses of laboratory test results
higher RAP and reclaimed asphalt shingle contents (RAS), and the field performance for each project. Chapter 5 also dis-
then the use of WMA would be a significant step toward cusses proposed revisions to the Draft Appendix to AASHTO
sustainable development for highway agencies and industry. R 35: Special Mixture Design Considerations and Methods for
Reduction of emissions other than carbon dioxide (CO2) may Warm-Mix Asphalt (WMA) that was developed in NCHRP
also assist in compliance in non-attainment areas. Addition- Project 9-43. Chapter 6 provides a brief economic analysis of
ally, the use of WMA could further reduce the exposure of WMA, and Chapter 7 summarizes the project findings and
workers to asphalt fumes. presents suggestions for modifying current practice. Table and
figure numbering is consecutive across chapters within each
part and includes the part number in front (e.g., Table 1.1,
Project Objectives Table 1.2, Figure 1.1, etc., in Part 1, and Table 2.1, Table 2.2,
NCHRP Project 9-47A had four primary objectives: Figure 2.1, etc., in Part 2). The appendix to Part 1 presents
information on falling weight deflectometer testing in Florida,
1. Establish relationships between laboratory-measured engi- Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Montana.
neering properties of WMA mixes and the field perfor-
mance of pavements constructed with WMA technologies. Summary of Energy Usage,
2. Compare the relative measures of performance between Emissions Measurements,
WMA and conventional HMA pavements. and Fume Exposure of WMA
3. Compare production and placement practices, and if pos- Compared to Conventional HMA
sible, costs between WMA and HMA pavements.
4. Provide relative energy usage, emissions measurements, and Part 2 of NCHRP Report 779 details the testing, analysis,
fume exposure of WMA compared to conventional HMA. and findings associated with the experiments to assess energy
savings, plant emissions, and health impacts to paving crews.
For readers’ convenience, the main findings from Part 2 are
Scope
summarized in this section of Part 1, Chapter 1.
This research was divided into two phases. The first phase Experiments conducted in this study to compare plant
involved literature reviews on engineering properties of WMA emissions during WMA production to those during HMA
mixtures, WMA mix design, production, environmental and production included the following:
emissions assessments, and field performance of WMA. From
these reviews, a state-of-knowledge report on WMA was • Monitoring fuel usage for six projects consisting of the
prepared. Phase 1 also included the development of experi- production of six HMA control mixtures and 11 WMA
mental plans to accomplish the research objectives. mixtures.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

5  

• Measuring plant stack emissions of duplicate production for the same project. The two other projects used natural
runs at three projects consisting of three HMA controls gas, which has a lower sulfur content, as fuel. Emissions of
and eight WMA mixtures. nitrous oxide (NOx), a precursor to the formation of ground-
• Collecting worker exposures to respirable fumes over com- level ozone, are higher for fuel oils compared to natural gas.
plete production days during two multi-technology proj- With one exception, small reductions in NOx were noted for
ects consisting of two HMA controls and six WMA mixes. WMA. For the exception, the burner was set at 26% of its fir-
• Developing revised recommendations for monitoring fuel ing rate for the WMA compared to 75% for the correspond-
usage based on stack emission data to evaluate energy con- ing HMA at the same production rate. This low firing rate
sumption during mix production. may have resulted in more excess air than necessary for com-
• Reviewing and refining procedures for collecting and plete combustion, contributing to NOx formation. Formal-
analyzing worker exposure to fumes during paving. The dehyde, classified as a hazardous air pollutant, is a byproduct
revised protocol is based on total organic matter (TOM) of the combustion of carbon-based fuels. The distribution of
instead of benzene soluble fraction (BSF). formaldehyde measurements was lower for WMA than for
HMA and comparable to state-of-the-art plant performance
observed in the mid-Atlantic United States.
Fuel Usage
Analysis of fuel usage data revealed the importance of com-
Worker Exposure
paring the energy consumption of different technologies, such
as WMA to HMA, over similar, steady-state, time frames. His- Worker exposure to asphalt fumes has typically been
torical fuel usage data typically available for HMA production assessed by measuring the BSF of the fumes. In most studies
includes fuel used for warm up, plant waste, and end-of- comparing worker exposures between HMA and WMA, BSFs
run cleanout. The data collected in the project experiments were below detectable limits. Thus quantitative comparisons
showed that an average reduction in mix temperature of 48°F could not be made. The researchers developed a new measure
resulted in average fuel savings of 22.1%. This was higher than for this study based on TOM. Worker exposure was measured
predictions based on thermodynamic material ­properties. at two multi-technology sites. At one site, HMA temperatures
The increased fuel savings appear to be related to the fact that behind the screed were cooler than normal for HMA and were
the heat radiated through the plant’s dryer shell and ductwork actually within the expected temperature range for WMA.
into the surrounding environment instead of being trans- This resulted in a low temperature differential between the
ferred to the mix was actually larger than expected. Potential HMA and WMA (on average only 12°C different). At the
errors were identified for direct measures of fuel usage such other site, mat temperatures immediately behind the screed
as tank sticks and gas meter readings by comparing measured were, on average, 50°C cooler. With one exception, the WMA
fuel usage to fuel usage calculated from stoichiometric plant mixtures at both sites resulted in a minimum of 33% reduc-
stack emissions. Gas meters were found to update usage only tion in TOM, the one exception being an 8.4% increase at the
after large time intervals, on the order of 30 minutes for some site where the HMA was placed near WMA temperatures. The
meters, inducing error. Recommended best practices for mix TOM reduction was statistically significant at the 95% con-
production include reducing aggregate moisture contents fidence level for five of six mixes. The asphalt binder at one
by sloping stockpile areas away from the plant, feeding the site showed higher overall emissions in the temperature range
plant using dryer materials obtained from the high side of the typically associated with HMA production. The sample with
stockpiles, and covering stockpiles with high fines contents. the highest overall TOM from each mix/site combination was
Significant fuel savings were demonstrated for one project tested for polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC). Naphtha-
with low stockpile moisture contents. lene was detected in the h ­ ighest concentrations. Only one
non-carcinogenic 4-6 ring PAC, pyrene, was detected, and it
was from an HMA sample. All of the nine PAC for asphalt
Stack Emissions
reviewed by IARC (the International Agency for Research on
Emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 decreased with Cancer) were below detectable limits.
reduced fuel usage. Measurements of carbon monoxide (CO)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC) appear to be more
Findings and Suggested Revisions
related to burner maintenance and tuning and less related to
to Practice
reductions in fuel usage and consequently the use of WMA.
One project with a parallel-flow dryer, using reclaimed oil as The use of WMA reduces fuel usage during mixture pro-
fuel, indicated a reduction in VOC when producing WMA. duction. These reductions can help offset the cost of WMA
Significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) were observed technologies or equipment. Reductions in stack emissions of

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

greenhouse gases are consistent with reductions in fuel usage. ciently complete the track’s operations. Two of the temporary
Use of WMA should receive credit for reductions in green- test sections contained Evotherm ET in the intermediate pave-
house gases in life-cycle assessments. WMA also resulted ment layers. The surface layers were 9.5 mm Superpave mixes,
in reductions in SO2 when using high sulfur fuels such as and the intermediate layers were 19.0 mm Superpave mixes.
reclaimed oil. One of the three sections was a control section with an HMA
Recommended revisions to the Test Framework for Doc- surface layer (Section N2). The control section contained a
umenting Emissions and Energy Reductions of WMA and PG 67-22 binder. Another section contained Evotherm ET in
Conventional HMA (3) are: the surface layer (Section E9). The Evotherm ET technology
was an emulsion-based system that is no longer marketed in
• Corresponding WMA and HMA measurements should be the United States. The third section (Section N1) contained
made over similar time periods of steady-state production to Evotherm ET and 3% SBR latex by weight of binder in the
compare fuel usage and stack emissions of WMA and HMA. surface layer. The same mix design was used for each of the
• Direct fuel measurements—tank sticks, fuel meter, or three surface mixes. The surface layers were constructed to
gas meter readings—should be supplemented with stoi- be 1 in. thick.
chiometric fuel measurements in accordance with EPA The mixes were produced at an Astec Double Barrel®
Method 19. plant. The mixing temperature of the WMA mixes was 239°F
• TOM should replace BSF for quantitative comparison of (115°C), and the target compaction temperature was 225°F
WMA and HMA worker exposure. (107°C). However, equipment problems were encountered
during paving the surface of section N1, so the WMA was
kept in a silo for 17 hours. By the time it was placed, the mix
Performance of WMA Experimental
had cooled to 205°F (96°C). Once paving was completed,
Sections at Accelerated Pavement
images from an infrared camera showed that the WMA sec-
Test Facilities
tions had much less thermal segregation than did the HMA
WMA has been evaluated at three noteworthy accelerated sections. Cores were used to determine in-place densities.
pavement test facilities in the United States: the National Results showed that each of the surface layers had average
Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) Test Track, the Uni- densities between 92.1% and 93.4% of theoretical maximum
versity of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC), specific gravity (Gmm), which indicated that Evotherm ET
and MnROAD. This section provides a summary of the per- provided good compactability at significantly lower produc-
formance of the WMA experimental sections tested at these tion and placement temperatures than conventional HMA.
facilities. The WMA placed in Section N1 was opened to traffic
1.75 hours after paving. After 43 days in service (to the end of
the test cycle), the maximum rutting measured in any section
NCAT Test Track
was 1.1 mm. During the 43-day time span, 515,333 ESALs
Since 2005, several WMA technologies have been evaluated (equivalent single axle loads) were applied to the sections.
at the NCAT Test Track. Experimental objectives have var- The Evotherm test sections remained in service throughout
ied with the different evaluations. Test sections at the NCAT the next cycle with no cracking and excellent rutting perfor-
Test Track are 200 feet in length and are trafficked 16 hours mance. Section E9 ultimately endured more than 16 million
per day in 2-year periods by five heavily loaded truck-trailer ESALs with only 4 mm of rutting before the test section was
rigs. Axle loads on the trailers are set at 20,000 pounds, the removed for a different experiment.
maximum legal limit permitted on United States Interstate In 2009, another group of WMA and control HMA test
highways. Performance of test sections is closely monitored sections were constructed as part of the test track’s fourth
for distress. Some sections are also instrumented to measure research cycle (4). These WMA sections were built using the
the pavement’s response to loading and climatic changes. WMA technologies in each lift of a 7-in. asphalt pavement
Details of the NCAT Test Track have been reported in earlier structure. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate
studies (4). the pavement structural responses and short-term perfor-
The first evaluation of a WMA technology on the test track mance of WMA under full-scale accelerated pavement test-
occurred in the fall of 2005, when three temporary test sec- ing. State department of transportation (DOT) sponsors of
tions were constructed to evaluate the rutting performance the experiment selected two WMA technologies to use in
of MeadWestvaco’s early Evotherm® ET technology (5). The the test sections: Evotherm® DAT and Astec Double Barrel
test sections were built late in the second cycle of the test Green® (Astec DBG), referred to in Table 1.1 as WMA-A
track, when previously constructed test sections from another (warm mix asphalt with additive) and WMA-F (warm mix
experiment failed and repairs were necessary to safely and effi- asphalt with foam), respectively.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

7  

Table 1.1. As-built data for virgin WMA and control mixes.

Surface Layer Intermediate Layer Base Layer

HMA HMA HMA
Property Control WMA-F WMA-A Control WMA-F WMA-A Control WMA-F WMA-A
% passing
100 100 100 99 99 98 99 99 99
25.0 mm
% passing 59 60 61 47 48 48 46 47 50
2.36 mm
% passing 6.0 6.7 6.1 5.3 5.3 4.9 5.1 5.7 5.3
0.075 mm
AC (%) 6.1 6.1 6.4 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.0
Air voids 4.0 3.3 3.4 4.4 4.3 4.9 4.0 4.1 3.0
(%)
Plant
discharge 335 275 250 335 275 250 325 275 250
temp. (°F)
In-place
density (% 93.1 92.3 93.7 92.8 92.9 92.9 92.6 92.3 93.9
of Gmm)
Recovered
true grade 81.7-24.7 82.0-25.7 80.3-25.7 85.1-25.1 86.6-23.9 82.5-25.1 77.1-24.1 75.6-25.1 73.7-25.4

AC: asphalt content; WMA-A: warm mix asphalt with additive (Evotherm DAT);
WMA-F: warm mix asphalt with foam (Astec DBG)

The test sections were built on a stiff subgrade and a graded- of the binder because of the lower plant mixing temperatures
aggregate base commonly used at the test track. The cross sec- used for WMA-A.
tions for each of the test sections consisted of a 3-in. asphalt The control HMA and WMA sections performed very well
base course, a 2.75-in. intermediate layer, and a 1.25-in. sur- through the cycle. No cracking was evident, International
face layer. The mix designs for each layer were the same for Roughness Index (IRI) data were steady, texture changes were
the control and both WMA sections. The Superpave mixtures very small, and rut depths were satisfactory by most agency
were designed using 80 gyrations. Table 1.1 shows a summary standards. Figure 1.1 shows the rutting progression through
of as-built properties of the test sections. Gradations, asphalt the 10 million ESAL applications over the two-year trafficking
contents, and volumetric properties were reasonably consis- period. Although the rut depths for the WMA sections were
tent among the three test sections. The asphalt binders from slightly higher than those for the control section, likely as a
the plant-produced mixtures were extracted, recovered, and result of the softer binders in the WMA sections, the differ-
graded using AASHTO T 164, ASTM D5404, and AASHTO ences are considered acceptable.
R 39, respectively. The critical high temperatures for the bind- Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing was performed
ers recovered from WMA-A mixtures were a few degrees lower to compare the seasonal behavior of pavement layer moduli
than for WMA-F, which was possibly due to less plant aging for WMA and HMA test sections. The data presented in the
Rut Depth (mm)

ESALs (millions)

Figure 1.1. Rutting of the control HMA and WMA test sections in
the fourth cycle of the NCAT Test Track.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

10,000
k1 k2 R2
Control 9051 -0.034 0.98
WMA-F 7554 -0.033 0.98
WMA-A 8217 -0.034 0.97

AC Modulus (ksi)
Expon. (Control)
Expon. (WMA-F)
1,000 Expon. (WMA-A)

100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Mid-Depth Temperature (°F)
Figure 1.2. Backcalculated asphalt concrete modulus versus temperature.

rest of this section are based on FWD tests conducted in the had similar slopes but lower intercepts than the control HMA
right wheelpath with the 9-kip load. The pavement layer mod- section. This indicated that the WMA sections had lower
uli were backcalculated from deflection data using EVER- moduli at all temperatures, likely due to the reduced plant
CALC 5.0 for a three-layer cross section consisting of asphalt aging of the binders for these sections. Further analysis found
concrete, aggregate base, and subgrade soil. Temperatures of that the WMA moduli were statistically lower by 7% to 10%
the pavement were recorded near the asphalt pavement surface, at the three reference temperatures.
mid-depth in the asphalt cross section, and near the bottom These test sections were also instrumented with strain gauges
of the asphalt cross section. Previous studies using NCAT Test and pressure plates to measure the response of the pavements
Track data have shown the effectiveness of using the mid-depth under live traffic. The strain gauges were installed at the bot-
pavement temperature to capture the effect of environmen- tom of the asphalt base layer. Longitudinal strain results are
tal changes on composite pavement moduli (6, 7). Figure 1.2 reported here because previous studies at the NCAT Test
shows the plot of moduli versus mid-depth temperature and Track have shown that longitudinal strains were about 36%
the regression parameters for these relationships. Statisti- higher than transverse strain measurements (6, 7). Figure 1.3
cal analysis of temperature-moduli regression constants k1 shows the correlation of longitudinal strain to mid-depth
(intercept) and k2 (slope) indicated that the WMA sections temperature for these three test sections. These relationships

1,600
k1 k2 R2
Longitudinal Horizontal Microstrain

1,400 Control 69.0 0.023 0.90

WMA-F 53.4 0.026 0.98
1,200 WMA-A 53.3 0.026 0.95
1,000 Expon. (Control)
Expon. (WMA-F)
800 Expon. (WMA-A)

600

400

200

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Mid-Depth Temperature (°F)
Figure 1.3. Longitudinal strain versus temperature.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

9  

Table 1.2. As-produced data for the 50% RAP and control mixes.

Surface Layer Intermediate Layer Base Layer

Virgin 50% 50% Virgin 50% 50% Virgin 50% 50%
Property HMA RAP RAP HMA RAP RAP HMA RAP RAP
Control HMA WMA Control HMA WMA Control HMA WMA
% passing 100 100 100 99 98 99 99 99 97
25.0 mm
% passing
59 48 51 47 46 47 46 47 44
2.36 mm
% passing 6.0 4.7 4.8 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.1 5.8 5.3
0.075 mm
AC (%) 6.1 6.0 6.1 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6
Air voids (%) 4.0 3.8 3.2 4.4 4.5 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.1
Plant
discharge 335 325 275 335 325 275 325 325 275
temp. (°F)
In-place
density (% 93.1 92.6 92.1 92.8 92.9 93.1 92.6 95.0 94.2
of Gmm)
Recovered true
81.7-24.7 87.8-15.4 83.8-17.7 85.1-25.1 N.T. N.T. 77.1-24.1 95.0-12.8 88.7-14.1
grade
N.T.: not tested. The intermediate and base layers for the 50% RAP HMA and 50% RAP WMA were produced with the same mix
design and at the same temperature. Their recovered binder properties can be presumed to be the same.

follow an exponential function; the regression constants and virgin binder and an Ndesign of 80 gyrations. No changes
correlation coefficients are shown in the figure. A statistical were made in the mix designs for the WMA. A summary of
analysis found that the regression coefficients of the WMA the as-produced mix data is shown in Table 1.2. The virgin
sections were not statistically different from the control. This control HMA from the previous experiment is also shown
indicated that despite the small differences in moduli for for reference. As can be seen, the production temperature
WMA and HMA, the pavements did not respond differently for the mixes was reduced by 50°F when the foamed binder
under traffic for critical strains. WMA was used. True grades of the recovered binders
Another pair of test sections in the 2009 cycle of the test show that the lower production temperatures resulted in a
track featured WMA combined with 50% RAP mixtures. decrease in the high and low critical temperatures for the
As with the above experiment, the test sections had a 7-in. WMA binders.
total asphalt concrete thickness. Both sections contained Field performance of the 50% RAP HMA, 50% RAP WMA,
50% RAP in each of the three layers. The 50% RAP WMA and the control section was excellent through the entire 2-year
mixes were produced using the Astec DBG asphalt foaming trafficking period. Plots of rutting performance are shown in
system. The Superpave mix designs used a PG 67-22 as the Figure 1.4. None of the sections had any cracking, IRI was
Rut Depth (mm)

ESALs (millions)

Figure 1.4. Rutting for control, 50% RAP HMA, and 50% RAP WMA
sections.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

10

10,000
k1 k2 R2
Control 9051 -0.034 0.98
HMA-RAP 8739 -0.031 0.97
WMA-RAP 8629 -0.031 0.99
Expon. (Control)
AC Modulus ( ksi) Expon. (HMA-RAP)
1,000 Expon. (WMA-RAP)

100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Mid-Depth Temperature (°F)
Figure 1.5. Backcalculated AC modulus versus temperature.

steady, and texture changes were typical for the first 2 years of than those of the control section by 7% to 31%, with the
dense-graded surface mixes. largest differences observed at higher temperatures.
Pavement moduli backcalculated from FWD testing through-
out the research period are shown in Figure 1.5. Regression
University of California Pavement
parameters for the temperature-moduli relationships are
Research Center
shown in the figure. Statistical analysis indicated significant
differences in the moduli among the sections, with the 50% Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) testing at the ­University
RAP sections having moduli 16% to 43% higher than the vir- of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRS) has included
gin control HMA. The largest differences were observed at two experiments to assess rutting performance of WMA
higher temperatures. mixes compared to HMA control mixes. In the first HVS rut-
Longitudinal strain measurements under live traffic were ting experiment, referred to as Phase 1, Advera®, Evotherm
obtained from strain gauges at the bottom of the asphalt DAT, and Sasobit® were used in a dense-graded mix (8). A
base layers. The relationships between this critical strain and standard Hveem mix design was used, and no adjustments
mid-depth pavement temperature are shown in Figure 1.6. were made to accommodate the WMA additives. Each
A statistical analysis indicated that the measured strain section included two lifts of approximately 60 mm of the test
responses of the 50% RAP sections were significantly lower mixture.

1,400
k1 k2 R2
Longitudinal Horizontal Microstrain

1,200 Control 69.0 0.023 0.90

HMA-RAP 58.7 0.021 0.90
1,000 WMA-RAP 73.5 0.019 0.96
Expon. (Control)
800 Expon. (HMA-RAP)
Expon. (WMA-RAP)
600

400

200

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Mid-Depth Temperature (°F)

Figure 1.6. Longitudinal strain versus temperature.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

11  

Table 1.3. Asphalt contents of UCPRC WMA Phase 1 sections.

Target Control Advera Evotherm Sasobit

Binder content (%) 5.2 5.29 5.14 5.23 4.48

The WMA technology vendors provided on-site guidance WMA sections was similar to that of the control. The perfor-
regarding modifications to the asphalt plant to accommo- mance of the Sasobit section was not directly compared to
date the WMA additives. Advera and Evotherm DAT were the control section because of the lower asphalt content of the
introduced to the mix through pipes installed below and into Sasobit section. The UCPRC research team concluded that the
the asphalt binder supply line, respectively, while the Sasobit three WMA technologies tested in this experiment would not
was pre-blended with the asphalt binder in a tank before mix significantly influence rutting performance of asphalt mixes.
production. The target production temperature for the con- Phase 2 of the UCPRC research focused on accelerated
trol mix was set at 310°F (154°C) and 250°F (121°C) for the testing for moisture damage (8). Before testing, each section
WMAs. Table 1.3 summarizes the asphalt contents measured was presoaked with water for 14 days. A 6-in. (152-mm) high
using AASHTO T 308 from samples taken during production dam was constructed around each test section, and a row of
of the mixes. The binder contents of the HMA control and holes, 1in. (25 mm) in diameter and 10 in. apart, was drilled
Advera and Evotherm mixes were similar and close to the target. to the bottom of the upper lift of asphalt, well away from the
The binder content of the Sasobit mix was 0.72% below the wheelpath. During testing, a constant flow of preheated water
target. The problem was attributed to a binder feed-rate prob- at 122°F (50°C) was maintained across the section at a rate
lem from the tanker during mix production. The low asphalt of 15 liters per hour to try to induce moisture damage. As in
content for the Sasobit section impacted its performance results Phase 1, the pavement temperature was maintained at 122°F
as noted in this section. (50°C) at a depth of 2 in. (50 mm) below the surface. Phase 2
The test sections were constructed using conventional equip- testing began in summer 2008 and ended in spring 2009. The
ment and operations. Although some emissions were visually Phase 2 loading sequence is summarized in Table 1.5.
evident from the HMA during transfer of the mix from the Measured rutting for the four sections during Phase 2 is
truck to the paver, none was observed for the WMA mixes. compared in Figure 1.8. In this phase, the densification part
Some tenderness was noted in the Evotherm DAT and Sasobit of rutting for all WMA sections was less than for the control
sections, resulting in shearing under the rollers and indicat- section—opposite of the behavior in Phase 1—which indicates
ing that the compaction temperatures may have been higher that the reduced plant aging of the WMA binders at lower pro-
than optimal. The Advera mix showed no evidence of ten- duction temperatures may only influence performance in the
derness, and acceptable compaction was achieved. In-place first few months after construction. As evident in Figure 1.8,
densities for the control and Advera mix sections were 94.4% the Evotherm and control HMA sections rutted at a higher
and 94.6%, respectively. In-place densities for the Evotherm rate than the other two sections did. This was attributed to
and Sasobit sections were approximately 93.0%. the Evotherm and control sections being shaded for much
HVS operations followed standard UCPRC protocols. of the day, whereas the Advera and Sasobit sections had sun
The temperature of the sections was maintained at 122±7°F most of the day. The shading is believed to have reduced the
(50±4°C) at 2 in. (50 mm) below the surface using infrared rate of aging of the Evotherm and control HMA sections. In
heaters inside a temperature-control chamber. The sections the interest of completing the study, trafficking was termi-
were tested predominantly during the wet season (October nated on the Advera and Sasobit sections before the failure
through March); however, the sections received no direct
rainfall given cover from the temperature-control chamber.
The HVS loading sequence for each section is summarized Table 1.4. Summary of Phase 1 HVS loading
in Table 1.4. Loading was applied with a dual-wheel configu- sequences.
ration, using radial truck tires inflated to 104 psi (717 kPa),
Wheel Load1 Load
in a channelized, unidirectional loading mode. An average Phase Section (kN) Repetitions Total ESALs
maximum rut of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) over the entire section was 40 185,000
Control 239,900
used as the failure criterion. 60 10,000
Advera 40 170,000 170,000
Rutting performance for the four sections is shown in Fig- 1
Evotherm 40 185,000 185,000
ure 1.7. The densification during the initial part of the load- 40 185,000
ing was slightly greater (~1 mm) for the Advera (Additive B) Sasobit2 734,014
60 100,000
and Evotherm (Additive C) sections compared to the control. 1
40 kN = 9,000 lb.; 60 kN = 13,500 lb.
Beyond the initial densification phase, the rutting rate of these 2
Testing terminated before failure criteria were reached.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

12

16
40kN 40kN 60kN
50C 55C 55C
14

Maximum Total Rut (mm) 12

10

2
600FD (Control) 601FD (Additive B)
602FD (Additive C) 603FD (Additive D)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Load Repetitions (x 1,000)

Figure 1.7. Comparison of measured rutting in Phase 1 HVS testing.

criterion was met. None of the sections showed any indica- ting performance of the mix. The results also indicate that
tion of moisture damage on completion of testing. the three WMA additives did not increase the moisture sen-
Top-down cracking was observed in all four sections. sitivity of the mixes compared to the control. Binder aging in
However, the crack patterns, crack lengths, and crack density the WMA and HMA and its effect on performance over time
were similar among the sections. The cracks did not appear to deserves further investigation.
penetrate below the top lift on any section. A forensic investi- Phase 3 of HVS testing at UCPRC involved the construc-
gation found no evidence of moisture damage in any section. tion and testing of seven WMA technologies with rubber-
Forensic analysis also revealed that rutting was confined to modified gap-graded mix designs (9). Two groups of test
the top lift of asphalt in all four test sections. De-bonding of sections were evaluated, each group being produced at a
the top and bottom lifts of asphalt was observed in the con- different plant. The first group included a control mix and
trol section only. A tack coat was used between lifts. WMA sections using Gencor Ultrafoam-GX, Evotherm, and
Although the lower asphalt content of the Sasobit section Cecabase. The target binder content for this group was 7.3%.
confounded its comparison to the control HMA, this phase The binder contained 18% rubber. The mix design was a
of testing further reinforced findings from the first phase that standard Caltrans rubberized gap-graded mix. No changes
the three WMA additives do not negatively influence the rut- were made to the mix design for the WMA technologies. The
second group included a new rubberized gap-graded control
mix, and WMA sections using Sasobit, Advera, Astec DBG,
Table 1.5. Summary of Phase 2 HVS loading and Rediset®. The target binder content for this group was
sequences. 8.3%, and the binder contained 19% rubber. As before, no
Phase Section Wheel Load (kN) Repetitions ESALs changes were made to the mix design to accommodate the
40 185,000 185,000 WMA technologies. Quality control results for the mixes
Control 60 80,000 439,200 are shown in Table 1.6. The test results for the first group
90 106,000 3,195,000
were consistent. All sections had total binder contents above
40 157,000 157,000
Advera 60 32,000 175,700 the target of 7.3%, and in-place density results were low. Test
2
90 431,500 13,006,100 results for the second group were more variable, with binder
40 166,000 166,000 contents ranging from 7.7% for the control mix to 10.0%
Evotherm 60 118,000 647,800
90 68,000 2,049,600
for the Rediset section. In-place density results in the second
40 152,000 152,000 group were even lower.
Sasobit 60 137,000 752,000 The test sections were constructed in one lift at approxi-
90 175,500 5,289,900 mately 65-mm thickness on top of a nominal 70-mm-thick

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

13  

16

14

12

10
Rut Depth (mm)

2
P1 Control P2 Control Advera Evotherm Sasobit

0
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
HVS Repeons

Figure 1.8. Comparison of measured rutting for Phase 2 HVS testing.

HMA bottom layer. Below the HMA was an aggregate base section also had 0.7% higher asphalt content compared to the
approximately 40 cm thick. control mix. Interestingly, the Rediset section continued to
Results of the HVS testing are shown Figure 1.9 and Fig- perform similarly to the control section despite the very high
ure 1.10 for the two groups. In the first group, the Evotherm binder content for the Rediset section.
section performed equivalent to the control section. The
Gencor Ultrafoam and Cecabase sections had better rutting
MnROAD
performance. The primary difference in the performance of
the test sections appeared to occur in the initial densification In 2008, WMA was used in six cells built in on the main
period. In the second group, the Sasobit section had slightly line of the MnROAD pavement testing facility. The main
less rutting (~0.5 mm) than the control section, and Rediset line of the facility carries almost 1 million ESALs per year.
and Astec DBG sections had slightly more rutting (~1 mm) A 12.5-mm nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS),
than the control mix until 160,000 load repetitions, when the 3-10 million ESAL category mix design was used for the sur-
load magnitude was increased. From that point, the Astec face and non-surface layers. The mix contained PG 58-34,
DBG section had an increased rate of rutting. However, this 20% RAP (from MnROAD millings), and Evotherm® 3G.

Table 1.6. Quality control test results for the Phase 3 test sections.

Group 1
Parameter Control Gencor Evotherm Cecabase
Binder content (%) 7.7 7.9 7.7 7.7
Production temp. °F (°C) 320 (160) 284 (140) 248 (120) 266 (130)
Paving temp. °F (°C) 309 (154) 262 (128) 248 (120) 262 (128)
Lab air voids (%) 4.9 6.3 6.2 6.4
In-place density (% Gmm) 90.5 88.8 88.3 89.1
Group 2
Parameter Control Sasobit Advera Astec DBG Rediset
Binder content (%) 7.7 8.0 7.6 8.4 10.0
Production temp. °F (°C) 331 (166) 300 (149) 295 (145) 293 (145) 284 (140)
Paving temp. °F (°C) 279 (137) 279 (137) 266 (130) 257 (125) 258 (126)
Lab air voids (%) 11.6 8.5 10.7 9.1 8.4
In-place density (% Gmm) 85.8 86.9 85.6 86.0 86.8

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

14

0
Load = 40kN 60kN 80kN
2

Average Maximum Rut Depth (mm)

4

10

12 Control
Cecabase
14 Evotherm
Gencor
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Number of Load Repetitions (x 1,000)

Figure 1.9. Phase 3 HVS Group 1 rutting performance.

The WMA was produced approximately 50°F cooler than rehabilitation strategy. A total of 2,100 tons of WMA were
normal HMA production temperatures. Five cells were­ used in the six cells.
constructed with a 3-in. surface layer and a 2-in. underlying Figure 1.11 shows an illustration of the WMA-related cells.
layer over a 12-in. aggregate base, a 7-in. select granu- A control HMA section with the same pavement structure
lar layer, and a clay subgrade. The five cells varied by the and traffic was not constructed.
aggregate base, which included 100% recycled concrete, a Compaction was measured with a nuclear density gauge
50-50 blend of concrete and Class 5 aggregate, 100% RAP, and showed equal density to HMA with less effort. The
taconite railroad ballast, and a control cell using Class 5 paving crew found the WMA easy to work and appreciated
aggregate. The sixth cell was a 3-in. WMA overlay of an the lower temperatures and lack of fumes behind the paver.
existing HMA pavement, representing a typical Minnesota The morning after paving, the WMA was still slightly tender,

0
Load = 40kN 60kN 80kN

2
Control
Average Maximum Rut Depth (mm)

4 Advera
Astec DBG
6 Rediset
Sasobit
8

10

12

14

16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Number of Load Repetitions (x 1,000)

Figure 1.10. Phase 3 HVS Group 2 rutting performance.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

15  

WMA Mix Over WMA,

WMA
Various Aggregate Bases Taconite
15 16 17 18 19 23
3-in. WMA 5-in. 5-in. 5-in. 5-in. 5-in.
58-34 WMA WMA WMA WMA WMA
58-34 58-34 58-34 58-34 58-34
11-in. 12-in.
12-in.
64-22 50% 12-in. 12-in.
100% 12-in.
1993 HMA RePCC 100% Mesabi
recycled Class 5
Clay 50% RAP Ballast
PCC
Class 5
12-in. 12-in. 12-in. 12-in. 12-in.
Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 Class 3
7-in. 7-in. 7-in. 7-in. 7-in.
Select Select Select Select Select
Gran. Gran. Gran. Gran. Gran.
Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay

RePCC: Recycled PCC.

Figure 1.11. WMA test cells at MnROAD.

but it stiffened with time. Tensile strength ratio (TSR) results Summary of WMA Evaluations
on the surface and non-surface layers were 86% and 83% at Accelerated Pavement
respectively, indicating that the mixes had good resistance to Testing Facilities
moisture susceptibility.
As of January 2014, with approximately 4.7 million ESALs A variety of WMA technologies have been tested under heavy
and four winter cycles, the WMA sections were performing very loading conditions in accelerated pavement testing (APT) facil-
well. Table 1.7 shows the 2013 fall performance survey results ities primarily to evaluate rutting performance. Most of the
for the main driving lane only. Manual distress surveys from WMA test sections performed similarly to companion HMA
the fall of 2013 show that Cell 15, which was built over a previ- sections. Each of the facilities has reported that compaction
ously constructed cracked HMA pavement that had reflective of the test sections was aided by the WMA technologies con-
cracking noted as 68.9 m of low-severity transverse cracking sidering the much lower placement temperatures used in the
and 7.3 m of moderate-severity transverse cracking. Cell 16 had construction of the WMA sections. The NCAT Test Track
a small amount of transverse cracking; all of the other sections experiments also demonstrated that WMA mixes provide simi-
had very little transverse cracking. Some raveling showed up lar structural response to HMA under traffic and seasonal cli-
on Cell 18 and Cell 23, mostly along side of the outside paving mate changes. The UCPRS HVS testing also demonstrated that
construction joint near the outside HMA shoulder. None of the the WMA mixes were not susceptible to moisture damage under
sections had any wheelpath (fatigue) cracking. Roughness mea- saturated conditions. Trafficking continues on the NCAT test
surements for all of the WMA cells were considered good, and sections and MnROAD cells to further evaluate fatigue cracking
rut depths were mostly around 7 mm. Both the rutting and ride and wear. Performance of the WMA cells at MnROAD will also
numbers increased over the last year. continue to be evaluated for thermal cracking.

Table 1.7. Performance of MnROAD WMA test cells after 4.5 years
(driving lane).

Transverse Cracking Longitudinal IRI : Right

(m) Cracking (m) Wheelpath Average
Low Moderate Low Raveling Rut Depth
Cell Severity Severity Severity (m2 ) (m/km) (mm)
15 61.3 7.3 0 0 1.39 5.3
16 1.8 3.7 0 0 1.15 8.1
17 0.6 0.3 1.2 0 1.35 6.9
18 0 0 1.2 48.9 1.11 9.4
19 0 0 36.6 0 1.32 6.9
23 0 0 43.9 11.0 1.25 6.9

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

16

CHAPTER 2

Experimental Plan

Introduction WMA Technologies Evaluated

Plans for field and laboratory experiments were developed As previously noted, WMA technologies can be classified
to meet the objectives of this study. The field experiment was in three categories: chemical additives, asphalt foaming pro-
developed to gather information to assess short-term pavement cesses, and organic additives.
performance of new and existing warm mix asphalt (WMA)
pavements. Field performance assessments were limited to
Chemical Additives
short-term performance since the oldest documented WMA
pavement was less than 10 years old at the completion of this Cecabase RT®.   Cecabase RT was developed by CECA, a
study. The field experimental plan also included the collection of division of the Arkema Group. Initially developed in France
energy usage data, plant emissions data, and industrial hygiene in 2003, Cecabase RT is a patented, water-free, chemical addi-
testing. That experiment and its data, analyses, and findings are tive (made up of 50% renewable raw materials) that imparts
described in Part 2. The laboratory testing determined material increased workability to asphalt mixtures at lower tempera-
properties, compared those properties for WMA and hot mix tures. The blend of surfactants in Cecabase RT is designed to
asphalt (HMA), used the properties in models to predict long- reduce the surface tension of the binder, improving coating
term pavement performance, and validated current recommen- at low temperatures, and to act as a lubricant at the binder/
dations for mix design and testing of WMA in the laboratory. aggregate interface, facilitating compaction. A liquid additive,
it can be injected directly into the asphalt line. Recommended
addition rates are typically 0.3% to 0.5% by weight of asphalt
Field Projects: Production and binder (10).
Construction Documentation
Existing and New Projects Evotherm®.   Evotherm is a chemical package used to
enhance coating, adhesion, and workability at reduced tem-
Production and construction information was collected peratures. It was developed by Mead Westvaco in the United
from six WMA projects built prior to the start of NCHRP States. It was originally introduced in 2004 as Evotherm Emul-
Project 9-47A and eight new WMA projects that were con- sion Technology (ET). In 2005, Evotherm Dispersed Asphalt
structed and monitored during the course of this study. The Technology (DAT) was introduced, using the same chemical
projects built prior to the start of this study are referred to additive as Evotherm ET. The Evotherm DAT is diluted with
as the existing projects; the eight projects built and evalu- a small amount of water that will affect the degree of tem-
ated during the study are referred to as the new projects. The perature reduction. The chemical solution is injected into the
existing and new projects are listed in Table 1.8 and Table 1.9, asphalt line before mixing for drum plants, or into the pug
respectively. For each project (existing and new), a control mill for batch plants. Evotherm 3G (Third Generation) was
HMA section was constructed to provide a direct comparison later introduced with the difference that the additive does not
for field performance and materials properties. The materials contain water and can be added at the binder terminal or mix
properties were also used to examine relationships between plant. Evotherm DAT allows a slightly higher reduction in
engineering properties and field performance. temperature than Evotherm 3G (10).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

17  

Table 1.8. Existing WMA sites documented and sampled.

Date
Location Roadway WMA Technologies
Constructed
St. Louis, Missouri Hall Street Evotherm ET, Sasobit, and Aspha-min Sept. 2006
Iron Mountain, Michigan MI-95 Sasobit Sept. 2006
Silverthorne, Colorado I-70 Advera, Sasobit, and Evotherm DAT Aug. 2007
Franklin, Tennessee Astec DBG, Advera, Evotherm DAT,
SR-45 Oct. 2007
and Sasobit
Graham, Texas US-380 Astec DBG June 2008
George, Washington I-90 Sasobit June 2008

Asphalt Foaming Processes the boiling point of water. A controlled foaming effect is cre-
ated by the release of water from the zeolite. This effect leads
Advera®.   Advera is a synthetic zeolite composed of alu-
to a slight increase in binder volume. It is reported that this
minosilicates and alkalimetals that contains approximately action provides a 6–7 hour period of improved workability,
20% water of crystallization that is released by increasing which lasts until the temperature drops below approximately
the temperature above the boiling point of water. The zeolite 212°F (100°C) (10).
releases a small amount of water, creating a controlled, pro-
longed foaming effect, leading to a slight increase in binder Astec Double Barrel Green® (DBG) Systems.  This water-
volume and improved mix workability. The product is typi- injection asphalt foaming system uses a multi-nozzle device
cally added at 0.20–0.25% by total weight of the mix (10). to microscopically foam the asphalt binder and cause it to
expand. Each nozzle injects water into a separate mixing/foam-
AQUABlack® WMA Systems.  The AQUABlack system ing chamber. The nozzles open and close at the same time. The
uses a stainless steel foaming gun in conjunction with a cen- water is regulated by a positive displacement pump and water
ter convergence nozzle to produce foaming. The technology flow meter controlled by feedback from the asphalt flow. Water
produces microbubbles with water pressure up to 1,000 psi is added at a rate of approximately 1 pound of water per ton
to atomize the water and create expansion of the foam with of mix; a small percentage of this water is encapsulated in the
microbubbles that are retained through mixing, storage, and binder as steam, increasing the binder volume (10).
placement (10).
Terex® WMA Systems.   Using a patented, foamed-asphalt
Aspha-min®.   This zeolite product is added at a rate of technology developed in 1998, the Terex WMA System uses a
0.3% by total weight of the mixture and is usually added to single expansion chamber to provide consistent asphalt binder/
the mixture at the same time as the liquid asphalt. Similar water mixture at any desired production rate. The Terex WMA
to Advera, this is a synthetic zeolite composed of alumino- System is manufactured to fit any unitized counter-flow mix-
silicates and alkali metals that contains approximately 20% ing drum. The only requirement is a jacketed asphalt binder
water of crystallization that is released at temperatures above line and water feed pipes that have to be provided by the

Table 1.9. New WMA sites documented and sampled.

Date
Location Roadway WMA Technologies
Constructed
Walla Walla, Washington US-12 AQUABlack April 2010
Centreville, Virginia I-66 Astec DBG June 2010
County
Rapid River, Michigan Evotherm 3G and Advera June 2010
Road 513
Montana
Baker, Montana Evotherm DAT Aug. 2010
Route 322
Calumet Evotherm 3G, Gencor foam, and
Munster, Indiana Sept. 2010
Ave. Heritage wax
Jefferson County, Florida SR-30 Terex foaming system Oct. 2010
Little Neck Cecabase RT, SonneWarmix, and
New York, New York Pkwy.
Oct. 2010
BituTech PER
Casa Grande, Arizona SR-84 Sasobit Dec. 2011

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

18

contractor. The system foams asphalt outside of the rotating be added to the drum. A pelletized form of Sasobit is typically
drum and then injects the foamed asphalt into the drum’s used when adding directly to the mix. In this case, the pel-
mixing chamber (10). lets are blown into the drum at approximately same location
where the asphalt binder is added (10).
Organic Additives SonneWarmix™.   This high melt point, paraffinic hydro-
BituTech PER.   This additive is intended for use in mixes carbon blend (wax) has also been marketed as AD-RAP and
with high reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) or recycled Sonneborn AR. Typical addition rates range from 0.5% to
asphalt shingle (RAS) contents and is reported to improve 1.5% by total binder weight (including RAP and RAS). Dos-
the mixing of aged and virgin binders. The product is also mar- ages greater than 0.75% are not recommended for virgin mix-
keted under the name Hydrogreen. The product is added at tures. At these addition rates, SonneWarmix is not expected to
0.5–0.75% of the total weight of RAP plus RAS. It is designed alter the binder grade. The product must be heated to pump,
to supplement the maltene phase of the asphalt binder in liquefying between 195–200 °F (91–93 °C). SonneWarmix is
mixes with high RAP contents. It also helps in dispersion of generally added to the binder at the terminal or refinery (10).
asphaltenes and provides viscosity reduction which translates
to a better coating of the aggregates and improved compac- Production and Construction Information
tion at reduced temperatures (10).
The research team collected construction data for the new
Sasobit®.   Sasobit is described as an asphalt flow improver projects. Documentation of the construction information
during mixing and laydown operations because of its ability for the control mix and WMA included the items listed in
to lower the viscosity of the asphalt binder (6). This decrease Table 1.10.
in viscosity allows working temperatures to be decreased
by 32–97°F (18-54°C). Sasobit has a melting temperature • Materials Information. The engineer at the plant collected
of about 216°F (102°C) and is completely soluble in asphalt the job mix formula and WMA dosage rate and adjust-
binder at temperatures above 248°F (120°C). At tempera- ments to the mix designs.
tures below its melting point, Sasobit forms a crystalline • Target Mixing Temperature. The target mixing tempera-
network structure in the binder that leads to added stability. ture for both the HMA and WMA was obtained from the
Sasobit has been added at rates from 0.8% to 4% by mass of plant operator.
the binder depending on recycled binder content and desired • Mix Moisture Content. The engineer at the plant col-
properties of the modified binder. It can be added to the lected two mix moisture contents per day of production.
asphalt binder or mixture by a number of different meth- The samples were tested according to AASHTO T 329. The
ods. Sasobit can be blended directly into the asphalt binder first mix moisture content sample was collected within the
without high-shear blending. This means direct blending first hour of mix being hauled to the paving site. The sec-
can occur either at the terminal or in an asphalt tank at the ond mix moisture content sample was collected 3 hours
contractor’s plant. For drum-mix plants, Sasobit can also be after the first sample. The moisture contents were deter-
added to the mix through the RAP collar, but it is preferred mined in the field using the ovens in the National Center
to use a specially built feeder to regulate the quantity that will for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) mobile laboratory.

Table 1.10. Field data for existing projects.

Data Collected Frequency Equipment

Materials information One time N/A
Target mixing temperature Hourly N/A
Mix moisture content Twice per production day Oven and a can
Fuel usage/energy audit Hourly Dip stick or a fuel meter
Temperature gun and a
Delivery temperature Hourly
temperature probe
Temperature behind the Temperature gun and a
Hourly
screed temperature probe
Once per day and then
Lift thickness N/A
checked by cores
Densities from cores Seven per day Contractor or agency coring rig
Mean texture depth Three locations per mix Sand and hockey puck

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

19  

• Fuel Usage/Energy Audit. A comprehensive energy audit (11). These data were used to assess the homogeneity of the
was conducted for multiple technology projects in con- sections. The backcalculated Mr was considered when select-
junction with stack emissions testing. ing subgrade soil properties for the Mechanistic-Empirical
• Delivery Temperature. Delivery temperatures were Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The FWD test results are
recorded every 10 minutes at the beginning of each paving presented in the appendix to Part 1.
day until the delivery temperature stabilized. Experience
has shown that the delivery temperature for both HMA Field Performance Data Collection
and WMA will tend to fluctuate at the beginning of each
paving day for the first few truckloads or any time the To collect field performance data for the projects, a mem-
plant starts and stops. Once the delivery temperature ber of the research team carefully reviewed the entire project
had stabilized, delivery temperatures were recorded hourly. length by driving and then randomly selected three evalua-
Identifying the differences in delivery temperatures between tion sections per mix placed during construction (for the new
the HMA and WMA was important to compare the two projects) or during the first field performance inspection (for
types of mixes. the existing projects). These evaluation sections were 200 ft
• Temperature Behind the Screed. Temperature readings (61 m) in length and contained the location of the original
were taken immediately behind the screed. field cores taken at the time of construction. All the field per-
• Lift Thickness. The target lift thickness was obtained by formance inspections, regardless of whether the site was a
the engineer at the paving site. Lift thickness measurements new or existing site, included detailed visual examinations
were obtained from cores. and distress mapping of each 200 ft (61 m) evaluation section
• Densities from Cores. Cores were obtained after con- to quantify the extent of cracking, rutting, raveling, patching,
struction to determine the initial density of the pavement. potholes, shoving, and bleeding. Classification of distresses
The cores were obtained by the engineer at the paving was in accordance with the Distress Identification Manual
site and the densities were determined at the main NCAT for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (12). Rut-
laboratory. ting was assessed by string line measurements or 6 ft (1.8 m)
• Mean Texture Depth. The engineer at the site conducted straight edge. Raveling was quantified by assessing changes in
the sand patch test in accordance with ASTM E 965 at three surface macrotexture using the sand patch test (ASTM E 965).
locations on the finished surface. The location of the tests Cores were obtained from one of the randomly selected
was recorded using a handheld global positioning system evaluation sections per mix to assess in-place densification,
(GPS) receiver. The sand patch test provided the mean tex- changes in binder absorption (calculated from maximum
ture depth of the pavement. specific gravity tests), changes in tensile strength with time,
and changes in binder properties based on recovered binder
testing. Three cores were taken between wheelpaths and
Performance Monitoring three in the right wheelpath to assess changes in density and
Initial Testing for Structural Homogeneity strength. An additional core was taken between the wheel-
paths to determine the change in binder properties. Table 1.11
All the mixes sampled as part of this project were sur- summarizes the field inspection activities per mix placed.
face mixes. The comparative performance of the WMA and
HMA control sections could be influenced by the underly-
Field Performance Prediction
ing pavement structure. To assess this on the new projects,
falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing was completed Although this project monitored and compared the short-
by the agency or by NCAT if agency data were not available. term performance of WMA versus HMA sections, agencies are
Arizona, Florida, and Montana provided FWD test data. Vir- also concerned about the long-term performance of WMA.
ginia DOT planned on providing FWD test data, but because The MEPDG Version 1.003 software with the NCHRP Proj-
of equipment problems, testing was never completed. NCAT ect 1-37A nationally calibrated models was used to predict
performed FWD testing for the Indiana, Michigan, and New the performance of the new WMA and HMA test sections.
York projects. A 20-year design life was used for all the projects, although
Generally, FWD testing was completed before placing the Washington State reported a 40-year design life for the pave-
test mixes. The Montana testing was performed approxi- ment. The following paragraphs describe the data and analysis
mately 3 years after the placement of the overlay. ModTag methods used in the MEPDG.
software was used to calculate the subgrade resilient modulus Traffic volume in vehicles per day and percent trucks were
(Mr) and effective structural number (SNeff ) of the pavement obtained from the DOT where the test sections were located.
as described in the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide In some cases, project-specific information was provided; in

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

20

Table 1.11. Field inspection activities per mix placed.

Activity Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

Map cracking
Measure rutting
Map potholes and patches
Map bleeding
Measure surface texture
Map shoving
Obtain cores in right wheelpath 3 cores
Obtain cores between wheelpaths 4 cores
Windshield evaluations 1 pass

other cases, the data were obtained from the agency’s online matically divided the subgrade into an upper 12-in. compacted
records. Two-way average annual daily truck traffic was cal- sub-base layer and a lower semi-infinite layer.
culated for each project from these data. With the exception A limited number of full-depth cores were taken at each
of the New York project, the same traffic data was used for cal- site. These cores were used in combination with the plans
culations on all the sections of a given project. The New York (in Michigan, Virginia, and Washington State) or historical
project was divided by Hillside Avenue. The traffic counts records (if available) to estimate the thickness of the sup-
differed for the Cecabase and BituTech PER sections on one porting layers. Dynamic cone penetrometer tests were per-
side of Hillside Avenue compared to the SonneWarmix and formed in Michigan to estimate the modulus and thickness
HMA control on the other side. For the Indiana project, the of the crushed and shaped base. Ground penetrating radar
Gencor foam and HMA control were in the outer lanes and tests were performed in Montana to estimate the thickness of
the Evotherm® 3G and Heritage wax were in the inner lanes. the pavement layers. Visual analysis of the cores was used to
Observations on site suggested that truck traffic utilized both determine the nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) of
lanes equally; therefore, the same traffic numbers were used the supporting asphalt layers. The mid-range of the agency’s
for all the mixes. historic gradation bands was used for the Level 3 non-asphalt
Expected growth factors were either provided by the agency unbound and bound layers and asphalt mix inputs. Volume
or calculated using historical data from multiple test dates. of effective asphalt was estimated based on in-place density
Level 3 defaults were used for all other traffic parameters. An and voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) requirements. Asphalt
appropriate vehicle class distribution was selected based on binder grade was estimated based on the agency’s specifica-
the roadway functional classification (e.g., principal arterial, tions or historic plans, where available. Aggregate base grada-
minor collector, or local route). tion, where applicable, was also estimated from the mid-point
Climatic data were interpolated based on the site’s latitude of the agency’s specifications.
and longitude as determined from GPS readings taken at the Level 1 inputs were entered for the WMA and HMA test
time of construction, except as noted for specific projects. layers. Layer thickness was the average from cores taken at
Subgrade moduli were backcalculated from FWD tests. the time of construction. Moduli were determined from field
However, direct input of a representative backcalculated sub- mixed, laboratory compacted (without reheating) samples
grade modulus does not allow for seasonal variation due to tested according to AASHTO TP 79. Asphalt binder prop-
changes in moisture content or frost conditions (13). Soil clas- erties were determined from the AASHTO T 315 tests per-
sifications were determined using the United States Depart- formed on asphalt extracted and recovered from the field
ment of Agriculture’s Web Soil Survey (WSS) (14). The most cores taken at the time of construction. Effective binder con-
prominent soil classification for a given project was selected tent, in-place air voids, and total unit weight were calculated
and used for all the sections. The MEPDG Level 3 default from the bulk specific gravity of the construction cores, aver-
moduli for the soil classification determined from the WSS age asphalt content of the field-produced mix and maximum
were compared to the backcalculated FWD subgrade moduli. specific gravity tests, and bulk specific gravity of the aggregate
The backcalculated moduli were corrected to be comparable to blend in the job mix formula (JMF).
laboratory test values by multiplying by 0.35 (15). A pavement Creep compliance and strength testing was performed
design report with soil classification and moduli data was also according to AASHTO T 322 on field-produced mix from
used for the project in Walla Walla, Washington. The subgrade the projects in Walla Walla, Washington; Centreville, ­Virginia,
depth was entered as semi-infinite; however, the MEPDG auto- Rapid River, Michigan; Baker, Montana; and Munster, ­Indiana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

21  

The MEPDG only accepts creep compliance and strength test and the NCHRP project panel. The laboratory testing pro-
data conducted at -4°F, 14°F, and 32°F. The samples from gram evaluated recovered binder performance grade, mixture
Rapid River were tested at lower temperatures because of the stiffness over a wide temperature range, moisture susceptibil-
project’s PG 52-34 binder. Therefore, these data could not ity, fatigue cracking, thermal cracking, and permanent defor-
be used in the MEPDG. The creep compliance and strength mation, as follows:
data were entered in the MEPDG for Level 1 thermal cracking
analysis for the remaining aforementioned projects. Thermal • Performance grade of extracted and recovered binder
cracking was evaluated using Level 3 inputs for the projects in • Mixture stiffness-dynamic modulus (AASHTO TP 79)
Rapid River, Michigan; Jefferson County, Florida; New York, • Moisture susceptibility (AASHTO T 283)
New York; and Casa Grande, Arizona. • Hamburg wheel tracking test (AASHTO T 324)
For each new project, a comparison of the surface-down • Flow number (AASHTO TP 79)
cracking length and rut depth between HMA and WMA sec- • Asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT) fatigue (sim-
tions is given in Chapter 3. For the projects where Level 1 creep plified viscoelastic continuum damage—S-VECD model)
compliance and strength data were available, thermal cracking • Creep compliance and strength (AASHTO T 322)
comparisons are also presented. Bottom-up fatigue crack-
ing is not reported because the test sections were all wearing The next sections summarize the purpose of each test
courses and the remaining pavement structure would have selected for this study.
a greater influence on bottom-up fatigue cracking than the
overlay.
Recovered Binder Performance Grade
Summary comparisons are made between the predicted
(50% reliability) and observed performance at the field per- The following tests were used to extract and recover the
formance monitoring intervals. Comparisons are also made binder from the mixes:
between the WMA and HMA predicted performance at 12
and 20 years with considerations for the observed perfor- • AASHTO T 164, Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder
mance during the monitoring period. from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)—Method A using trichlo-
roethylene solvent
• ASTM D5404, Practice for Recovery of Asphalt from Solu-
Laboratory Testing of Field Mixes
tion Using the Rotary Evaporator
Two objectives were addressed in the laboratory experi-
mental plan: (1) determine the engineering properties of Tests were run to determine the performance grade (PG)
WMA compared to HMA, and (2) determine whether or not of the recovered binders according to AASHTO M 320, Per-
the recommended WMA mix design procedures are appro- formance Graded Asphalt Binder, and AASHTO R 29, Grading
priate. The information to accomplish both objectives was or Verifying the Performance Grade (PG) of an Asphalt Binder,
obtained from mixtures and materials collected from exist- as follows:
ing and new WMA projects. This section details the approach
adopted to address the two objectives of the laboratory • AASHTO T 316, Viscosity Determination of Asphalt at
research. Elevated Temperatures Using a Rotational Viscometer
• AASHTO R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Binder Using
a Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV)
Engineering Properties
• AASHTO T 315, Determining the Rheological Proper-
The first objective of the laboratory study was to deter- ties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer
mine the engineering properties of WMA and control HMA. (DSR)
This objective was accomplished by compiling laboratory test • AASHTO T 313, Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness
results from materials obtained from existing and new WMA of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer
projects. (BBR)
Engineering properties of plant-produced WMA and HMA
were used for paired statistical comparisons. The results of the Extracted and recovered asphalt binders were considered
laboratory testing were also used to determine if the current to be already short-term aged; therefore the Rolling Thin
testing procedures could adequately predict the performance Film Oven (RTFO) aging procedure normally used to short-
of WMA pavements in the field. The engineering properties term age binders was eliminated. The high temperature grade
included those recommended in NCHRP Project 9-43 along was determined by testing the as-recovered binder in the DSR
with additional testing as agreed upon by the research team at high temperatures as an RTFO-aged binder. The recovered

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

22

Table 1.12. Recovered binder tests and criteria.

AASHTO
Test Output Criteria
Method
Rotational
T316 Viscosity (Pa-S) Viscosity ≤ 3.0 Pa-S
viscosity
Dynamic
G*(kPa) and RTFO-aged binder: G*/sin(δ) ≥ 2.20 kPa
shear T315
δ (degrees) PAV aged binder: G*sin(δ) ≤ 5,000 kPa
rheometer
Bending beam S (MPa) and S ≤ 300 MPa
T313
rheometer m-value (no units) m-value ≥ 0.300
Pressurized Aged asphalt binder
R28 No criteria
aging vessel for further testing

binders were then long-term aged using the PAV before test- project, Hamburg specimens were restricted to 7±0.5% air
ing for intermediate temperature DSR and low temperature voids. Table 1.13 summarizes the antistrip additives that were
characteristics using the BBR. Table 1.12 shows a summary of used on each project. For all sections within each project,
the binder tests, output, and criteria. same dosages were used (control HMA and WMA mixes).

Mixture Stiffness Fatigue Cracking

Dynamic modulus testing was conducted to assess differ- Although fatigue cracking has not been a predominant con-
ences in mix stiffness between WMA and HMA. Also, the cern with WMA, the research team evaluated fatigue proper-
dynamic modulus data were used in the MEPDG along with ties of mixes from selected projects using the uniaxial fatigue
the other pavement and materials properties to predict differ- testing based on the continuum damage concept developed by
ences in field performance between WMA and HMA. Dr. Richard Kim’s pavement research group at North Carolina
State University (NCSU). The test, referred to as the S-VECD
test, was conducted in the AMPT. To characterize the fatigue
Moisture Susceptibility
characteristics of a mixture, two tests are performed as part of
Moisture susceptibility related to incomplete drying of the the S-VECD test. The first one is the dynamic modulus deter-
aggregate, reduced binder aging given the lower production mined according to the AASHTO TP 79 test protocol to quan-
temperatures or poor test results that have been obtained tify the linear viscoelastic (LVE) characteristics of the mix; the
for some laboratory and field mixes (16, 17) are among the second test is a controlled crosshead (CX) cyclic fatigue test
greatest concerns for WMA pavements. The moisture sus- performed using software developed at NCSU to acquire the
ceptibility tests used most commonly in the United States are
AASHTO T 283 or a modification of AASHTO T 283. NCHRP
Table 1.13. Antistrip additives by project.
Project 9-43 recommended AASHTO T 283 for assessing mois-
ture damage susceptibility of WMA mix designs. Additional Dosage
Location Antistrip Additive
testing was conducted for NCHRP Project 9-47A with the (%)
St. Louis, Missouri N/A 0.25
Hamburg wheel tracking test (AASHTO T 324) in an effort
Iron Mountain,
to identify which test yields a better prediction of moisture Michigan N/A N/A
susceptibility in the field. Silverthorne, Colorado N/A 1
AASHTO T 283 testing followed the standard method. One Franklin, Tennessee N/A 0.3
Graham, Texas N/A N/A
freeze-thaw cycle was used as part of the conditioning as stip-
George, Washington N/A N/A
ulated in the standard. Using a freeze-thaw cycle as part of the Walla Walla,
conditioning process is believed to better identify mixes that Washington Unichem 8162 0.25
may be prone to moisture damage. Centreville, Virginia PAVE BOND Lite 0.5
The Hamburg wheel tracking test is an empirical measure Rapid River, Michigan None -
Baker, Montana Hydrated lime 1.38
of a mixture’s moisture susceptibility and rutting perfor-
Munster, Indiana None -
mance. The secondary creep slope, stripping inflection point,
Jefferson County,
and total rut depth at 10,000 cycles were determined from the Florida None -
Hamburg wheel tracking test. The AASHTO T 324 test pro- New York, New York None -
cedure was followed, but with tighter tolerances for specimen Casa Grande, Arizona Type II cement 1
air voids. The procedure allows for 7±2% air voids. For this N/A: Information not available

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

23  

necessary fatigue data. The complete theoretical background test, the Hamburg wheel tracking test, and the flow number.
of this method can be found elsewhere (18). NCHRP Project 9-43 recommended that flow number testing
The results of the fatigue testing for this study were also be used to evaluate the permanent deformation potential of
used to compare WMA and HMA fatigue properties. The WMA during mix design.
mixtures used in the fatigue testing experiments came from Before beginning this study, FHWA and NCAT had per-
the three multiple technology projects. formed flow number tests on confined specimens with a
deviator stress of 100 psi, a confining pressure of 10 psi, and
a target air void content of 7±0.5%. NCHRP Project 9-33
Thermal Cracking
recommended testing unconfined specimens (target air void
Thermal cracking, like fatigue cracking, may be improved content of 7±0.5%) at the 50% reliability high temperature
for WMA compared to HMA because WMA binders are aged determined from LTPPBind software (20). Confined tests
less during production. An exception may exist for Sasobit and were believed to better represent field conditions and more
similar organic additives. Asphalt binders containing Sasobit accurately predict the performance of certain mix types, such
typically have an increase in the critical low temperature, as stone matrix asphalt. The research team conducted some
which indicates that those mixes may be slightly more prone flow number tests using both methods, confined and uncon-
to thermal cracking. However, a demonstration site using a fined, so that the recommendations from NCHRP Project
wax additive in northern Michigan did not exhibit any ther- 9-43 could be evaluated and to provide additional informa-
mal cracking after 2 years (19). tion regarding which test condition best matches field perfor-
A preliminary recommendation from NCHRP Project 9-43 mance. The results of the Hamburg testing were also used to
was to evaluate thermal cracking properties of WMA using evaluate rutting susceptibility of WMA compared to HMA.
the indirect tensile (IDT) creep compliance and strength tests
(AASHTO T 322). The research team tested thermal crack-
Summary of Laboratory
ing potential using AASHTO T 322 on mixes from a limited
Performance Testing
number of sites where there was a higher potential for thermal
cracking. The selected projects were: Walla, Walla, Washington, A variety of laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate the
Centreville, Virginia, Rapid River, Michigan, Baker, Montana mix properties of WMA. The results of all tests were used to
and Munster, Indiana. compare the engineering properties of WMA to those of HMA.
The IDT system was used to collect the necessary data for Table 1.14 summarizes the testing for each of the new projects.
the critical cracking temperature analysis. The testing was con-
ducted using an MTS load frame equipped with an environ-
Mix Design Verifications
mental chamber capable of maintaining the low temperatures
required for this test. Creep compliance was measured at 0°C, The second objective of the laboratory experiment was to
-10°C, and -20°C, and tensile strength at -10°C in accordance determine whether the recommended WMA mix design pro-
with AASHTO T 322. Lower test temperatures (-10°C, -20°C, cedures are appropriate. Part of this evaluation was based on
and -30°C) and tensile strength at -20°C were used for the whether WMA mixes produced in the laboratory matched
Michigan site to correspond with the PG 52-34 binder used those produced in the field.
on that project. Four samples were prepared for each mix. The The mixes from the multi-technology projects (Michigan,
first sample was used to find a suitable creep load for that par- Indiana, and New York) along with the mixes from two
ticular mix at each testing temperature. The remaining three single-technology sites (Montana and Florida) were verified
samples were tested at this load. Specimens used for the creep according to the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35: Special
and strength tests were prepared to 7±0.5% air voids. Mixture Design Considerations and Methods for Warm Mix
Asphalt (WMA) presented in NCHRP Report 691: Mix Design
Practices for Warm Mix Asphalt, the published final report of
Permanent Deformation
NCHRP Project 9-43 (21). This selection provided a range
Reduced aging of binders because of the lower WMA mix of WMA technologies, aggregate types, and production and
production temperatures may result in WMA mixes being compaction temperatures.
more prone to permanent deformation, particularly early in
their service lives. Although field results, thus far, have not
Determination of Optimum
indicated that rutting is an issue, some laboratory permanent
Asphalt Content
deformation tests have indicated a potential for more rut-
ting. Tests that have been used for evaluating WMA perma- The same HMA and WMA design, in terms of target asphalt
nent deformation include the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer rut content and gradation, was used by the contractor for all the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

24

Table 1.14. Summary of mix performance tests.

Test Equipment Replicates

Dynamic modulus
AMPT 3 specimens per mix (12)
(AASHTO TP 79)
Moisture susceptibility 3 unconditioned, 3 conditioned per
Marshall load frame
(AASHTO T 283) mix (6)
Hamburg wheel tracking test
Hamburg wheel tracking device 2 twin sets per mix (3)
(AASHTO T 324)

Fatigue (S-VECD) AMPT 4 specimens per mix (4)

Thermal cracking
MTS 3 specimens per mix
(AASHTO T 322)
Flow number
AMPT 3 specimens per mix
(FHWA AMPT method)
Flow number
AMPT 3 specimens per mix
(NCHRP Project 9-43 method)

projects selected for mix verification. One goal of the mix veri- T 195 Ross Count procedure. NCHRP Project 9-47A person-
fications was to determine if plant production of WMA could nel met early in the project to evaluate samples with differing
be simulated in the laboratory. Since changes in gradation degrees of coating to develop a shared understanding of what
during plant production would affect the measured volumet- would be considered coated and uncoated. The samples were
ric properties, the measured field gradation for a given loca- mixed at the average production temperature recorded for
tion and technology was used as the target for the laboratory each mix during construction.
verification instead of the target gradation from the JMF. Thus, The Draft Appendix for AASHTO R 35 specifies a mix-
within a given project, there can be differences in the target ing time of 90 seconds and notes that the mixing time was
laboratory gradation, even though all the sections at a given developed using a planetary mixer. The commentary for
location were based on the same design. AASHTO R 35 suggests that mixing times for bucket mixers
As described previously, the field asphalt content and will likely be longer than for planetary mixers. The NCHRP
gradation represent the average of two replicates. The binder Project 9-47A research team felt that bucket mixers are more
was extracted according to AASHTO T 164 and the grada- commonly used than planetary mixers and are also more
tion of the recovered aggregate determined according to economical. Personnel from Advanced Materials Services
AASHTO T 30. Laboratory trial samples were batched and their (AMS) used an HMA Lab Supply Model MX-6000 Economy
gradation determined according to AASHTO T 11 and T 27. Bucket Mixer with a stock paddle and optional stainless steel
Adjustments were made as necessary to match field production. bucket to prepare the samples (Figure 1.12). Samples were
WMA technologies were introduced into the mix as rec-
ommended in the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35. Foamed
asphalt was produced with a D&H Hydrofoamer. Foamed
asphalt was weighed into the aggregate batch on an external
scale as described in the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35.
During the construction of the WMA and HMA sections,
plant production temperatures and temperatures immedi-
ately behind the paver screed were measured. When a sample
of the mix was taken at the plant, an estimate of the average
temperature behind the screed up to that point was provided
for compacting samples in the mobile laboratory. This same
compaction temperature was used for the laboratory mix
verifications. Laboratory samples were aged for 2 hours at the
observed field compaction temperature prior to compaction.

Coating
Once a laboratory optimum asphalt content was deter-
mined, mixture coating was evaluated using the AASHTO Figure 1.12. Bucket mixer used for mix verifications.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

25  

mixed for the 90 seconds specified in the Draft Appendix to with the test procedure. One freeze-thaw cycle was included
AASHTO R 35. If the mixture produced a degree of coat- as specified.
ing that failed the specification compared to the field result,
a longer mixing time would be tried. If the field degree of
Rutting Resistance
coating still could not be achieved, then a planetary mixer
would be tried. For projects with greater than 3 million design ESALs, the
Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35 specifies the flow number
test to evaluate rutting resistance. Samples were fabricated
Compactability
according to AASHTO PP 60. Cored and sawed samples were
To evaluate the proposed compaction temperature, the prepared at 7.0 ±1.0% air voids. Flow number tests were per-
Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35 specifies that the ratio formed according to AASHTO TP 79. Tests were conducted
of the number of gyrations to 92% density at 30°C (54°F) at the 50% reliability design temperature determined using
below the proposed compaction temperature to the number LTPPBind Version 3.1 at a depth of 20 mm from the surface
of gyrations to 92% density at the proposed compaction tem- of the pavement.
perature must be less than 1.25. The ratio is based on work by
Leiva and West (22). Both sets of samples are mixed and aged
Summary Comparisons
at the same temperature. One set is allowed to cool prior to
compaction. For each project verified, summary comparisons were made
between the field and laboratory produced mixes. Compari-
sons included volumetric properties, optimum asphalt con-
Moisture Susceptibility
tent, maximum specific gravity, binder absorption, coating, and
Similar to Superpave mix design, the Draft Appendix to moisture susceptibility. Comparisons were also made between
AASHTO R 35 specifies the tensile strength ratio (TSR) test compactability and in-place density achieved in the field. A
according to AASHTO T 283 for WMA mix design. This pro- summary discussion is provided on the observed changes in
cedure was used in the mix verifications. The tests were con- optimum asphalt content compared to the HMA and field
ducted at optimum asphalt content. Aging was in accordance performance.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

26

CHAPTER 3

WMA Field Projects

The existing and new projects are discussed in the chrono- Production
logical order of their construction.
The Evotherm ET addition rate was adjusted so that the
resulting asphalt binder residue equaled the control HMA
Existing Projects mix design content. Aspha-min was added at a rate of 0.30%
by weight of total mix, while the Sasobit was added at a rate of
St. Louis, Missouri
1.5% by weight of total asphalt binder. The Sasobit was added
This field trial was placed on Hall Street in St. Louis, Mis- using a feeder system that injected the material directly into
souri. Hall Street is a 4-lane roadway with an additional center the mixture at the point where the asphalt binder entered the
turn lane through a heavily trafficked industrial area (23). The drum. The Aspha-min was added at this same location.
approximate average annual daily traffic (AADT) for this por- The production temperature for the control HMA was
tion of Hall Street was 21,000 vehicles per day and 7% trucks. 320°F. The Sasobit mix was originally produced at 275°F.
The contractor for this project was Pace Construction Com- Once the in-place densities and constructability were deemed
pany, St. Louis, Missouri. The original surface was a con- acceptable, the production temperature for the Sasobit mix
crete pavement that had been overlaid with hot mix asphalt was decreased to 240°F. The Evotherm ET mix was produced
(HMA). The reflective cracking in the existing HMA was at 275°F and then decreased to 250°F. It was further decreased
sealed with a rubberized asphalt sealant. This project origi- to 225°F once the 250°F temperature was deemed acceptable.
nally consisted of another 2-in. HMA overlay to be placed The Aspha-min mix was produced at 275°F. Table 1.17 shows
over the existing pavement. However, during paving in cool the production temperatures used for each WMA technology.
weather, bumps began to form over the sealed cracks. It was The plant used to produce these mixes was a CMI counter-
believed that by using warm mix asphalt (WMA) in lieu of flow drum plant using recycled oil for the burner fuel. The
HMA, the lower placement temperatures might prevent the plant is shown in Figure 1.13. The average production rate
reflective bumps from occurring because the crack sealant was approximately 200–250 tons per hour for all of the WMA
would expand less. sections.
The project was constructed over a 10-day period in May
2006 using three WMA technologies: Aspha-min®, Sasobit®,
Volumetric Mix Properties
and Evotherm® ET. The job mix formula (JMF) for all mixes
consisted of 12.5-mm nominal maximum aggregate size During production, loose mix samples were taken from
(NMAS) Superpave mixture compacted to 100 gyrations. the end-dump trucks before they left the plant. Samples were
A portion of the HMA had previously been placed in the fall typically taken twice a day, once at the beginning of production
of 2005. The mixture used limestone and porphyry aggregates and once towards the end of production. For each field sam-
and contained 10% reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). The ple, six volumetric specimens were compacted on-site without
asphalt binder used in the mixtures was a polymer-modified significant reheating. Samples were placed in an oven for
PG 70-22 with an antistripping agent (ARR MAZ) added at approximately 30 minutes to account for the heat loss that
a rate of 0.25% by weight of virgin asphalt. The aggregate occurred between sampling and splitting. A second set of vol-
stockpile percentages used are shown in Table 1.15, and the umetric samples was compacted with reheated mix to simu-
design aggregate gradation, asphalt content, and volumetric late the comparison between the contractor’s data and the
properties are shown in Table 1.16. data from the state department of transportation (DOT). All

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

27  

Table 1.15. Aggregate

percentages for St. Louis,
Missouri, project.

% of Total
Aggregate Type
Aggregate
¾'' 48
½'' 21
Manufactured sand 20
RAP 10
Mineral filler 1

Table 1.16. Design gradation,

asphalt content, and volumetric
properties for St. Louis, Missouri,
project.

Property JMF Figure 1.13. CMI counter-flow drum plant in St. Louis,
Sieve Size % Passing Missouri (23).
19.0 mm (3/4'') 100
12.5 mm (1/2'') 97
9.5 mm (3/8'') 89 AASHTO T 164 and AASHTO T 30 respectively. These values
4.75 mm (#4) 68
are also shown in Figure 1.14. It can be seen that the asphalt
2.36 mm (#8) 49
content decreased for the second sample taken each day, which
1.18 mm (#16) 34
affected air void contents. The dust contents varied from sam-
0.60 mm (#30) 21
0.30 mm (#50) 11
ple to sample within mix type, which confounded the effect of
0.15 mm (#100) 7
the compaction temperature.
0.075 mm (#200) 5.2
AC (%) 5.3 Construction
Air voids (%) 4.0
VMA (%) 15.0
Paving of the trial sections was performed at night because
VFA (%) 73.0
Hall Street is a highly trafficked commercial roadway. The
D/A ratio 1.10
asphalt mixtures were delivered to the site using end-dump
Gmm 2.451
trucks. The haul distance between the plant and the site was
approximately 15 miles, taking 20 minutes to 25 minutes. Fig-
JMF: job mix formula; A/C: asphalt content;
VMA: voids in mineral aggregate; VFA: voids filled
ure 1.15 shows the layout of the test sections.
with asphalt; D/A ratio: dust to asphalt ratio;
Gmm: maximum specific gravity
Construction Core Testing
At the time of construction, six cores were taken from both
specimens were compacted to 100 gyrations at temperatures the Evotherm ET and Aspha-min sections. Five cores were
equal to the compaction temperature behind the paver as taken from the Sasobit section. No construction cores were
shown in Table 1.18. taken from the control section. Core densities were measured
Figure 1.14 shows the air void contents for the samples using AASHTO T 166, and the indirect tensile strengths were
compacted both hot and reheated. The error bars display measured according to ASTM D6931 at 25°C.
plus and minus one standard deviation of the mean. Asphalt Table 1.19 shows the results of in-place densities and ten-
content and gradation analyses were performed according to sile strengths for the three WMA technologies. The average

Table 1.17. Average production temperatures for

St. Louis, Missouri.

HMA Aspha-min Evotherm ET Sasobit

Average (°F) 320 275 275, 250, 225* 275, 240*
*Temperatures were periodically reduced during production.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

28

Table 1.18. Volumetric test samples for St. Louis, tion cracking. It should be noted that the Missouri DOT
Missouri (23). typically expects these types of overlays to last 7 to 10 years.
This means that the roadway had lasted about 55–75% of its
Lab SGC Volumetrics
Sample Compaction expected life at the time of this revisit.
Mix Hot at Reheated at
Day Temperature
Plant NCAT
The HMA sections exhibited the least amount of crack-
(°F)
ing, followed by the Evotherm ET and then the Sasobit. The
1 300 X X
Control
1 250 X X
Aspha-min sections exhibited the most cracking. Table 1.21
2 250 X X shows the total cracking by crack location and severity accord-
2 250 X X ing to the method explained in the Distress Identification Man-
Sasobit
3 225 X X ual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (12).
3 225 X X Figure 1.16 shows an example of the non-wheelpath lon-
4 250 X X
gitudinal cracking observed in all sections. Figure 1.17 shows
4 250 X X
Evotherm ET
5 225 X X
an example of the transverse cracking seen in all sections.
5 200 X X The surface texture of each mixture was measured using the
Aspha-min 6 250 X sand patch test according to ASTM E965. The sand patch test
SGC: Superpave gyratory compactor was conducted at the beginning of each evaluation section in
the right wheelpath. The calculated mean texture depths for
each mix are shown in Table 1.22. These values represent the
densities were similar and acceptable for the Evotherm ET and average and standard deviation of the three tests conducted on
Sasobit WMA mixes. The Aspha-min section has a slightly each mix. A smaller mean texture depth indicates a smoother
high average density. The average core tensile strengths were pavement, or one with less surface texture. All four mixes per-
similar for all three WMA mixes, with the Sasobit exhibiting formed about the same, with the WMA mixtures performing
the lowest tensile strength (118.0 psi). slightly better than the control HMA.

Five-Year (64-Month) Project Evaluation Core Testing

A field-performance evaluation was conducted on Novem- At the time of the 5-year project inspection, seven 6-in.
ber 16, 2011, after about 64 months of service. Data were col- (150-mm) cores were obtained from each mix section. Four
lected on each section to document performance regarding of these cores came from between the wheelpaths, and three
rutting, cracking, and raveling. came from the right wheelpath. These cores were spread
The rut depths were measured at the beginning of each throughout the test sections to minimize the damage in any
200-ft (61-m) evaluation section with a string line. Table 1.20 one area. The densities of these cores were measured using
shows the averages and standard deviations of the rut depths. AASHTO T 166. If the water absorption was determined to
These results show that no appreciable rutting had occurred be higher than 1%, the samples were then tested according to
after more than 5 years in service. AASHTO T 331 (vacuum sealing method). Six of the cores
Each evaluation section was carefully inspected for visual were then tested for tensile strength using ASTM D6931.
signs of cracking. All four mix sections had substantial reflec- These six samples were then combined and the cut faces were

7.0 8
Asphalt Content or P200 (%)

Hot Reheat Asphalt Content P200 7.5

6.0
Air Void Content (%)

7
5.0
6.5
4.0 6
3.0 5.5
5
2.0
4.5
1.0 4
0.0 3.5
Mix. Temp. 325 325 275 275 250 225 275 275 250 250 275
Comp. Temp. (300) (250) (250) (250) (225) (200) (250) (250) (225) (225) (250)

Control Evotherm Sasobit Aspha-min

Figure 1.14. SGC volumetrics for St. Louis, Missouri (23).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

29  

Figure 1.15. Locations of test sections in St. Louis, Missouri.

Table 1.19. Test results for St. Louis, Missouri, construction cores.

Test Statistic Aspha-min Evotherm ET Sasobit

Average 94.9 92.8 91.2
In-place density (%)
Standard deviation 1.2 1.3 1.5
Average 139.4 136.4 118.0
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 16.4 20.3 45.8

removed. This mix was split into two samples that were used All four mixes had similar gradations and asphalt con-
to determine the maximum specific gravity (Gmm) accord- tents according to these test results. In addition, the in-place
ing to AASHTO T 209. These same two samples were then densities were similar and acceptable for all four mixes after
dried and extracted according to AASHTO T 164. A summary 64 months of traffic. The binder absorption was slightly higher
of the results from the core testing is shown in Table 1.23. for the HMA compared to the three WMA technologies, which
Extracted binder tests results are summarized in Chapter 4. was expected because the higher temperatures used for HMA
production usually caused more binder to be absorbed than
compared to the lower temperatures associated with WMA
Table 1.20. Rut depths for St. Louis, Missouri.
technologies. The tensile strengths after 64 months were all
Mix Average Rut Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm) similar. The tensile strengths for the three WMA technologies
HMA 1.9 0.9 had all increased compared to construction due to the stiffen-
Sasobit 0.8 0.8 ing of the binder over time. The virgin binder grade was a
Evotherm ET 2.4 0.8 PG 70-22 at construction, so it can be seen that all mixes had
Aspha-min 2.4 1.6 stiffened slightly after 64 months, as was expected. The high

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

30

Table 1.21. Cracking measurements for St. Louis, Missouri.

Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Transverse Fatigue
Longitudinal Longitudinal
Total Total Total Total
Mix # of # of # of # of
Severity Length Length Length Area
Section Cracks Cracks Cracks Locations
(m) (m) (m) (m2 )
Low 0 0 2.4 125 22 66.4 0 0
HMA Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Low 0 0 1.2 201 43 128.0 0 0
Sasobit Moderate 0 0 0 0 1 3.7 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Low 0 0 2.1 215 41 100.6 0 0
Evotherm Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Low 1 9.1 2.7 220 75 188.7 0 0
Aspha-
Moderate 0 0 0 0 4 14.6 0 0
min
High 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0

PG for the HMA was substantially higher than for the WMA
sections, possibly due to the increased aging associated with
the higher construction temperatures.
Table 1.24 shows the average densities and tensile strengths
by location for the 5-year cores. All mixes had slightly higher
densities in the wheelpaths as expected due to densifica-
tion under traffic. One other thing to note is that the tensile
strength for the HMA in the wheelpath is lower than for any
of the three WMA mixtures.

Iron Mountain, Michigan

A WMA field trial was placed in the northbound lanes of
Michigan State Highway 95 (MI-95) in September 2006 (19).
The project consisted of widening this portion of MI-95 to
Figure 1.16. Non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking four lanes using a WMA mixture and a HMA control mix-
in St. Louis, Missouri. ture. The WMA was placed as a 1.5-in. overlay in the north-
bound passing lane, and the HMA was placed 1.9 inches
thick in the newly constructed northbound travel lane. The
contractor for this construction was Payne and Dolan Inc.,
Waukesha, Wisconsin.
The WMA additive used for this field evaluation was
Sasobit. Sasobit was introduced into the HMA mix design
with the only change being the lower production tempera-
ture. The mix design consisted of a 9.5-mm NMAS Super-

Table 1.22. Mean texture depths for

St. Louis, Missouri.

Mix Mean Texture Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm)

HMA 0.90 0.22
Sasobit 0.81 0.06
Evotherm 0.78 0.08

Figure 1.17. Transverse cracking in St. Louis, Missouri. Aspha-min 0.76 0.04

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

31  

Table 1.23. Average test results for St. Louis, Missouri, 5-year cores.

HMA Sasobit Evotherm ET Aspha-min

Sieve Size
% Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 95.9 97.2 97.4 97.2
9.5 mm (3/8") 82.7 84.4 85.1 84.4
4.75 mm (#4) 53.3 55.3 55.0 55.3
2.36 mm (#8) 35.7 36.4 36.7 36.4
1.18 mm (#16) 22.3 21.8 22.9 21.8
0.60 mm (#30) 14.6 13.8 14.7 13.8
0.30 mm (#50) 9.5 8.7 9.3 8.7
0.15 mm (#100) 6.5 5.8 6.1 5.8
0.075 mm (#200) 4.8 4.1 4.2 4.1
AC (%) 5.23 5.31 5.27 5.21
Average production
320 275 275 275
temperature (°F)
Gmm 2.464 2.456 2.452 2.455
Gmb 2.356 2.312 2.364 2.340
In-place density (%) 95.6 94.1 96.4 95.3
Pba (%) 0.76 0.67 0.57 0.59
Tensile strength (psi) 161.5 187.7 181.3 175.5
Gmb: bulk specific gravity; Pba: percent of absorbed asphalt

Table 1.24. In-place density and tensile strength by location for St. Louis,
Missouri, 5-year cores.

Location and Property HMA Sasobit Evotherm ET Aspha-min

Between-wheelpaths density (% of Gmm) 95.3 93.8 95.8 94.4
Right wheelpath density (% of Gmm) 96.1 94.8 97.4 96.8
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 180.5 186.8 186.6 176.8
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 136.2 189.0 174.3 173.7

pave design compacted to 86 gyrations. The aggregate used Table 1.26. Design gradation,
in the mix design was basalt, and a PG 58-34 virgin binder asphalt content, and
was used as the base binder for both mixes. No RAP was volumetric properties for
used. The stockpile percentages for both mixes are shown Iron Mountain, Michigan.
in Table 1.25, and the design aggregate gradation and volu- Property JMF
metric properties are shown in Table 1.26. Sieve Size % Passing
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0
9.5 mm (3/8") 99.1
Production
4.75 mm (#4) 75.0
For the WMA mixture, the Sasobit was pre-blended with 2.36 mm (#8) 55.9
the base binder at a rate of 1.5% by weight of binder. One 1.18 mm (#16) 41.3
0.60 mm (#30) 27.5
0.30 mm (#50) 14.5
Table 1.25. Aggregate 0.15 mm (#100) 7.5
percentages for Iron Mountain, 0.075 mm (#200) 5.5
Michigan, project. AC (%) 5.5
Air voids (%) 4.0
% of Total
Aggregate Type VMA (%) 16.2
Aggregate
½" x ¼" 18 VFA (%) 75.4
¼" screenings 30 D/A ratio 1.08
Natural sand 52 Gmm 2.552

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

32

Table 1.27. Gradation, asphalt content, and

volumetrics for plant-produced mix.

HMA Sasobit
Property Hot- Hot-
Reheated Reheated
Compacted Compacted
Sieve Size % Passing
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 100.0
9.5 mm (3/8") 98.8 99.2
4.75 mm (#4) 75.8 79.1
2.36 mm (#8) 57.5 62.1
1.18 mm (#16) 43.0 47.8
0.60 mm (#30) 29.8 34.1
0.30 mm (#50) 15.8 18.2
0.15 mm (#100) 8.6 9.2
0.075 mm (#200) 6.1 6.4
AC (%) 5.42 5.14
Figure 1.18. Portable asphalt plant used for Iron Gmm 2.572 2.562
Mountain, Michigan, project (19). Gmb 2.467 2.457 2.476 2.440
Va (%) 4.1 4.5 3.4 4.8
Pba (%) 0.82 0.67
thousand tons of WMA mix were produced. Mixing tem-
Pbe (%) 4.64 4.51
peratures for the control HMA and the WMA were 325°F
and 260°F, respectively. The asphalt plant used to produce Va: volume percentage of air voids; Pbe: effective asphalt content

both mixes was located in Spread Eagle, Wisconsin, and was

a portable parallel-flow drum plant. The plant incorporated
usually leads to higher binder absorption (percent asphalt
an Adeco drum, Gencor burner, and Cedar Rapids silo. The
absorbed, or Pba). It should be noted that the HMA actually had
burner fuel for the drier was reclaimed oil. A photograph of
a higher effective binder content, but this was due to the HMA
the plant is shown in Figure 1.18.
having a higher overall asphalt content. The asphalt absorption
was slightly higher for the HMA, as was expected.
Volumetric Mix Properties
During construction, mix samples were taken from the Construction
loaded trucks before they left the plant. For each sample, six
specimens were compacted hot and six were compacted after The asphalt mixtures were delivered to the site in both live-
reheating the mix to determine each mixture’s volumetric bottom and end-dump trucks. The haul distance from the
properties. All samples were compacted at the expected road- plant to the site was approximately 8 miles, which corresponded
way compaction temperature of the respective mix. Samples to roughly a 10-minute travel time. Figure 1.19 shows the
were compacted without reheating on-site in a Troxler model project location. The control HMA section was compacted
4141 Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC). Additional mix at approximately 300°F, while the WMA was compacted at
was brought to NCAT’s main lab and reheated then compacted approximately 250°F.
on a Pine model AFG1A SGC. Table 1.27 shows the average air
void contents of the laboratory-compacted samples for both Construction Core Testing
heating conditions along with the extracted gradations and
asphalt contents. After construction, six 6-in. (150-mm) cores were taken
The gradations for each mix were similar, but the asphalt from each section. Table 1.28 shows the density and ten-
content for the HMA was 0.28% higher than for the WMA. sile strength results from the construction cores. The aver-
This small difference would be expected to result in slightly age in-place densities for both mixes are similar. The tensile
lower air void content in the HMA compared to the WMA. strengths are similar but low due to the soft binder used in this
However, the WMA had a slightly higher dust content, and cold climate.
possibly a lower binder viscosity caused by the Sasobit, which
resulted in a lower air void content for the WMA. It can also be
Five-Year (59-Month) Project Evaluation
seen that the air voids for both mixes increased after reheating
as compared to the hot-compacted samples. This was expected, A field-performance evaluation was conducted on August 11,
given that reheating tends to stiffen the asphalt binder and 2011, after approximately 59 months of service. Data were

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

33  

Figure 1.19. Locations of test sections in Iron Mountain, Michigan.

collected on both sections to document performance regard- contained cracking, whereas two of the WMA sections had
ing rutting, cracking, and raveling. cracking. The number of cracks was fairly low, however, and
Rut depths were measured at the beginning of each 200-ft. all cracking was of low severity. Table 1.29 shows the total
(61-m) evaluation section using a straightedge and wedge. cracking by crack type and severity for both mixes.
The HMA exhibited an average of 1.4 mm of rutting with a Figure 1.20 shows the transverse cracking observed in the
standard deviation of 0.3 mm. The WMA showed no measur- Sasobit section. It can be seen that this cracking spans across
able rutting. Although the HMA had not rutted significantly both original middle lanes. The middle-right lane shown in
after 5 years, it had slightly more rutting than the WMA sec- Figure 1.20 is the WMA mixture, while the middle-left lane
tion. The reason for this difference is more than likely the is HMA that was not part of this field evaluation. Because
placement of the sections. Given that the HMA was placed in this transverse crack goes across both original lanes, it is
the travel lane and the WMA was placed in the passing lane, likely that this is reflective cracking from the underlying
the HMA was expected to have more rutting. concrete.
Each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section was carefully The surface texture of each mixture was measured using
inspected for cracking. Only one HMA evaluation section the sand patch test. The calculated mean texture depths for
both mixtures are shown in Table 1.30. These values repre-
sent the average and standard deviation of the three tests
Table 1.28. Construction core test results
conducted on each test section. A lower mean texture depth
for Iron Mountain, Michigan.
indicates a smoother pavement, or one with less surface tex-
Property Statistic HMA Sasobit ture. The two mixes have performed well and comparably in
In-place density Average 94.3 94.6 terms of mean texture depth after 5 years. Figure 1.21 shows
(% of Gmm) Standard deviation 1.0 0.8 an example of the surface texture of both mixes. HMA is in
Average 52.2 46.0 the far right lane and the WMA test section is shown in the
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 3.6 3.5 middle-right lane.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

34

Table 1.29. Cracking measurements for Iron Mountain, Michigan,

after 59 months.

Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse Fatigue
Total Total Total Total
Mix # of Length # of Length # of Length # of Area
Section Severity Cracks (m) Cracks (m) Cracks (m) Locations (m2)
Low 1 3.7 0 0 1 0 0 0
HMA Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 1 0.3 4 14 0 0
Sasobit Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Core Testing Table 1.30. Mean texture depths for

Iron Mountain, Michigan.
At the time of the 5-year project inspection, seven 6-in.
(150-mm) cores were taken from each mix section. Four of Mix Mean Texture Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm)
the cores came from between the wheelpaths, and three came HMA 0.43 0.04
from the right wheelpath. A summary of the core test results Sasobit 0.51 0.03
is shown in Table 1.31.
The gradations for the two mixes were similar at the time
of the 5-year inspection. However, compared to the grada- Table 1.32 shows the average densities and tensile strengths
tions from the construction mix, both mixes have slightly by location for the 5-year evaluation cores. It can be seen that
lower dust contents. The difference in the asphalt contents at there was little difference between core locations in regard to
the 59-month revisit (0.23%) is consistent with the difference in-place density and tensile strength. The HMA has likely
measured at construction (0.28%). The asphalt contents were densified more than the Sasobit because of higher traffic in
about 0.20% higher than the results from construction. This the lane where the HMA was placed.
is likely due to sampling and material variability. As expected,
the in-place densities had increased for both mixes since con-
struction. Both mixes had acceptable densities after 59 months.
Silverthorne, Colorado
The tensile strengths for both mixes also had increased since A WMA field trial was placed on I-70 in Colorado about
construction, as was expected because of binder aging. 70 miles west of Denver in July and August 2007 (24). This

Figure 1.20. Transverse cracking in WMA section Figure 1.21. Surface texture in Iron Mountain,
in Iron Mountain, Michigan. Michigan.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

35  

Table 1.31. Test results from Iron Mountain, Michigan, production mix
and 59-month cores.

HMA Sasobit HMA Sasobit

Property
Production Mix (September 2006) 59-Month Cores (August 2011)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
9.5 mm (3/8") 98.8 99.2 99.6 99.2
4.75 mm (#4) 75.8 79.1 76.7 75.1
2.36 mm (#8) 57.5 62.1 58.6 56.6
1.18 mm (#16) 43.0 47.8 43.7 43.0
0.60 mm (#30) 29.8 34.1 31.0 30.8
0.30 mm (#50) 15.8 18.2 15.2 15.0
0.15 mm (#100) 8.6 9.2 8.0 7.8
0.075 mm (#200) 6.1 6.4 5.4 5.2
AC (%) 5.42 5.14 5.59 5.36
Gmm 2.572 2.562 2.572 2.585
Gmb 2.433* 2.415* 2.503 2.469
In-place density (%)* 94.3* 94.6* 97.3 95.5
Pba (%) 0.82 0.67 0.90 0.96
Tensile strength (psi)* 52.2* 46.0* 71.2 80.7
*Data comes from construction cores.

portion of I-70 is at a high elevation and has a very harsh This was calculated using an AADT of 30,000 vehicles and
winter climate. The project began at the town of Silverthorne 10% trucks.
at milepost (MP) 204.6 and included the three uphill east- Three different WMA technologies were used on this field
bound lanes. The project continued east, up the mountain trial along with control HMA sections for each WMA section.
and terminated at the west portal of the Eisenhower-Johnson The WMA technologies were Advera, Sasobit, and Evotherm
Memorial Tunnel at MP 213.6. The contractor, Asphalt DAT. The same Superpave mix design was used for all mixes,
Paving Company of Golden, Colorado, placed all mixes at an with the addition of the WMA additive and lower tempera-
approximate thickness of 2.5 in. tures being the only difference between the control and WMA
The existing pavement consisted of 10 in. to 13 in. of asphalt sections. A fine-graded 12.5-mm NMAS mix was used for
over fill with an R-value of 75. The pavement design called all the mixtures. The design used 75 gyrations with a PG 58-28
for 2.5 in. to be milled to remove the pavement distresses. binder. The aggregate used for this project was a crushed
These distresses included thermal cracking, fatigue crack- river rock from Everist Materials’ Maryland Creek Ranch
ing, and longitudinal cracking with some weathering and pit. Hydrated lime was added as an antistripping agent at
raveling. After milling, no evidence of these distresses could 1% by weight of aggregate. Table 1.33 shows the aggregate
be seen. The 10-year design used for this field trial assumed
4.85 million 18-kip equivalent single axle loads (ESALs).
Table 1.33. Aggregate
percentages for Silverthorne,
Table 1.32. In-place density and tensile Colorado, project.
strength by location for Iron Mountain,
% of Total
Michigan, 59-month cores. Aggregate Type
Aggregate
½" gravel 15
Location and Property HMA Sasobit
Between-wheelpaths density (% of Gmm) 97.4 95.4 #8s 10
Right wheelpath density (% of Gmm) 97.3 95.7 Crushed fines 54
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 78.1 76.8 Washed sand 20
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 66.6 84.5 Hydrated lime 1

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

36

Table 1.34. Design gradation, Sasobit mix was produced at a target temperature of 255°F,
asphalt content, and volumetrics and approximately 1,020 total tons were produced. The Sasobit
for Silverthorne, Colorado. was added in prill (pellet) form to the drum at the same loca-
tion as the liquid binder. It was fed through a modified fiber
Property JMF
Sieve Size % Passing
feeder. The Sasobit mixture was produced at approximately
12.5 mm (1/2") 100
250 tons per hour, and the production temperature ranged
9.5 mm (3/8") 95
from 253°F to 257°F.
4.75 mm (#4) 73
Evotherm DAT in liquid form was added at a rate of 0.5%
2.36 mm (#8) 54 by weight of binder. Approximately 100 tons of the control
1.18 mm (#16) 40 HMA were produced before introducing the Evotherm DAT.
0.6 mm (#30) 29 A pump was used to add the Evotherm DAT material into
0.3 mm (#50) 18 the binder line through a modified ½-in. inlet. The Evotherm
0.15 mm (#100) 11 mixture was produced at approximately 250 tons per hour,
0.075 mm (#200) 6.7 and the production temperature ranged from 242°F to 257°F.
AC (%) 6.3 An Astec Double Barrel® plant was used to produce all mix-
Air voids (%) 3.6 tures on this project.
VMA (%) 16.8
Gmm 2.446 Volumetric Mix Properties
Test results for asphalt content and volumetric proper-
stockpile percentages. Table 1.34 shows the mix design for ties were completed by the Colorado DOT’s Quality Assur-
the control mix. ance laboratory. Only one or two sets of volumetrics samples
were tested for each section. This testing was done on field-
produced mix with no reheating. The HMA was compacted
Production at a temperature of 280°F, and the WMA mixtures were all
compacted at 250°F. All samples were immediately com-
For each of the three WMA technologies used on this proj-
pacted once they reached the specified laboratory compac-
ect, a small control section of HMA was produced and placed tion temperature. The compactive effort was 75 gyrations in
before the WMA section. The HMA control mixtures were an SGC to be consistent with the mix design. Table 1.35 shows
produced at a temperature of approximately 305°F. About the results from the quality assurance testing.
100 tons of the HMA were produced before beginning the The asphalt contents for all mixes were similar. The air void
addition of Advera WMA technology. The Advera WMA was contents and voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) results for
added at a rate of 0.3% by total weight of mix. The target mix- the WMA were lower than for the HMA. The lower air void
ing temperature for the Advera WMA was 255°F, and approx- contents and VMA results may have been due to increased
imately 930 total tons were produced. The Advera material compactability associated with the WMA technologies, slightly
was added in powder form to the drum at the same location higher effective asphalt contents as a result of less absorption
as the liquid binder. The Advera WMA mixture was produced of asphalt into the aggregates due to the lower mixing temper-
at between 200 tons and 250 tons per hour. The production ature, or both. The Colorado DOT results for the individual
temperature for the Advera ranged from 245°F to 267°F. maximum specific gravity (Gmm) tests were not available to
The Sasobit product was added at a rate of 1.5% by mass calculate the asphalt absorption values. The Hveem stability
of liquid binder. Approximately 225 tons of the control HMA results were similar for all of the plant-produced HMA and
mixture were produced before introducing the Sasobit. The WMA mixtures.

Table 1.35. Asphalt content and volumetric properties

for Silverthorne, Colorado.

Control Advera Control Sasobit Control Evotherm

Property Target
HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA
AC (%) 6.3 6.23 6.38 6.41 6.32 6.04 6.38
Air voids (%) 3.6 3.1 1.8 3.0 2.4 3.6 2.2
VMA (%) 16.8 16.5 15.7 16.5 15.9 16.3 15.8
Hveem stability 39 36 34 35 36 35 34

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

37  

Table 1.36. Section layout for Silverthorne, Colorado (21).

Paving
Starting Ending Starting Ending Length
Start Section
MP MP Station Station (ft)
Date
7-24-07 HMA control 207.42 207.80 179+20 199+20 2000
7-24-07 Advera WMA 207.80 208.86 199+20 255+30 5610
7-26-07 HMA control 208.86 209.07 255+30 266+20 1090
7-26-07 Sasobit WMA 209.07 210.17 266+20 324+30 5810
8-13-07 HMA control 210.17 210.28 324+30 330+60 630
8-13-07 Evotherm WMA 210.28 211.38 330+60 388+50 5790

Construction Construction In-Place Densities

Paving was performed at night because of high traffic vol- The in-place densities were measured for each section using
umes during the day. Distance to the paving sites from the a nuclear gauge that was correlated to cores. The average in-
plant varied from 5 miles to 15 miles, which corresponded to place densities for each section are shown in Table 1.37. All
a 10-minute to 25-minute haul time. The target compaction densities were acceptable and similar except for the HMA
temperatures for the Advera, Sasobit, and Evotherm DAT were control placed before the Sasobit section. This section had
235°F, 235°F, and 230°F, respectively. Table 1.36 provides the a slightly high density of 95.7%. However, only one reading
locations of the test sections; Figure 1.22 shows a map of the was taken for this mix, whereas the other mixes had multiple
test sections. readings.

Figure 1.22. Locations of test sections in Silverthorne, Colorado.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

38

Table 1.37. In-place densities by nuclear gauge in Silverthorne, Colorado (24).

Control Advera Control Sasobit Control Evotherm

Statistic
HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA
Average (% Gmm) 93.8 93.3 95.7 93.2 93.7 94.7
Number of tests 4 4 1 4 2 4
Standard deviation (% Gmm) 0.21 0.74 N/A 1.03 0.28 0.81

Three-Year (38-Month) Project Inspection Table 1.38. Rut depths for

Silverthorne, Colorado,
A field-performance evaluation was conducted in October
as of October 2010.
2010 after 38 months of traffic applied to the roadway. Data were
collected on each section to document performance regarding Mix Average Rut Depth (mm)
rutting, cracking, and raveling. It should be noted that all test HMA 1 5.0
sections were placed in the middle lane. The outside lane serves Advera 4.0
as the truck-climbing lane; this lane was paved entirely with the HMA 2 5.0
Sasobit 6.0
HMA mix and was not performing very well. This was expected
HMA 3 8.0
because concentrated truck loading with chained tires histori- Evotherm DAT 6.0
cally causes distresses to propagate more rapidly.
The rut depths were measured with a straightedge and
wedge at the beginning of each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation sec-
tion. Table 1.38 shows the average rut depths at the time of area of fatigue cracking observed in the Evotherm DAT sec-
the 3-year inspection. All mixes were performing well at the tion was believed to be reflective cracking from a soft area
time of the inspection. deeper in the pavement. The only cracking observed in the
Each evaluation section was inspected throughout its length control HMA sections was in the Evotherm control section,
for cracking and other distresses. All control HMA and WMA which had some transverse cracking and one longitudinal
sections had performed well through 3 years of service. The crack. Table 1.39 shows the cracking by crack type and sever-
length, location, and severity of each crack were recorded. ity for all four mixtures. Figure 1.23 shows an example of the
The majority of the cracks were transverse cracks. A small transverse cracking observed in one of the WMA sections.

Table 1.39. Cracking measurements for Silverthorne, Colorado.

Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse
Total Total Total
Mix # of Length # of Length # of Length
Section Severity Cracks (m) Cracks (m) Cracks (m)
HMA Low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Advera Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control High 0 0 0 0 0 0
HMA Low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sasobit Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
Control High 0 0 0 0 0 0
HMA Low 1 0.3 5 7.6 0 0
Evotherm Moderate 0 0 1 1.5 0 0
Control High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 1 0.3 0 0
Advera Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 2 0.9 0 0
Sasobit Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 1 5.5
Evotherm Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

39  

Figure 1.23. Transverse cracking in WMA section

in Silverthorne, Colorado (24).
Figure 1.24. Surface texture of test sections
in Silverthorne, Colorado.

Sand patch tests were conducted at the beginning and end

of each evaluation section between the wheelpaths. The sand between the wheelpaths. The Advera mixture had the high-
patch test was also performed on the cores taken during the est in-place density, approximately 98%. The Sasobit mix had
3-year inspection. For each mix, the calculated mean texture slightly lower density, as might be expected from the binder
depths are shown in Table 1.40. Surface textures were similar stiffening effect of the Sasobit. Tensile strengths were also
for all the sections, but differed somewhat between the in- similar for most of the sections and did not vary substantially
situ measurements and those taken later on the cores. These for the two locations except for the Sasobit cores taken in the
results indicate that the pavements were performing well with right wheelpath. That set of cores had a slightly lower tensile
regard to surface wear in this extreme climate. Figure 1.24 strength;. however, there were no signs of moisture damage
shows an example of the pavement texture for all mixtures. or cracking in those cores.

Core Testing Franklin, Tennessee

At the time of the 3-year inspection, cores were obtained This WMA trial project was placed on Tennessee State
between the wheelpaths and in the right wheelpath. A sum- Road 46 (SR-46) near Franklin, Tennessee. SR-46 is a 2-lane
mary of the results of tests on the cores is shown in Table 1.41. roadway with mostly automobile traffic (17). The AADT for
The gradations and asphalt contents of the WMA mixes were this portion of SR-46 was 10,492 vehicles. The Tennessee
similar to the HMA at the time of the inspection. The in-place DOT performed a pavement condition survey before the
density for the Advera mix was high (greater than 98%). The WMA trial project was constructed. The existing asphalt sur-
asphalt absorption values and tensile strengths were similar face was cracked and had crack sealant applied to several loca-
for all mixes. tions. The Tennessee DOT pavement condition survey is
Table 1.42 shows the average in-place densities and tensile summarized in Table 1.43.
strengths by location. It can be seen that the in-place densi- The project consisted of a 1.25-in. overlay. The contractor
ties were very similar for all mixes and were similar in and for the project was LoJac Inc. Six different mixes—two HMA

Table 1.40. Mean texture depths (mm) for Silverthorne,

Colorado (24).

Measured in the Measured in the Measured in the

Field on the Laboratory on the Laboratory on
Mix Section Pavement Cores (IWP) the Cores (BWP)
HMA control 0.37 0.27 0.30
Advera WMA 0.34 0.24 0.27
Sasobit WMA 0.33 0.29 0.31
Evotherm WMA 0.38 0.25 0.24
IWP: in the wheelpath; BWP: between the wheelpaths

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

40

Table 1.41. Test results from Silverthorne, Colorado,

38-month cores.

Property HMA Advera Sasobit Evotherm

Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 99.2 99.7 99.8 99.5
9.5 mm (3/8") 96.2 97.3 96.1 95.6
4.75 mm (#4) 80.5 79.7 76.9 76.0
2.36 mm (#8) 60.6 58.6 57.7 56.3
1.18 mm (#16) 45.5 43.9 43.6 42.4
0.60 mm (#30) 31.5 31.1 30.9 29.9
0.30 mm (#50) 20.4 20.6 20.3 19.9
0.15 mm (#100) 12.5 12.8 12.5 12.7
0.075 mm (#200) 7.3 7.7 7.3 7.9
AC (%) 6.46 6.59 6.65 6.27
Gmm 2.445 2.434 2.435 2.444
Gmb 2.379 2.387 2.351 2.369
In-place density (%) 97.3 98.1 96.5 96.9
Pba (%) 0.40 0.32 0.41 0.29
Tensile strength (psi) 62.8 60.2 56.1 60.8

Table 1.42. In-place density and tensile strength by location

in Silverthorne, Colorado.

Location and Property HMA Advera Sasobit Evotherm

Between-wheelpaths density (%) 97.7 98.3 96.1 96.8
Right wheelpath density (%) 96.7 97.8 97.1 97.1
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 62.5 61.8 62.8 57.4
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 60.0 58.7 49.4 64.2

Table 1.43. Existing pavement condition survey for Franklin,

Tennessee, project (17).

Pavement
Roughness Distress Quality
Beginning Index IRI Rut Depth Index Index
Mile End Mile (PSI) (in./mi) (mm) (DI) (PQI)
0 1 2.31 146.3 3.8 5.00 3.97
1 2 2.47 129.9 4.1 5.00 4.04
2 3 2.91 100.0 3.6 4.88 4.18
3 4 3.11 87.8 3.8 4.97 4.32
4 5 3.03 91.8 3.8 4.97 4.28
5 5.64 2.71 118.9 4.3 4.84 4.07

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

41  

Table 1.44. Aggregate percentages for Franklin, Tennessee,

WMA project.

% of Total Aggregate
Aggregate Type Murfreesboro Plant Franklin Plant Danley Plant
Limestone aggregate 50 50 50
#10 screenings 10 10 10
Natural sand 25 25 25
#10 Washed screenings 15 15 15

and four WMA—were produced out of three different nearby mixtures was not observed by NCAT. However, notes from the
plants. One of the HMA mixes, the Advera mix, and the Sasobit contractor show that the mixture was produced at approxi-
mix were produced at the LoJac plant in Franklin. Each of these mately 320°F and no problems were encountered during
mixtures used the same 75-blow Marshall mix design with a construction.
12.5-mm NMAS gradation. A second HMA was produced at On October 2, the Astec DBG mixture was produced at
LoJac’s Danley plant, along with the Evotherm® DAT mixture. the Murfreesboro plant using 0.1% water by total weight
Finally, the Astec Double Barrel Green® (DBG) mixture was of mix. The mixture also contained an antistripping agent,
produced at the LoJac Murfreesboro plant. Although separate Pave­grip 650, at a rate of 0.3% by weight of asphalt. Approx-
mix designs were completed for the Danley and M ­ urfreesboro imately 775 tons were produced at an average production
plants, the designs were essentially the same. The three mix rate of 250 tons per hour. The target production temperature
designs used the same aggregate percentages with no RAP. The was 260°F.
only difference was that the limestone aggregate source for the The Advera mixture was produced and placed on Octo-
Franklin plant was from Bon Aqua, Tennessee, whereas the ber 3, 2007, from the Franklin plant, which is an Astec Double
other two plants used aggregate from Springfield, Tennessee. Barrel plant. Advera was introduced into the plant at a rate of
The PG 70-22 asphalt binder produced by Ergon Asphalt 0.3% by weight of total mix by a pneumatic system that fed the
and Emulsions Inc. was used for all mixes. Table 1.44 shows additive into the outer mixing drum. Approximately 1,150 tons
the aggregate stockpile percentages. Table 1.45 shows the of the Advera mixture was produced at a rate of 250 tons per
design aggregate gradations, asphalt contents, and volu­metric hour. The target production temperature was 250°F.
properties for all three designs. The Evotherm DAT mixture was produced on October 4,
2007, from the Danley plant, another Astec Double Barrel
plant. The target production temperature was 230°F. The
Production
Sasobit mixture was produced on October 5, 2007, from the
The two HMA mixtures were placed prior to the WMA sec- Franklin plant. The Sasobit was added at 1.5% by weight of
tions on October 1, 2007. The placement of the two HMA asphalt. Approximately 750 tons of the Sasobit mix were

Table 1.45. Design gradations and asphalt contents

for Franklin, Tennessee.

Murfreesboro Franklin Danley

Property Plant Plant Plant
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100 100 100
12.5 mm (1/2") 99 98 99
9.5 mm (3/8") 85 86 85
4.75 mm (#4) 59 56 59
2.36 mm (#8) 46 41 46
0.6 mm (#30) 26 24 26
0.3 mm (#50) 10 10 10
0.15 mm (#100) 6 6 6
0.075 mm (#200) 4.0 4.1 4.0
AC (%) 5.3 5.3 5.3
D/A ratio 0.75 0.77 0.75
Gmm 2.428 2.415 2.428

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

42

Table 1.46. Summary of mixtures used void contents among the mixtures are probably attributed
in Franklin, Tennessee. to material variations of the mixtures and the differences
in sample preparation (e.g., hot-compacted versus reheated
Production Production Aggregate
Mixture Temperature Facility Source* mixtures).
HMA 1 320°F Franklin Bon Aqua
Advera 250°F Franklin Bon Aqua
Sasobit 250°F Franklin Bon Aqua Construction
HMA 2 320°F Danley Springfield
The average compaction temperature for all four WMA
Evotherm DAT 240°F Danley Springfield
mixtures was 230°F. The approximate haul times from the
Astec DBG 260°F Murfreesboro Springfield
three plants were 10 minutes, 25 minutes, and 45 minutes for
*All in Tennessee
the Franklin, Danley, and Murfreesboro plants respectively.
Figure 1.25 shows the test section layout for the site.
produced at a target production temperature of 230°F.
All three Franklin mixes contained the antistripping agent Construction Core Testing
AD-Here 77-00 at a rate of 0.3% by weight of asphalt.
Table 1.46 shows a summary of production temperatures Cores were taken from each section by the contractor imme-
and facilities for all mixtures included in this project. diately following construction and tested to determine densi-
ties in accordance with AASHTO T 166. These initial cores
were taken at the beginning of each test section. The density
Volumetric Mix Properties results for the WMA cores were quite low, so the contractor
Mixes were sampled during production to fabricate volu- obtained a second set of cores. The low density in the first set
metric samples to compare air void contents. All WMA mix of cores may be due to their proximity to the beginning of the
samples were compacted on-site in the NCAT mobile labo- section. The number of cores in the second set was decided
ratory to avoid reheating. The two HMA mix samples were by the contractor and varied from section to section, ranging
compacted from reheated mix. A lab-compactive effort of from two cores to 10. The Astec DBG, Advera, Evotherm DAT,
60 gyrations was used because the state of Tennessee still uses and Sasobit sections had 10, five, four, and two cores, respec-
the Marshall mix design method instead of the Superpave tively. A set of 10 cores was taken from both HMA sections.
mix design method. The mixes were extracted in accordance Table 1.48 shows a summary of the density results for each
with AASHTO T 319. Table 1.47 shows the average air void set of cores. Although the densities of the WMA sections were
contents of the lab-compacted samples, the extracted grada- low for the initial set of cores, the second set indicated that the
tions, and asphalt contents. The gradations and asphalt con- in-place density results for the WMA sections were consistent
tents for all mixes were similar. Minor differences in the air with the density results for the HMA sections.

Table 1.47. Tested gradations, asphalt contents, and air voids

for Franklin, Tennessee.

Evotherm Astec
Property HMA 1 Advera Sasobit HMA 2 DAT DBG
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 mm (1/2") 97 97 98 98 98 98
9.5 mm (3/8") 84 85 84 88 83 86
4.75 mm (#4) 57 58 52 60 55 57
2.36 mm (#8) 46 42 40 44 43 43
1.18 mm (#16) 37 32 30 33 34 33
0.60 mm (#30) 28 24 22 24 25 24
0.30 mm (#50) 10 10 8 10 10 10
0.15 mm (#100) 6 6 4 5 6 6
0.075 mm (#200) 4.5 5.2 4.1 4.4 5.1 5.1
AC (%) 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.8
Air voids (%) 2.7 3.1 3.9 3.0 3.4 2.9

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

43  

Figure 1.25. Locations of test sections in Franklin, Tennessee.

Three-Year (41-Month) Project Inspection Table 1.49 shows the average and standard deviations of the
rut depth measurements for each section. None of the sections
A field-performance evaluation was conducted on March 11, had a significant amount of rutting, which was expected given
2011, after about 41 months of traffic. Data were collected on that this roadway experiences mostly light vehicle traffic.
each section to document performance regarding rutting, Each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section was carefully
cracking, and raveling. Rut depths were measured at the begin- inspected for cracking. Although all six test sections had some
ning of each evaluation section with a straightedge and a wedge. cracking, it was all low severity. Table 1.50 shows the total

Table 1.48. In-place density results (% of Gmm) for Franklin, Tennessee.

Evotherm Astec
Set Statistic HMA 1 Advera Sasobit HMA 2 DAT DBG
Average 92.1 89.0 90.3 93.0 90.4 87.0
Set #1 Standard
1.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1
Deviation
Average -- 93.0 92.2 -- 91.2 91.9
Set #2 Standard
-- 0.6 0.5 -- 2.4 0.6
Deviation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

44

Table 1.49. Rut depths for Franklin, Tennessee.

Mix Average Rut Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm)

HMA Franklin 0.0 0.0
HMA Danley 0.0 0.0
Advera 0.5 0.5
Astec DBG 0.4 0.6
Evotherm DAT 0.0 0.0
Sasobit 0.0 0.0

cracking by crack type. The Sasobit and Advera sections

showed the most cracking, and the Evotherm was the only
section to exhibit fatigue cracking. However, fatigue cracking
had been documented in the existing pavement where the
Evotherm WMA was placed.
Figure 1.26 shows an example of the wheelpath longitudi-
nal cracking observed in all mix sections. Figure 1.27 shows
the fatigue cracking observed in the Evotherm section.
Sand patch tests were conducted at the beginning of each
evaluation section in the right wheelpath. The results of the
sand patch tests are shown in Table 1.51. Based on the mag-
nitude of the texture depths, these sections are showing sig-
nificant raveling. Based on visual observations in the field, all Figure 1.26. Wheelpath longitudinal cracking
in Franklin, Tennessee.
six mix sections also had weathered significantly; however, all
mixes looked to have experienced the same amount of weath-
ering. Figure 1.28 shows an example of the surface texture of
the mix sections in Franklin, Tennessee. A summary of the results of the core tests are shown in
Table 1.52. It can be seen that there were significant variations
in gradations and asphalt contents among the results for the
Core Testing
different sections. The dust content varied from 5.8% to 9.7%,
At the time of the 3-year project inspection, seven 6-in. whereas the asphalt content varied from 4.50% to 5.38%. The
(150-mm) cores were taken from each mix section similar to in-place densities were low for all mixes except the first HMA
previous projects. During tensile strength testing, two between- mix. These low densities were similar to the results of the ini-
wheelpath cores from the HMA 2 (Danley) section and two tial cores obtained after construction and indicate that the
from the Advera section broke incorrectly because they were test sections likely were not well compacted during construc-
too thin. Instead of fracturing, the tops of the samples were tion. This would have contributed to the raveling. The tensile
simply crushed. All of the cores from this project were very strengths of the WMA were higher than for the two HMA
thin, but these were the only four that failed in this manner. mixes. These results may have been affected by the thin cores,

Table 1.50. Cracking measurements for Franklin, Tennessee.

Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse Fatigue
Total Total Total Total
Mix # of Length # of Length # of Length # of Length
Section Cracks (m) Cracks (m) Cracks (m) Cracks (m)
HMA 1 2 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HMA 2 4 7.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Advera 5 16.8 6 25.9 1 0.9 0 0
Astec DBG 2 6.1 0 0 4 11.6 0 0
Evotherm 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 2 13.7
Sasobit 7 57.9 2 29.0 3 2.0 0 0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

45  

Figure 1.28. Surface texture in Franklin, Tennessee.

along with a control HMA mixture. The HMA was placed in the
northbound lane and the WMA was placed in the southbound
Figure 1.27. Fatigue cracking in lane. The AADT for this portion of TX-251 was 1,171 vehicles
Evotherm section in Franklin, with 10.9% trucks. Both mixes consisted of a 2-in. overlay on
Tennessee.
existing pavement.
The WMA technology used for this trial evaluation was the
Astec DBG foaming process. The mix design, which consisted
but can also indicate that the binder in the WMA sections was of fine-graded 9.5 mm nominal maximum aggregate size mix-
aging at a faster rate due to the low densities. ture, was the same for both mixtures. A PG 70-22 binder was
Table 1.53 shows the average density and tensile strength used for both mixtures with the addition of 1% Kling-Beta
results by location for the 41-month cores. In general, densi- 2550HM manufactured by Akzo Nobel N.V. as an antistrip-
ties were similar for the cores taken in and between the wheel- ping agent. No RAP was used in either mixture, and the aggre-
paths. Tensile strengths were also similar for the cores taken gate type was limestone. The aggregate stockpile percentages
in and between the wheelpaths. for both mixes are shown in Table 1.54, and the design aggre-
gate gradation and volumetrics are shown in Table 1.55.
Graham, Texas
Production
A field trial was placed north of Graham, Texas, on Texas
State Highway 251 (TX-251) in June 2008 by RK Hall Con- The HMA mixture was produced at temperatures between
struction Ltd, Paris, Texas. The trial sections were placed north 320°F and 335°F, whereas the WMA was produced between
of the intersection of Broadway Avenue on TX- 251 in New- 275°F and 290°F. The asphalt plant used to produce both mixes
castle. The project consisted of placing a test WMA mixture was a portable Astec DBG plant located approximately 2 miles
east of the test sections on US-380. The plant can be seen in
Figure 1.29. Figure 1.30 shows the Astec DBG drum. The point
Table 1.51. Mean texture depths for Franklin, of water injection can be seen at the top of the drum.
Tennessee.
Construction
Mix Mean Texture Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm)
HMA 1 0.94 0.02 The asphalt mixtures were delivered to the site in live-
Advera 1.01 0.05 bottom trucks and then transferred into a RoadTec 2500
Sasobit 0.99 0.10 material transfer device. The haul distance from the plant
HMA 2 0.82 0.02 to the portion of the trial section observed by NCAT was
Evotherm DAT 0.77 0.09 between 2 miles and 7 miles. Figure 1.31 shows the locations
Astec DBG 0.78 0.01 of the test sections in Graham, Texas.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

46

Table 1.52. Test results from Franklin, Tennessee, 3-year cores.

Evotherm Astec
Property HMA 1 Advera Sasobit HMA 2
DAT DBG
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 97.4 98.3 97.2 97.0 94.9 97.2
9.5 mm (3/8") 84.8 83.5 84.3 84.3 79.9 83.9
4.75 mm (#4) 55.2 52.3 52.4 54.6 52.0 58.5
2.36 mm (#8) 40.3 38.2 39.1 42.5 39.3 43.7
1.18 mm (#16) 31.5 30.6 31.4 34.9 31.2 34.2
0.60 mm (#30) 23.7 24.3 24.2 27.6 23.3 25.5
0.30 mm (#50) 11.1 14.3 11.0 11.8 11.5 12.7
0.15 mm (#100) 7.1 10.9 7.4 7.4 8.1 8.6
0.075 mm (#200) 5.8 9.7 6.3 6.0 7.0 6.9
AC (%) 5.38 4.50 4.61 4.92 4.53 5.02
Average production
320 250 250 320 250 250
temperature (°F)
Gmm 2.444 2.475 2.465 2.467 2.476 2.476
Gmb 2.306 2.191 2.128 2.192 2.180 2.201
In-place density (%) 94.3 88.5 86.3 88.9 88.0 88.9
Tensile strength (psi) 122.9 162.2 152.9 139.3 176.3 156.9

Table 1.53. In-place density and tensile strength by location for Franklin,
Tennessee, 3-year inspection.

Evotherm Astec
Location and Property HMA 1 Advera Sasobit HMA 2
DAT DBG
Between-wheelpaths density (%) 93.9 88.5 86.0 87.5 86.6 89.4
Right wheelpath density (%) 95.0 88.6 86.8 90.6 89.9 88.2
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength
107.4 173.1 150.8 153.5 168.5 150.8
(psi)
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 138.3 158.6 155.0 134.5 184.1 163.1

The material transfer device transferred the mixes into a Table 1.55. Design
2005 RoadTec 190 paver. Figure 1.32 shows the material trans- gradation, asphalt
content, and volumetrics
fer device and paver used for both trial mixtures. Two rollers
for Graham, Texas.
were used for both mixtures: a Caterpillar 634 double drum
and a 25-ton Dynapac pneumatic roller. Property JMF
Sieve Size % Passing
Three-Year (30-Month) Project Inspection 12.5 mm (1/2") 100
9.5 mm (3/8") 97.2
A field-performance evaluation was conducted on Decem- 4.75 mm (#4) 69.7
ber 9, 2010, after about 30 months of traffic were applied to 2.36 mm (#8) 38.7
1.18 mm (#16) --
Table 1.54. Aggregate percentages 0.60 mm (#30) 17.4
for Graham, Texas, project. 0.30 mm (#50) 12.2
0.15 mm (#100) --
Aggregate Type % of Total Aggregate 0.075 mm (#200) 4.5
Type D rock 48 AC (%) 5.3
Type F rock 15 Air voids (%) 3.0
C-33 21 VMA (%) 15.3
Manufactured sand 9
VFA (%) 80.4
Kreel sand 6
Lime 1 Gmm 2.459

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

47  

Figure 1.29. Portable asphalt plant used for Graham,

Texas, project.
Figure 1.30. Drum and point of water injection
in Graham, Texas, plant.

Figure 1.31. Locations of test sections in Graham, Texas.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

48

Figure 1.32. Material transfer device and paver used

for Graham, Texas, project.

Figure 1.33. Core taken on a transverse crack to

the test sections. Data were collected on the WMA and HMA
demonstrate it was reflecting from underlying
sections to document performance regarding rutting, crack-
pavement layers.
ing, and raveling within the three evaluation sections.
Rut depths were measured at the beginning of each evalu-
ation section using a straightedge and wedge. Neither section
had any measurable rutting after 30 months of traffic had Core Testing
been applied to the overlay. At the time of the 3-year project inspection, cores were taken
Each evaluation section was carefully inspected for signs from both sections for analysis of densities, tensile strengths,
of cracking. Both the HMA and WMA sections had small gradations, asphalt contents, and recovered binder proper-
amounts of transverse reflective cracking. Cores were taken ties. A summary of the core testing is shown in Table 1.58. It
on some of the cracks to verify that they were reflective can be seen that the average asphalt contents and gradations
cracks, as shown in Figure 1.33. Table 1.56 shows the total for the two mixes were very similar, as were the average ten-
cracking by crack type and severity for both mixes. It can sile strengths. The in-place density for the WMA was slightly
be seen that the amount of low-severity cracking in the two lower compared to the HMA. However, the difference could
different mix sections was comparable. The WMA mix sec- possibly be accounted for by material and sampling variabil-
tions also had some moderate cracking, however. Figure 1.34 ity. Both mixes performed equally after 3 years.
shows an example of the transverse cracks after 30 months Table 1.59 shows the average densities and tensile strengths
of performance. by location for the 30-month inspection cores. As expected,
The calculated mean texture depths from sand patch tests the HMA cores in the wheelpath were slightly denser than the
are shown in Table 1.57. These data indicate that the two mixes cores from between the wheelpaths. The WMA had similar
have performed comparably in terms of mean texture depth densities for both locations. Tensile strengths do not appear
after 3 years. to be affected by location.

Table 1.56. Cracking measurements for Graham, Texas.

Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Transverse Fatigue
Longitudinal Longitudinal
Mix
Severity Total Total Total # of Total
Section # of # of # of
Length Length Length Loca- Area
Cracks Cracks Cracks
(m) (m) (m) tions (m2 )
Low 0 0 0 0 9 17.7 0 0
HMA Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 4 10.2 0 0
Astec
Moderate 0 0 0 0 4 14.6 0 0
DBG
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

49  

Figure 1.34. Transverse cracks on the Graham, Texas, project after 30 months.

George, Washington Table 1.58. Test results for Graham, Texas,

A field trial was placed in the right lane of I-90 eastbound 30-month cores.
in June 2008 to evaluate the WMA additive Sasobit (25). HMA HMA Astec DBG
was also placed as the control mixture for this field evaluation. Property
30-Month Cores (December 2010)
The project was located west of the town of George, between Sieve Size % Passing
the Columbia River at MP 137.82 and the town of George at 12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 100.0
MP 148.45. This portion of I-90 consists of two lanes with a 9.5 mm (3/8") 97.5 97.7
paved shoulder in both directions and has an average daily 4.75 mm (#4) 71.9 71.3
traffic (ADT) between 6,448 and 7,327 with 27% trucks 2.36 mm (#8) 37.8 40.0
according to data from the 2008 Washington State Pavement 1.18 mm (#16) 25.1 26.8
Management System. The contractor for this project was 0.60 mm (#30) 17.9 19.3
Central Washington Asphalt Inc. of Moses Lake, Washington. 0.30 mm (#50) 12.9 14.0
The existing pavement in the right travel lane had low-severity 0.15 mm (#100) 7.3 8.1
alligator and transverse cracking. The rehabilitation for this 0.075 mm (#200) 4.9 5.3
project included milling 3 in. of the existing pavement and AC (%) 4.80 4.78
replacing with the same depth of HMA or WMA. Gmm 2.480 2.476
The WMA additive used for this field evaluation was the Gmb 2.380 2.335
organic additive Sasobit. The mix designs of the two mix- In-place density (%) 96.0 94.3
tures were identical except for the addition of the Sasobit in Tensile strength (psi) 257.9 255.9
the WMA mixture. The mix design consisted of a 12.5 mm
NMAS mix designed with a 100-gyration compactive effort
according to the Superpave mix design procedure. The mix
Table 1.59. In-place density and tensile strength
by location for Graham, Texas, 30-month cores.

Table 1.57. Mean texture depths for Location and Property HMA
Astec
Graham, Texas. DBG
Between-wheelpaths density (%) 95.2 94.4
Mix Mean Texture Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm) Right wheelpath density (%) 97.0 94.2
HMA 0.93 0.06 Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 263.9 247.3
Astec DBG 1.06 0.03 Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 251.9 264.4

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

50

Table 1.60. Aggregate percentages for George, production temperature of the WMA mixture was approxi-
Washington, project. mately 290°F. Approximately 7,813 tons of the HMA mixture
were produced between June 11 and June 16, 2008. The aver-
% of Total Aggregate
Aggregate Type age mixing temperature was 330°F, about 40°F higher than
Design Production
the WMA. Both mixtures were produced using a portable
¾" - #4 27 27
drum plant manufactured by Gencor.
"-0
8 73 53
RAP 0 20
Volumetric Mix Properties
Volumetric and gradation data was compiled from the results
also called for 20% RAP. However, in the state of Washington, of the quality control tests performed on the nine HMA sublots
RAP is not used in the design process. The RAP used for this and five WMA sublots. All gradation tests were in tolerance.
project came from the 3 in. of milling on the project prior to The air void levels on two of the HMA lots were out of toler-
the overlay. A PG 76-28 asphalt binder was used for both mix- ance. Both were 5.7% air voids, which was out of the tolerance
tures. Table 1.60 shows the aggregate percentages used in mix band of 2.5% to 5.5%. In addition, the dust to asphalt ratio
design and production. Table 1.61 shows the design aggre- (D/A ratio) on one of the HMA sublots was 1.7, just above the
gate gradation and volumetric properties for both mixes. limit of 1.6. This same D/A ratio of 1.7 was seen on one of the
WMA sublots as well. All other properties from the 14 sublot
Production tests were in tolerance. Table 1.62 shows the average results of
these tests for both mixtures.
The Sasobit was added at a rate of 2% by weight of virgin
binder. With the inclusion of the 20% RAP, the Sasobit had
an effective addition rate of 1.6% by total weight of binder. Construction
The Sasobit was added to the virgin binder before shipping. The HMA was placed between MP 137.82 and MP 144.53,
Approximately 4,724 total tons of the WMA mixture were while the WMA was placed between MP 144.53 and MP 148.45.
produced between June 23 and June 24, 2008. The average Haul times ranged from 30 minutes to 45 minutes for the
HMA and 25 minutes to 35 minutes for the WMA. Fig-
ure 1.35 shows the locations of the test sections.
Table 1.61. Design The mixtures were delivered to the site in uncovered end-
gradation, asphalt content, dump trailers. The trucks dumped the mixtures into a wind-
and volumetrics for
row device and a windrow was created. A windrow elevator
George, Washington.
was then used to transfer the mix from the windrow to the
Property JMF Ingersoll Rand PF-5510 paver. This paver was equipped with
Sieve Size % Passing an Omni 3E screed. Mix delivery was sometimes inconsistent,
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 which led to several paver stops. Otherwise, the placement of
12.5 mm (1/2") 95.0 both mixtures went smoothly. Figure 1.36 shows the wind-
9.5 mm (3/8") 84.0 rowed material being transferred to the paver, and Figure 1.37
4.75 mm (#4) 55.0 shows the paver laying down the mix.
2.36 mm (#8) 34.0 Paving temperatures were measured and recorded for the
1.18 mm (#16) 22.0 HMA and WMA mixtures on June 16 between 9:30 a.m. and
0.60 mm (#30) 15.0 11:30 a.m. and on June 23 between 8:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.,
0.30 mm (#50) 11.0 respectively. Table 1.63 shows the temperatures measured on
0.15 mm (#100) 8.0 these two days. It can be seen that there were differences from
0.075 mm (#200) 6.3 30°F to 50°F between the HMA and WMA.
AC (%) 5.5
Air voids (%) 3.7
VMA (%) 14.9
In-Place Densities After Construction
VFA (%) 75.0 Density tests were conducted on both mixtures follow-
Pba (%) 0.91 ing construction. For the HMA, 95 total density tests were
Pbe (%) 4.7% completed. Of these, six failed the required minimum of
Gmm 2.577
91.0% density. For the WMA, 55 tests were completed, and
Gmb 2.482
only one of the 55 tests failed to reach the minimum density

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

51  

Table 1.62. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for George, Washington, production mix.

Tolerance
Property JMF HMA Sasobit
Limit
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 99-100
12.5 mm (1/2") 95.0 93.8 95.2 90-100
9.5 mm (3/8") 84.0 83.1 85.0 78-90
4.75 mm (#4) 55.0 54.1 55.2 51-61
2.36 mm (#8) 34.0 34.2 35.0 31-39
1.18 mm (#16) 22.0 22.1 22.4 --
0.60 mm (#30) 15.0 15.3 15.8 --
0.30 mm (#50) 11.0 11.4 12.0 --
0.15 mm (#100) 8.0 8.7 9.0 --
0.075 mm (#200) 6.3 6.4 6.7 4.3-7.0
AC (%) 5.2 5.1 5.4 4.7-5.7
Air voids (%) 3.7 4.9 4.5 2.5-5.5
VMA (%) 14.9 14.8 14.7 12.5 min.
VFA (%) 75.0 67.2 69.4 --
D/A ratio 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.6-1.6

Figure 1.35. Locations of test sections in George, Washington.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

52

Table 1.63. Temperatures on-site for George,

Washington (25).

Average Temperature (°F)

Location
HMA Sasobit
Leaving truck 328 286
Windrow elevator 322 272
Paving machine augers 306 276

Table 1.64. In-place density results for George,

Washington.

Property Statistic HMA Sasobit

Average 93.5 93.7
In-place density (%)
Standard deviation 1.58 1.36

Figure 1.36. Windrow elevator transferring mix to

Paver in George, Washington.
that both mixes show similar rut depths, with the WMA sec-
tion being only slightly more rutted. Overall, both mixes had
performed well in terms of rutting.
requirement. This yields 6.3% and 1.8% failing the density Each 200-ft (61-m) evaluation section was carefully inspected
requirements for the HMA and WMA respectively. Table 1.64 for visual signs of cracking. Minimal cracking was evident in
shows the results of these density checks. each mixture section. The only type of cracking observed was
transverse cracking that looked to be reflective cracking since
it propagated across all lanes, not just the test lanes. However,
Four-Year (50-Month) Project Inspection
this possible cause was not verified with cores. Table 1.66
A field-performance evaluation was conducted on August shows the total cracking by crack type and severity for both
27, 2012, after about 50 months of traffic had been applied to mixtures. Figure 1.38 shows an example of the transverse
the test sections. Data were collected on each section to docu- cracking seen in both mix sections.
ment performance regarding rutting, cracking, and raveling. The surface texture of each mixture was measured using the
Rut depths were measured at the beginning of each evalua- sand patch test according to ASTM E965. The sand patch test
tion section using a string line. The average results from these was conducted at the beginning of each evaluation section in
rutting measurements are shown in Table 1.65. It can be seen the right wheelpath. The calculated mean texture depths for
each mix are shown in Table 1.67. These values represent the
average and standard deviation of the three tests conducted
on each mix. Based on the results of the sand patch tests, both
mixes have raveled significantly. Both mixes have performed
equally in terms of mean texture depth after 4 years. Fig-
ure 1.39 shows an example of the surface texture of the mixes.

Core Testing
At the time of the 50-month project inspection, seven
6-in. (150-mm) cores were taken from each mix sec-

Table 1.65. Rut depths for George,

Washington.

Average Rut Depth Standard Deviation

Mix
(mm) (mm)
HMA 5.6 0.8
Figure 1.37. Paver spreading mix in George,
Washington. Sasobit 6.0 0.3

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

53  

Table 1.66. Cracking measurements for George, Washington.

Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Longitudinal Longitudinal Transverse Fatigue
Total Total Total # of Total
Mix # of Length # of Length # of Length Loca- Area,
2
Section Severity Cracks (m) Cracks (m) Cracks (m) tions (m )
Low 0 0 0 0 9 24.7 0 0
HMA Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 5 3.7 0 0
Sasobit Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

tion. The cores were first tested for density according to Table 1.67. Mean texture depths for George,
AASHTO T 166, then tested for tensile strength using Washington.
ASTM D6931, and then combined and the cut faces were
Mix Mean Texture Depth (mm) Standard Deviation (mm)
removed. This mix was split into two samples that were used
HMA 1.04 0.12
to determine the maximum specific gravity according to
Sasobit 1.09 0.01
AASHTO T 209. These same two samples were then dried
and extracted according to AASHTO T 164. A summary of
the core testing is shown in Table 1.68. The two mixes exhib-
ited similar gradations, except for the dust content, which
was 0.5% lower for the WMA. However, the asphalt con- typically yields higher densities than HMA even at the lower
tent of the WMA was 0.38% higher than that in the HMA. temperatures, probably led to the slightly higher in-place
The higher asphalt content, along with the fact that WMA density for the WMA compared to the HMA. The binder
absorption and tensile strengths of the WMA were all com-
parable to the HMA.
Table 1.69 shows the average densities and tensile strengths
by location for the 4-year inspection cores. The wheelpath
cores actually show slightly lower densities than the cores
from between the wheelpaths, which was not expected.

Figure 1.38. Transverse cracking in

George, Washington. Figure 1.39. Surface texture in George, Washington.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

54

Table 1.68. Test results from George, Table 1.70. Aggregate percentages for
Washington, 4-year cores. Walla Walla, Washington, project.

Property HMA Sasobit Aggregate Type % of Total Aggregate

Sieve Size % Passing Mix Design Production
25.0 mm (1") 100.0 100.0 Coarse chips 21 12
19.0 mm (3/4") 99.5 100.0 Fine chips 76 62
12.5 mm (1/2") 95.0 93.3 Natural sand 3 6
9.5 mm (3/8") 81.8 82.0 RAP 0 20
4.75 mm (#4) 51.9 53.9
2.36 mm (#8) 33.6 35.0
1.18 mm (#16) 21.6 22.0 a compactive effort of 100 gyrations. The mix design used
0.60 mm (#30) 15.1 15.1 for the HMA was also used for the WMA with no changes.
0.30 mm (#50) 11.1 10.8 The aggregate used for the design was a basalt and natural
0.15 mm (#100) 8.4 7.9 sand blend including 20% RAP. The materials percentages
0.075 mm (#200) 6.0 5.5 used for mix design submittal and production are shown in
AC (%) 4.91 5.29 Table 1.70.
Gmm 2.614 2.601 The Washington State DOT allows the substitution of up
Gmb 2.501 2.505 to 20% RAP without changing the virgin binder grade. The
In-place density (%) 95.7 96.3 asphalt mixture used a PG 64-28 asphalt binder. A liquid anti-
Pba (%) 1.10 1.15 stripping agent was added to the asphalt binder at a rate of
Tensile strength (psi) 188.6 174.8 0.25% by weight of liquid binder. The design aggregate gra-
dation, optimum asphalt content, design volumetrics, speci-
Table 1.69. In-place density and tensile strength fications, and allowable tolerances are shown in Table 1.71. It
by location for George, Washington. should be noted that the design was done without RAP, as is
common in the state of Washington.
Location and Property HMA Sasobit
Between-wheelpaths density (%) 96.0 96.5
Production
Right wheelpath density (%) 95.3 96.1
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 187.0 148.9 The WMA was produced using the AQUABlack WMA
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 190.2 200.7
system developed by Maxam Equipment, Inc. This system,

Table 1.71. Design gradation, asphalt content,

However, the difference is very small and can be attributed and volumetrics for mix design for Walla
to sampling and material variability. Walla, Washington.

Property
JMF Specifications Tolerances
New Projects Sieve Size
19.0 mm (3/4") 100 100 99-100
Walla Walla, Washington
12.5 mm (1/2") 94 90-100 90-100
A WMA field evaluation was placed on US-12 in Walla 9.5 mm (3/8") 81 90 Max 75-87
Walla, Washington, in April 2010. The WMA technology used 4.75 mm (#4) 52 -- 47-57
on this project was an asphalt foaming system using water 2.36 mm (#8) 34 28-58 30-38
injection developed by Maxam Equipment. This WMA tech- 1.18 mm (#16) 23 -- --
nology is referred to by the trade name AQUABlack®. The 0.60 mm (#30) 16 -- --
WMA and HMA were produced and placed on a new section 0.30 mm (#50) 12 -- --
of US-12. The estimated two-way AADT for this section of 0.15 mm (#100) 8 -- --
roadway was approximately 6,900 vehicles with 17% trucks. 0.075 mm (#200) 5.6 2.0-7.0 3.6-7.0

The production of the WMA and HMA control took place on AC (%) 5.2 0-10 4.7-5.7
April 19 and April 20, 2010, and the contractor was Granite Air voids (%) 3.7 2.5-5.5 2.5-5.5

Northwest Inc., Pasco, Washington. VMA (%) 14.7 14 min. 12.5 min.
VFA (%) 75 65-75 65-75
The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a
D/A ratio 1.2 0.6-1.6 0.6-1.6
coarse-graded 12.5-mm NMAS Superpave mix design with

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

55  

volumetric properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples

were taken from trucks leaving the plant.
AASHTO T 329 was used to evaluate the moisture content
of loose plant-produced mix. The average moisture contents
were 0.07% and 0.23% for the HMA and WMA, respectively.
These results are well below the allowable maximum moisture
content in Washington State DOT specifications. A higher
moisture content of about 0.1% for the WMA was expected
given the addition of water for foaming (2.5% by weight of
virgin asphalt binder, which is about 0.1%, by weight of total
mix). The higher moisture content of the WMA might also
have been partially due to the lower mix production tempera-
ture for WMA, which could have left some residual moisture
Figure 1.40. AQUABlack WMA system used in in the aggregate or RAP. More likely, however, the difference
Walla Walla, Washington.
in moisture content was influenced by sampling variability.
AASHTO T 195 was used to evaluate asphalt coating of the
shown in Figure 1.40, uses a foaming gun (enlarged for detail loose plant-produced mix (one sample per mix per day). Mix
on the right side of the figure) to create the foam. For this obtained from truck samples was sieved over a 3⁄8-in. (9.5-mm)
field trial, water was added at a rate of 2.5% by weight of the sieve. Visual inspections of the particles retained on the 3⁄8-in.
virgin asphalt binder. (9.5-mm) sieve were conducted, which consisted of classifying
For the WMA, 2,286 tons were produced, while 1,974 tons a particle as partially or completely coated. The percent of com-
of HMA were produced the following day. Production tem- pletely coated particles was then calculated. Coated particles
perature for the WMA was approximately 275°F (135°C), made up 99.3% of the HMA and 100.0% of the WMA. Thus,
and for the HMA control, approximately 325°F (163°C). The the WMA and HMA exhibited similar coating characteristics.
asphalt plant used to produce the asphalt mixtures was a por- Specimens were compacted using 100 gyrations of the
table, parallel-flow Cedar Rapids drum mix plant that incor- Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) at compaction tem-
porated a Hauck SJO-580 Starjet burner. Figure 1.41 shows peratures of 300°F for the HMA samples and 250°F for the
the asphalt plant used for this field trial. WMA samples. Water absorptions of the specimens were
below 1%; therefore, bulk specific gravities (Gmb) were deter-
mined in accordance with AASHTO T 166. Average test
Volumetric Mix Properties results are summarized in Table 1.72.
Samples of each mixture were obtained during produc- The gradation results for both the HMA and WMA were
tion to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and within the JMF tolerances. The asphalt content of the WMA
(5.11%) was close to the JMF (5.2%). Although the asphalt
content of the HMA (5.66%) was higher than the WMA, it
was still within the acceptable range of 5.2±0.5%. The per-
centage of absorbed asphalt was also higher for the HMA than
the WMA. Higher binder absorptions might be expected with
higher production temperatures. However, the air voids of
both mixes were equivalent and met the specifications.

Construction
A new section of US-12 was built approximately parallel
to the existing roadway. The produced WMA and HMA were
placed as the surface course directly on top of the new inter-
mediate asphalt pavement layer. The WMA was placed in the
passing lane and the HMA in the traveling lane. Figure 1.42
illustrates the locations of the test sections. The WMA sec-
tion monitored for this project began before the HMA sec-
Figure 1.41. Portable asphalt plant used in Walla tion. The green flag on the map indicates the location of the
Walla, Washington. asphalt plant. The target thickness was 1.5 inches.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

56

Table 1.72. Gradation, asphalt content, The haul distance from the plant to the roadway was less
and volumetrics for plant-produced mix than 5 miles, so little production stoppage occurred from
from Walla Walla, Washington. lack of trucks during the day. The delivery temperature of
the WMA ranged between 244°F and 259°F, whereas that
Property HMA WMA JMF
Sieve Size % Passing
of the HMA ranged between 272°F and 295°F. A RoadTec
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100
SB-2500D material transfer vehicle (MTV) was used to col-
12.5 mm (1/2") 94.0 95.4 94 lect the windrowed mix (see Figure 1.43 and Figure 1.44).
9.5 mm (3/8") 80.1 81.0 81 The MTV discharged the mix into a Blaw-Knox PF 6110
4.75 mm (#4) 51.9 49.5 52 paver as shown in Figure 1.45. The screed heater was on dur-
2.36 mm (#8) 33.4 31.3 34 ing WMA and HMA construction, set to 250°F and 270°F
1.18 mm (#16) 23.2 21.9 23 during WMA and HMA construction, respectively. The tem-
0.60 mm (#30) 17.6 16.8 16 perature of the WMA behind the screed ranged from 246°F
0.30 mm (#50) 14.3 13.8 12 to 255°F. The HMA mat temperature behind the screed was
0.15 mm (#100) 9.5 9.7 8 between 251°F and 287°F.
0.075 mm (#200) 6.0 6.6 5.6 The temperature behind the paver was monitored using
AC (%) 5.66 5.11 5.2 temperature probes, which collected temperature data every
Gmm 2.606 2.597 -- 30 seconds. Data from the probes were processed to deter-
Gmb 2.517 2.509 -- mine the rate at which the mat cooled. Regression was used
Air voids (%) 3.4 3.4 3.7 to fit an equation to the mat temperature and time data col-
Pba (%) 1.15 0.63 -- lected. Figure 1.46 shows the regression equations for WMA

Figure 1.42. Locations of test sections in Walla Walla, Washington.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

57  

Figure 1.43. Material transfer vehicle used in

Walla Walla, Washington.
Figure 1.45. Paver used in Walla Walla, Washington.

and HMA. From this analysis, the WMA and HMA mixtures
had similar cooling rates.
Hourly weather data was collected at the paving location
using a hand-held weather station. The ambient temperature
during the WMA paving ranged between 54.2°F and 87°F
(12.3°C and 30.6°C), while the ambient temperature during
the HMA paving ranged between 75.6°F and 80.2°F (24.2°C
and 26.8°C). The wind during the WMA paving was between
0 mph and 2.1 mph, and for the HMA paving, between 0 mph
and 9.6 mph. The humidity during the WMA paving was
between 33.7% and 68.9%. The humidity during the HMA
paving was between 26.5% and 38.2%.
Figure 1.44. Material transfer device and windrow in The mix was compacted using three rollers, and the rolling
Walla Walla, Washington. pattern was the same for both mixes. The WMA breakdown
roller was an Ingersoll Rand DD 130HF steel wheel roller,
while the HMA breakdown roller was an Ingersoll Rand DD

350
WMA HMA
300
y = 1E 06x2 0.0266x + 285.09
250
R² = 0.9952
Temperature, (°F)

200
y = 2E 06x2 0.0265x + 259.79
150
R² = 0.9021
100

50

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Time (sec.)

Figure 1.46. Mix cooling trends in Walla Walla, Washington.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

58

Table 1.73. Test results from Walla Gradation results for both mixes were very similar. As was
Walla, Washington, construction cores. the case with the results from the plant mix during produc-
tion, the asphalt content of the HMA cores (5.69%) was
Property HMA WMA
higher than that of the WMA cores (4.87%). The asphalt con-
Sieve Size % Passing
tent of the HMA cores was very close to the plant mix asphalt
25.0 mm (1") 100.0 100.0
content (5.66%), while the asphalt content of the WMA cores
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0
was slightly less than that of the WMA plant mix (5.11%).
12.5 mm (1/2") 96.6 94.1
The difference between the core and field-mix asphalt con-
9.5 mm (3/8") 84.5 82.5
tents for the WMA probably can be attributed to sampling
4.75 mm (#4) 56.3 54.5
variability. The Gmm and other test results for the cores from
2.36 mm (#8) 37.4 37.2
the WMA and HMA sections are very similar, which suggests
1.18 mm (#16) 27.2 27.5
that the asphalt content results for the WMA cores was not
0.60 mm (#30) 21.2 21.8
correct. Average core densities were similar for both mixes, at
0.30 mm (#50) 17.5 18.1
94.6% of theoretical maximum specific gravity for the HMA,
0.15 mm (#100) 11.5 11.8
and 94.4% for the WMA. Tensile strengths were also similar
0.075 mm (#200) 7.3 7.3
for the HMA and WMA.
AC (%) 5.69 4.87
Gmm 2.598 2.606
Gmb 2.459 2.459 Field Performance at 13-Month
In-place density (%) 94.6 94.4 and 27-Month Project Inspections
Pba (%) 1.04 0.62
A field-performance evaluation was conducted on May 17,
Tensile strength (psi) 160.9 165.4
2011, after about 13 months of traffic had been applied to
Note: Gradation and asphalt content results are based on the test sections. A second performance evaluation was per-
one sample per mix.
formed on August 28, 2012, after about 27 months of traffic.
Data were collected on each section to document performance
138 steel wheel roller. A different breakdown roller was used regarding rutting, cracking, and raveling following the same
for the HMA because the roller used on the WMA section procedure described for previous projects. Cores were used
was mistakenly transported to another site. The difference to determine the in-place density, indirect tensile strengths,
in rollers was not due to expected changes in compaction. theoretical maximum specific gravity, gradation, and asphalt
The intermediate roller was a Caterpillar PS 360C rubber tire content.
roller with a tire pressures between 90 psi and 100 psi. The Neither the HMA nor WMA showed significant rutting
finish roller was an Ingersoll Rand DD 110HP, which was after 13 months, with the HMA having an average rut depth
operated in the static mode. of 1.0 mm and the WMA having no measurable rut depth. At
the 27-month inspection, the HMA sections exhibited an aver-
age rut depth of 4.6 mm, while the WMA sections still had no
Construction Core Testing measurable rutting. The difference in rutting measurements
Field cores were obtained from each section (WMA and between the HMA and WMA likely can be attributed to the
HMA) following compaction. Core densities were determined HMA being placed in the travel lane, whereas the WMA was
in accordance with AASHTO T 166. Five cores were tested placed in the passing lane. These results are summarized in
for tensile strength, and additional cores were combined for Table 1.74.
solvent extraction (AASHTO T 164) and gradation analysis. Each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section was carefully
Average test results are shown in Table 1.73. inspected for visual signs of cracking. At the time of both

Table 1.74. Rut depths for Walla Walla, Washington.

13-Month Inspection 27-Month Inspection

Standard Standard
Mix
Average Deviation Average Deviation
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
HMA 1.0 0.4 4.6 0.3
WMA 0 0 0 0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

59  

Table 1.75. Mean texture depths for Walla Walla,

Washington.

13-Month Inspection 27-Month Inspection

Mean Standard Mean Standard
Mix
Texture Deviation Texture Deviation
Depth (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) (mm)
HMA 1.00 0.13 0.96 0.10
WMA 0.74 0.05 0.86 0.02

inspections, no cracking was evident in either the HMA or

WMA sections.
The surface textures of both the HMA and WMA test sec-
tions were measured using the sand patch test according to
ASTM E965. The calculated mean texture depths for each mix
are shown in Table 1.75. These values represent the average
and standard deviation of the three tests conducted on each Figure 1.48. HMA surface texture in Walla Walla,
section. A smaller mean texture depth indicates a smoother Washington, at 13-month inspection.
pavement, or one with less surface texture.
These results show that the HMA had a higher mean texture
depth at the time of both inspections, which indicates that the an example of the surface texture observed at the time of the
HMA has raveled slightly more than the WMA. The differ- 27-month inspection.
ence in textures is likely due to the HMA being placed in the
travel lane while the WMA was placed in the passing lane. As Core Testing
shown in Figure 1.47, Figure 1.48, and Figure 1.49, the ravel-
ing is visually apparent. It is not clear if this amount of raveling During both project performance inspections, seven 6-in.
is typical of pavements in this region of the country, but it is (150-mm) cores were taken from each mix section. All cores
greater than what is typical of coarse-graded pavements after were taken from a location near the construction cores. The
1 year of traffic in the milder climates of the southeastern densities of these cores were measured using AASHTO T 166.
United States. However, it can be seen that there is little dif- Six of the cores were then tested for tensile strength using
ference in texture measurements between the 13-month and ASTM D6931. These six samples were then combined and the
27-month inspections for either mixture. Figure 1.50 shows

Figure 1.47. WMA (foreground) and HMA

(background) sections in Walla Walla, Washington, Figure 1.49. WMA surface texture in Walla Walla,
at 13-month inspection. Washington, at 13-month inspection.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

60

time. The asphalt content from the 13-month HMA cores

(5.88%) was slightly higher than the asphalt content of the
construction cores (5.69%), but the 27-month HMA cores had
a slightly lower asphalt content (5.19%). An extra sample was
tested and verified the result for the 27-month HMA cores. The
13-month WMA asphalt content (5.78%) was significantly
higher than that of the construction cores (4.87%) and plant
mix sampled during construction (5.11%). The variations in
asphalt content are likely attributed to sampling and testing
variability.
The in-place densities increased at 13 months and 27 months
because of densification under traffic load. The densification of
the HMA cores during the first 13 months was slightly higher
than for the WMA, probably because the HMA is in the travel
lane and the WMA is in the passing lane.
Figure 1.50. Surface texture in Walla Walla, The tensile strengths of the 13-month cores were lower
Washington, at 27-month inspection. than the strengths of the construction cores and the 27-month
cores. The difference can probably be attributed to the fact that
4-in. cores were taken at construction, whereas 6-in. cores were
cut faces were removed. This mix was split into two samples taken at the 13-month inspection. Theoretically, this should
that were used to determine the maximum specific gravity not affect the results from the tensile strength test, because the
according to AASHTO T 209. A summary of the results of the diameter of the specimen is an input in the equation to deter-
construction, 13-month, and 27-month core testing appears mine the tensile strength; however, a similar decrease has been
in Table 1.76. observed on other projects. To further investigate this issue,
The gradations for the HMA and WMA were very similar 4-in. and 6-in. cores were obtained from the NCAT Test Track
and had not changed significantly from the gradations of the and tested. Two pavement sections were chosen, and six cores
cores taken at construction. Some variations in asphalt con- were taken from each section. Three of these cores were 4-in.
tents for the HMA and WMA were observed at each point in diameter and three were 6-in. diameter. The cores were all

Table 1.76. Test results from Walla Walla, Washington, on construction,

13-month, and 27-month cores.

HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA

Property Construction Cores 13-Month Cores 27-Month Cores
(April 2010) (May 2011) (August 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 96.6 94.1 95.4 94.1 94.0 94.6
9.5 mm (3/8") 84.5 82.5 81.9 80.6 82.2 81.9
4.75 mm (#4) 56.3 54.5 51.9 52.8 52.6 53.2
2.36 mm (#8) 37.4 37.2 34.5 36.5 35.8 36.5
1.18 mm (#16) 27.2 27.5 25.2 27.4 25.4 26.0
0.60 mm (#30) 21.2 21.8 19.8 21.9 20.2 20.8
0.30 mm (#50) 17.5 18.1 16.5 18.4 16.7 17.1
0.15 mm (#100) 11.5 11.8 11.4 12.5 11.2 11.4
0.075 mm (#200) 7.3 7.3 7.7 8.2 7.6 7.7
AC (%) 5.69 4.87 5.88 5.78 5.19 5.72
Gmm 2.598 2.606 2.613 2.617 2.619 2.612
Gmb 2.459 2.459 2.506 2.490 2.521 2.500
In-place density (%) 94.7 94.4 95.9 95.2 96.3 95.7
Pba (%) 1.04 0.62 1.40 1.40 1.03 1.28
Tensile strength (psi) 160.9 165.4 104.9 120.4 176.6 165.3

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

61  

Table 1.77. Comparison of tensile strength on 4-in. versus 6-in. cores

at the NCAT Test Track.

Core
Section Average In-Place Average Failure Average Tensile Percent
Diameter
ID Density (%) Load (lb) Strength (psi) Difference
(in.)
96.0 6 2567 137.0
E9 28.7%
96.0 4 2567 192.2
95.4 6 3733 237.7
S13 10.2%
95.6 4 2667 264.8

Table 1.78. In-place density and tensile strength by location

in Walla Walla, Washington, 13-month and 27-month cores.

HMA WMA HMA WMA

Location and Property 13-Month 27-Month
Inspection Inspection
Between-wheelpaths in-place density (% of Gmm) 95.7 95.0 96.0 95.6
Right wheelpath in-place density (% of Gmm) 96.2 95.4 96.6 95.9
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 114.6 126.4 177.4 166.3
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 95.3 114.3 175.7 164.3

then tested according to ASTM D6931. It was observed that vided by the Washington State DOT. US-12 was classified as a
the peak failure loads for both the 4-in. and 6-in. cores were minor arterial. The same traffic was used for the performance
very similar between samples in the same mix. This yielded predictions for both sections. However, the WMA was placed
higher tensile strengths for the 4-in. cores compared to the in the passing lane, so it was expected to receive less truck
6-in. cores. These results are shown in Table 1.77. The results traffic.
indicate that 4-in. cores will typically yield higher tensile Table 1.79 summarizes the pavement structure. The Wash-
strengths compared to 6-in. cores for a given mix. ington State DOT used a subgrade Mr = 11,000 psi in their
Table 1.78 shows the average in-place densities and tensile 40-year pavement design (26). Integrated Climatic Model
strength results by location for the 13-month and 27-month (ICM)-calculated moduli were used for the Mechanistic-
inspection cores. As expected, the in-place densities were Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) analysis.
higher in the wheelpaths as compared to those between the Figure 1.51 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting
wheelpaths for both the HMA and WMA at the time of both for the WMA and HMA sections. The MEPDG predicts that
inspections. In addition, the tensile strengths for both mixes the WMA section (subtotal of rutting in all asphalt layers) will
were slightly lower in the wheelpaths than between the wheel- exceed 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) of rutting after 50 months of ser-
paths at both inspections. vice, and the HMA section after 52 months of service. After
20 years, the difference in predicted asphalt rutting is negligi-
ble at 0.53 in. (13.5 mm) for the HMA and 0.56 in. (14.2 mm)
Performance Predictions
for the WMA. Essentially the same differential (0.04 in.) in
The initial average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) for predicted rutting is expected for the WMA and HMA sur-
Walla Walla, Washington was 1,173 trucks per day with two face layers, with 0.21 in. (5.3 mm) and 0.17 in. (4.3 mm) at
lanes in each direction. A traffic growth factor of 5% was pro- 20 years, respectively.

Table 1.79. Pavement structure for Walla Walla, Washington.

Thickness
Layer
(in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 1.8 4.6
Superpave ½-in. HMA—12.5 mm NMAS with PG 64-28 6.0 15.2
Crushed stone aggregate base 10.0 25.4
AASHTO A-4 subgrade Semi-infinite

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

62

0.7
HMA Subtotal All Asphalt
0.6 WMA Subtotal All Asphalt
Maximum Ruing Limit
0.5 HMA Surface
Rung Depth (in.) WMA Surface
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 1.51. MEPDG-predicted asphalt rutting for Walla Walla, Washington.

Figure 1.52 compares the predicted longitudinal crack- ogy used on this project was the Astec Double Barrel Green
ing for US-12 over the design life. Although the MEPDG asphalt foaming system using water injection. The WMA and
predicts slightly more cracking for the WMA compared to HMA were produced and placed on a highly trafficked sec-
the HMA—61.7 ft/mi versus 34.8 ft/mi (11.7 m/km versus tion of I-66 eastbound near Centreville, Virginia. This sec-
6.6 m/km) at 20 years—the difference is negligible and the tion of I-66 is about 30 miles west of Washington D.C. The
predicted performance of both sections is very good. estimated one-way AADT for this section of roadway was
Level 1 indirect tensile (IDT) thermal cracking inputs approximately 59,000 vehicles with 9% trucks. The produc-
were available for the Walla Walla, Washington, project. The tion of the WMA and companion HMA control took place
MEPDG predicted 0 ft/mi of cracking for both the WMA and on June 21 and June 22, 2010, respectively, with Superior
HMA sections after 20 years of service; therefore, the data is Paving Corp., Bristow, Virginia, as the contractor.
not presented graphically. The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a
fine-graded 12.5-mm NMAS Superpave mix design, with
a compactive effort of 65 gyrations. The mix design used
Centreville, Virginia
for the HMA was also used for the WMA with no changes.
A WMA field evaluation was placed on I-66 eastbound The aggregate used for the design was a diabase and lime-
near Centreville, Virginia, in June 2010. The WMA technol- stone blend including 15% RAP. The materials percentages

2400

2100
Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800

1500
HMA
1200
WMA
900 Longitudinal Cracking Limit

600

300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.52. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for Walla Walla, Washington.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

63  

Table 1.80. Aggregate percentages Table 1.82. Production temperatures in

for Centreville, Virginia, project. Centreville, Virginia.

Statistic HMA Astec DBG

Aggregate Type Mix Design (%) Production (%)
Average (°F) 317.5 287.9
#78 stone 30 30 Standard deviation (°F) 11.9 10.1
#60 stone 10 10 Maximum (°F) 327 320
Stone sand 15 15 Minimum (°F) 294 280
Grade A sand 15 15
#10 stone 15 15
Crushed RAP 15 15
Volumetric Mix Properties
Samples of each mixture were obtained during production
used for mix design submittal and production are shown in to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and volumet-
Table 1.80. The asphalt mixture used a polymer-modified ric properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples were
PG 76-22 asphalt binder supplied by Nustar in Baltimore, taken from trucks leaving the plant.
Maryland. A liquid antistripping agent, Pave Bond™ Lite, AASHTO T 329 was used to evaluate mix using loose plant-
manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company, was added produced mix. The average moisture contents were 0.04% and
to the asphalt binder at a rate of 0.50% by weight of liq- 0.14% for the HMA and WMA, respectively. These results
uid binder. The laboratory and production JMFs, optimum are both fairly low and reasonable. It was expected that the
asphalt contents, specifications, and allowable tolerances
are shown in Table 1.81.

Production
The WMA was produced using the Astec DBG asphalt
foaming system, with water added at a rate of 2.0% by weight
of the virgin asphalt binder.
For the WMA, 1,027 tons were produced, while 460 tons of
HMA were produced the following day. Production tempera-
ture for the WMA was approximately 288°F (142°C), and for
the HMA control, approximately 318°F (159°C).
Table 1.82 shows the maximum, minimum, average, and
standard deviation production temperatures for both the
WMA and HMA. The asphalt plant used to produce the asphalt
mixtures was a counter-flow Astec Double Barrel drum mix
plant that incorporated three 200-ton storage silos. Figure 1.53 Figure 1.53. Superior paving Astec DBG asphalt plant
shows the asphalt plant used for this field trial. used in Centreville, Virginia.

Table 1.81. Design gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for mix design for Centreville, Virginia.

Lab Production
Property Specifications Tolerances
JMF JMF
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100 100 100 --
12.5 mm (1/2") 96 96 95-100 ±4
9.5 mm (3/8") 87 87 Max 90 ±4
2.36 mm (#8) 41 40 34-50 ±4
0.075 mm (#200) 5.2 5.3 2-10 ±1
Asphalt content (%) 5.2 5.3 -- ±0.3
Air voids (%) 3.9 3.4 -- --
VMA (%) 15.4 14.6 -- --
VFA (%) 74.7 76.7 -- --
D/A ratio 1.10 1.16 -- --

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

64

WMA would have slightly higher mix moisture content for still within the acceptable range of 5.3±0.3%. The percentages
two reasons. First, the addition of 2% water by weight of of absorbed asphalt were essentially equivalent for the two
virgin binder for the foaming process is approximately equal mixtures. However, the air voids for the WMA were signifi-
to about 0.1% of the total mix, and the WMA had about a cantly lower compared to the HMA. This most likely resulted
0.1% higher mix moisture content. In addition, it is possible from the higher asphalt content for the WMA. Improved
the higher moisture content for the WMA was partially due to compactability of the WMA may also have contributed to
the lower mix production temperature for WMA, which could the lower voids.
have left more residual moisture in the aggregate or RAP going
through the plant as compared to the HMA mixture. It is also
Construction
possible that the difference in moisture content is influenced
by sampling variability. The eastbound portion of I-66 near Centreville, Virginia,
The percent of completely coated particles according to was widened from two lanes to four lanes. The test section
AASHTO T 195 was calculated. The percent of coated par- for this study runs from approximately MP 42.2 to the bridge
ticles was 100% for both the HMA and WMA mixtures. Thus, for US-29, which crosses over I-66 (~MP 43.05). The two
the WMA and HMA exhibited similar coating characteristics. new lanes were placed to the left of the two original lanes
Specimens were compacted using 65 gyrations in the SGC and were paved with WMA. The center-left travel lane was
at compaction temperatures of 310°F for the HMA samples the lane being paved while NCAT was on-site, and it was des-
and 260°F for the WMA samples. These laboratory compac- ignated as the WMA test section. The HMA was overlaid on
tion temperatures were determined using the average com- the two right (existing) lanes. The center-right travel lane was
paction temperature observed on the test section through the designated as the HMA test section for this project. The HMA
first couple of hours of construction for each mixture. These was placed over a milled section of asphalt roadway and the
volumetric samples were plant-mixed, then compacted on- WMA was paved over new asphalt construction. Figure 1.54
site in the NCAT mobile laboratory to avoid reheating (which illustrates the locations of the test sections. Both the HMA
could affect asphalt absorption and other volumetric prop- and WMA test sections were paved as the surface (wearing)
erties). Water absorption of the compacted specimens was course and had a target thickness of 1.5 in. A trackless tack
below 1%; therefore, bulk specific gravities (Gmb) were deter- coat was applied before paving both sections.
mined in accordance with AASHTO T 166. Asphalt contents The asphalt mixtures were delivered using tarped dump
were determined in accordance with AASHTO T 164. Gra- trucks. The haul distance from the plant to the roadway was
dations of the extracted aggregates were determined accord- approximately 12 miles. The travel time between the plant
ing to AASHTO T 30. Average test results are summarized in and site varied from 20 minutes to 40 minutes depending on
Table 1.83. The gradation and asphalt content results for both traffic. Figure 1.55 shows a truck dumping into the MTV.
the HMA and WMA were within the JMF tolerances. The A RoadTec SB-1500D MTV was used to transfer the mix-
asphalt content of the WMA (5.4%) was close to the produc- tures from the delivery trucks to the paver. A RoadTec RP-190
tion JMF (5.3%). On the other hand, the asphalt content of was the paver used for this project. Figure 1.56 and Figure 1.57
the HMA (5.0%) was a good bit lower than the WMA but was show the MTV and paver, respectively.

Table 1.83. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

from Centreville, Virginia, plant-produced mix.
Property Production HMA Astec DBG Tolerances
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 --
12.5 mm (1/2") 96.0 95.3 97.8 ±4
9.5 mm (3/8") 85.0 81.0 83.6 ±4
4.75 mm (#4) -- 51.0 54.9 --
2.36 mm (#8) 40.0 36.3 39.3 ±4
1.18 mm (#16) -- 26.9 29.4 --
0.60 mm (#30) -- 19.2 21.1 --
0.30 mm (#50) -- 12.3 13.5 --
0.15 mm (#100) -- 7.6 8.3 --
0.075 mm (#200) 5.3 4.8 5.0 ±1
AC (%) 5.3 5.0 5.4 ±0.3
Gmm 2.599 2.620 2.605 --
Gmb 2.511 2.510 2.534 --
Air voids (%) 3.4 4.2 2.8 --
Pba (%) 0.75 0.88 0.92 --

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

65  

Figure 1.54. Locations of test sections in Centreville, Virginia.

The temperature of the mix behind the paver was mea-

sured using both a hand-held temperature gun and the
PAVE-IR™ system manufactured by the MOBA Corpora-
tion. The PAVE-IR system consists of 12 infrared sensors that
measure and record pavement temperatures across the mat
and display on a mounted monitor. In addition to recording
pavement temperatures for research purposes, the PAVE-IR
system allows real-time adjustments to be made to help

Figure 1.55. Truck dumping into MTV in Centreville,

Virginia. Figure 1.56. MTV used in Centreville, Virginia.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

66

Figure 1.57. Paver used in Centreville, Virginia.

mitigate thermal segregation if it becomes apparent. The

PAVE-IR system is shown in Figure 1.58.
On the day of WMA production, there were some tech-
nical difficulties with the PAVE-IR system and it was not
fully functional until about 2:00 p.m. Table 1.84 shows the
temperatures from behind the screed using both measuring
techniques. It should be noted that because the PAVE-IR sys-
tem takes continuous readings, some differences are expected
as compared to the temperature gun readings that are taken
periodically.
Weather data was collected hourly at the paving location
using a hand-held weather station. The ambient tempera-
ture during the WMA paving ranged between 87.7°F and
100°F (30.9°C and 37.8°C), while the ambient temperature
on-site during the HMA paving ranged between 95.1°F and
101.8°F (35.1°C and 38.8°C). During the WMA paving, Figure 1.58. PAVE-IR System used in Centreville,
the wind was between 0.9 mph and 2.0 mph, and during Virginia.
the HMA paving it was between 1.2 mph and 2.4 mph. The
humidity during the WMA paving was between 29.1% and roller operated in the vibratory mode. Both the intermediate
43.7%. The humidity during the HMA paving was between and finishing rollers were Ingersoll Rand DD70 steel wheel
37.8% and 43.4%. There was no rain during the paving of rollers operated in the static mode. The rolling pattern used
either mix. for all three rollers for the majority of placement was four
Three rollers were used to compact both mixes. The break- passes on each side and then back up the joint. The rolling
down roller used was an Ingersoll Rand DD110 steel wheel pattern was the same for both mixes.

Table 1.84. Temperatures behind the screed

in Centreville, Virginia.
Temperature (°F) Measuring Device HMA Astec DBG
Temperature gun 292.0 258.5
Average
PAVE-IR 293.5 267.5
Temperature gun 14.9 6.1
Standard deviation
PAVE-IR 12.5 8.9
Temperature gun 308.0 265.0
Maximum
PAVE-IR 323.0 307.0
Temperature gun 276.0 248.0
Minimum
PAVE-IR 245.0 221.0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

67  

Table 1.85. Test results for Centreville, Virginia,

construction cores.

Property Statistic HMA Astec DBG

Average 89.1 89.9
In-place density (% of Gmm)
Standard deviation 1.7 1.2
Average 131.9 135.8
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 10.9 12.9

Construction Core Testing

After construction, seven 6-in. (150-mm) cores were
obtained from each section (HMA and WMA). Core den-
sities were determined in accordance with AASHTO T 166.
If the water absorption was determined to be higher than 1%,
the samples were then tested according to AASHTO T 331.
Figure 1.59. WMA and HMA sections in Centreville,
Six cores from each mix also were tested for tensile strength Virginia, at 15-month inspection.
according to ASTM D6931. Average test results are shown in
Table 1.85.
Average core densities were similar for both mixes, at wedge. Neither mix had any measurable rutting (greater than
89.1% of maximum theoretical specific gravity for the HMA ⁄ in., or 1.5-mm) in any of the three evaluation sections at the
1 16

and 89.9% for the WMA. These results are lower than what time of the 15-month inspection. At the time of the 24-month
is commonly expected for most new asphalt pavement lay- inspection, a string line was used to measure rutting so that
ers. The tensile strengths for both mixes were reasonable and more precision could be achieved. The HMA section had an
similar. average rutting depth of 3.2 mm, while the WMA section had
an average of 2.7 mm of rutting. Both mixes performed com-
parably in terms of rutting.
Field Performance at 15-Month and 24-Month Each evaluation section was carefully inspected for visual
Project Inspections signs of cracking. No cracking was visible at the time of either
inspection.
A field-performance evaluation was conducted on Sep- Surface textures of the HMA and WMA test sections were
tember 26 and September 27, 2011, after about 15 months measured using the sand patch test at the beginning of each
of traffic had been applied to the test sections. A second per- evaluation section in the right wheelpath. The calculated
formance evaluation was performed on June 26 and June 27, mean and standard deviations of the texture depths for each
2012, after about 24 months of traffic. Data were collected mix are shown in Table 1.86.
on each section to document rutting, cracking, and raveling. These results show similar mean texture depths for the two
In addition, three 6-in. (150-mm) diameter cores were taken mixes. Although the 15-month mean texture depth for the
from the right wheelpath, and four 6-in. (150-mm) diameter WMA section was slightly lower than that for the HMA sec-
cores were taken from between the wheelpaths for both sec- tion, the small difference may have been due to the sections
tions. These cores were used to determine the in-place den- being in different lanes. Overall, the results of the sand patch
sity, indirect tensile strengths, theoretical maximum specific test show that both mixes performed well in terms of rav-
gravity, gradation, asphalt content, and recovered true binder eling and weathering. As expected, the mean texture depths
grade for each mix. increased for both sections after 24 months. Figure 1.59 shows
The rut depths were measured at the beginning of each both sections, with the HMA on the right and the WMA on
200-ft (61-m) evaluation section with a straightedge and a the left.

Table 1.86. Mean texture depths for Centreville, Virginia.

15-Month Inspection 24-Month Inspection
Mean Standard Mean Standard
Mix
Texture Depth Deviation Texture Depth Deviation
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
HMA 0.55 0.04 0.62 0.03
WMA 0.48 0.07 0.61 0.03

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

68

Table 1.87. Test results from Centreville, Virginia, production mix,

15-month cores, and 24-month cores.
Astec Astec Astec
HMA HMA HMA
DBG DBG DBG
Property
Production Mix 15-Month Cores 24-Month Cores
(June 2010) (September 2011) (September 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 95.3 97.8 97.9 98.0 97.5 97.4
9.5 mm (3/8") 81.0 83.6 87.9 85.7 85.6 85.5
4.75 mm (#4) 51.0 54.9 56.7 56.0 55.7 54.6
2.36 mm (#8) 36.3 39.3 40.9 40.5 39.8 39.8
1.18 mm (#16) 26.9 29.4 29.2 29.3 28.2 28.7
0.60 mm (#30) 19.2 21.1 21.2 21.5 20.1 20.9
0.30 mm (#50) 12.3 13.5 13.8 13.6 12.5 13.0
0.15 mm (#100) 7.6 8.3 8.8 8.5 7.5 7.7
0.075 mm (#200) 4.8 5.0 5.9 5.4 4.6 4.7
AC (%) 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.2 5.0 4.8
Gmm 2.620 2.605 2.600 2.612 2.614 2.613
Gmb 2.333* 2.341* 2.449 2.439 2.451 2.440
In-place density (%) 89.1* 89.9* 94.0 93.5 93.8 93.4
Pba (%) 0.88 0.92 0.61 0.91 0.78 0.61
Tensile strength (psi) 131.9* 135.8* 110.8 141.8 166.3 176.5
*Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as indicated by the column header.

Core Testing The maximum specific gravities for both mixes were almost
At the time of each project inspection, seven 6-in. (150-mm) the same and were consistent with the construction data. At
cores were taken from each mix section. Four of these cores 15 months the average tensile strength for the HMA was
came from between the wheelpaths, and three came from the about 20 psi lower than the construction cores, but at 24
right wheelpath. These cores were spread throughout the mix months the HMA tensile strengths were higher and similar
sections to avoid having patched core holes in close proxim- to the results for the WMA section.
ity on this highly trafficked road. The densities of these cores Table 1.88 shows the average densities and tensile strength
were measured using AASHTO T 166. If the water absorp- results by location for both project inspections. For the HMA
tion was determined to be higher than 1%, the samples were at the first inspection, the average density in the wheelpath
then tested according to AASHTO T 331. Six of the cores were was slightly lower than the average density between the
then tested for tensile strength using ASTM D6931. These six wheelpaths, which was not expected. This difference is mini-
samples were then combined and the cut faces were removed. mal (0.3%), however, and it can be attributed to variability in
This mix was split into two samples that were used to deter- sampling and testing. At the second inspection the HMA den-
mine the maximum specific gravity according to AASHTO T sities were as expected, with the wheelpath densities slightly
209. A summary of the data from construction, 15-month, higher (0.4%) than between the wheelpaths. For the WMA, as
and 24-month core testing appears in Table 1.87. expected, the right wheelpath cores had higher densities than
The results indicate that the surface layers densified under the cores between the wheelpath at both inspections. The ten-
traffic at 15 months but did not change over the next year. sile strengths for the HMA at both inspections were lower in

Table 1.88. In-place density and tensile strength by location

in Centreville, Virginia, 15-month and 24-month cores.

Astec Astec
HMA HMA
Property DBG DBG
15-Month Cores 24-Month Cores
Between-wheelpaths in-place density (% of Gmm) 94.5 93.0 93.6 93.2
Right wheelpath in-place density (% of Gmm) 94.2 94.2 94.0 93.9
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 135.9 130.5 191.4 146.0
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 94.1 153.0 141.1 206.9

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

69  

Table 1.89. Pavement structure for I-66, Centreville, Virginia.

Thickness
Layer (in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 1.5 3.8
IM 19.0 D - 19.0 mm NMAS with PG 70-22 3.0 7.6
BM 25.0A - 25.0 mm NMAS with PG 64-22 13.0 33.0
21A Cement-treated aggregate base, E = 2,000,000 psi 10.0 25.4
AASHTO A-4 subgrade Semi-infinite

the wheelpath as compared to the cores between the wheel- Figure 1.60 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting for
paths; however, the WMA cores from the wheelpaths had the WMA and HMA sections. The predicted rutting shown
higher tensile strengths at both inspections. The difference is is the subtotal for all of the asphalt layers. The predictions
most likely attributed to sampling and testing variability, as are identical for both the WMA and HMA mixes. The total
all of the cores were taken at different longitudinal locations. predicted asphalt rutting after 20 years of service is 0.24 in.
(6.1 mm) for both mixes.
Figure 1.61 compares the predicted longitudinal cracking
Performance Predictions
for the WMA and HMA sections. The predicted cracking
The initial AADTT for I-66 near Centreville, Virginia, was after 20 years of service was almost identical with 9.9 ft./mi
10,620 trucks per day with four lanes in each direction. Traf- (1.9 m/km) for the WMA and 21.0 ft./mi (4 m/km) for the
fic counts have varied for this route over the past 10 years HMA. Level 1 IDT data was available for I-66. The MEPDG
with increases followed by decreases and an overall trend of predicted 0.01 ft./mi (0.002 m/km) of thermal cracking
approximately 3% to 4% growth. A traffic growth factor of after 222 months for the WMA. No thermal cracking was
3% was used for the MEPDG. The WMA and HMA were not predicted for the HMA.
placed in the same lanes. At this location, I-66 has three travel
lanes and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. The HMA
Rapid River, Michigan
was placed in the center travel lane; the WMA was placed in
the left travel lane. Half of the width of the center travel lane, A WMA field project was constructed on County Road 513
the left travel lane, and HOV lanes were new construction. near Rapid River, Michigan, in July 2010. Payne and Dolan,
For the MEPDG performance predictions, both the WMA Inc., Waukesha, Wisconsin, was the contractor for this proj-
and HMA were treated as if they were in the design (right) ect. The first WMA technology used on this project was the
travel lane and were new construction. Table 1.89 summa- foaming additive Advera WMA manufactured by the PQ Cor-
rizes the pavement structure used to model the I-66 sections. poration. The other WMA technology used was the chemical

0.7

0.6
HMA
0.5 Astec DBG
Rung Depth (in.)

Maximum Rung Limit

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 1.60. MEPDG-predicted asphalt rutting for I-66, Centreville, Virginia.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

70

2400

2100

Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800

1500
HMA
1200
DBG WMA
900
Longitudinal Cracking Limit
600

300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.61. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for I-66, Centreville,

Virginia.

additive Evotherm 3G developed by MeadWestvaco Asphalt Production

Innovations. The estimated two-way AADT for County
Road 513 was 1,000 vehicles with 6% trucks. The produc- Both WMA additives were metered into the plant. The
tion and construction of the HMA, Advera, and Evotherm Advera WMA was metered into the plant at a rate of
3G surface mixes took place on July 19, July 20, and July 22, 3.75 pounds per ton. The device used to meter the Advera
respectively. WMA is shown in Figure 1.62, and the point of entry into the
The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a fine- plant is shown in Figure 1.63. The Evotherm 3G was metered
graded 12.5-mm NMAS Marshall mix design compacted to in at the plant at a rate of 0.4% by weight of virgin binder.
50 blows on each side. A correlation was then performed by
the contractor to determine the equivalent Superpave gyra-
tion level. A compactive effort of 30 gyrations was determined Table 1.91. Design
to yield 4% air voids to match the Marshall mix design. The gradation and volumetrics
mix design used for the HMA was also used for both WMA for Rapid River, Michigan.
technologies with no changes. All three mixes contained local Property JMF
gravel and 17% RAP. The material percentages used for mix Sieve Size % Passing
design and production are shown in Table 1.90. A PG 52-34 19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0
asphalt binder supplied by Payne and Dolan was used for all 12.5 mm (1/2") 93.1
three mixes. The design values from the JMF are shown in 9.5 mm (3/8") 85.2
Table 1.91. 4.75 mm (#4) 66.1
2.36 mm (#8) 49.3
1.18 mm (#16) 35.8
Table 1.90. Aggregate 0.60 mm (#30) 24.9
percentages used in mix design 0.30 mm (#50) 16.9
and production for Rapid River,
0.15 mm (#100) 9.2
Michigan, project.
0.075 mm (#200) 5.8
Aggregate Type Cold Feed (%) AC (%) 5.30
¾" x ½" 11 Air voids (%) 4.0
½" x ¼" 13 VMA (%) 14.6
Manufactured sand 20 VFA (%) 72.6
Natural sand 32 D/A ratio 0.79
Fine sand 7 Pba (%) 0.79
RAP 17 Pbe (%) 4.55

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

71  

Table 1.92. Production temperatures

in Rapid River, Michigan.

Statistic HMA Advera Evotherm

Average (°F) 299.8 268.6 269.4
Standard deviation (°F) 10.9 15.4 6.3
Maximum (°F) 314 309 279
Minimum (°F) 273 254 258

ric properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples were

taken from trucks leaving the plant.
AASHTO T 329 was used to determine the moisture con-
tent of loose plant-produced mix (two samples per mix per
day). The temperature stipulated in AASHTO T 329 was not
used because of limited oven space in the NCAT mobile labo-
ratory, which prevented one oven being used solely for mois-
ture content testing. The oven temperature was set to the target
compaction temperature plus 20°F. This was the temperature
needed to get the gyratory samples to reach compaction tem-
perature quickly. Each sample was approximately 1000 g.
Figure 1.62. Advera WMA hopper in The samples were heated to a constant mass (less than 0.05%
Rapid River, Michigan. change), as defined by AASHTO T 329.
The average moisture contents were 0.07%, 0.04%, and
0.07% for the HMA, Advera, and Evotherm 3G, respectively.
Table 1.92 shows the production temperatures for each
All three mixes had a similar mix moisture content, which
surface mix placed on this project. The plant was a portable
indicates that incomplete aggregate drying was not an issue
parallel-flow drum plant manufactured by Dillman Equip-
for this project.
ment, Inc. The plant can be seen in Figure 1.64.
AASHTO T 195 was used to evaluate asphalt coating of
the loose plant-produced mix. The percent of coated particles
Volumetric Mix Properties was 100%, 100%, and 99.6% for the HMA, Advera, and Evo-
therm 3G, respectively. A minimum of 95% coating is recom-
Samples of each mixture were obtained during production mended for WMA (21). The results show that all three mixes
to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and volumet- exhibited similar coating characteristics.
Specimens were compacted using 30 gyrations in the SGC
at compaction temperatures of 300°F for the HMA and
250°F for both WMA mixes. These laboratory compaction
temperatures were determined using the average compac-
tion temperature observed on the test sections through the

Figure 1.63. Point of Advera feed in Rapid River, Figure 1.64. Parallel-flow portable drum plant in
Michigan. Rapid River, Michigan.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

72

Table 1.93. Gradation, asphalt content, and in the space between approximately 4.5 miles to 5.9 miles
volumetrics from Rapid River, Michigan, from the beginning of the project. As stated earlier, the HMA
plant-produced mix. extends the entire southbound lane, so visual comparisons
of the HMA to the two WMA technologies are possible. The
Property JMF HMA Advera Evotherm
Sieve Size % Passing
existing asphalt roadway was pulverized and recycled in place
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to create the new base. Then a new intermediate asphalt pave-
12.5 mm (1/2") 93.1 94.2 94.5 95.0 ment course was placed before the construction of the surface
9.5 mm (3/8") 85.2 86.0 86.7 84.2 mixes. All three surface mixes had a target thickness of 2 in.
4.75 mm (#4) 66.1 67.3 68.0 63.9 Figure 1.65 shows the locations of the test sections.
2.36 mm (#8) 49.3 50.7 51.3 48.4 The temperature of the mix behind the paver was measured
1.18 mm (#16) 35.8 37.6 37.9 36.1 using both a hand-held temperature gun and the PAVE-IR sys-
0.60 mm (#30) 24.9 26.1 26.3 25.5 tem. Table 1.94 shows the temperatures from behind the screed
0.30 mm (#50) 16.9 17.4 17.8 17.6 using both measuring techniques. Because the PAVE-IR sys-
0.15 mm (#100) 9.2 9.5 9.9 10.1 tem takes continuous readings, some differences are expected
0.075 mm (#200) 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.4 as compared to the periodic measurements obtained using
AC (%) 5.30 5.26 5.34 5.00 the temperature gun. For the temperature gun measurements,
Gmm 2.489 2.479 2.484 2.493 several readings were taken and the results averaged to give one
Gmb 2.390 2.384 2.401 2.410 temperature reading for that point in time.
Air voids (%) 4.0 3.9 3.4 3.0 Weather data was collected hourly at the paving location
Pba (%) 0.79 0.59 0.73 0.66 using a hand-held weather station. Ambient temperature, wind
Pbe (%) 4.55 4.70 4.65 4.37 speed, and humidity were recorded and are shown in Table 1.95.
Three rollers were used for compaction of all three mixes,
and the rolling pattern was kept the same throughout. The
first couple of hours of construction for each mixture. These breakdown performed five passes, in vibratory mode up and
volumetric samples were plant-mixed and compacted on-site static mode back. The intermediate roller was a rubber tire
in the NCAT mobile laboratory so that the mixes would not roller that rolled continuously within its operating range. The
have to be reheated. Water absorption levels of the compacted finishing roller was a steel wheel roller that performed three
specimens were below 1%; therefore, Gmb were determined in passes in the static mode.
accordance with AASHTO T 166. Samples of the mixes were
transported to the main NCAT laboratory, where solvent
Construction Core Testing
extractions were conducted in accordance with AASHTO
T 164. The gradation of the extracted aggregate was deter- After construction of each mix, seven 4-in. (101.6-mm)
mined according to AASHTO T 30. Average test results are cores were obtained from all three sections. Core densities
summarized in Table 1.93. were determined in accordance with AASHTO T 166. If the
The average gradations for all three mixes are fairly close to water absorption was determined to be higher than 1%, the
the design targets. The average air void content for the HMA samples were then tested according to AASHTO T 331. Six of
volumetric samples was only 0.1% lower than the target 4%. the cores from each mix were also tested for tensile strength
The two WMA technologies, on the other hand, had lower air according to ASTM D6931. Average test results are shown in
void contents compared to the target value, as is commonly Table 1.96. The average core densities for the three mixes were
seen with WMA even at lower compaction temperatures. very consistent and reasonable. The tensile strengths are con-
sistent but low because of the soft virgin binder (PG 52-34)
used on the project.
Construction
The project was located approximately 9 miles from the
Field Performance at 13-Month
plant, which resulted in about a 15–20 minute haul time for
and 22-Month Project Inspections
the trucks. Construction of the HMA began at the north end
of County Road 513 at the intersection of US-2 and contin- A field-performance inspection was conducted on August
ued in the southbound lane the length of the project. The 10, 2011, after about 13 months of traffic had been applied to
HMA test section examined for this study ends approximately the test sections. A second inspection was conducted on June
4.2 miles from the beginning of the project. The Advera mix 19, 2012, after about 22 months of traffic. Data were collected
was produced in the northbound lane parallel to the HMA. on each section to document rutting, cracking, and raveling.
The Evotherm surface mix was paved in the northbound lane, Three 6-in. (150-mm) diameter cores were taken from the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

73  

Figure 1.65. Locations of test sections in Rapid River, Michigan.

Table 1.94. Temperatures behind the screed.

Measuring
Statistic HMA Advera Evotherm
Device
Temperature gun N/A 269.9 248.0
Average (°F)
PAVE-IR 255.0 227.0 239.0
Temperature gun N/A 8.3 6.7
Standard deviation (°F)
PAVE-IR 16.4 12.3 14.4
Temperature gun N/A 282.0 255.0
Maximum (°F)
PAVE-IR 300.0 278.0 274.0
Temperature gun N/A 262.0 237.0
Minimum (°F)
PAVE-IR 185.0 189.0 204.0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

74

Table 1.95. Weather conditions during construction

in Rapid River, Michigan.

Measurement Statistic HMA Advera Evotherm

Average 66.2 82.8 79.4
Ambient temperature (°F)
Range 60.8-71.6 64.6-90.6 77.6-81.1
Average 3.2 1.5 2.2
Wind speed (mph)
Range 0-5.4 0-3.0 1.0-3.6
Average 78.0 57.9 61.1
Humidity (%)
Range 68.0-94.0 30.2-85.9 54.3-74.7

Table 1.96. Test results from Rapid River, Michigan,

construction cores.

Property Statistic HMA Advera Evotherm

Average 94.1 95.0 94.3
In-place density (%)
Standard deviation 1.0 0.6 0.9
Average 53.5 58.5 49.8
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 3.5 4.4 3.7

right wheelpath, and four 6-in. (150-mm) diameter cores gated in any of the Evotherm sections after 22 months. Overall,
were taken between the wheelpaths to determine the in-place all three mixes were performing very well in terms of cracking.
density, indirect tensile strengths, theoretical maximum spe- The surface textures of the HMA and WMA test sections
cific gravity, gradation, asphalt content, and recovered true were measured using the sand patch test. The calculated
binder grade for each mix. means and standard deviations of texture depths for each mix
The rut depths were measured at the beginning of each are shown in Table 1.97.
200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section with a straightedge and a These results show similar mean texture depths for all
wedge. None of the mixes had any measurable rutting at the three mixes. The Evotherm section had a slightly higher mean
time of either inspection. texture depth, which indicates it has experienced the most
Each evaluation section was carefully inspected for visual weathering as compared to the other two mixes. The Advera
signs of cracking. The HMA section had no cracking at the mix performed the best in terms of weathering. All three
time of the first inspection. At the second inspection, only mixes had similar results at both inspections. The results of
one non-wheelpath, longitudinal crack about 1 ft in length the sand patch test show that all three mixes performed well
was observed in one of the HMA evaluation sections. For the in terms of raveling and weathering. Figure 1.66, Figure 1.67,
Advera mix, one small longitudinal crack about 0.5 ft (0.15 m) and Figure 1.68 show examples of the surfaces of the HMA,
in length was evident during the first inspection. No other Advera, and Evotherm 3G sections, respectively, at the time
cracks had developed in the Advera sections at the time of the of the 22-month inspection.
second inspection. For the Evotherm 3G mix, the first evalua-
tion section contained two non-wheelpath longitudinal cracks
Core Testing
totaling 1 ft in length. The second evaluation section contained
no visual cracking, and the third section had a small longitu- At the time of each project inspection, cores were taken
dinal crack less than 1 ft in length. No other cracks had propa- near the construction cores. The testing procedures used were

Table 1.97. Mean texture depths for Rapid River, Michigan.

13-Month Inspection 22-Month Inspection
Mean Standard Mean Standard
Mix
Texture Depth Deviation Texture Depth Deviation
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
HMA 0.34 0.03 0.30 0.03
Advera 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.02
Evotherm 3G 0.40 0.04 0.39 0.05

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

75  

Figure 1.66. HMA control section from Rapid River, Figure 1.68. Evotherm 3G section from Rapid River,
Michigan, at 22-month inspection. Michigan, at 22-month inspection.

the same as previous projects. A summary of results for the 13-month inspection. The maximum specific gravities for all
core testing from the 13-month inspection compared to the three mixes were slightly higher at the 13-month inspection
construction data is shown in Table 1.98. than at construction. This may have been due to the binder
The gradations were similar for all mixes. The asphalt con- wearing off the surface, continued binder absorption over
tents at the first inspection were slightly higher for all mixes time, or both. The tensile strengths from the 1-year inspection
compared to the production mixes. This difference can proba- were very similar to those tested at construction. The Advera
bly be attributed to the difference between loose mix and cores. section had a slight increase in tensile strength after 1 year.
All three mixes exhibited similar asphalt contents at the first The results from the 13-month and 24-month inspections
inspection. The 13-month inspection cores had higher densi- are presented in Table 1.99. The gradations for all three mixes
ties than the construction cores because of densification under were similar and did not change significantly since the first
traffic. The HMA averaged 3.5% higher density compared to inspection. The asphalt contents were also similar for the
the construction cores, while the Advera and Evotherm 3G test sections and appear to have slightly decreased between
averaged 1.5% and 2.6% higher density, respectively, at the inspections, which probably can be attributed to variability in
sampling and testing, as other properties and characteristics
changed very little between inspections. The in-place densi-
ties of all three mixes were high after 13 months of traffic
and had not changed significantly between inspections. The
average tensile strengths for all three mixes increased slightly
between inspections, as was expected due to binder stiffening.
Table 1.100 shows the average density and tensile strength
results by location for the cores from both inspections. As
noted for the as-constructed cores, the in-place densities for
the test sections were high and remained high at the time of
both inspections. The wheelpath cores had slightly higher
densities compared to the between-wheelpath cores for the
HMA and Evotherm sections, as was expected. For the Advera
section, however, the average density in the wheelpaths was
slightly lower than that between the wheelpaths at the time
of both inspections. The tensile strengths for all three mixes
were similar for wheelpath and between-wheelpath cores.
Figure 1.67. Advera section from Rapid River, Tensile strengths increased as expected between the first and
Michigan, at 22-month inspection. second inspection for all of the sections.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

Table 1.98. Test results from Rapid River, Michigan, production mix
and 13-month cores.

HMA Advera Evotherm HMA Advera Evotherm

Property
Production Mix (July 2010) 13-Month Cores (August 2011)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 94.2 94.5 95.0 95.9 93.9 94.8
9.5 mm (3/8") 86.0 86.7 84.2 88.1 87.5 87.6
4.75 mm (#4) 67.3 68.0 63.9 71.1 70.3 68.7
2.36 mm (#8) 50.7 51.3 48.4 53.6 54.1 52.1
1.18 mm (#16) 37.6 37.9 36.1 37.5 39.0 37.0
0.60 mm (#30) 26.1 26.3 25.5 26.0 27.9 26.3
0.30 mm (#50) 17.4 17.8 17.6 16.6 18.1 17.3
0.15 mm (#100) 9.5 9.9 10.1 9.5 9.8 9.4
0.075 mm (#200) 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.7
AC (%) 5.26 5.34 5.00 5.55 5.41 5.48
Gmm 2.479 2.484 2.483 2.485 2.499 2.495
Gmb 2.333* 2.359* 2.341* 2.424 2.412 2.417
In-place density (%) 94.1* 95.0* 94.3* 97.6 96.5 96.9
Pba (%) 0.59 0.73 0.66 0.88 1.04 1.01
Tensile strength (psi) 53.5* 58.5* 49.8* 47.7 67.2 53.9

*Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as specified in column header.

Table 1.99. Test results from Rapid River, Michigan, 13-month

and 22-month cores.

HMA Advera Evotherm HMA Advera Evotherm

Property
13-Month Cores (August 2011) 22-Month Cores (June 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 95.9 93.9 94.8 95.5 93.6 95.1
9.5 mm (3/8") 88.1 87.5 87.6 88.4 86.4 87.1
4.75 mm (#4) 71.1 70.3 68.7 69.3 68.4 66.3
2.36 mm (#8) 53.6 54.1 52.1 52.4 52.5 50.7
1.18 mm (#16) 37.5 39.0 37.0 36.7 38.0 36.2
0.60 mm (#30) 26.0 27.9 26.3 25.2 27.2 25.6
0.30 mm (#50) 16.6 18.1 17.3 16.5 18.1 17.0
0.15 mm (#100) 9.5 9.8 9.4 9.2 10.0 9.2
0.075 mm (#200) 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.3
AC (%) 5.55 5.41 5.48 5.31 5.23 5.14
Gmm 2.485 2.499 2.495 2.488 2.502 2.502
Gmb 2.424 2.412 2.417 2.402 2.426 2.402
In-place density (%) 97.6 96.5 96.9 96.6 97.0 96.0
Pba (%) 0.88 1.04 1.01 0.78 0.97 0.91
Tensile strength (psi) 47.7 67.2 53.9 71.1 78.9 66.3

Table 1.100. In-place density and tensile strengths by location,

Rapid River, Michigan.

HMA Advera Evotherm HMA Advera Evotherm

Property
13-Month Cores 22-Month Cores
Between-wheelpaths 97.4 97.1 96.7 95.9 97.2 95.7
density (% of Gmm)
Right wheelpath 97.8 95.8 97.1 97.4 96.6 96.5
density (% of Gmm)
Between-wheelpaths 50.3 68.3 55.2 72.5 77.0 63.4
tensile strength (psi)
Right wheelpath tensile 45.1 66.0 52.6 69.8 80.8 67.2
strength (psi)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

77  

Table 1.101. Pavement structure for County Road 513,

Rapid River, Michigan.

Layer Thickness
(in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 1.5 3.8
WMA/HMA intermediate course (same as surface mix) 2.0 5.1
Cold recycled asphalt—pulverized in-place modulus 20,000 psi 6.0 15.2
AASHTO A-6 subgrade Semi-infinite

Performance Prediction WMA, and Evotherm WMA mixes, respectively, after 20 years
of service.
The initial AADTT for County Road 513 near Rapid River, One obvious difference between the Advera WMA and the
Michigan, was 60 trucks per day with one lane in each direc- other two mixes is in-place density. The Advera WMA aver-
tion. The MEPDG suggests a typical minimum of 100 trucks aged 5.0% voids at the time of construction, whereas the Evo-
per day, and this was used in the analysis. A growth factor of therm and HMA averaged 5.7% and 5.9%, respectively. As
0.3% was calculated based on the future traffic predictions noted previously, a Level 2 analysis was used for the Evotherm.
shown on the project plans. County Road 513 was classified
as a local route. Table 1.101 summarizes the pavement struc-
ture. The MEPDG would not accept the Evotherm dynamic Baker, Montana
modulus data. The 14°F data show the Evotherm mix as being A WMA field project was constructed in August 2010 on
stiffer than the HMA; however, the data at the other four test Montana County Route 322 in Fallon County, approximately
temperatures show the WMA as less stiff than the HMA. A 7 miles south of Baker, Montana. The WMA technology used
Level 2 analysis was used for the Evotherm mix. on this project was the chemical additive Evotherm DAT pro-
Figure 1.69 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting duced by MeadWestvaco Asphalt Innovations. This section of
for the WMA and HMA sections. The rut depth after 20 years County Route 322 has an estimated two-way AADT of only
of service was predicted to be 0.08 in. (2 mm) for both the 430 vehicles per day with 12% trucks. The production of the
HMA and Evotherm sections and 0.05 in. (1.3 mm) for the HMA and WMA test sections took place on August 11 and
Advera section. August 12, 2010 respectively. The contractor for this project
Figure 1.70 compares the predicted longitudinal cracking was Prince Inc., Forsyth, Montana.
over the design life for County Road 513. The MEPDG pre- The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a fine-
dicts 550 ft/mi, 139 ft/mi, and 434 ft/mi (104 m/km, 26 m/km, graded 19.0-mm NMAS Superpave mix design with a compac­
and 82 m/km) of longitudinal cracking for the HMA, Advera tive effort of 75 gyrations. The mix design used for the HMA

0.7

0.6
HMA
0.5 Advera
Note: HMA and Evotherm lines overlap Evotherm
Rut Depth (in.)

0.4
Maximum Rung Limit

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 1.69. MEPDG-predicted asphalt rutting for County Road 513,
Rapid River, Michigan.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

78

2400

2100

Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800 HMA
Advera
1500
Evotherm
1200 Longitudinal Cracking Limit

900

600

300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.70. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for County Road 513,

Rapid River, Michigan.

was also used for the WMA with no changes. The aggregate Volumetric Mix Properties
used for the design was a virgin crushed gravel blend with no
Samples of each mixture were obtained during production
RAP. The materials percentages used for mix design submittal
to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and volumet-
and production are shown in Table 1.102. Both mixes used a
ric properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples were
polymer-modified PG 64-28 asphalt binder. Hydrated lime
taken from trucks leaving the plant.
was used as an antistripping agent in both mixes. The design
The average moisture contents of the HMA and WMA mixes
JMF and limits are shown in Table 1.103.
were 0.18% and 0.09%, respectively. These results are both low
and reasonable. Although the average moisture content of the
Production HMA was slightly higher than the WMA, the difference can
likely be attributed to sampling and testing variability.
The WMA was produced by metering in the Evotherm DAT The percent of coated particles using AASHTO T 195 was
at the plant at a rate of 0.5% by weight of binder. Figure 1.71 98.0% and 99.0% for the HMA and WMA mixes, respectively.
and Figure 1.72 show the metering system and point of Evo- Thus, the WMA and HMA exhibited similar coating charac-
therm DAT entry, respectively. Table 1.104 shows the produc- teristics, and incomplete coating was not a concern for either
tion temperatures recorded in the tower for both mixes. mixes.
The plant used for both mixes was a portable parallel-flow Specimens were compacted using 75 gyrations in the SGC
drum plant that used liquid propane as fuel. The plant incor- at compaction temperatures of 270°F for the HMA samples
porated a Hauck burner with a Boeing Drum and CEI binder and 235°F for the WMA samples. These laboratory compac-
tanks. The plant had only one silo. The plant is shown in Fig- tion temperatures were determined using the average com-
ure 1.73 and Figure 1.74. During production of both mixes, paction temperature observed on the test section through the
the aggregate stockpiles were very dry, as was the plant loca- first couple of hours of construction for each mixture. These
tion in general, which caused very dusty conditions on-site. volumetric samples were compacted on-site in the NCAT

Table 1.102. Aggregate percentages used in mix design

for Baker, Montana, project.
Aggregate Type Mix Design (%) Production, HMA (%) Production, WMA (%)
Coarse gravel 39.4 39.4 41.4
" gravel 13.8 13.8 11.8
Crushed fines 45.4 45.4 45.2
Hydrated lime 1.4 1.4 1.6

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

79  

Table 1.103. Design gradation,

asphalt content, and volumetrics
for mix design for Baker, Montana.

Property JMF Limits

Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100 90-100
12.5 mm (1/2") 81 90
9.5 mm (3/8") 69 --
4.75 mm (#4) 51 --
2.36 mm (#8) 31 23-49
1.18 mm (#16) 20 --
0.60 mm (#30) 14 --
0.30 mm (#50) 10 --
0.15 mm (#100) 7 --
0.075 mm (#200) 5 2-8
AC (%) 5.8 -- Figure 1.72. Point of Evotherm DAT entry.
Air voids (%) 3.73 3.4-4.0
VMA (%) 15.2 13.0 min.
VFA (%) 75.5 65-78
JMF, but both were within the allowable control points. Both
D/A ratio 0.99 0.6-1.6
mixes contained about 1% less dust (P200) than did the JMF.
Pba (%) 0.73 --
The air voids of the HMA were low and out of tolerance,
Pbe (%) 5.11 --
whereas the WMA was in tolerance.

mobile laboratory so that the mixes would not have to be Construction

reheated. The bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of the compacted
The section of County Route 322 being paved while NCAT
specimens was determined in accordance with AASHTO
was on-site began at the intersection with Montana SR-7
T 166. The gradation of the extracted aggregate was deter-
South. The HMA was placed in both lanes starting at the
mined according to AASHTO T 30. Average test results are
intersection and going to approximately 2.6 miles east of the
summarized in Table 1.105.
For both mixes, the measured asphalt content was very intersection. The WMA was placed starting 2.6 miles east of
close to the JMF value of 5.8%. Also for both mixes, the gra- the intersection and continued east, beginning on the morn-
dation was determined to be slightly finer than that of the ing of August 12, 2010, after the 600 tons of HMA had been
placed. The WMA paved while NCAT was on-site was in the
eastbound lane only and terminated approximately 6.7 miles
from the intersection of County Route 322 with SR-7 South.
Figure 1.75 shows the locations of the test sections.
The target thickness for both surface mixes was 1.5 in.
The surface mixes were placed as an overlay over an existing
asphalt pavement layer. Both the HMA and WMA test sec-
tions were paved as the surface layer and were topped with
a chip seal approximately 8 months after construction. It is

Table 1.104. Production temperatures

in Baker, Montana.

Statistic HMA Evotherm DAT

Average (°F) 298.2 261.9
Standard deviation (°F) 3.4 7.7
Maximum (°F) 304.0 286.0
Minimum (°F) 292.0 252.0
Figure 1.71. Evotherm DAT metering system.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

80

Figure 1.73. Portable parallel-flow drum plant

in Baker, Montana.
Figure 1.74. Portable parallel-flow drum plant
in Baker, Montana.

Table 1.105. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for plant-produced mix from Baker, Montana.

Evotherm Control
Property JMF HMA
DAT Points
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 90-100
12.5 mm (1/2") 81.0 87.3 89.1 90
9.5 mm (3/8") 69.0 75.5 75.2 --
4.75 mm (#4) 51.0 55.3 53.9 --
2.36 mm (#8) 31.0 33.8 32.9 23-49
1.18 mm (#16) 20.0 22.0 20.6 --
0.60 mm (#30) 14.0 14.5 13.4 --
0.30 mm (#50) 10.0 10.0 9.2 --
0.15 mm (#100) 7.0 6.6 6.2 --
0.075 mm (#200) 5.0 4.1 4.0 2-8
AC (%) 5.80 5.69 5.76 --
Gmm 2.412 2.413 2.407 --
Gmb 2.322 2.341 2.313 --
Air voids (%) 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.4-4.0
VMA (%) 15.2 14.4 15.5 13 min
VFA (%) 75.6 79.2 74.2 65-78
Dust/binder ratio 0.99 0.82 0.78 0.6-1.6
Pba (%) 0.78 0.72 0.65 --
Pbe (%) 5.06 5.01 5.14 --

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

81  

Figure 1.75. Locations of test sections in Baker, Montana.

typical for all pavements in this area to be topped with a chip rollers operated in the vibratory mode. A Dynapac CC-552
seal within the first year. operated in the static mode was used as the finishing roller.
Weather data were collected hourly at the paving location Table 1.106 shows the ambient temperatures, wind speed,
using a hand-held weather station. No rain fell during the and humidity for both mixes produced.
construction of either mix, and both the plant and paving
locations were very dry.
Construction Core Testing
The same three rollers were used to compact both mixes, and
the rolling patterns were kept the same. The breakdown and After construction, seven 4-in. (101.6-mm) cores were
intermediate rollers used were Dynapac CC-772 steel wheel obtained from both sections. Core densities were determined

Table 1.106. Weather conditions during construction

in Baker, Montana.

Measurement Statistic HMA Evotherm DAT

Average 88.7 81.8
Ambient temperature (°F)
Range 68.0-96.1 71.1-87.1
Average 14.3 9.3
Wind speed (mph)
Range 5.8-18.4 4.6-12.7
Average 23.3 43.8
Humidity (%)
Range 14.0-42.0 34.0-68.0

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

82

Table 1.107. Test results from Baker, Montana,

construction cores.

Property Statistic HMA Evotherm DAT

Average 91.3 91.2
In-place density (%)
Standard deviation 1.1 1.7
Average 67.6 65.5
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 7.2 7.9

in accordance with AASHTO T 166. Six cores from each mix which suggested that it was probably reflective or thermal
also were tested for tensile strength according to ASTM D6931. cracking. It could not be determined if the mix was the cause
Average test results are shown in Table 1.107. of the cracking, however, because the section was topped with
Average core densities were almost identical for both the chip seal. In one of the WMA sections, two similar low-
mixes, as were the tensile strengths. The tensile strengths for severity transverse cracks were observed to extend across the
both mixes seem a bit low, but this is more than likely due entire roadway. These cracks summed to a total of 12 ft (3.7 m)
to the soft binder and the fact that no RAP is contained in for the HMA and 24 ft (7.3 m) for the WMA. Figure 1.76 shows
these mixes. an example of the cracking observed in both mix sections.
Figure 1.77 and Figure 1.78 show the surface of the HMA
Field Performance at 13-Month and WMA sections, respectively. The sections appear identi-
and 22-Month Project Inspections cal because of the chip seal that was applied to both sections.

A field-performance evaluation was conducted on Septem-

ber 7, 2011, after about 13 months of traffic were applied to the Core Testing
test sections. A second performance evaluation was performed At the time of each project inspection, eight 4-in.
on June 21, 2012 after about 22 months of traffic. Data were (101.6 mm) cores were taken from each mix. A summary
collected on each section to document performance regard- comparing the data of the 13-month and 22-month core
ing rutting and cracking. Raveling could not be analyzed on testing to the construction data appears in Table 1.108.
these mixes, however, because—as is typical for similar roads The gradations for both mixes were similar at each point in
in this area—this portion of County Route 322 had been time. Although the dust contents appeared to decrease over
topped with a chip seal over the test sections. Evaluation sec- time, this change is likely due to sampling and testing variabil-
tions were selected as described for previous projects. For the ity. The asphalt contents for both mixes from the 1-year inspec-
HMA and Evotherm DAT sections, three 4-in. (101.6-mm) tion were almost 1% higher than those tested at construction.
diameter cores were taken from the right wheelpath, and five This probably resulted from some asphalt from the chip seal
4-in. (101.6 mm) diameter cores were taken from in-between
the wheelpaths. The chip seal was cut off the top of the test
mixes, then these cores were used to determine the in-place
density after 13 months, indirect tensile strengths, theoretical
maximum specific gravity, gradation, and asphalt content.
The HMA section exhibited an average of 0.3 mm of rut-
ting between the three random locations at the time of the
first inspection. The WMA section had an average of 0.2 mm
of rutting at the first inspection. At the time of the second
inspection, the WMA had the same average rut depth, and the
HMA section had increased slightly to 0.5 mm. Both sections
performed very well in terms of rutting.
Each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section was carefully
inspected for visual signs of cracking. None of the evaluation
sections in either mix section had any visible cracking through
the chip seal at the time of the first inspection. At the time of
the second inspection, some slight cracking was found in both
sections. In one of the HMA sections, a low-severity trans- Figure 1.76. Low-severity transverse cracking
verse crack was observed that ran across the entire roadway, at 22-month inspection, Baker, Montana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

83  

Figure 1.77. HMA control section at 22-month Figure 1.78. Evotherm DAT section at 22-month
inspection, Baker, Montana. inspection, Baker, Montana.

remaining on cores after trimming. The asphalt contents ties to decrease slightly. The tensile strengths for the 1-year
at 22 months were similar for both mixes and a little closer cores were slightly lower than the cores tested at construction.
to the as-constructed results. The 13-month and 22-month The average tensile strengths decreased by 8.5 psi and 14.0 psi
cores had slightly higher average densities as compared to for the HMA and WMA, respectively. The tensile strengths of
the construction cores. The maximum specific gravities for the 22-month cores from the HMA and WMA sections were
both mixes were slightly lower on later inspection, probably similar and higher, which likely was due to aging. Table 1.109
because the chip seal binder was not completely removed shows the average densities and tensile strength results by
from the samples, which caused the maximum specific gravi- location for both inspections. The average densities were

Table 1.108. Test results from Baker, Montana, production mix,

13-month and 22-month cores.

Evotherm Evotherm Evotherm

HMA HMA HMA
DAT DAT DAT
Property
Production Mix 13-Month Cores 22-Month Cores
(August 2010) (September 2011) (June 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 87.3 89.1 92.5 94.7 92.9 87.3
9.5 mm (3/8") 75.5 75.2 81.5 85.6 82.9 78.0
4.75 mm (#4) 55.3 53.9 59.6 61.6 61.6 58.0
2.36 mm (#8) 33.8 32.9 36.1 37.2 38.2 37.4
1.18 mm (#16) 22.0 20.6 21.9 22.2 23.5 23.0
0.60 mm (#30) 14.5 13.4 14.7 14.6 15.5 15.4
0.30 mm (#50) 10.0 9.2 9.6 9.4 9.8 10.0
0.15 mm (#100) 6.6 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.8
0.075 mm (#200) 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.2
AC (%) 5.69 5.76 6.52 6.79 6.06 6.12
Gmm 2.413 2.407 2.393 2.378 2.391 2.399
Gmb 2.218* 2.195* 2.240 2.236 2.240 2.236
In-place density (%) 91.3* 91.2* 93.6 94.0 93.7 93.3
Pba (%) 0.72 0.65 0.87 0.75 0.53 0.72
Tensile strength (psi) 67.6* 65.5* 59.1 51.5 78.9 70.4

*Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as specified in column header.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

84

Table 1.109. In-place density and tensile strengths by location

in Baker, Montana.
Evotherm Evotherm
HMA HMA
Location and Property DAT DAT
13-Month 22-Month
Between-wheelpaths density (% of Gmm) 93.5 93.5 93.1 92.5
Right wheelpath density (% of Gmm) 93.8 95.0 94.7 94.5
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 60.1 53.9 75.7 69.8
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 57.9 48.2 83.2 71.4

higher in the wheelpaths for both sections, as expected. At the Level 1 thermal cracking analysis was performed for this
time of the first inspection, the tensile strength of the WMA project. Figure 1.81 shows a comparison of the predicted ther-
was lower in the right wheelpath than between the wheelpaths. mal cracking for the WMA and HMA. The HMA is predicted
At the second inspection, the tensile strengths were slightly to exceed the 1,000 ft/mi (189m/km) threshold 1 year earlier
higher in the wheelpaths for both mixes; however, the differ- than the WMA (at 67 months versus 78 months).
ence was not considered significant.
Munster, Indiana
Performance Prediction
A WMA trial project was constructed on Calumet Avenue
The initial AADTT for County Route 322 near Baker, in Munster, Indiana, in September 2010. The contractor was
­Montana was 52 trucks with one lane in each direction. Walsh & Kelley, Inc., Griffith, Indiana. This project featured
­Montana DOT reported a growth rate of 2.6%. County three different WMA technologies. The first WMA technol-
Route 322 is classified as a local route. Table 1.110 summa- ogy was the water foaming system manufactured by Gencor
rizes the pavement structures. Cores and ground-penetrating Industries, Inc., under the trade name Ultrafoam GX2™,
radar indicated that the total asphalt thickness for the HMA also called The Green Machine. The second WMA technol-
was 0.5-in. (12.7-mm) thicker than the WMA section; the ogy was the chemical additive Evotherm 3G, developed by
distribution of layer thicknesses varies as well. MeadWestvaco Asphalt Innovations. The third WMA tech-
Figure 1.79 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting nology was a wax product made by the Heritage Environ-
for the WMA and HMA sections. The predicted total asphalt mental Services, LLC.
rutting after 20 years of service is practically identical for the The HMA and all three WMA technologies were placed on
WMA and HMA, at 0.13 in. (3.3 mm) and 0.14 in. (3.6 mm), Calumet Avenue from the intersection of Main Street heading
respectively. The predicted rutting for the WMA layer is actu- northbound for approximately 1 mile. There are four main
ally slightly less than that for the HMA, at 0.02 in. (0.5 mm) travel lanes on this portion of roadway. One lane was used
versus 0.03 in. (0.8 mm), respectively. for the HMA control mix, and each of the three remaining
Figure 1.80 compares the predicted longitudinal cracking travel lanes was used for one of the trial mixes. The estimated
over the design life of County Route 322. The MEPDG pre- two-way AADT for this 4-lane roadway was 37,986 vehicles
dicts more cracking for the WMA compared to the HMA— with 7.1% trucks. The production of the HMA and Ultrafoam
1,030 ft/mi versus 822 ft/mi (195 m/km versus 156 m/km) at GX2 took place on September 14 and September 15, 2010,
20 years of service. This may be due in part to the difference respectively, while the Evotherm 3G and Heritage wax were
in pavement thickness. produced and placed on September 16, 2010.

Table 1.110. Pavement structures for County Route 322, Baker, Montana.

WMA Thickness, in. HMA Thickness, in. [cm]

Layer [cm]
(in.) (cm) (in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 1.8 4.6 1.6 4.1
Existing HMA - 12.5 NMAS with PG 64-28 2.2 5.6 1.8 4.6
Existing HMA - 12.5 NMAS with PG 64-28 1.9 4.8 1.7 4.3
Existing HMA - 12.5 NMAS with PG 64-28 NA 1.3 3.3
AASHTO A-4 subgrade Semi-infinite

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

0.7

0.6
HMA
0.5 WMA

Rut Depth (in.)

Maximum Rung Limit
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.79. MEPDG-predicted asphalt rutting for County Route 322,

Baker, Montana.

2400

2100
Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800
HMA
1500 WMA
Longitudinal Cracking Limit
1200

900

600

300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.80. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for County Road 322.

Baker, Montana.

2400

2100
Thermal Cracking (/mile)

1800

1500

1200

900

600 HMA
WMA
300
Longitudinal Cracking Limit
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.81. MEPDG-predicted thermal racking for County Road 322,

Baker, Montana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

86

Table 1.111. Aggregate the asphalt volume. The process allows for maximum coating
percentages for Munster, of the aggregate as well as improved compactability at lower
Indiana, project. temperatures. For this field evaluation, water was injected at
a rate of 2% by weight of virgin binder. The Ultrafoam GX2
Aggregate Type Mix Design (%)
11 limestone 48
system is shown in Figure 1.82.
FM 21 10
The next WMA process used on this field evaluation was
Slag sand 25 Evotherm 3G. The Evotherm chemical was introduced via a
RAP 15 mass-flow meter at the plant at a rate of 0.5% by weight of
Baghouse dust 2 liquid binder. The final WMA technology used was Heritage
organic wax additive. This material was terminal-blended with
the PG 64-22 liquid binder. Once mixed, the wax bumped the
The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a binder grade to PG 70-22.
coarse-graded 9.5-mm NMAS Superpave mix design with a Table 1.113 shows the production temperatures for all four
compactive effort of 75 gyrations. The mix design used for mixes. The asphalt plant used to produce the asphalt mixtures
the HMA was also used for all WMA technologies with no was an Astec counter-flow drum mix plant. Figure 1.83 shows
changes. All four mixtures contained limestone, slag sand, the asphalt plant used for this field trial.
and 15% RAP. The RAP consisted of multiple-source millings
that were fractionated into two stockpiles to have better con- Volumetric Mix Properties
trol of the material. The material percentages used for mix
design and production are shown in Table 1.111. A PG 64-22 Samples of each mixture were obtained during produc-
asphalt binder supplied by British Petroleum was used as the tion to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and vol-
virgin binder for all mixes. The JMF, optimum asphalt con- umetric properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples
tent, and specifications are shown in Table 1.112. were taken from a mini-stockpile made each day specifically
for sampling.
The average moisture contents were 0.26, 0.44, 0.47, and
Production 0.52% for the HMA, Ultrafoam GX2, Evotherm 3G, and Her-
The first WMA process used for this field evaluation was itage wax, respectively. These moisture contents results are
the Ultrafoam GX2 system, which injects water into the somewhat high for two reasons: (1) it rained overnight before
virgin binder to create foaming that temporarily expands production of the mixes, and (2) the limestone used is known

Table 1.112. Design gradation,

asphalt content, and volumetrics
for mix design for Munster, Indiana.

Property JMF Specification

Sieve Size % Passing
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 100
9.5 mm (3/8") 92.0 90-100
4.75 mm (#4) 54.0 < 90
2.36 mm (#8) 41.0 32-67
1.18 mm (#16) 30.0 --
0.60 mm (#30) 22.0 --
0.30 mm (#50) 15.0 --
0.15 (#100) 10.0 --
0.075 mm (#200) 6.0 2-10
AC (%) 5.50 --
Air voids (%) 4.0 --
VMA (%) 15.4 --
VFA (%) 73.9 --
D/A ratio 1.23 --
Pba (%) 0.66 --
Figure 1.82. Ultrafoam GX2 foaming system used
Pbe (%) 4.87 --
in Munster, Indiana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

87  

Table 1.113. Production temperatures in Munster, Indiana.

Statistic HMA Ultrafoam GX2 Evotherm 3G Heritage Wax

Average (°F) 300.4 276.5 255.6 267.5
Standard
10.0 7.9 6.3 11.3
deviation (°F)
Maximum (°F) 320 288 267 277
Minimum (°F) 290 265 248 243

to be highly absorptive, which means there was residual mois- The percent of coated particles was 100.0%, 99.0%, 99.0%
ture in the aggregate that was not completely removed in the and 98.0% for the HMA, Ultrafoam GX2, Evotherm 3G, and
drier. It was expected that the WMA mixes might have slightly Heritage wax mixes, respectively. This shows that even at
higher mix moisture contents because of the lower mix lower production temperatures, the WMA technologies had
production temperatures, which could leave more residual coating characteristics similar to the HMA.
moisture in the aggregate or RAP going through the plant as Specimens were compacted using 75 gyrations in the
compared to the HMA mixture. SGC at compaction temperatures of 285°F, 240°F, 230°F,
and 240°F for the HMA, Ultrafoam GX2, Evotherm 3G, and
Heritage wax mixes, respectively. These laboratory compaction
temperatures were determined using the average temperature
at the start of rolling during the first couple of hours of con-
struction for each mixture. These volumetric samples were
compacted on-site in the NCAT mobile laboratory so that the
mixes would not have to be reheated. Average test results for
the plant-produced mixtures are summarized in Table 1.114.
For all mixes, the asphalt content results were higher than
the JMF values, with the HMA having the largest difference
from the JMF (0.68%). All of the WMA technologies had
asphalt contents within 0.5% of the JMF value. The grada-
tions for all four mixes were within the specification limits.
Most sieves were very close to the JMF gradation except for
the #4 and #200 sieves. All four mixes were about 6% finer
on the #4 sieve, and all mixes but the Evotherm mix con-
tained about 1% more dust (P200) than the JMF. The percent
of absorbed asphalt (Pba) was significantly higher for the four
plant-produced mixes compared to the value computed from
the JMF. This is most likely related to the maximum specific
gravities (Gmm) for the four mixes being higher than the JMF
value. The air void contents for each of the mixes were higher
than the design value of 4.0%. However, the bulk specific
gravity (Gmb) values were very similar to the JMF. Therefore,
the differences in air voids can be attributed to the differences
in maximum specific gravity values.

Construction
The HMA and three WMA technologies were all placed on
Calumet Avenue in Munster, Indiana, from the intersection of
Main Street to approximately 1 mile north on Calumet Avenue.
This portion of Calumet Avenue was approximately 6 miles
Figure 1.83. Counter-flow drum plant in Griffith, from the plant, which was located in Griffith, Indiana. However,
Indiana. the travel time to the site was approximately 20–45 minutes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

88

Table 1.114. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for plant-produced mix in Munster, Indiana.
Evotherm
Property JMF HMA Foam Wax Specification
3G
Sieve Size % Passing
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.8 99.6 100
9.5 mm (3/8") 92.0 94.0 93.5 93.8 94.2 90-100
4.75 mm (#4) 54.0 61.5 62.1 60.3 61.2 < 90
2.36 mm (#8) 41.0 39.6 40.8 38.9 40.0 32-67
1.18 mm (#16) 30.0 28.6 28.6 26.7 28.1 --
0.60 mm (#30) 22.0 19.6 19.9 17.8 19.6 --
0.30 mm (#50) 15.0 13.5 13.7 11.5 13.4 --
0.15 mm (#100) 10.0 9.5 9.6 7.6 9.4 --
0.075 mm (#200) 6.0 6.9 7.0 5.6 7.0 2-10
AC (%) 5.50 6.18 5.61 5.95 5.95 --
Gmm 2.499 2.526 2.525 2.517 2.531 --
Gmb 2.398 2.386 2.383 2.357 2.407 --
Air voids (%) 4.0 5.6 5.6 6.4 4.9 --
Pba (%) 0.66 1.58 1.18 1.27 1.51 --

because of the high volume of traffic in the area. The HMA Construction Core Testing
and Ultrafoam GX2 foam mixes were placed in the south-
Test results on the construction cores are shown in
bound outside and northbound outside lanes, respectively.
The Evotherm and Heritage wax mixes were placed in the Table 1.117. The average core densities for the HMA and
northbound inside and southbound inside lanes, respectively. Heritage wax were approximately 1.7% lower than for the
The four test mixes were placed as the surface (wearing) course Ultrafoam GX2 foam and Evotherm 3G sections. The tensile
and had a target thickness of 1.5 in. All four lanes had been strengths for the three WMA mixes were similar, but were
milled and then had a new intermediate asphalt pavement about 10 psi higher than the HMA.
course paved before placement of the surface mixes. Fig-
ure 1.84 shows the locations of the test sections. Field Performance at 13-Month
The asphalt mixes were delivered using a cycle of nine tarped and 24-Month Project Inspections
dump trucks that discharged the material directly into the
paver. Figure 1.85 shows a truck dumping into the paver. Field-performance evaluations were conducted on Octo-
The temperature of the mix behind the paver was measured ber 18, 2011, after about 13 months of traffic, and on Sep-
using a hand-held temperature gun and the PAVE-IR system. tember 18, 2012, after about 24 months of traffic. Data were
Table 1.115 shows the temperatures from behind the screed collected on each section to document performance regard-
using both measuring techniques. Because the PAVE-IR sys- ing rutting, cracking, and raveling.
tem takes continuous readings, some differences are expected The rut depths were measured at the beginning of each
as compared to the periodic measurements obtained using 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section with a straightedge and a
the temperature gun. With the temperature gun, several read- wedge. No measurable rutting was detected in any of the test
ings were taken and the results were averaged to give one tem- sections at the time of either inspection.
perature reading for that point in time. Each evaluation section was carefully examined in each
Weather data were collected hourly at the paving location inspection for visual signs of cracking. At the time of the
using a hand-held weather station. Ambient temperature, first inspection, a 1-ft (0.3-m), low-severity (< 6-mm wide),
wind speed, and humidity data were recorded and are shown transverse crack was observed in one of the HMA evaluation
in Table 1.116. sections. At the second inspection, this crack had progressed
All four mixes were compacted using two rollers, and the to 3 ft in length, but was still considered at low severity. An
rolling pattern was approximately the same for all mixes. Both 11-ft. (3.4-m) crack was also observed in an HMA evalua-
of these rollers were steel wheel rollers operated in the vibra- tion section at the time of the second inspection. This non-
tory mode. The breakdown roller was a Hamm HD-110HV, wheelpath, longitudinal crack was also low severity. The
and the finishing roller was a Hamm HD-14. Ultrafoam GX2 foam section had four low-severity trans-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

89  

Figure 1.84. Locations of test sections in Munster, Indiana.

verse cracks at the time of the first inspection. These four that the cracks probably were not fatigue related. In addi-
cracks totaled 8 ft (2.4 m) in length. Four longitudinal cracks tion, most of the cracks had been sealed in the foam sec-
also were observed in the foam sections, totaling 11 ft (3.4m) tion. According to the Distress Identification Manual for the
in length. All of these cracks were low severity and were not Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, they are consid-
in the wheelpath. At the time of the second inspection, the ered low severity because they are sealed. Figure 1.86 shows
total length of transverse cracking in the foam sections had an example of a transverse crack that had been sealed. The
progressed to 20 ft (6.1 m) and the number of cracks had risen Evotherm 3G and Heritage wax sections exhibited no crack-
to five. The non-wheelpath longitudinal cracking had pro- ing at the time of either inspection. Notably, the two mixes
gressed to 97 ft (29.6 m) with a total of 11 cracks. All of these that exhibited cracking (HMA and Ultrafoam GX2) were
cracks were still low severity. Although the foam sections had in the outside lanes, while the two with no cracking were in
a good deal more cracking as compared to the other mixes, the inside lanes. Figure 1.87 shows an example of the non-
none of the longitudinal cracks were in the wheelpath for wheelpath longitudinal cracking observed at the time of the
either of the two mixes that had cracking, so it is thought 24-month inspection.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

90

The surface textures of both the HMA and WMA test sec-
tions were measured using the sand patch test according to
ASTM E965. The calculated mean texture depths for each
mix are shown in Table 1.118.
These results show similar mean texture depths for all four
mixes. The HMA had a slightly higher mean texture depth at
both inspections, which indicates a slightly greater amount
of raveling than the WMA sections. The wax WMA had the
second-highest mean texture depth. Overall, the results of the
sand patch tests indicate that all four mixes performed well
in terms of raveling and weathering. Figure 1.88 shows the
surface of the Ultrafoam GX2, Evotherm 3G, Heritage wax,
and HMA sections from left to right.

Core Testing
Figure 1.85. Truck dumping into Caterpillar
AP-1055D paver. A summary of the core testing that compares the 13-month
inspection to the production data appears in Table 1.119. The
asphalt contents of the HMA and Heritage wax 13-month

Table 1.115. Temperatures behind the screed in Munster, Indiana.

Temperature
Measuring Device HMA Foam Evotherm Wax
(°F)
Temperature gun 282.9 259.5 233.5 245.3
Average
PAVE-IR 249.0 222.0 210.0 235.0
Standard Temperature gun 6.2 7.0 4.2 11.1
deviation PAVE-IR 13.1 13.9 13.4 13.0
Temperature gun 291.3 266.0 239.3 259.3
Maximum
PAVE-IR 280.0 258.0 248.0 267.0
Temperature gun 272.3 247.7 226.3 224.0
Minimum
PAVE-IR 210.0 179.0 158.0 171.0

Table 1.116. Weather conditions during construction

in Munster, Indiana.
Measurement Statistic HMA Foam Evotherm* Wax*
Ambient Average 81.4 75.5 72.5 72.5
temperature (°F) Range 72.3-87.1 59.9-90.1 70.2-75.1 70.2-75.1
Average 2.0 4.4 3.8 3.8
Wind speed (mph)
Range 0-2.7 1.5-9.0 2.2-4.7 2.2-4.7
Average 39.9 46.5 67.1 67.1
Humidity (%)
Range 32.8-64.7 23.5-70.2 51.5-84.1 51.5-84.1
* The Evotherm and Heritage wax sections were constructed on the same day.

Table 1.117. Test results from Munster, Indiana,

construction cores.

Property Statistic HMA Foam Evotherm Wax

Average 88.7 90.3 90.4 88.7
In-place density (% of Gmm)
Standard deviation 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.9
Average 89.5 101.0 105.6 98.3
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 14.8 15.1 12.0 18.6

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

91  

Figure 1.86. Low-severity transverse crack in

Munster, Indiana.

cores were substantially lower than the results from the pro- Figure 1.87. Low-severity
duction samples. The results of the 13-month cores are more non-wheelpath longitudinal crack
consistent with the maximum specific gravity results and the in Munster, Indiana.
slightly higher raveling in the HMA section. These cores had
higher densities compared to the construction cores. This
increase in density was expected because of traffic densifica-
tion. The increase in density for the HMA was 4.2% compared all four mixes. The average asphalt contents for the 24-month
to the construction cores, whereas the Evotherm 3G, Ultra- cores were slightly higher than those for the 13-month cores
foam, and Heritage wax sections increased by 2.6%, 2.7%, and generally more consistent with the results from the
and 4.2%, respectively. The maximum specific gravities for all as-produced samples, but the differences are likely due to
four mixes were very similar to the values measured on the sampling and testing variability. The in-place densities for
mix sampled at construction. The average tensile strengths of all four sections were very similar and had not changed sig-
the 13-month inspection cores improved for all four mixes as nificantly between inspections. The tensile strength increased
compared to the cores tested at construction. This was proba- for all four mixes between inspections. The strengths at both
bly due to the increase in densities and stiffening of the binder inspections were reasonable for all mixes.
because of aging. The tensile strengths of the three WMA Table 1.121 shows the average density and tensile strength
technologies were all higher than the HMA at both construc- results by location for the cores from both inspections. For
tion and the first inspection. The tensile strengths were similar all three WMA technologies, the average densities in the
and acceptable for all mixes at the first inspection. wheelpaths are very similar to the average densities measured
The results from the 13-month and 24-month inspections between the wheelpaths. The HMA had about 3% higher
are presented in Table 1.120. The gradations are similar for density in the wheelpath at both inspections. For all four

Table 1.118. Mean texture depths for Munster, Indiana.

13-Month Revisit 24-Month Revisit
Standard Standard
Mix Mean Texture Mean Texture
Deviation Deviation
Depth (mm) Depth (mm)
(mm) (mm)
HMA 0.60 0.07 0.58 0.06
Evotherm 3G 0.53 0.03 0.51 0.04
Ultrafoam GX2 0.52 0.01 0.52 0.03
Heritage wax 0.55 0.07 0.56 0.05

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

92

Calumet Avenue/US-45 was classified as a principal arterial.

For the MEPDG analysis, the same traffic was used for all
sections even though the Evotherm and Heritage wax sec-
tions were placed in the passing lanes. Observations on-site
indicate that trucks used both lanes. Table 1.122 summarizes
the pavement structure used for the analyses.
Figure 1.89 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting
in all the asphalt layers for the WMA and HMA sections. Fig-
ure 1.90 shows the predicted rutting in the surface layers only.
The MEPDG predicts that the cumulative rutting in all the
asphalt layers will reach 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) after 70 months
of service. The total cumulative rutting in the asphalt layers
predicted after 20 years of service is 0.49 in. (12.4 mm) for
the HMA and 0.50 in. (12.7 mm) for all of the WMA sec-
tions. Similarly, the predicted rutting in the surface layer is
Figure 1.88. Foam, Evotherm, Wax, and HMA 0.10 in. (2.5 mm) for the HMA, Evotherm, and Heritage wax,
sections, respectively, in Munster, Indiana. and 0.11 in. (2.8 mm) for the foam section. Essentially, the
predicted rutting performance for all of the mixes is the same.
Figure 1.91 compares the predicted longitudinal cracking
mixes, the average tensile strength between the wheelpaths
was slightly greater than in the wheelpath. over the design life of Calumet Avenue/US-45. The predicted
top-down, longitudinal cracking exceeds the design limit of
2,000 ft/mi (379 m/km) for all of the sections. The Heritage
Performance Predictions
wax has the worst predicted performance, followed by the
The initial AADTT for Calumet Avenue, Munster, Indiana, HMA, Gencor foam, and Evotherm, with cracking exceed-
was 2,697 trucks with two lanes in each direction. A growth ing 2,000 ft/mi (379 m/km) predicted after 24 months,
factor of 1.8% was calculated based on historical traffic data. 34 months, 35 months, and 37 months, respectively.

Table 1.119. Test results from Munster, Indiana, production mix

and 13-month cores.
HMA Foam Evotherm Wax HMA Foam Evotherm Wax
Property Production Mix 13-Month Cores
(September 2010) (October 2011)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 99.8 99.6 99.8 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.7 99.9
9.5 mm (3/8") 94.0 93.5 93.8 94.2 94.4 94.5 94.2 93.6
4.75 mm (#4) 61.5 62.1 60.3 61.2 62.9 63.5 62.3 59.0
2.36 mm (#8) 39.6 40.8 38.9 40.0 41.1 42.5 41.0 38.9
1.18 mm (#16) 28.6 28.6 26.7 28.1 29.0 29.6 27.9 27.1
0.60 mm (#30) 19.6 19.9 17.8 19.6 21.3 21.7 20.0 19.7
0.30 mm (#50) 13.5 13.7 11.5 13.4 14.7 15.2 13.4 13.5
0.15 mm (#100) 9.5 9.6 7.6 9.4 10.3 10.7 9.1 9.4
0.075 mm (#200) 6.9 7.0 5.6 7.0 7.5 7.9 6.5 6.7
AC (%) 6.18 5.61 5.95 5.95 5.34 5.55 5.71 5.42
Average Production
300.4 276.5 255.6 267.5 300.4 276.5 255.6 267.5
Temperature (°F)
Gmm 2.526 2.525 2.517 2.531 2.542 2.545 2.533 2.537
Gmb 2.242* 2.279* 2.276* 2.244* 2.357 2.367 2.356 2.357
In-place density (%) 88.7* 90.3* 90.4* 88.7* 92.9 93.0 93.0 92.9
Pba (%) 1.58 1.18 1.27 1.51 1.29 1.48 1.39 1.26
Tensile strength
89.5* 101.0* 105.6* 98.3* 104.6 108.8 119.3 120.0
(psi)
* Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as identified by the column header.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

93  

Table 1.120. Test results from Munster, Indiana, 13-month

and 24-month cores.

HMA Foam Evotherm Wax HMA Foam Evotherm Wax

Property 13-Month Cores 24-Month Cores
(October 2011) (September 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 99.8 99.9 99.7 99.9 99.6 99.7 99.7 99.6
9.5 mm (3/8") 94.4 94.5 94.2 93.6 95.6 93.9 94.9 94.9
4.75 mm (#4) 62.9 63.5 62.3 59.0 65.8 62.3 64.2 62.5
2.36 mm (#8) 41.1 42.5 41.0 38.9 42.2 41.5 42.6 41.6
1.18 mm (#16) 29.0 29.6 27.9 27.1 28.9 28.6 29.1 28.2
0.60 mm (#30) 21.3 21.7 20.0 19.7 20.7 20.5 20.7 20.0
0.30 mm (#50) 14.7 15.2 13.4 13.5 13.8 14.0 14.0 13.4
0.15 mm (#100) 10.3 10.7 9.1 9.4 9.3 9.6 9.5 9.0
0.075 mm (#200) 7.5 7.9 6.5 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.2
AC (%) 5.34 5.55 5.71 5.42 5.95 5.62 5.82 5.81
Average production
300.4 276.5 255.6 267.5 300.4 276.5 255.6 267.5
temp. (°F)
Gmm 2.542 2.245 2.533 2.537 2.533 2.542 2.537 2.535
Gmb 2.357 2.367 2.356 2.357 2.368 2.378 2.367 2.363
In-place density (%) 92.9 93.0 93.0 92.9 93.5 93.5 93.3 93.2
Pba (%) 1.29 1.48 1.39 1.26 1.55 1.48 1.53 1.49
Tensile strength (psi) 104.6 108.8 119.3 120.0 123.8 143.2 129.7 131.5

Table 1.121. In-place density and tensile strengths by location

in Munster, Indiana.

HMA Foam Evotherm Wax HMA Foam Evotherm Wax

Location and Property
13-Month Cores 24-Month Cores
Between-wheelpaths 91.1 93.5 93.2 93.0 91.8 93.6 93.6 93.4
density (% of Gmm)
Right wheelpath density 94.0 92.7 92.9 92.8 94.6 93.5 93.0 93.1
(% of Gmm)
Between-wheelpaths 108.6 116.1 129.1 135.8 128.3 170.2 156.6 150.5
tensile strength (psi)
Right wheelpath tensile 101.9 103.9 112.7 109.5 120.8 125.3 111.8 118.8
strength (psi)

Table 1.122. Pavement structure for Calumet Avenue, Munster, Indiana.

Thickness
Layer
(in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 2.1 5.3
HMA - 12.5 mm NMAS with PG 64-22 1.8 4.6
Existing HMA -19.0 mm NMAS with PG 64-22 4.0 10.2
AASHTO A-7-6 subgrade Semi-infinite

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

0.7

0.6

0.5

Rut Depth (in.)

0.4

0.3

0.2 HMA
Foam
Evotherm
0.1
Heritage Wax
Maximum Rung Limit
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.89. MEPDG-predicted rutting in all asphalt layers for

Calumet Avenue, Munster, Indiana.

0.7
HMA
0.6 Foam
Evotherm
0.5 Heritage Wax
Maximum Rung Limit
Rut Depth (in.)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.90. MEPDG-predicted rutting in experimental (surface) layers

for Calumet Avenue, Munster, Indiana.

2400

2100
Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800

1500

1200

900
HMA
600 Foam
Longitudinal Cracking Limit
300 Evotherm
Wax
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.91. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for Calumet Avenue,

Munster, Indiana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

95  

Level I IDT thermal cracking inputs were available for Table 1.123. Aggregate percentages for
the Munster, Indiana, project. The predicted thermal crack- Jefferson County, Florida, project.
ing is presented in Figure 1.92. All the WMA technologies
Aggregate Type Mix Design (%) Production (%)
performed better than the HMA. The Evotherm performed
#78 stone 24 24
the best, followed by the Heritage wax and Gencor Ultra- #89 stone 16 21
foam mixtures. Interestingly, this performance corresponds W-10 screenings 20 23
to the measured production and placement temperatures M-10 screenings 10 9
(Table 1.115). Local sand 10 8
Crushed RAP 20 15
Jefferson County, Florida
A WMA trial project was constructed on US-98 in
Jefferson County, Florida, southeast of Tallahassee in Octo-
either mix. The laboratory and production JMFs, optimum
ber 2010. The WMA technology used on this project was the
asphalt contents, specifications, and allowable tolerances
water injection asphalt foaming system developed by Terex
appear in Table 1.124.
Roadbuilding. This WMA technology is referred to as the
Terex WMA system. This section of US-98 has an estimated
two-way AADT of 1,950 vehicles with 41% trucks. The pro- Production
duction of the WMA and companion HMA control took
place on October 6 and October 7, 2010, with C.W. Roberts The WMA was produced using the Terex WMA system
Contracting Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, as the contractor. shown in Figure 1.93. The foaming allows for maximum
The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a coating of the aggregate as well as improved compactability
fine-graded, 12.5-mm NMAS Superpave mix design with at lower temperatures. For this field evaluation, water was
a compactive effort of 75 gyrations. The mix design used injected at a rate of 2% by weight of virgin binder.
for the HMA was also used for the WMA with no changes. Table 1.125 shows the average production temperature for
The aggregate used for the design was a granite and sand both mixes. The asphalt plant used to produce the asphalt
blend including 20% crushed RAP. The material percentages mixes was a counter-flow Terex CMI drum mix plant that
used for mix design submittal and production are shown in incorporated two asphalt storage silos. The plant used recycled
Table 1.123. Both mixes used a polymer-modified PG 76-22 waste oil for the burner fuel. Figure 1.94 shows the asphalt
asphalt binder. No antistrip agent was used on this project for plant used for this field trial.

2400

2100
Total Crack Length (/mile)

1800

1500

1200

900

600

300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
HMA Foam Evotherm Wax Longitudinal Cracking Limit
Figure 1.92. MEPDG-predicted thermal cracking for Calumet Avenue,
Munster, Indiana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

96

Table 1.124. Design gradation, asphalt Table 1.125. Production temperatures

content, and volumetrics for mix design in Jefferson County, Florida.
in Jefferson County, Florida.
Temperatures (°F) HMA Terex Foam
JMF Control Points Average 336.3 296.9
Sieve Size Standard deviation 8.3 9.5
% Passing
Maximum 348 311
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100
Minimum 316 279
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 90-100
9.5 mm (3/8") 89.0 --
4.75 mm (#4) 63.0 --
of the aggregate was not a concern for this WMA. The percent
2.36 mm (#8) 46.0 28-58
of coated particles was 98.0% and 99.0% for the HMA and
1.18 mm (#16) 35.0 --
WMA mixes, respectively. Thus, the WMA and HMA exhib-
0.60 mm (#30) 27.0 --
ited similar coating characteristics, and incomplete coating
0.30 mm (#50) 15.0 --
0.15 mm (#100) 8.0 --
was not a concern for either mix.
0.075 mm (#200) 5.4 2-10
Specimens were compacted using 75 gyrations in the SGC
AC (%) 5.3 --
at compaction temperatures of 295°F for the HMA samples
Air voids (%) 4.0 -- and 250°F for the WMA samples. These laboratory compac-
VMA (%) 14.8 -- tion temperatures were determined from the average compac-
VFA (%) 72.9 -- tion temperature observed on the test sections through the
D/A ratio 1.19 -- first couple of hours of construction for each mixture. These
Pba (%) 0.79 -- volumetric samples were compacted on-site in the NCAT
Pbe (%) 4.55 -- mobile laboratory so that the mixes would not have to be
reheated. Average test results are summarized in Table 1.126.
Gradation and asphalt content results for the HMA were
Volumetric Mix Properties nearly identical to the JMF values; however, the air voids on
the design verification samples were much lower than the
Samples of both mixtures were obtained during produc-
target 4.0%. The bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of both of these
tion to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and vol-
samples was rechecked to verify the results. The average air
umetric properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples
void content for the WMA was much closer to the design
were taken from trucks leaving the plant.
target, probably due to its slightly lower asphalt content and
The average moisture content for the HMA was 0.04% and
slightly lower dust content.
for the WMA, 0.05%. These results are both very low and vir-
tually the same, which demonstrates that incomplete drying
Construction
The segment of US-98 that was paved while the research
team was on-site was about a 50–60 minute drive from the

Figure 1.93. Terex WMA system used in Jefferson Figure 1.94. Terex CMI Plant in Jefferson County,
County, Florida. Florida.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

97  

Table 1.126. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for plant-produced mix from Jefferson County, Florida.
Control
Property JMF HMA Terex Foam
Points
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 99.7 99.4 90-100
9.5 mm (3/8") 89.0 91.1 90.8 --
4.75 mm (#4) 63.0 63.8 63.0 --
2.36 mm (#8) 46.0 44.9 43.5 28-58
1.18 mm (#16) 35.0 33.8 32.5 --
0.60 mm (#30) 27.0 25.8 24.6 --
0.30 mm (#50) 15.0 15.3 13.9 --
0.15 mm (#100) 8.0 9.2 7.9 --
0.075 mm (#200) 5.4 5.5 4.8 2-10
AC (%) 5.30 5.33 4.95 --
Gmm 2.545 2.542 2.556 --
Gmb 2.444 2.493 2.470 --
Air voids (%) 4.0 1.9 3.4 --
Pba (%) 0.79 0.76 0.74 --
Pbe (%) 4.55 4.61 4.24 --

plant in Tallahassee. The WMA was placed in the eastbound WMA was also an Ingersoll Rand DD-110 steel wheel roller
lane while the HMA was placed in the westbound lane. Fig- operated in the static mode. There was no fixed rolling pat-
ure 1.95 shows the locations of the test sections. Both the tern with the WMA. There seemed to be a tender zone, and
HMA and WMA test sections were paved as the surface (wear- achieving the desired density level was a struggle.
ing) course and had a target thickness of 2.5 in. The under­ The HMA was compacted using four rollers. The same
lying layer was a new intermediate asphalt pavement course. breakdown and finishing rollers were used, but a fourth
The mixtures were delivered using tarped dump trucks. A Ingersoll Rand PT-240R rubber tire roller was also used as the
cycle of 26–28 trucks delivered the material to the roadway. intermediate roller for most of the day. It was removed later
The haul distance from the plant to the roadway was approxi- in the day after the fourth sublot. The rolling pattern for the
mately 36 miles, which took the trucks about 50–60 minutes to breakdown rollers was seven passes each in the static mode.
arrive. A RoadTec MTV-1000C MTV was used to transfer the The intermediate roller used a pattern of two passes on each
mixtures from the delivery trucks to the paver. A Caterpillar side of the mat, then back up either the middle or the joint.
AP-1055D paver was used for both mixes. Figure 1.96 shows The finishing roller used four passes each side, then back up
the MTV transferring mix from the dump truck into the paver. either the middle or the joint.
The temperature of the mix behind the paver was measured
using a hand-held temperature gun and the PAVE-IR system. Construction Core Testing
Table 1.127 shows the temperatures from behind the screed
using both measuring techniques. Because the PAVE-IR system Table 1.129 provides a summary of test results from con-
takes continuous readings throughout the paving operation, struction cores. Average core densities were similar for both
some differences are expected as compared to the periodic tem- mixes, at 93.0% of theoretical maximum density for the HMA
perature gun readings. Hand-held temperature gun readings and 92.1% for the WMA. The tensile strengths for both mixes
likely were not taken in some areas where the mix was cooler. were very good and were virtually the same for both mixes.
Weather data were collected hourly at the paving location
using a hand-held weather station. No rain fell during the con-
Field Performance at 14-Month
struction of either mix. Table 1.128 shows the ambient tem-
and 24-Month Project Inspections
peratures, wind speed, and humidity for both mixes produced.
The WMA was compacted using three rollers. Two Inger- Field-performance evaluations were conducted on Decem-
soll Rand DD-110 steel wheel rollers compacted in echelon ber 7, 2011, after about 14 months, and on September 12,
as the breakdown rollers. The two breakdown rollers were 2012, after nearly 24 months of traffic. Data were collected
operated in the static mode. The finishing roller used for the on each section to document performance regarding rutting,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

98

Figure 1.95. Locations of test sections in Jefferson County, Florida.

cracking, and raveling. Cores were also extracted to deter-

mine the in-place density, indirect tensile strengths, theoreti-
cal maximum specific gravity, gradation, and asphalt content.
The average rut depths are presented in Table 1.130. The
HMA and WMA sections had average rut depths of 1.9 mm
and 2.4 mm, respectively, at the time of the first inspection.
At the time of the second inspection, the HMA had an aver-
age rut depth of 2.9 mm, and the WMA measured an aver-
age of 3.0 mm. The differences in rutting between the HMA
and WMA were not practically significant, and the rutting
performance is considered excellent considering the high
percentage of heavy truck traffic on this roadway.
Each 200-ft (61-m) evaluation section was carefully
inspected for visual signs of cracking. No cracking was vis-
ible at the time of either inspection.
The surface textures of both the HMA and WMA test sec-
tions were measured using the sand patch test in accordance
with ASTM E965. It was raining at the time of the first inspec-
tion, so the sand patch test could not be performed correctly
Figure 1.96. MTV transferring mix into the paver on the in-place sections. Instead, the sand patch test was
in Jefferson County, Florida. performed on the cores from the wheelpaths in each section.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

99  

Table 1.127. Temperatures behind the screed

in Jefferson County, Florida.
Temperature (°F) Measuring Device HMA Terex Foam
Temperature gun 296.3 273.3
Average
PAVE-IR 268.4 247.0
Temperature gun 9.0 10.0
Standard deviation
PAVE-IR 14.4 13.6
Temperature gun 312.3 287.7
Maximum
PAVE-IR 304.0 278.0
Temperature gun 273.3 249.3
Minimum
PAVE-IR 229.0 170.0

Table 1.128. Weather conditions during construction

in Jefferson County, Florida.

Measurement Statistic HMA Terex Foam

Average 73.5 77.4
Ambient temperature (°F)
Range 56.9-85.1 50.8-93.7
Average 1.3 1.2
Wind speed (mph)
Range 0-3.6 0.8-1.7
Average 52.2 48.7
Humidity (%)
Range 34.6-78.5 23.0-92.7

Table 1.129. Test results from Jefferson County, Florida,

construction cores.

Property Statistic HMA Terex Foam

Average 93.0 92.1
In-place density (% of Gmm)
Standard deviation 1.1 1.1
Average 151.2 153.0
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 10.2 16.7

Table 1.130. Rut depths for Jefferson County, Florida.

14-Month Inspection 24-Month Inspection

Mix Standard Standard
Average (mm) Average (mm)
Deviation (mm) Deviation (mm)
HMA 1.9 0.3 2.9 0.3
WMA 2.4 0.7 3.0 0.8

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

100

Table 1.131. Mean texture depths for Jefferson County, Florida.

14-Month Inspection 24-Month Inspection

Measured in Laboratory Measured in Laboratory
on Cores on Cores Measured in the Field in
Mix from Wheelpath from Wheelpath the Wheelpath
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard
Texture Deviation Texture Deviation Texture Deviation
Depth (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) (mm) Depth (mm) (mm)
HMA 0.44 0.11 0.45 0.05 0.61 0.02
Terex foam 0.40 0.14 0.47 0.03 0.73 0.14

For the second inspection, the sand patch test was performed attributed to stiffening of the binder because of aging. The
both in the field and on the cores from the wheelpath. The 24-month cores were also similar to the as-constructed and
calculated mean texture depths for each mix are shown in 14-month cores, indicating that no densification has occurred
Table 1.131. for either mix. This result is most likely due to the stiff binder
These results show similar mean texture depths for the two specified for the project. Overall, the tensile strengths for both
mixes. The WMA section performed slightly better than the mixes at the 14-month and 24-month inspections are accept-
HMA section in terms of raveling. It can be seen that there is able and expected for a stiff binder grade.
an offset between results from the field and results in the lab- Table 1.133 shows the average densities and tensile strength
oratory. Overall, the results of the sand patch test show that results by location for both inspections. At the first inspec-
both mixes performed well in terms of raveling and weather­ tion, the average density of the HMA in the wheelpath was
ing. Figure 1.97 shows an example of the surface of the WMA slightly higher than the density between the wheelpaths, but
and HMA sections at the time of the 24-month inspection. the difference is within the range expected for normal sam-
pling and testing variability. For the WMA, the density in the
right wheelpath at 14 months was slightly lower than that
Core Testing
for the as-constructed cores, and the difference increased
A summary of the 14-month and 24-month core testing at 24 months. At the time of both inspections, the tensile
compared to the as-constructed results is given in Table 1.132. strength values for both mixes were lower in the wheelpath
The gradations and asphalt contents of both mixes were simi- cores than in the cores between the wheelpaths. The lower
lar. The 14-month cores had slightly lower but similar densi- densities and tensile strengths in the wheelpaths do not fol-
ties as compared to cores obtained after construction. The low the expected trends, and they may indicate the beginning
average tensile strengths increased by 47.3 psi and 35.2 psi of a moisture damage problem.
for the HMA and WMA, respectively. This increase can be
Performance Prediction
The initial AADTT for US-98 in Jefferson County, Florida,
was 800 trucks with one lane in each direction. A traffic growth
factor of 0.5% was calculated from recent historical data. US-98
was classified as a minor arterial. The five closest weather sta-
tions to the project site were missing data; therefore the MEPDG
would not create a climate file from these sites. Attempts to
edit the files were unsuccessful. Palatka, Florida, however, has
similar average temperatures and rainfall. Data from surround-
ing stations was used to simulate Jefferson County’s climate.
Table 1.134 summarizes the pavement structure.
Figure 1.98 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting for
the WMA and HMA sections. The figure shows the subtotal of
the predicted rutting for all the asphalt layers and the predicted
rutting for the experimental surface layers. The predicted rut
depths for the test layers after 20 years of service were identical:
Figure 1.97. WMA (left lane) and HMA control 0.09 in. for both the WMA and HMA. Higher rutting, approxi-
sections (right lane) in Jefferson County, Florida. mately 0.43 in., was indicated for the combined asphalt layers.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

101  

Table 1.132. Test results from Jefferson County, Florida, production mix,
14-month cores, and 24-month cores.

Terex Terex Terex

HMA HMA HMA
Foam Foam Foam
Property
Production Mix 14-Month Cores 24-Month Cores
(October 2010) (December 2011) (September 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 99.7 99.4 99.0 99.4 99.6 99.2
9.5 mm (3/8") 91.1 90.8 92.5 92.2 92.8 93.3
4.75 mm (#4) 63.8 63.0 63.9 63.6 63.2 66.0
2.36 mm (#8) 44.9 43.5 45.2 45.1 44.8 46.8
1.18 mm (#16) 33.8 32.5 33.6 33.3 33.0 34.2
0.60 mm (#30) 25.8 24.6 26.2 25.9 25.7 26.5
0.30 mm (#50) 15.3 13.9 15.4 14.6 14.9 14.9
0.15 mm (#100) 9.2 7.9 9.2 8.5 8.8 8.7
0.075 mm (#200) 5.5 4.8 5.8 5.4 5.3 5.4
AC (%) 5.33 4.95 4.82 4.99 4.87 5.13
Gmm 2.542 2.556 2.563 2.561 2.561 2.551
Gmb 2.366* 2.356* 2.373 2.352 2.343 2.343
In-place density (%) 93.0* 92.1* 92.6 91.8 91.5 91.8
Pba (%) 0.76 0.74 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.77
Tensile strength (psi) 151.2* 153.0* 198.5 188.2 184.5 177.4
*Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as identified in column header.

Table 1.133. In-place density and tensile strengths by location

in Jefferson County, Florida.

Terex Terex
HMA HMA
Property Location of Cores Foam Foam
14-Month Inspection 24-Month Inspection
In-place density Between wheelpaths 92.3 92.0 92.3 92.8
(% of Gmm) Right wheelpath 93.0 91.6 90.4 90.9
Between wheelpaths 207.5 208.7 223.5 227.1
Tensile strength (psi)
Right wheelpath 189.6 167.8 145.4 127.6

Table 1.134. Pavement structure for US-98,

Jefferson County, Florida.
Thickness
Layer
(in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 1.5 3.8
Existing S-I HMA - 12.5 mm NMAS with PG 64-22 5.0 12.7
Existing Sand-Asphalt Hot Mix - 4.75 mm NMAS with PG 64-22 4.0 10.2
AASHTO A-3 subgrade Semi-infinite

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

102

0.7
HMA Subtotal all Asphalt
0.6 Foam Subtotal all Asphalt
HMA Surface
0.5 Foam Surface
Maximum Rung Limit
Rut Depth (in.) 0.4

0.3

HMA and Terex® Foam lines overlap

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 1.98. MEPDG-predicted test layer asphalt rutting for US-98,
Jefferson County, Florida.

Figure 1.99 compares the predicted longitudinal cracking New York, New York
for US-98 over the design life. More longitudinal cracking
is predicted for the WMA (1,320 ft/mi) than for the HMA A WMA trial project was constructed on Little Neck Park-
(649 ft/mi). One possible explanation for the increased way in New York, New York, in October 2010. Three WMA
cracking predicted for the WMA is the difference in in-place mixes and an HMA control mix were produced by a New
air voids between the WMA and HMA. The Terex foam aver- York City DOT-owned plant and the project was constructed
aged 7.9% voids at the time of construction, whereas the by a New York City DOT crew. The first WMA technology
HMA averaged 7.0% voids. used on this project was the chemical additive Cecabase RT®

2400

2100
Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800
Longitudinal Cracking Limit
1500
HMA
1200
Terex® Foam
900

600

300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 1.99. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for US-98,
Jefferson County, Florida.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

103  

manufactured by the Arkema Group. The second WMA Table 1.135. Aggregate percentages
technology used was the additive BituTech PER produced by for New York, New York, project.
Engineered Additives, LLC. The third WMA technology was
Aggregate Type JMF and Production %
the additive SonneWarmix™ produced by SonneWarmix, Inc.
" by ¼" coarse 55
The portion of Little Neck Parkway that contained the HMA
Black sand 25
and SonneWarmix had an approximate two-way AADT of
Crushed RAP 20
8,354 vehicles with 10.5% trucks. The portion of the roadway
containing the Cecabase RT and BituTech PER had an approx-
imate two-way AADT of 6,115 vehicles with 10.5% trucks.
The production and construction of the Cecabase RT, HMA,
SonneWarmix, and BituTech PER took place on October 19, percentages used for mix design and production are shown in
20, 21, and 22, 2010, respectively. Table 1.135. A PG 64-22 asphalt binder was used as the virgin
The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a coarse- binder for all mixes. The JMF, optimum asphalt contents, and
graded 12.5-mm NMAS Superpave mix design with a com- specifications are shown in Table 1.136.
pactive effort of 75 gyrations. The mix design was the same for
both the HMA and the WMA technologies with no changes. Production
The New York City DOT typically performs designs by the
Marshall mix design method, but it was requested to provide All three WMA additives were terminal-blended with the
a Superpave mix design for purposes of this trial. The out- PG 64-22 binder and brought in for each day’s production.
side contractor hired to perform the design, constrained by The first WMA technology used on this project was the chem-
the aggregates available and the DOT’s material specifications, ical additive Cecabase RT, a non-aqueous surfactant added to
was only able to get as low as 91.1% passing the 9.5-mm sieve the binder at a rate of 0.4% by weight of total binder. HMA
instead of the required 89.9% to be a true 12.5-mm NMAS was produced on the second day. On the third day, the additive
mix. However, the gradation meets all other 12.5-mm NMAS SonneWarmix was used at a rate of 0.7% by weight of total
requirements. binder. On the fourth day of the project, the additive BituTech
All four mixtures contained 20% RAP. The RAP was a single- PER was used at a rate of 0.76% by weight of RAP. Table 1.137
source milled material that was crushed off-site. The material shows the production temperatures for each mix.

Table 1.136. Design gradation, asphalt content, and

volumetrics for mix design for New York, New York.
Design JMF General
Property JMF Range
Values Targets Limits
Sieve Size % Passing
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 100.0 95-100 90-100
9.5 mm (3/8") 91.1 91.0 86-96 < 90
4.75 mm (#4) 55.8 56.0 51-61 --
2.36 mm (#8) 34.5 34.0 31-39 31-58
1.18 mm (#16) 24.9 25.0 20-30 --
0.60 mm (#30) 18.5 19.0 14-24 --
0.30 mm (#50) 13.0 13.0 8-18 --
0.15 mm (#100) 8.9 9.0 4-14 --
0.075 mm (#200) 6.4 6.0 2-10 2-10
AC (%) 5.3 5.3 5.1-5.5 --
Air voids (%) 3.51 -- -- --
VMA (%) 15.1 -- -- --
VFA (%) 76.7 -- -- --
D/A ratio 1.37 -- -- --
Pba (%) 0.68 -- -- --
Pbe (%) 4.66 -- -- --

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

104

Table 1.137. Production temperatures in New York, New York.

Temperatures (°F) HMA BituTech PER Cecabase RT SonneWarmix

Average 344.2 279.0 246.9 262.3
Standard deviation 17.0 26.9 17.3 27.8
Maximum 368 360 271 330
Minimum 318 260 200 238

Volumetric Mix Properties for all three WMA mixes. These laboratory compaction tem-
peratures were determined from the average compaction
Samples of each mixture were obtained during production temperatures observed on the test sections through the first
to determine moisture contents, percent coating, and volu- couple of hours of construction for each mixture. These volu-
metric properties for comparisons between the HMA and metric samples were compacted on-site in the NCAT mobile
WMA mixes. Samples were taken from a mini-stockpile made laboratory so that the mixes would not have to be reheated.
each day specifically for sampling. Average test results are summarized in Table 1.138.
The average moisture contents were 0.13%, 0.33%, 0.37%, The asphalt content of the HMA (5.38%) was very close
and 0.43% for the HMA, BituTech PER, Cecabase RT, and to the target of 5.3%. However, the dust content was 1.0%
SonneWarmix, respectively. The WMA moisture contents may lower than the design and the air void content was 1.9% above
have been higher than the HMA because of incomplete dry- the design. The BituTech PER asphalt content was 0.18%
ing of the aggregate, the RAP, or both. However, the moisture above the JMF target and the dust content was closer to
contents for the WMA mixes were all below the commonly the JMF, but the air void content was 2.1% above the target
specified limit of 0.5%. of 3.5%. The Cecabase had the highest asphalt content and
The percentage of completely coated particles was then the highest dust content, which contributed to the air void
determined by a Ross count. The percent of coated parti- content being 0.5% lower than the design. Finally, the Sonne­
cles was 100.0% for the HMA, 99.5% for the BituTech PER, Warmix asphalt content hit the target asphalt content and was
100.0% for the Cecabase RT, and 99.5% for the SonneWarmix, only 0.1% higher on the dust content, but the air void content
which indicates excellent coating for all of the mixes. was 1.4% higher than the design. Except for the Cecabase RT
Specimens were compacted using 75 gyrations in the SGC mix, the individual WMA mixes and the control HMA com-
at compaction temperatures of 300°F for the HMA and 225°F pare reasonably well.

Table 1.138. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for plant-produced mix in New York, New York.

BituTech Ceca- Sonne- JMF

Property JMF HMA
PER base RT Warmix Range
Sieve Size % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.9 99.9 95-100
9.5 mm (3/8") 91.0 92.1 94.5 94.9 94.7 86-96
4.75 mm (#4) 56.0 55.1 59.3 60.9 61.8 51-61
2.36 mm (#8) 34.0 33.8 34.7 36.2 36.5 31-39
1.18 mm (#16) 25.0 24.1 24.0 25.7 25.3 20-30
0.60 mm (#30) 19.0 17.4 17.2 18.9 18.2 14-24
0.30 mm (#50) 13.0 11.9 11.9 13.4 12.8 8-18
0.15 mm (#100) 9.0 7.7 8.0 9.2 8.8 4-14
0.075 mm (#200) 6.0 5.0 5.4 6.3 6.1 2-10
AC (%) 5.30 5.38 5.48 5.66 5.30 --
Gmm 2.645 2.646 2.643 2.621 2.641 -
Gmb 2.552 2.505 2.496 2.544 2.512 -
Air voids (%) 3.5 5.4 5.6 3.0 4.9 -
Pba (%) 0.68 0.75 0.77 0.55 0.61 -
Pbe (%) 4.66 4.67 4.75 5.15 4.72 -

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

105  

Construction system. Table 1.139 shows the temperatures from behind the
screed using both measuring techniques.
The field sections on Little Neck Parkway were located
Collection of weather data took place hourly at the paving
approximately 12 miles from the plant. The travel time to the
location using a hand-held weather station. Ambient tem-
site ranged from 20 minutes to 50 minutes depending on the perature, wind speed, and humidity data were recorded and
time of day and traffic. The Cecabase RT was placed in both are shown in Table 1.140. The only day that had rain was the
southbound lanes from the intersection of Union Turnpike to first day during production of the Cecabase RT, during which
21 ft south of the intersection of 82nd Avenue. The HMA was trace amounts of rain fell in the area.
placed in the southbound lanes from the intersection of Hill- Three rollers were used to compact all four mixes. The
side Avenue to in-between the intersection of 87th Avenue and breakdown roller was a Sakai SW-850 that operated in the
87th Road. The SonneWarmix was placed in the two north- vibratory mode. The intermediate roller was an Ingersoll
bound lanes between 87th Drive and just before E. Williston Rand DD-110, which also operated in the vibratory mode.
Avenue. The BituTech PER was placed in the northbound The finishing roller was a steel wheel Hyster C-350D, which
lanes from Hillside Avenue to 82nd Avenue. All four mixes operated in the static mode. There was no consistent rolling
were paved as the surface (wearing) course and had a target pattern for any of the mixes.
thickness of 2.5 in. The surface mixes were placed on a milled
asphalt pavement surface that had some slight transverse
Construction Core Testing
cracking spread throughout the sections. Approximately 3.5 in.
beneath the milled asphalt layers was a plain jointed concrete After construction of each mix, cores were obtained from all
pavement. Figure 1.100 shows the locations of the test sections. four sections. Core densities were determined in accordance
The temperature of the mix behind the paver was mea- with AASHTO T 166 and tensile strength was determined
sured using a hand-held temperature gun and the PAVE-IR according to ASTM D6931. Results are shown in Table 1.141.

Figure 1.100. Locations of test sections in New York, New York.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

106

Table 1.139. Temperatures behind the screed in New York, New York.

Measuring BituTech Cecabase Sonne-

Temperature (°F) HMA
Device PER RT Warmix
Temperature gun 299.2 234.2 220.9 228.5
Average
PAVE-IR N/A 237.7 N/A 222.0
Temperature gun 7.5 4.8 12.9 16.7
Standard deviation
PAVE-IR N/A 14.6 N/A 7.1
Temperature gun 309.3 241.3 239.3 252.0
Maximum
PAVE-IR N/A 316.0 N/A 252.0
Temperature gun 284.0 225.7 198.3 203.0
Minimum
PAVE-IR N/A 195.0 N/A 178.0

Table 1.140. Weather conditions during construction

in New York, New York.

BituTech Cecabase Sonne-

Measurement Statistic HMA
PER RT Warmix
Ambient Average 62.1 52.9 60.8 58.5
temperature (°F) Range 57.4-65.4 49.7-53.9 58.1-65.4 56.7-61.4
Average 1.3 6.5 0.9 3.0
Wind speed (mph)
Range 0-2.9 3.3-9.8 0.7-1.0 1.8-4.9
Average 51.3 46.1 66.9 72.9
Humidity (%)
Range 39.6-65.8 43.1-54.2 59.4-71.3 59.5-76.8

Table 1.141. Test results from New York, New York, construction cores.

BituTech Cecabase Sonne-

Property Statistic HMA
PER RT Warmix
Average 90.8 92.4 92.1 89.9
In-place density (% of Gmm)
Standard deviation 2.0 1.3 2.1 4.0
Average 103.4 98.9 93.3 91.8
Tensile strength (psi)
Standard deviation 13.6 10.5 16.6 17.2

The densities for the BituTech PER and Cecabase RT mixes location. The data show that none of the sections had rutted
were similar; the densities for the HMA and SonneWarmix significantly at the time of the inspections.
were lower. The tensile strengths for the Cecabase RT and Each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section was carefully
SonneWarmix were slightly lower than for the HMA and inspected for visual signs of cracking. At the time of the first
BituTech PER. inspection, only the Cecabase RT had any cracking. The
Cecabase sections had a low-severity, approximately 9-ft long
transverse crack and two other 1-foot cracks that appeared to
Field Performance at 15-Month
be due to underlying utility trenches. At the time of the sec-
and 26-Month Project Inspections
ond inspection, low-severity cracks had appeared in all four
Field-performance evaluations were conducted on Janu- mix sections, although all of the sections were still perform-
ary 19, 2012, after about 15 months of traffic, and on Decem- ing very well. Table 1.143 shows a summary of the cracking
ber 12, 2012, after 26 months of traffic. Data were collected observed at the time of the second inspection.
on each section to document performance regarding rutting, During both inspections, the surface texture was measured
cracking, and raveling. Cores were taken to determine in-place using the sand patch test at the beginning of each evaluation
densities, indirect tensile strengths, theoretical maximum section in the outside wheelpath. The calculated mean texture
specific gravity, gradations, and asphalt contents. depths for each section are shown in Table 1.144. The HMA
Table 1.142 shows the rut depths at the time of each inspec- had slightly higher mean texture depths than the WMA sec-
tion. These results are based on the measurements from the tions did, indicating slightly more raveling compared to the
more severe of the two wheelpaths measured at each random three WMA mixes. The differences are probably not practi-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

107  

Table 1.142. Rutting measurements

in New York, New York.

15-Month Inspection 26-Month Inspection

Mix Average Standard Average Standard

Rut Depth Deviation Rut Depth Deviation
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
HMA 1.0 0.9 1.9 1.2
BituTech PER 0.7 1.2 2.7 1.2
Cecabase RT 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6
SonneWarmix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 1.143. Observed cracking in New York, New York,

at 26-month inspection.
Wheelpath Non-Wheelpath
Transverse
Longitudinal Longitudinal
Mix Section Severity Total Total Total
# of # of # of
Length Length Length
Cracks Cracks Cracks
(m) (m) (m)
Low 1 0.3 1 3.0 5 5.5
HMA total Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 1 5.2 0 0 0 0
BituTech Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 1 15.2 0 0 3 4.9
Cecabase Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 1 5.2 0 0 0 0
SonneWarmix Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 1.144. Mean texture depths for New York, New York.

15-Month Inspection 26-Month Inspection

Standard Standard
Mix Mean Texture Mean Texture
Deviation Deviation
Depth (mm) Depth (mm)
(mm) (mm)
HMA 0.87 0.10 0.79 0.13
BituTech PER 0.67 0.09 0.70 0.05
Cecabase 0.64 0.22 0.60 0.08
SonneWarmix 0.65 0.02 0.56 0.06

cally significant, however. Also, the surface texture results are a summary of the results from the 15-month inspection com-
similar for the 15-month and 26-month inspections, which pared with the construction data.
indicates that weathering of the pavements had stabilized. The 15-month cores had higher densities than the con-
Figure 1.101, Figure 1.102, Figure 1.103, and Figure 1.104 struction cores due to traffic densification. The HMA density
show examples of the HMA, BituTech PER, Cecabase, and increased by 3.1%, while the BituTech PER, Cecabase RT, and
SonneWarmix sections, respectively. SonneWarmix sections increased by 2.0%, 1.3%, and 2.4%,
respectively. The tensile strengths were significantly lower
compared to the cores taken right after construction. This
Core Testing
can probably be attributed to the fact that 4-in. cores were
At the time of each project inspection, seven 6-in. (150-mm) taken at construction, whereas 6-in. cores were taken at the
cores were taken from each mix section. Table 1.145 presents 15-month inspection. As explained in a previous section,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

108

Figure 1.101. HMA section in New York, New York. Figure 1.103. Cecabase section in New York,
New York.

4-in. cores typically yield higher tensile strengths compared

to 6-in. cores. shows a large difference (5.9%) between the two locations
The results from the 15-month and 26-month inspections at the time of the first inspection; however, the results seem
are shown in Table 1.146. The cores from the second inspec- more reasonable at the second inspection. For most of the mix
tion exhibited slightly higher densities than those from the first sections, the tensile strengths for the cores in the wheelpath
inspection, indicating further traffic densification between the were higher than those for the between-wheelpath cores. This
first and second year. The densities were very similar for all difference is likely due to the higher density of the wheelpath
four mixes. The average tensile strengths increased for all four cores. The exception is the Cecabase RT mix, which had lower
mixes in the months between inspections due to binder stiff- tensile strengths from wheelpath cores at both inspections.
ening and higher densities. The tensile strength of the HMA
was significantly higher than that of the WMA sections.
Performance Prediction
Table 1.147 shows the average density and tensile strength
results by location for the cores at both inspections. As The test sections on Little Neck Parkway were divided by
expected, all four mixes had higher densities in the wheelpath Hillside Avenue. Cecabase and BituTech PER were placed
than between the wheelpaths. The SonneWarmix section north of Hillside Avenue; HMA and SonneWarmix, south of

Figure 1.102. BituTech PER section in New York, Figure 1.104. SonneWarmix section in New York,
New York. New York.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

109  

Table 1.145. Test results from New York, New York, production mix
and 15-month cores.

Sonne- Sonne-
Bitu- Ceca- Bitu- Ceca-
HMA War- HMA War-
Tech base Tech base
Property mix mix
Production Mix 15-Month Cores
(October 2010) (January 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 99.7 99.7 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.6 99.7 99.9
9.5 mm (3/8") 92.1 94.5 94.9 94.7 93.9 93.2 94.2 93.4
4.75 mm (#4) 55.1 59.3 60.9 61.8 63.2 59.6 60.9 59.1
2.36 mm (#8) 33.8 34.7 36.2 36.5 40.9 38.2 36.7 36.1
1.18 mm (#16) 24.1 24.0 25.7 25.3 27.6 26.1 24.8 25.2
0.60 mm (#30) 17.4 17.2 18.9 18.2 19.9 19.0 18.3 18.3
0.30 mm (#50) 11.9 11.9 13.4 12.8 13.3 13.1 12.5 12.4
0.15 mm (#100) 7.7 8.0 9.2 8.8 8.2 8.8 7.8 8.0
0.075 mm (#200) 5.0 5.4 6.3 6.1 5.1 6.1 4.8 5.2
AC (%) 5.38 5.48 5.66 5.30 5.41 5.09 5.40 5.21
Average production
344.2 279.0 246.9 262.3 344.2 279.0 246.9 262.3
temperature (°F)
Gmm 2.646 2.643 2.621 2.641 2.642 2.643 2.640 2.651
Gmb 2.404* 2.442* 2.415* 2.374* 2.482 2.494 2.466 2.447
In-place density (%) 90.8* 92.4* 92.1* 89.9* 93.9 94.4 93.4 92.3
Pba (%) 0.75 0.77 0.55 0.61 0.70 0.50 0.67 0.71
Tensile strength (psi) 103.4* 98.9* 93.3* 91.8* 74.2 55.3 63.7 71.2

*Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as identified in column header.

Table 1.146. Test results from New York, New York, 15-month
and 26-month cores.

Sonne- Sonne-
Bitu- Ceca- Bitu- Ceca-
HMA War- HMA War-
Tech base Tech base
Property mix mix
15-Month Cores 26-Month Cores
(January 2012) (December 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
19.0 mm (3/4") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
12.5 mm (1/2") 100.0 99.6 99.7 99.9 99.7 99.7 100.0 99.8
9.5 mm (3/8") 93.9 93.2 94.2 93.4 93.4 93.3 94.8 94.1
4.75 mm (#4) 63.2 59.6 60.9 59.1 61.2 58.9 63.6 61.7
2.36 mm (#8) 40.9 38.2 36.7 36.1 40.1 37.4 39.8 39.4
1.18 mm (#16) 27.6 26.1 24.8 25.2 27.7 25.9 27.5 27.2
0.60 mm (#30) 19.9 19.0 18.3 18.3 20.0 18.7 20.2 19.8
0.30 mm (#50) 13.3 13.1 12.5 12.4 13.3 12.6 13.9 13.4
0.15 mm (#100) 8.2 8.8 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.3 9.0 8.8
0.075 mm (#200) 5.1 6.1 4.8 5.2 5.0 5.4 5.8 5.8
AC (%) 5.41 5.09 5.40 5.21 5.51 5.45 5.55 5.35
Average production
344.2 279.0 246.9 262.3 344.2 279.0 246.9 262.3
temperature (°F)
Gmm 2.642 2.643 2.640 2.651 2.638 2.643 2.634 2.642
Gmb 2.482 2.494 2.466 2.447 2.502 2.524 2.491 2.502
In-place density (%) 93.9 94.4 93.4 92.3 94.8 95.5 94.6 94.7
Pba (%) 0.70 0.50 0.67 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.68 0.66
Tensile strength (psi) 74.2 55.3 63.7 71.2 133.3 99.7 104.9 108.2

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

110

Table 1.147. In-place density and tensile strengths by location

from New York, New York.

Bitu- Ceca- Sonne- Bitu- Ceca- Sonne-

Location and HMA HMA
Tech base Warmix Tech base Warmix
Property
15-Month Cores 26-Month Cores
Between-
wheelpaths 93.4 93.8 93.1 89.8 94.2 94.8 94.2 93.4
density (%)
Right
wheelpath 94.7 95.1 93.8 95.7 95.7 96.5 95.0 96.5
density (%)
Between-
wheelpaths
67.1 53.2 71.3 62.3 116.7 88.9 108.0 98.3
tensile strength
(psi)
Right
wheelpath
81.4 57.4 56.1 80.0 149.8 110.5 101.8 118.1
tensile strength
(psi)

Hillside Avenue. The Cecabase and HMA were in the south- ing were not performed on the New York mixes, so thermal
bound lanes and the SonneWarmix and BituTech PER were cracking predictions are not reported.
in the northbound lanes. The initial AADTT north of Hill-
side Avenue was 643 trucks; south of Hillside Avenue it was
Casa Grande, Arizona
877 trucks. Little Neck Parkway is classified as a minor arte-
rial. Table 1.148 summarizes the pavement structure. Thick- The final WMA project evaluated in this study was con-
ness variations were noted in the cores, although the paver structed on State Road 84 (SR-84) in Casa Grande, Arizona,
laid the same target thickness. An average thickness, which in December 2011. The contractor for this state-sponsored
matched the target thickness, was used in the analysis. WMA trial was Southwest Asphalt, Tempe, Arizona, a divi-
Figure 1.105 compares the predicted rutting for the WMA sion of the Fisher Sand and Gravel Company. The WMA
and HMA sections. The MEPDG predicts 0.12 in., 0.13 in., technology used on this project was Sasobit produced by
0.15 in., and 0.10 in. (3 mm, 3.3 mm, 3.8 mm, and 2.5 mm) the Sasol Wax North America Corporation. Two other
of rutting in the asphalt layers for the BituTech PER, Ceca- WMA technologies (Evotherm 3G and Advera) were placed
base, SonneWarmix, and HMA, respectively after 20 years of on this project before the NCAT team arrived; however,
service. As noted previously, the BituTech PER and Cecabase NCAT only documented the production and construction
receive slightly less traffic than the other two mixes. of the HMA and Sasobit sections because of project budget
Figure 1.106 compares the predicted longitudinal cracking constraints.
for Little Neck Parkway over the design life. Minimal longitu- The WMA and HMA were produced and placed on SR-84
dinal cracking is predicted. The maximum predicted longitu- on the west side of Casa Grande, Arizona. The estimated
dinal cracking is 2.89 ft/mi (54.7 m/km) for the SonneWarmix two-way AADT for this 2-lane roadway was approximately
after 20 years of service. IDT tests for low-temperature crack- 3,800 vehicles with 12% trucks. The production of the Sasobit

Table 1.148. Pavement structure for Little Neck Parkway,

New York, New York.
Thickness
Layer
(in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 2.3 5.8
Type 6F RA surface - 12.5 mm NMAS PG 64-22 1.9 4.8
Type 3 RA binder - 19.0 mm NMAS PG 64-22 1.6 4.1
Plain jointed concrete pavement 6.0 15.2
AASHTO A-3 subgrade Semi-infinite

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

111  

0.7
HMA
0.6
BituTech PER
0.5

Rung Depth (in.)

Cecabase
0.4 Sonnewarm

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 1.105. MEPDG-predicted asphalt rutting for Little Neck Parkway,
New York, New York.

2400

2100
Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800

1500
HMA
1200
BituTech PER
900 Cecabase

600 Sonnewarm
All four lines overlap with essenally zero cracking
300

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.106. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for New York,

New York.

WMA and companion HMA control took place on Decem- Table 1.149. Aggregate
ber 6 and December 7, 2011, respectively. percentages for Casa Grande,
The asphalt mixture used for this trial consisted of a fine- Arizona, project.
graded 19.0-mm NMAS Marshall mix design with a compac-
Aggregate Type Mix Design (%)
tive effort of 75 blows. The mix design used for the HMA was
¾" gravel 29.7
also used for the WMA with no changes. Both mixtures con-
38⁄ " gravel 15.8
tained crushed gravel, 11.9% RAP, and 1% portland cement
Manufactured sand 9.9
as an antistrip additive. The RAP consisted of millings from
Crushed fines 31.7
the project that was screened over a 1½-in. sieve before
RAP (millings) 11.9
entering the plant. The material percentages used for mix
Type II cement 1.0
design and production are shown in Table 1.149. A modified

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

112

Table 1.150. Design gradation, asphalt content, and

volumetrics for mix design in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Property Design Production Mix Design Production

Sieve Size JMF JMF Specification Limits
25.0 mm (1") 100 100 100 --
19.0 mm (3/4") 97 97 90-100 --
12.5 mm (1/2") 92 92 -- --
9.5 mm (3/8") 75 75 62-77 69-81
6.35 mm (1/4") 63 63 -- --
4.75 mm (#4) 55 55 -- --
2.36 mm (#8) 39 39 38-47 33-45
2.00 mm (#10) 34 34 -- --
1.18 mm (#16) 25 25 -- --
0.60 mm (#30) 15 15 -- --
0.425 mm (#40) 11 13 11-19 8-18*
0.30 mm (#50) 8 8 -- --
0.15 mm (#100) 5 5 -- --
0.075 mm (#200) 4.0 4.0 2.5-6.0 2.0-6.0
AC (%) 4.8 4.6 -- --
Air voids (%) 5.7 5.7 -- --
VMA (%) 15.4 15.4 -- --
VFA (%) 63.2 63.2 -- --
D/A ratio 0.94 0.94 -- --
Pba (%) 0.56 0.56 -- --
Pbe (%) 4.26 4.26 -- --

*Originally 6-16

PG 70-10 asphalt binder supplied by Valero was used as the properties between the HMA and WMA. Samples were taken
virgin binder for both mixes. The laboratory and production from trucks leaving the plant.
JMFs, optimum asphalt contents, specifications, and allow- The average moisture contents were 0.04% and 0.05%
able tolerances are shown in Table 1.150. for the HMA and WMA, respectively. These results are low
but reasonable considering the environment. Problems with
Production incomplete drying of aggregates or RAP are not common in
Arizona.
The WMA was produced using Sasobit blended on-site with
the virgin binder in a tank typically used for blending ground
tire rubber at this particular plant. The tanks used for blend-
ing and storing the Sasobit binder are shown in Figure 1.107.
For this field trial, the Sasobit was blended at a rate of 1.75%
by weight of virgin binder to compensate for the RAP binder
in order to reach a target rate of 1.5% by weight of total binder.
Production temperature for the HMA was approximately
319°F (159.4°C), and for the Sasobit mix, the production
temperature was approximately 276°F (135.6°C). Table 1.151
shows the maximum, minimum, average, and standard devi-
ation production temperatures for both the HMA and the
Sasobit mixes.

Volumetric Mix Properties

Samples of both mixtures were obtained during production Figure 1.107. Tanks used to blend (left) and
to compare moisture contents, percent coating, and volumetric store (right) Sasobit in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

113  

Table 1.151. Production temperatures These volumetric samples were compacted on-site in the
in Casa Grande, Arizona. NCAT mobile laboratory without reheating the mixes. Bulk
specific gravities (Gmb) of the compacted specimens were
Temperatures (°F) HMA Sasobit
determined in accordance with AASHTO T 166. The mixes
Average 319.1 275.9
Standard deviation 22.4 26.5
were also brought back to the main NCAT laboratory, where
Maximum 356.0 336.0
solvent extractions were conducted in accordance with
Minimum 285.0 222.0 AASHTO T 164. The gradation of the extracted aggregate
was determined according to AASHTO T 30. Average test
results are summarized in Table 1.152.
The percentages of completely coated particles were 96.2% The asphalt contents for the HMA and WMA were very
and 96.3% for the HMA and Sasobit WMA mixtures, respec- close to the JMF. The gradations for both mixes were some-
tively. This shows that the WMA and HMA exhibited similar what finer than the production JMF, but were still within
coating characteristics. the Arizona DOT’s production limits. The percentages of
Given that the mix designs for this project were done by absorbed asphalt were essentially equivalent for the two
the Marshall mix design method, an equivalent gyration level mixtures. The HMA had slightly lower air void contents
was determined on-site in order to make appropriately com- than did the WMA, which was not expected. Generally, due
pacted SGC samples. This was accomplished by compacting to increased compactability with WMA mixtures, WMA air
samples at 50, 60, and 75 gyrations. The air voids determined voids are slightly lower than HMA air voids when using the
from these samples were then plotted against gyration num- same design; however, some of the difference can probably
ber to determine the gyration level equal to the target design be attributed to normal variability as well as the slightly
air voids (5.2%). An air void target of 5.2% was used instead lower asphalt content and percent passing the #200 sieve
of the 5.7% from design because there was a consistent dif- observed for the Sasobit mix.
ference of about 1% air voids between the state quality assur-
ance and contractor’s quality control test results. The state
Construction
was consistently obtaining results around 4.7% air voids
while the contractor was getting 5.7%; therefore, 5.2% was The HMA and WMA mixes were placed on the westbound
used to split the difference. The equivalent SGC compactive and eastbound portions of SR-84, respectively. All paving was
effort was determined to be 67 gyrations. Figure 1.108 shows done heading eastbound. This portion of SR-84 was approxi-
the plot used to determine this gyration level. mately 17 miles west of the plant location. Both mixes were
Specimens were compacted using 67 gyrations in the SGC placed over milled sections and incorporated a SS-1H tack
at compaction temperatures of 305°F for the HMA samples coat applied at an application rate of 0.06 gal/yd2. Figure 1.109
and 250°F for the WMA samples. These laboratory compac- shows the placement of the test sections. Both the HMA and
tion temperatures were determined using the average com- WMA test sections were paved as the surface (wearing) course
paction temperature observed on the test sections through and had a target thickness of 1.5 in. Both surface mixes were
the first couple of hours of construction for each mixture. placed on top of a milled section of asphalt pavement. Both

80
75
70
65
Gyraons

60
Ndes = -20.872(5.2) + 175.07 = 66.5
55
50
45
40
4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1
Air Voids (%)
Figure 1.108. Determination of equivalent design gyration level
for Casa Grande, Arizona.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

114

Table 1.152. Gradation, asphalt content, and volumetrics

for plant-produced mix in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Production Production
Property HMA Sasobit WMA
JMF Limits
Sieve Size % Passing
25.0 mm (1") 100.0 100.0 100.0 --
19.0 mm (3/4") 97.0 98.4 98.1 --
12.5 mm (1/2") 82.0 88.7 87.2 --
9.5 mm (3/8") 75.0 79.5 77.2 69-81
4.75 mm (#4) 55.0 57.3 55.3 --
2.36 mm (#8) 39.0 42.3 42.9 33-45
1.18 mm (#16) 25.0 29.5 29.2 --
0.60 mm (#30) 15.0 20.4 20.1 --
0.30 mm (#50) 8.0 12.4 12.0 --
0.15 mm (#100) 5.0 7.9 7.6 --
0.075 mm (#200) 4.0 5.6 5.4 2.0-6.0
AC (%) 4.6 4.55 4.47 --
Gmm 2.467 2.482 2.484 --
Gmb 2.326 2.366 2.356 --
Air voids (%) 5.2* 4.7 5.2 --
Pba (%) 0.56 0.64 0.62 --
* The target air void content for the Superpave volumetric verification samples was 5.2%.

Figure 1.109. Locations of test sections in Casa Grande, Arizona.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

115  

Table 1.153. Temperatures behind the screed in Casa Table 1.154. Test results from Casa Grande,
Grande, Arizona. Arizona, construction cores.

Temperature (°F) Measuring Device HMA Sasobit Property Statistic HMA Sasobit
Temperature gun 299.7 254.3 Average 90.6 92.4
Average In-place density (% of Gmm)
PAVE-IR 297.0 257.0 Standard deviation 2.1 1.3
Temperature gun 14.6 11.8 Average 118.0 135.9
Standard deviation Tensile strength (psi)
PAVE-IR 20.4 212 Standard deviation 17.8 10.3
Temperature gun 345.5 284.0
Maximum
PAVE-IR 340.0 330.0
Temperature gun 279.0 234.5 and Sasobit) to determine in-place densities and tensile
Minimum
PAVE-IR 220.0 210.0 strengths. Average test results are shown in Table 1.154.
The average core density for the WMA section was 1.8%
higher than that for the HMA. This could have been due to
mixes were topped with a chip seal approximately 4 months increased compactability of the WMA or just normal varia-
after construction. It is typical for all pavements in this area tion. The tensile strengths for both mixes were reasonable,
with similar traffic to be topped with a chip seal. with the Sasobit mix having approximately 17 psi higher ten-
The temperature of the mix behind the paver was mea- sile strength.
sured using a hand-held temperature gun and the PAVE-IR
system. Two temperature readings were taken with the tem-
perature gun every 5–20 minutes, and the two readings were Field Performance at 9-Month Inspection
averaged to yield the temperature reading at that location and
A field-performance evaluation was conducted on August
time. Table 1.153 shows the temperatures from behind the
30, 2012. As stated earlier, this segment of SR-84 had been
screed using both measuring techniques.
topped with a chip seal. Data were collected on each section to
A hand-held weather station was used hourly to collect
document rutting and cracking performance. Raveling could
weather data at the paving location. The ambient tempera-
not be analyzed on these mixes because of the chip seal. In
ture during the construction of the HMA ranged from 34.3°F
addition, three 4-in. (101.6-mm) diameter cores were taken
to 61.0°F, with an average temperature of 50.6°F. The average
from the outside wheelpath, and five 4-in. (101.6-mm) diam-
wind speed was 2.5 miles per hour (mph) and the average
eter cores were taken from in-between the wheelpath. The
humidity was 43.2%. The ambient temperature during con-
4-in. (101.6-mm) cores were taken to determine the in-place
struction of the WMA ranged from 38.8°F to 62.5°F, with
density, indirect tensile strengths, theoretical maximum spe-
an average ambient temperature of 50.5°F. The wind speed
cific gravity (Gmm), gradation, asphalt content, and true binder
and humidity for the WMA construction were 3.5 mph and
grade for each mix.
48.4%, respectively. Weather was sunny with no rain during
After 9 months, the HMA had an average of 3.18 mm of
the paving of both mixes.
rutting, whereas no rutting was observed in the WMA sec-
The HMA was compacted using three Ingersoll Rand steel
tion. Both sections had performed well in terms of rutting
wheel rollers and one Ingersoll Rand rubber tire roller for a
portion of the day. Two steel wheel rollers were operated in after 9 months. Each 200-ft. (61-m) evaluation section was
tandem as the breakdown rollers with four vibratory passes carefully inspected for visual signs of cracking. No cracking
(up and back twice) and then one static pass. The rubber tire was evident for either mix through the chip seal at the time
roller was used as the intermediate roller, performing four of the 9-month inspection.
passes across the mat. Lastly, a third steel wheel roller operat-
ing as the finishing roller made one vibratory pass and four Core Testing
static passes. The rubber tire roller began to pick up mix, so
it was removed from the paving train. The rolling pattern At the time of the 9-month project inspection, eight 4-in.
for the WMA was the same as for the HMA except that the (101.6-mm) cores were taken from each mix section. The
rubber tire roller was never used because of the problems of densities of these cores were measured using AASHTO T 166
HMA sticking to the tires the previous day. after the chip seal was removed. Seven of the cores were then
tested for tensile strength using ASTM D6931. These seven
samples were then combined and the cut faces were removed.
Construction Core Testing
This mix was split into two samples that were used to deter-
The day after construction of each mix, seven 4-in. mine the maximum specific gravity according to AASHTO
(101.6-mm) cores were obtained from each section (HMA T 209. A summary of the core testing is shown in Table 1.155.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

116

Table 1.155. Test results from Casa Grande, Arizona, production mix
and 9-month cores.
HMA Sasobit WMA HMA Sasobit WMA
Property Production Mix 9-Month Cores
(December 2011) (August 2012)
Sieve Size % Passing % Passing
25.0 mm (1") 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
19.0 mm (3/4") 98.4 98.1 98.8 98.1
12.5 mm (1/2") 88.7 87.2 90.6 88.4
9.5 mm (3/8") 79.5 77.2 81.5 78.7
4.75 mm (#4) 57.3 55.3 61.0 56.4
2.36 mm (#8) 42.3 42.9 45.9 41.3
1.18 mm (#16) 29.5 29.2 32.3 28.7
0.60 mm (#30) 20.4 20.1 22.2 20.0
0.30 mm (#50) 12.4 12.0 13.3 12.3
0.15 mm (#100) 7.9 7.6 8.2 7.6
0.075 mm (#200) 5.6 5.4 5.6 5.2
AC (%) 4.55 4.47 5.02 4.65
Gmm 2.482 2.484 2.458 2.458
Gmb 2.250* 2.295* 2.304 2.323
In-place density (%) 90.6* 92.4* 93.8 94.5
Pba (%) 0.64 0.62 0.51 0.27
Tensile strength (psi) 118.0* 135.9* 237.8 248.7
* Data come from construction cores, not mix sampled during production as identified in column header.

The gradations were similar for both mixes at the time of densities for both mixes were slightly higher in the wheelpaths
the inspection and were similar to the gradations from pro- than in-between the wheelpaths, as was expected. Also, the
duction. The asphalt contents of the 9-month cores were tensile strengths were slightly lower between the wheelpaths,
higher for the HMA than for the as-constructed mix samples. but the difference was minimal.
This is likely due to some binder from the chip seal being
absorbed by the mix. The in-place densities were similar for
both mixes at the time of the inspection, and as expected, Performance Prediction
both had increased since construction. The tensile strength
of the Sasobit WMA was higher than the HMA at the time The initial AADTT for SR-84 in Case Grande, Arizona, was
of construction. Sasobit typically stiffens the asphalt binder, 456 trucks per day with one lane in each direction. A traffic
which may explain the higher tensile strength. After 9 months growth rate of 4.8% was calculated from the Arizona DOT’s
the tensile strengths had nearly doubled for both mixes. This ESAL estimation for the project. SR-84 was classified as a minor
increase can likely be attributed to rapid binder aging in the arterial. Table 1.157 summarizes the pavement structure.
desert climate. Figure 1.110 shows a comparison of the predicted rutting
Table 1.156 shows the average densities and tensile strengths for the WMA and HMA sections. The MEPDG predicts that,
by location for the 9-month inspection cores. The in-place for the total asphalt section, both the HMA and WMA will
reach 0.25 in. of rutting at 187 months of service. The total
predicted asphalt rutting after 20 years of service is 0.30 in.
(7.6 mm) for both the WMA and HMA. The predicted rutting
Table 1.156. In-place densities and tensile
for the surface layers after 20 years is only 0.08 in. (2 mm).
strengths by location in Casa Grande, Arizona.
Figure 1.111 shows a comparison of the predicted longitu-
HMA Sasobit dinal top-down cracking for Casa Grande, Arizona. Both the
Location and Property
9-Month Cores WMA and HMA exceeded the recommended maximum limit
Between-wheelpaths density (% of Gmm) 93.3 94.1 for top-down cracking, the HMA after 161 months and the
Right wheelpath density (% of Gmm) 94.6 95.1 WMA after 223 months. The total predicted cracking after
Between-wheelpaths tensile strength (psi) 231.6 239.8 20 years of service is 3,830 ft/mi (725 m/km) for the HMA
Right wheelpath tensile strength (psi) 246.1 260.6 and 2,290 ft/mi (434 m/km) for the WMA.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

117  

Table 1.157. Pavement structure for SR-84,

Casa Grande, Arizona.
Thickness
Layer
(in.) (cm)
WMA/HMA surface course 2.1 5.3
Existing 3/4-in. HMA - 19.0-mm NMAS with PG 70-10 2.9 7.4
Uncrushed gravel 9.0 22.9
AASHTO A-7-5 subgrade Semi-infinite

0.7

0.6 HMA Subtotal all Asphalt

Sasobit Subtotal all Asphalt
0.5 HMA Surface
Sasobit Surface
Rung Depth (in.)

Maximum Rung Limit

0.4
HMA and Sasobit lines overlap

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.110. MEPDG-predicted rutting, SR-84, Casa Grande, Arizona.

2400

2100
Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

1800

1500

1200

900

600 HMA

300 Sasobit

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Pavement Age (month)

Figure 1.111. MEPDG-predicted longitudinal cracking for SR-84,

Casa Grande, Arizona.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

118

Comparison of Observed and IDT inputs at temperatures accepted by the MEPDG;

Predicted Performance of WMA Rapid River, Michigan, was excluded due to lower IDT test
and HMA for New Projects temperatures.
When evaluating new technologies, it is desirable to com-
pare the long-term performance of both the new and the Rutting
existing technologies. Because desired pavement perfor- The MEPDG predicts rutting of each asphalt layer, pro-
mance is in the range of 12 years to 20 years, however, it is vides a subtotal of expected rutting for the asphalt layers, pre-
generally impractical to base comparisons on the long-term dicts the rutting of the base and subgrade layers, and provides
performance of field-test sections. Accelerated loading facil- the total expected pavement rutting. The observed field per-
ities, performance prediction tests, and performance pre- formance over the short term was compared to the subtotal
diction models may be used to evaluate expected long-term of predicted rutting for all of the asphalt layers. The predicted
performance. The results of prediction models must always and observed data for the subtotal of all asphalt layers are
be tempered with field-performance experience. The next summarized in Table 1.158.
section of this report compares the observed and the pre- Figure 1.112 shows a comparison of the observed and pre-
dicted performance from the MEPDG of the new projects’ dicted rutting. The predicted rutting was selected for the same
HMA and WMA for up to 2 years (12-month and 24-month months in which the field inspections occurred. Table 1.159
revisits) after construction. Comparisons are then made presents data that approximate both the 12-month and
between the predicted performance of HMA and WMA for 24-month field visits. The MEPDG generally overpredicts the
12 years and 20 years after construction. Thus, a total of observed rut depths, and more so for the WMA, although the
four prediction intervals: 12 months, 24 months, 12 years, linear regression between predicted and observed rut depth
and 20 years, are presented. Predicted rutting, longitudinal is very poor.
top-down cracking, and thermal cracking are evaluated. Two-sample, paired t-tests were performed between the
Thermal cracking is only evaluated for projects with Level I predicted WMA and HMA rut depths at both 12 months

Table 1.158. Observed and predicted rut depths (mm),

subtotal of all asphalt layers.

At Approximately At Approximately At At
12 Months 24 Months 12 Years 20 Years
Project Mix Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Predicted
Walla Walla, HMA 1.0 3.0 4.6 4.7 9.9 13.5
Washington Maxam 0.0 3.3 0.3 5.0 10.6 14.3
Centreville, HMA 0.0 1.8 3.2 1.9 4.5 6.0
Virginia Astec DBG 0.0 1.8 2.7 2.0 4.5 6.0
HMA 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.6 2.1
Rapid River,
Advera 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.3
Michigan
Evotherm 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.6 2.1
Baker, HMA 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 2.5 3.3
Montana Evotherm 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 2.7 3.5
HMA 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.6 9.5 12.4
Munster, Evotherm 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.6 9.6 12.6
Indiana Gencor foam 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.7 9.8 12.8
Wax 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.6 9.7 12.7
Jefferson HMA 1.9 2.7 2.9 3.9 8.6 11.0
County,
Terex foam 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.9 8.7 11.1
Florida
HMA 1.0 0.5 1.9 0.5 1.7 2.6
New York, BituTech 0.7 0.6 2.7 1.0 2.1 3.1
New York Cecabase 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.1 2.2 3.2
SonneWarmix 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 2.5 3.7
Casa Grande, HMA 3.2 1.4 NA 2.2 0.5 7.5
Arizona Sasobit 0.0 1.5 NA 2.2 0.5 7.6

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

119  

Sub-Total Rung of all Asphalt Layers

6.0
WMA Line of Equality
HMA
5.0 Linear (WMA)
Linear (HMA)
Observed Rut Depth (mm)

4.0
HMA
y = 0.5164x + 0.3558
R² = 0.2285
3.0

2.0
WMA
y = 0.1187x + 0.2879
R² = 0.0267
1.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
MEPDG Predicted Rut Depth (mm)
Figure 1.112. Observed and predicted rut depths for new projects, WMA and HMA.

Table 1.159. Predicted rut depths (mm), experimental (surface) layer.

At At
Approximately Approximately At At
Project Mix 12 Months 24 Months 12 Years 20 Years
Walla Walla, HMA 0.9 1.4 3.2 4.4
Washington AQUABlack 1.2 1.8 4.0 5.4
Centreville, HMA 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.6
Virginia Astec DBG 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.5
HMA 0.6 0.7 1.6 2.1
Rapid River,
Advera 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.3
Michigan
Evotherm 0.6 0.7 1.6 2.1
Baker, HMA 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7
Montana Evotherm 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5
HMA 0.5 0.7 1.9 2.5
Munster, Evotherm 0.5 0.7 2.0 2.6
Indiana Gencor foam 0.5 0.8 2.1 2.7
Wax 0.5 0.7 2.0 2.6
Jefferson HMA 0.6 0.9 1.8 2.2
County,
Florida Terex foam 0.7 1.0 1.9 2.3
HMA 0.4 0.6 1.4 2.1
New York, BituTech 0.5 0.7 1.8 2.7
New York Cecabase 0.6 0.8 1.9 2.8
SonneWarmix 0.7 0.9 2.2 3.2
Casa Grande, HMA 0.4 0.6 1.4 2.0
Arizona Sasobit 0.4 0.6 1.5 2.1

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

120

Table 1.160. Summary of statistical analyses to compare predicted rutting.

Prediction Mean Two-tailed
Interval Rut Depth t-test
Layer(s) (years) Mix (mm) Variance (p-value)
HMA 4.84 15.0
12 0.08
WMA 5.03 15.6
Subtotal all asphalt layers
HMA 6.96 22.4
24 0.06
WMA 7.23 23.2
HMA 1.65 0.36
12 0.16
Experimental (surface) WMA 1.80 0.67
layer HMA 2.22 0.65
24 0.14
WMA 2.45 1.31

and 24 months. The comparison was performed for both the Longitudinal Top-Down Cracking
subtotal of all asphalt layers and the experimental (surface)
layers. The results of the tests are summarized in Table 1.160. The MEPDG predicts longitudinal top-down and bottom-
Numerically, the mean rut depth for the WMA mixes is always up fatigue cracking. Because the experimental mixes were
greater; however, that difference is very small (approximately surface mixes, bottom-up fatigue cracking predictions are
0.2 mm). At 95% confidence, the paired t-tests indicate that not presented. Bottom-up fatigue cracking predictions would
the 12-year and 20-year rut depth predictions are the same. be influenced more by the supporting pavement layers. The
Although it is a poor correlation, Figure 1.112 indicates that observed field performance over the short term was com-
the MEPDG overprediction of rutting is greater for WMA pared to the predicted longitudinal top-down cracking. The
than for HMA. Overall, however, the performance predic- observed cracking in the three 200-ft (61-m) monitoring sec-
tions indicate that WMA should perform as well as HMA tions were normalized to feet per mile (ft/mi). The predicted
in terms of rutting. and observed data are summarized in Table 1.161.

Table 1.161. Observed and predicted longitudinal top-down cracking (ft/mi).

At Approximately At Approximately At At
12 Months 24 Months 12 Years 20 Years
Observed Observed
Project Mix Normalized Predicted Normalized Predicted Predicted
Walla Walla, HMA 0 0 0 1 13 35
WA AQUABlack 0 1 0 2 23 62
Centreville, HMA 0 1 0 1 9 21
VA Astec DBG 0 0 0 0 4 10
HMA 0 8 4 14 266 550
Rapid River,
Advera 4 2 4 4 66 139
MI
Evotherm 18 8 18 12 214 434
HMA 0 6 0 11 337 822
Baker, MT
Evotherm 0 8 0 15 428 1,030
HMA 0 461 97 1,500 8,010 9,290
Evotherm 0 268 0 949 7,160 8,810
Munster, IN
Foam 97 386 678 1,360 7,940 9,270
Wax 0 716 0 2,280 9,020 9,850
Jefferson HMA 0 4 0 15 285 649
County, FL Terex 0 10 0 34 605 1,320
HMA 0 0 97 0 0 0
BituTech 0 0 150 0 0 0
New York,
Cecabase 0 0 440 0 0 1
NY
SonneWarmix 0 0 308 0 1 3
Casa Grande, HMA 0 26 NA 104 1,720 3,820
AZ Sasobit 0 13 NA 51 918 2,290

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

121  

2,500

WMA

Normalized Observed Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

HMA
2,000
Linear (WMA)
Linear (HMA)

1,500

1,000

WMA HMA
y = 0.0753x + 50.37 y = 0.0541x + 5.8131
R² = 0.0617 R² = 0.3964
500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
MEPDG Predicted Longitudinal Cracking (/mile)

Figure 1.113. Observed and predicted top-down longitudinal cracking for new projects.

Figure 1.113 shows a comparison of the observed and t-tests indicate that the 12-year and 20-year top-down crack-
predicted cracking. The data that approximate both the ing predictions are the same. The performance predictions
12-month and 24-month field visits are shown. The MEPDG indicate WMA should perform as well as HMA in terms of
generally overestimates the predicted cracking. Similar to the top-down cracking.
rutting prediction, the relationship between the observed
and predicted cracking is poorer for the WMA compared
to the HMA. Thermal Cracking
Two-sample, paired t-tests were performed between the Thermal cracking comparisons are only presented for
predicted WMA and HMA top-down longitudinal cracking at projects with Level I IDT data compatible with the MEPDG.
both 12 months and 24 months. The results are summarized The Michigan IDT tests were conducted at lower tempera-
in Table 1.162. Numerically, the predicted HMA cracking is tures because of the binder grade, so the data from those
greater than the predicted WMA cracking in 6 of 13 cases and tests could not be used in the MEPDG. Table 1.163 presents
identical in 2 of 13 cases. The mean predicted cracking for
the WMA mixes is always less. At 95% confidence, the paired
Table 1.163. Predicted thermal cracking (ft/mi).
Project Mix At 12 Years At 20 Years
Table 1.162. Summary of statistical analyses
Walla Walla, HMA 0 0
to compare predicted top-down cracking. Washington AQUABlack 0 0
Centreville, HMA 0 0
Prediction Mean Two-tailed
Virginia Astec DBG 0 0
Interval Cracking, t-test
HMA 1,584 1,750
(years) Mix (ft/mi) Variance ( p-value) Baker, Montana
Evotherm DAT 1,512 1,731
HMA 2,071 11,667,256
12 0.75 HMA 1,825 1,869
WMA 2,029 11,965,250 Evotherm 1 3
HMA 2,640 15,385,014 Munster, Indiana
24 0.58 Gencor foam 1,563 1,752
WMA 2,556 15,329,011 Heritage wax 299 731

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

122

Table 1.164. Summary of statistical analyses of potential concern observed during the construction of
to compare predicted thermal cracking. the field-test sections. In some cases, interested readers are
directed to other sources for potential solutions. There is no
Prediction Mean Two-tailed
Interval Cracking, t-test single best practice to address every situation. Instead, a vari-
(years) Mix (ft/mi) Variance ( p-value) ety of practices are offered for the reader to consider.
HMA 1,176 838,811
12 0.13
WMA 562 583,605
HMA 1,226 904,292 Stockpile Moisture Content
24 0.17
WMA 703 727,396
Minimizing stockpile moisture content is a best practice
for both WMA and HMA. An early concern with WMA was
the predicted thermal cracking after 12 years and 20 years incomplete drying of the aggregate at reduced production
of service. Table 1.164 presents the statistical comparison. In temperatures. However, moisture contents measured on
all cases the thermal cracking predicted for the WMA was numerous plant-produced HMA and WMA mix samples in
less than or equal to the thermal cracking predicted for the this study have shown that incomplete drying of aggregates
HMA. Paired, two-sample t-tests indicate no significant dif- during WMA production is not a problem. Nonetheless,
ference between the predicted WMA and HMA cracking at reducing stockpile moisture content is beneficial in saving
95% confidence. Based on the performance predictions, the energy for asphalt mixture production. An industry rule of
WMA would generally be expected to perform better than the thumb is that fuel usage decreases 10% for every 1% decrease
HMA. From the Indiana data, the Heritage wax does not seem in stockpile moisture content. Reducing stockpile moisture
to have a detrimental effect on low-temperature performance. content saves fuel, even with WMA.
The aggregates used on the Baker, Montana, project
Summary of Performance achieved average moisture contents that were 1.9% lower than
Prediction Comparisons the averages for the other seven projects, resulting in an aver-
age fuel savings of 0.052 MMBtu/ton per percent moisture
Comparisons were made between the short-term observed content compared to HMA produced at the same tempera-
and predicted performance for the HMA and WMA in the new ture. This savings actually exceeded the 10% rule of thumb.
projects. The MEPDG generally overpredicted rutting and Fine aggregate and RAP stockpiles tend to have a higher
longitudinal cracking. The predictions for the HMA showed moisture content than coarse aggregate stockpiles do. There-
a slightly better correlation with the observed data. Compari- fore, these stockpiles should be addressed first. Stockpile
sons of the predicted rutting after 12 years and 20 years of ser- moisture content can be reduced in a number of ways, such
vice suggest that HMA will perform slightly better than WMA, as covering stockpiles, placing stockpiles on surfaces sloped
on the order of 0.2 mm less rutting. The difference is not sta-
away from the plant, and loading from the high side (10).
tistically or practically significant. In 6 of 13 cases for both the
12 year and 20 year prediction, less top-down, longitudinal
cracking is predicted for the WMA; in two of 13 cases, the pre- Maintaining Adequate
dictions are identical. The predicted top-down cracking is not Baghouse Temperatures
significantly different between WMA and HMA. Level I IDT
One potential challenge in the production of WMA can
data was used in the MEPDG for four project sites. No thermal
be keeping baghouse temperatures high enough to prevent
cracking was predicted after 20 years of service for two of the
condensation. Condensation causes two problems: cor-
sites. For the remaining two sites (one multi-technology), the
rosion of the baghouse and the formation of mud (damp
predicted thermal cracking for the WMA was also less than
for the HMA. The differences, however, were not statistically baghouse fines). In well-maintained baghouses, inlet tem-
significant. Overall, the performance predictions indicate that peratures should be above 220°F (104°C) for low-sulfur fuels
WMA should perform as well as HMA, and possibly better, in and 240°F to 250°F (116°C to 121°C) for high-sulfur fuels,
terms of cracking. Slightly more rutting might be expected, such as reclaimed oils. High-sulfur fuels produce acidic gases
but this increase is practically and statistically insignificant. that attack steel if they condense on cooler surfaces like bag-
house tube sheets. The critical temperature, however, is the
dew point of the exhaust stream. This is the temperature at
Practical Guidelines for Production
which water vapor in the exhaust stream will condense into
and Placement of WMA
liquid water. The typical dew point for asphalt plant exhaust
Best practices for production and placement of WMA are streams ranges from approximately 170°F to 180°F.
not very different from those that have long been advocated Ideally, it is desirable to transfer as much heat as possible
for HMA. This section of NCHRP Report 779 highlights from the burner exhaust stream to the aggregate, resulting in
best practices and documented benefits of WMA and areas lower baghouse and stack temperatures. Low baghouse tem-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

123  

peratures are less likely with parallel-flow plants than with of baghouse mudding during the trial sections, all of the pro-
more efficient counter-flow plants. Typically, exhaust gases duction runs were relatively short.
for parallel-flow drum plants range from 20°F (11°C) cooler Young (27) provides several best practices for minimiz-
to 50°F (28°C) hotter than mix discharge temperatures. ing condensation in the baghouse and preventing damage
Mix, baghouse inlet (where available), and stack (bag- from corrosion when running at normal HMA production
house outlet) temperatures were recorded at approximately temperatures. These best practices are even more important
15-minute intervals during the production of the mixes for when running WMA on a regular basis.
the new projects in this study. The average and minimum
mix and stack temperatures are reported for each mix in • Seal air leaks, particularly the seals on the baghouse doors
Table 1.165. Also noted is the plant configuration and fuel and around dryer breeching. Air leaks cause two problems:
type. With the exception of independent checks of mix tem- first, the introduction of cooler ambient air can reduce
perature, the research team did not check the accuracy of the the overall temperature of the exhaust stream, leading to
plant temperature measurements. condensation; second, air leaks waste fan capacity, thereby
Average stack temperatures were greater than 180°F for lowering the maximum production rate.
17 of 21 mixes. The exceptions were the WMA and HMA • Preheat the baghouse for 15 minutes to 20 minutes to heat
from Florida, the WMA from Centreville, Virginia, and the the steel housing completely. Experience has shown that it is
WMA from Casa Grande, Arizona. The minimum stack tem- also beneficial to start WMA production at a slightly higher
peratures for these mixes was less than or equal to 180°F. The temperature.
Florida plant and the Arizona plant used recycled fuel, which • Inspect the fines return lines more frequently to ensure that
can have high sulfur contents. Although there were no reports no buildup occurs due to moisture. Typically, fines at lower

Table 1.165. Average and minimum mix and stack temperatures.

Project, Mix Temperature (°F) Stack Temperature (°F)

Plant Type, Fuel Mix Section Average Minimum Average Minimum
Walla Walla, HMA 325 312 339 330
Washington;
Parallel-flow drum; Terex foam 285 274 295 266
Natural gas
Centreville, Virginia; HMA 318 294 218 213
Double barrel;
Natural gas Astec DBG 288 280 192 180
Rapid River, HMA 302 273 310 269
Michigan; Advera WMA 269 254 278 247
Parallel-flow drum;
Evotherm 3G 271 257 284 272
Reclaimed motor oil
Baker, Montana; HMA 299 293 249 216
Parallel-flow drum;
Evotherm
Liquid propane 252 242 238 217
DAT
HMA 300 290 241 231
Munster, Indiana;
Gencor foam 277 265 233 226
Counter-flow drum;
Evotherm 3G 255 248 218 213
Natural gas
Heritage wax 268 243 225 220
Jefferson County, HMA 334 316 174 159
Florida;
Counter-flow drum; Terex foam 297 279 175 156
Reclaimed motor oil
New York, HMA 344 318 332 306
New York; Cecabase RT 245 200 251 235
Batch/mini-drum; SonneWarmix 270 238 231 204
Natural gas BituTech PER 279 260 238 209
Casa Grande, HMA 319 285 212 183
Arizona;
Parallel-flow drum; Sasobit 276 222 181 148
Reclaimed motor oil

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

124

temperatures are more susceptible to moisture, affecting required for WMA. In any case, a contractor attempting their
flow back into the mix. first WMA trial should have an experienced burner techni-
• Condensation may only occur in a limited portion of the cian inspect the burner and aid with adjustments.
baghouse, such as the windward side. In this case, periodic Uncombusted fuel can result from a number of causes
painting of the interior surfaces can minimize corrosion, with both WMA and HMA. Clogged burner nozzles and fuel
and insulation of exterior surfaces can reduce heat loss. filters are always good places to start looking. When burn-
ing heavy or reclaimed fuel oil, accelerated pump wear and
The minimum exhaust temperature necessary to avoid challenges in maintaining the fuel preheater temperatures to
problems with condensation and returning baghouse fines will obtain a suitable viscosity for fuel atomization are frequent
vary from plant to plant and from mix to mix. Cold weather problem areas.
and high aggregate moisture can be a dangerous combination
when it comes to condensation and dust problems. Tight, Producing Mixes with RAP and RAS
well-maintained plants can be more sensitive to condensation
because of higher moisture concentrations in the exhaust gas. The addition of even a relatively small percentage of RAP
Several strategies suitable for increasing baghouse tempera- to WMA can greatly aid in drying the virgin aggregate and
tures are outlined in Prowell, Hurley, and Frank’s Warm Mix increasing the baghouse temperature with no detrimental
Asphalt: Best Practices, 3rd edition (10). Some of these strate- consequences. For a discharge temperature of 220°F, the virgin
gies are quick to implement and others are inexpensive. Also, aggregate must be superheated to a temperature of 280°F for
some options require equipment upgrades that offer more a batch plant running a mixture with 10% RAP with a mois-
benefits than simply raising stack temperatures. ture content of 3% (27). Superheating the virgin aggregate will
increase the likelihood that the internal moisture in the virgin
aggregate is removed. Superheating the virgin aggregate will
Burner Performance also increase the temperature of the exhaust gases going to
the baghouse. Thus, the addition of a small amount of RAP
An improperly tuned burner can increase fuel usage and
helps to satisfy both needs. The mix designs for seven of eight
result in mix contamination. An expert on the NCHRP Proj-
NCHRP Project 9-47A field trials included at least 12% RAP;
ect 9-47A project team conducted burner tuning for the team
the Baker, Montana, project used a virgin mix.
before each of the multi-technology projects (in Michigan,
On the performance side, one purported benefit of WMA
Indiana, and New York). One plant had a 24.8% reduction
is reduced aging of the binder. Performance grading of
in fuel usage for HMA after burner tuning. One symptom of
binder recovered from the NCHRP Project 9-47A field sec-
improper burner adjustment and maintenance is unburned tions generally supports this. Nine of 14 WMA mixes had
fuel. Unburned liquid fuels can contaminate the mix, leading low-temperature true grades that were lower than the cor-
to a binder that is less stiff than desired. The potential for mix responding HMA control mixes. The five remaining WMAs
damage from uncombusted fuel is probably greater for WMA had low-temperature true grades within 0.6°C of the HMA
than for HMA, because unburned fuel is more likely to vapor- control. Only one WMA had a recovered high-temperature
ize at HMA temperatures. Uncombusted fuel was observed in true grade higher than its corresponding HMA (Virginia,
a few early WMA trial projects before this study was initiated. 1.2°C). The addition of RAP to WMA production also can be
WMA contaminated with fuel oil can be detected by a brown expected to increase the early-life composite stiffness of the
coloration of the coated aggregate. Performance testing of fuel- mixture, helping to counteract any concerns over the impact
contaminated mixes will also yield increased rutting susceptibil- of reduced aging on high-temperature performance.
ity and lower dynamic modulus (stiffness) values. If fuels are not
combusted, stack emissions tests will also indicate elevated levels
of carbon monoxide (CO) and total hydrocarbons (THC). Placement Changes
Most burners have one modulating actuator motor with Several contractors have commented that equipment remains
mechanical linkage driving dampers and fuel valves. The cleaner, with less asphalt buildup, when placing WMA. In a few
challenge with a mechanical linkage is making sure that the instances, material flow issues have been observed at asphalt
air-to-fuel ratio is optimal through the full operating range. plants and when dumping into transfer vehicles or pavers; these
Some contractors have reported difficulties adjusting burn- issues most likely occur because of the reduced temperatures.
ers to sufficiently low levels to reach the desired production Observed differences included the following:
temperatures for WMA. This problem has generally been
exacerbated when the plant runs at a very slow production • Sluggish flow of mix into vertical bucket elevator (in a
rate for a small WMA trial. At normal production rates, most project that preceded NCHRP Project 9-47A), resolved by
burners should be able to produce the lower temperatures a slight increase in mix temperature

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

125  

• Sticking of silo gate

• Need to raise truck bed higher to break the load when
dumping

Hand work can be difficult at reduced temperatures, par-

ticularly in urban environments where more hand work is
required for manholes, storm water inlet grates, valves, and
so forth. The New York, New York, project required a signifi-
cant amount of hand work by the paving crew. Figure 1.114
shows the hand work associated with one typical intersection
that included a stormwater inlet just outside the bottom of
the picture. The crew reported a significant improvement in
workability with a 25°F increase in average production tem-
perature between the Cecabase RT and SonneWarmix and
BituTech PER. Thus, WMA can be used where hand work is
required, even with 20% RAP, but care must be used to select Figure 1.114. Typical hand work in urban paving
appropriate production temperatures. project.

Compaction
not statistically different with 95% confidence. Thus, there
WMA technologies are compaction aids. However, the appears to be a tradeoff between reduction in production
compaction benefits may be offset by lower production and temperature and reduction in compaction effort. Compac-
compaction temperatures. In general, for the lower WMA tion should be monitored using a non-destructive device,
production temperatures measured in this study, there was calibrated to cores, to ensure that adequate density is consis-
not a reduction in the required compaction effort in the field tently being achieved.
compared to HMA. In nine of 13 cases, the WMA achieved The WMA on the Jefferson County, Florida, project exhib-
the same in-place density as the corresponding HMA, or ited a tender zone at intermediate compaction temperatures.
better, during construction. For the four cases in which the Jim Warren of the Asphalt Contractors Association of Florida
WMA in-place densities were lower, the average difference commented that the use of polymer-modified PG 76-22 had
was within 1%, and t-tests confirmed that the averages were largely eliminated the tender zone in Florida.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

126

CHAPTER 4

Engineering Properties of HMA and WMA

Statistical analyses were conducted to assess whether dif- Tables 1.166 to 1.173 present the true grade and perfor-
ferences exist between warm mix asphalt (WMA) and hot mance grade of the extracted binders for all the mixes of each
mix asphalt (HMA) for the binder properties, mix char- new project. The results are as follows:
acteristics, in-place properties, and laboratory-measured
engineering properties. For projects with one WMA and an Walla, Walla, Washington (Table 1.166).  The performance
HMA control, F tests and t-tests were used to compare the grades were the same for both WMA and HMA recovered
characteristics and properties that have replicate data with a binders at three different ages (at production, at 13 months,
90% confidence interval (a = 0.10). F tests were used to com- and at 27 months). The high performance grade for both
pare variances of the properties; t-tests were used to com- HMA and WMA binders were one grade lower at 13 months
pare means of the properties. For projects with more than and 27 months than the high performance grade at production.
one WMA technology, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was Centreville, Virginia (Table 1.167).  The performance
used to detect statistical differences among the results. Some grades were the same for HMA and WMA binders for the
test results, such as tensile strength ratio (TSR), do not have production mix and 24-month cores. For the 15-month cores,
replicate data because they are computed from average tensile the high performance grade of the WMA-Astec DBG binder
strength results. Comparisons of such properties for WMA was one grade lower than the HMA binder. The low perfor-
and HMA were made using paired t-tests with the results mance grade for the WMA binder at 15 months was about
from all projects. 4 degrees lower than the HMA binder. It is also observed that
For the mix properties, statistical analysis results were used the high performance grades for WMA and HMA binders
to compare WMA and HMA sections in terms of equal, lower, were one grade lower at 24 months compared to the produc-
or higher performance. Equal performance indicates that tion mix, which is not expected since the binders should show
no statistical differences were found in the results, and lower a stiffer behavior.
or higher performance indicates that there were differences
between them. Rapid River, Michigan (Table 1.168).  At production,
the performance grades were the same for HMA and WMA
binders. At 13 months, the performance grades were the same
Binder Properties for the WMA-Evotherm and HMA binders, and the high and
low performance grades of the WMA-Advera binders were
The performance grades of the recovered asphalt binders one grade higher than the HMA binder. At 22 months, the
were determined in accordance with AASHTO M 320 and high performance grades were the same for the HMA and
AASHTO R 29 for all the mixes of each project under study. WMA-Advera binders, but the WMA-Evotherm binder was
For the new projects, asphalt binders were recovered from one grade lower than the HMA binder. The low performance
mixes sampled during construction and cores from inspec- grades were the same for all binders.
tions at approximately 1 and 2 years after construction. For
the existing projects, asphalt binders were recovered from cores Baker, Montana (Table 1.169).   The performance grades
obtained from one inspection only; the ages of these cores vary were the same for binders recovered from WMA and HMA at
depending on the project and range between 30 months and two different ages, production and 13 months. At 22 months,
65 months. the WMA-Evotherm DAT binder was one grade lower at the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

127  

Table 1.166. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Walla, Walla, Washington.

Age Grade HMA AQUABlack

High temperature (°C) 77.9 75.3
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -26.0 -27.3
Performance 76-22 76-22
High temperature (°C) 73.7 74.7
13 months Low temperature (°C) -27.2 -27.3
Performance 70-22 70-22
High temperature (°C) 74.2 76.3
27 months Low temperature (°C) -26.2 -24.4
Performance 70-22 70-22

Table 1.167. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Centreville, Virginia.

Age Grade HMA Astec DBG

High temperature (°C) 88.3 89.5
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -20.1 -21.9
Performance 88-16 88-16
High temperature (°C) 92.3 83.7
15 months Low temperature (°C) -18.0 -22.2
Performance 88-16 82-22
High temperature (°C) 83.5 84.6
24 months Low temperature (°C) -24.8 -22.7
Performance 82-22 82-22

Table 1.168. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Rapid River, Michigan.

Age Grade HMA Evotherm Advera

High temperature (°C) 59.0 58.1 59.7
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -35.2 -34.8 -35.2
Performance 58-34 58-34 58-34
High temperature (°C) 57.2 55.7 60.2
13 months Low temperature (°C) -35.2 -34.6 -33.4
Performance 52-34 52-34 58-28
High temperature (°C) 61.0 57.3 59.4
22 months Low temperature (°C) -34.5 -34.5 -34.5
Performance 58-34 52-34 58-34

Table 1.169. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Baker, Montana.

Age Grade HMA Evotherm DAT

High temperature (°C) 65.3 65.2
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -31.2 -30.8
Performance 64-28 64-28
High temperature (°C) 66.5 65.4
13 months Low temperature (°C) -30.7 -33.0
Performance 64-28 64-28
High temperature (°C) 66.5 62.6
22 months Low temperature (°C) -33.7 -32.5
Performance 64-28 58-28

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

128

Table 1.170. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Munster, Indiana.

Evotherm Gencor Heritage

Age Grade HMA
3G Foam Wax
High temperature (°C) 74.6 71.9 70.4 72.5
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -21.0 -23.2 -22.8 -20.4
Performance 70-16 70-22 70-22 70-16
High temperature (°C) 72.1 71.0 68.9 70.0
13 months Low temperature (°C) -22.7 -21.5 -24.0 -21.6
Performance 70-22 70-16 64-22 70-16
High temperature (°C) 75.0 71.5 73.7 76.9
24 months Low temperature (°C) -22.9 -23.6 -23.3 -18.5
Performance 70-22 70-22 70-22 76-16

high temperature grade, and the low temperature grade was mance grade of the WMA-Terex foam binder was one grade
the same for both recovered binders. lower than the HMA binder; the low temperature grade of
the WMA-Terex foam binder was one grade lower than the
Munster, Indiana (Table 1.170).   At production, the high HMA binder.
performance grades were the same for HMA and all of the
WMA recovered binders. The low performance grades were New York, New York (Table 1.172).   At production,
one grade higher for the WMA-Evotherm 3G and WMA- the high performance grades of the recovered binders
Gencor foam binders compared to the HMA binder. At were the same for the HMA and WMA-SonneWarmix.
13 months, the high performance grades were the same for For the other two WMA binders, Cecabase and BituTech
the HMA and two of the WMA binders, Evotherm 3G and PER, the high performance grades were one grade lower than
Heritage wax. The WMA-Gencor foam was one grade lower. the HMA binder. The low performance grades of the three
The low performance grades were the same for the HMA and WMA binders were one grade lower than the HMA binder. At
WMA-Gencor foam binders, but they were one grade lower for 13 months, the performance grades were the same for HMA
the other two WMA binders, Evotherm 3G and Heritage wax. and the WMA binders. At 24 months, the high performance
At 24 months, the high performance grades were the same for grades were the same for the HMA binder and two WMA
the HMA recovered binder and the recovered binder of two binders (Cecabase and SonneWarmix); the BituTech PER-
WMA mixes (Evotherm 3G and Gencor foam); the WMA- WMA binder was one grade higher than the HMA binder.
Heritage wax binder was one grade higher than the HMA The low performance grades were the same for all the binders
binder. (HMA and WMA).

Jefferson County, Florida (Table 1.171).  The perfor- Casa Grande, Arizona (Table 1.173).  The performance
mance grades of HMA and WMA recovered binders were the grades of the recovered binders were the same for the HMA
same at construction. At 14 months, the high performance and WMA-Sasobit for the construction mixes. At 9 months,
grades were the same for both binders, but the low tempera- the high performance grade of the WMA-Sasobit binder was
ture grade was one grade (actually just 1.4°C) lower for the one grade higher than the HMA binder, and the low perfor-
WMA-Terex foam binder. At 24 months, the high perfor- mance grade was the same for both binders.

Table 1.171. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Jefferson County, Florida.

Age Grade HMA Terex Foam

High temperature (°C) 92.5 90.4
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -17.8 -17.2
Performance 88-16 88-16
High temperature (°C) 93.9 90.9
14 months Low temperature (°C) -15.3 -16.7
Performance 88-10 88-16
High temperature (°C) 97.6 91
24 months Low temperature (°C) -12.2 -17.9
Performance 94-10 88-16

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

129  

Table 1.172. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

New York, New York.

Sonne- BituTech
Age Grade HMA Cecabase
Warmix PER
High temperature (°C) 74.6 68.9 70.1 69.3
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -21.4 -26.2 -24.7 -24.9
Performance 70-16 64-22 70-22 64-22
High temperature (°C) 68.6 69.2 68.7 69.1
15 months Low temperature (°C) -23.1 -25.1 -24.9 -26.5
Performance 64-22 64-22 64-22 64-22
High temperature (°C) 71.9 72.8 72.2 76.3
26 months Low temperature (°C) -23.8 -24.4 -25.1 -22.8
Performance 70-22 70-22 70-22 76-22

It can be observed that, with a few exceptions, the per- • At first inspection (cores):
formance grades for the HMA and WMA binders were the –– High true grade temperature difference: The average
same for most of the projects at different ages. But in all of difference for all projects was -0.8°C, which indicates
these cases, the difference in binder grades was only one grade that WMA typically results in slightly lower high critical
(up or down). Also noticeable is that short-term field aging temperature, but this difference is less than 1°C.
does not seem to have an effect on the performance grading –– Low temperature difference: The average difference for
obtained. For the cases in which a difference was observed, all projects was -1°C, which indicates that WMA sec-
the binder grades were changed only one grade (up or down), tions could have a very slight improvement in low tem-
indicating little or no in-service aging of the binders. It seems perature cracking in the first year of service.
likely that the pressure aging vessel (PAV) conditioning of • At second inspection (cores):
the binders as part of the binder grading process may have –– High temperature difference: The average difference
masked some of the effects of plant- and short-term aging for all projects was -0.8°C, which indicates that WMA
of the binders. pavements have a lightly lower high critical temperature
Table 1.174 shows the differences for the high and low compared to HMA.
true grades between WMA–HMA for the recovered binder –– Low temperature difference: The average difference for
at three ages; at construction, at first inspection of cores all projects was 0.2°C, which is probably insignificant in
(~13 months), and at second inspection of cores (~24 months). practical terms.
From Table 1.174, the following can be observed:
Overall, the high and low true grades for the WMA and
• At construction: HMA binders at different ages are very similar, with the larg-
–– High true grade temperature difference: The average est difference at time of construction. Also noticeable is that
difference for all projects was -2.3°C, which indicates the differences obtained for the high and low true grades seem
that WMA production temperatures typically result in to decrease with time: -2.3°C, -0.8°C, and -0.8°C (high crit-
slightly less aging of asphalt binders. ical temperature differences) and -1.3°C, -1°C, and 0.2°C
–– Low true grade temperature difference: The average dif- (low critical temperature differences) at construction, first
ference for all projects was -1.3 °C, which indicates that inspection, and second inspection, respectively.
slightly less plant-related aging of the binders occurs at Table 1.175 presents the true grades and performance
lower production temperatures. grades of the recovered binders from cores obtained for

Table 1.173. True and performance binder grades at different ages—

Casa Grande, Arizona.

Age Grade HMA Sasobit

High temperature (°C) 80 78
Production mix Low temperature (°C) -14.3 -13.7
Performance 76-10 76-10
High temperature (°C) 74.4 78.6
9 months Low temperature (°C) -14.1 -15.1
Performance 70-10 76-10

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

130

Table 1.174. Temperature difference—high and low true grade

(WMA–HMA) at different ages.

Construction 1-year Cores 2-year Cores

Location WMA High Tc Low Tc High Tc Low Tc High Tc Low Tc
Walla Walla,
AQUABlack
Washington -2.6 -1.9 1 -0.1 2.1 1.8
Centreville,
Astec DBG
Virginia 1.2 -1.8 -8.6 -4.2 1.1 2.1
Rapid River, Evotherm 3G -0.9 0.4 -1.5 0.7 -3.7 0
Michigan Advera 0.7 0 3 1.9 -1.6 0
Baker, Montana Evotherm DAT -0.1 0.4 -1.1 -2.3 -3.9 1.2
Evotherm 3G -2.7 -2.2 -1.1 1.2 -3.5 -0.7
Munster, Indiana Gencor Ultrafoam -4.2 -1.8 -2.3 -1.3 -1.3 -0.4
Heritage wax -2.1 0.6 -2.1 1.1 1.9 4.4
Jefferson County,
Terex CMI Foam
Florida -2.1 0.6 -3 -1.4 -6.6 -5.7
Cecabase -5.7 -4.8 0.6 -2 0.9 -0.6
New York,
SonneWarmix -4.5 -3.3 0.1 -1.8 0.3 -1.3
New York
BituTech PER -5.3 -3.5 0.5 -3.4 4.4 1
Casa Grande,
Sasobit
Arizona -2.0 0.6 4.2 -1.0 - -
Average, WMA–HMA -2.3 -1.3 -0.8 -1 -0.8 0.2
Maximum Tc Difference, WMA–HMA -5.7 -4.8 -8.6 -4.2 -6.6 -5.7
Minimum Tc Difference, WMA–HMA 1.2 0.6 4.2 1.9 4.4 4.4
Tc: critical temperature

Table 1.175. True and performance binder grades at existing

projects (one inspection only).

High Temp. Low Temp.

Project Mix PG Grade
Grade (°C) Grade (°C)
HMA 85.4 -17.0 82-16
St. Louis, Missouri Sasobit 79.5 -14.8 76-10
(64 months) Evotherm 77.2 -21.9 76-16
Aspha-min 77.8 -19.7 76-16
Iron Mountain, HMA 61.2 -35.4 58-34
Michigan
(59 months) Sasobit 70.2 -29.0 70-28
HMA 59.2 -32.1 58-28
Silverthorne,
Advera 60.6 -30.7 58-28
Colorado
Sasobit 66.0 -29.0 64-28
(38 months)
Evotherm 59.9 -30.9 58-28
HMA 84.5 -16.0 82-16
Franklin, Advera 87.0 NA 82-NA
Tennessee Astec DBG 82.6 -17.6 82-16
(41 months) Evotherm 91.6 NA 88-NA
Sasobit 87.5 -11.6 82-10
Graham, Texas HMA 83.2 -19.0 82-16
(30 months) Astec DBG 82.7 -19.4 82-16
George, HMA 82.6 -26.9 82-22
Washington
Sasobit 80.6 -27.0 76-22
(50 months)
NA: results not available

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

131  

all the mixes of each existing project. The results are as the Iron Mountain, Michigan project, the high performance
follows: grade was two grades higher for the WMA–Sasobit binder.
With the exception of the Iron Mountain, Michigan, proj-
St. Louis, Missouri.   The inspection for this project was ect, the WMA technologies generally do not seem to have
conducted 65 months after construction. The high perfor- a negative effect on the binder’s low and high performance
mance grade of the HMA recovered binder was one grade grades. For the Iron Mountain, Michigan, project, the Sasobit
higher than the grades of the binders of the three WMA additive made the binder stiffer.
technologies: Sasobit, Evotherm, and Aspha-min. The low
performance grades of the HMA recovered binder and two
WMA binders (Evotherm and Aspha-min) were the same; Mixture Properties
WMA-Sasobit was one grade higher than the HMA recov- Mix Moisture Contents
ered binder.
AASHTO T 329 was used to determine the moisture con-
Iron Mountain, Michigan.   The inspection of this project tent of loose plant-produced mix sampled at the time of
was conducted 57 months after construction. The high per- construction for the new projects. The results are shown in
formance grade of the HMA recovered binder was two grades Table 1.176. It can be seen that most mixes had low moisture
lower than the grade of the WMA-Sasobit binder, which indi- contents (> 0.5%). WMA mixes generally had slightly higher
cates a significant increase in the WMA-Sasobit binder stiff- moisture contents than their corresponding HMA mixes, but
ness. The low performance grade of the HMA binder was one the differences are probably not significant. WMA produced
grade lower than the WMA-Sasobit binder. using a water foaming process appears to have similar mois-
ture contents to other WMA technologies.
Silverthorne, Colorado.  This project’s sections were
inspected 38 months after construction. The high perfor-
mance grades of the recovered binders from the HMA and Densities
the two WMA mixes, (Advera and Evotherm) were the same; Densities of WMA and HMA pavements were assessed
the high binder grade of the WMA-Sasobit was one grade using field cores after compaction and cores obtained dur-
higher than the HMA. The low performance grades of all ing the first and second inspections. As described in the
recovered HMA and WMA binders were the same. experimental plan, cores after compaction and the second
inspection were only available from the new projects with
Franklin, Tennessee.   This project’s sections were inspected
the exception of two existing projects (George, Washington,
41 months after construction. For two of these sections (WMA-
and Iron Mountain, Michigan), for which densities from field
Advera and WMA-Evotherm), it was not possible to obtain
cores after compaction were also available.
the low performance grades because of insufficient recovered
binder. The high performance grades of the HMA and two
WMA binders (WMA-Advera and WMA-Astec DBG) were the Densities from Field Cores After Compaction
same; the WMA-Evotherm grade was one grade higher than
the HMA binder. The low performance grades of the recovered A summary of the statistical analysis of in-place densities
binders (the HMA and the WMA-Astec DBG) were the same. of cores taken after compaction are shown in Table 1.177.
The p-values indicate the probability that the variances or
Graham, Texas.   The inspection of this project’s sections means are not different for HMA and WMA on each respec-
was conducted 30 months after construction. The perfor- tive project. These results show that variances were not statis-
mance grades of both recovered binders (HMA and WMA- tically different except for the New York City project. Results
Astec DBG), were the same. for in-place relative densities on this project had a standard
deviation of as low as 1.33% for the BituTech PER WMA and
George, Washington.  This project was inspected as high as 4.0% for the SonneWarmix WMA.
60 months after construction. The high performance grade The t-test and Dunnett’s test p-values shown in Table 1.177
of the binder recovered from the HMA was one grade higher indicate that none of the densities—except for the Casa
than the WMA-Sasobit binder; the low performance grades Grande, Arizona project (Sasobit)—were statistically dif-
were the same for both binders. ferent between WMA sections and the corresponding HMA
In summary, the high performance grades of binders recov- sections. This finding is counter to the often-claimed ben-
ered from HMA and WMA were the same for many of the efit that WMA will improve compaction and density levels.
projects. In most cases where differences in binder grade were For the Casa Grande, Arizona, project, higher density was
evident, the difference was only one grade (up or down). For achieved for the WMA section. Figure 1.115 summarizes the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

132

Table 1.176. Field-mix moistures at construction from

new projects.

Project WMA
Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
Location Technologies
Walla Walla, HMA 0.06 0.08 0.07
Washington AQUABlack 0.22 0.23 0.23
Centreville, HMA 0.06 0.02 0.04
Virginia Astec DBG 0.12 0.17 0.15
HMA 0.20 0.15 0.18
Baker, Montana
Evotherm DAT 0.13 0.04 0.09
Jefferson HMA 0.04 0.04 0.04
County, Florida Terex foam 0.04 0.05 0.05
Casa Grande, HMA 0.06 0.03 0.05
Arizona Sasobit 0.04 0.07 0.06
HMA 0.09 0.05 0.07
Rapid River,
Advera 0.01 0.06 0.04
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 0.09 0.05 0.07
HMA 0.25 0.27 0.26
Munster, Evotherm 0.45 0.49 0.47
Indiana Gencor foam 0.44 NA 0.44
Heritage wax 0.53 0.51 0.52
HMA 0.14 0.12 0.13
New York, BituTech PER 0.33 0.33 0.33
New York Cecabase 0.31 0.43 0.37
SonneWarmix 0.52 0.34 0.43
NA: results not available

comparison of means graphically in terms of equal, higher, indicates that about 40% of the WMA sections had lower
or lower values using the statistical analysis presented in densities than their corresponding HMA sections after 1 year.
Table 1.177. The differences in the in-place densities after trafficking may
Post-construction, in-place density results were not avail- be due to the HMA and WMA sections being placed in dif-
able for HMA sections on the projects in St. Louis, Missouri ferent lanes for some projects.
or Graham, Texas. Only average density results were reported
(no replicate data) for projects in Silverthorne, Colorado and
Densities of Cores from the Second Inspection
Franklin, Tennessee. Therefore, statistical comparisons were
(2 Years to 2.5 Years)
not possible for these projects.
A summary of the statistical analysis of densities of cores
taken after approximately 2 years to 2.5 years is presented in
Densities of Cores from the First Inspection (~1 Year)
Table 1.179. The majority of the results presented in these
A summary of the analysis of densities of cores taken after tables correspond to cores obtained in the second inspections
approximately 1 year for the new projects is presented in of the new projects. Two projects had statistical differences
Table 1.178. Three projects had statistical differences when when variances were compared: Graham, Texas, and Rapid
variances were compared. These projects were Centreville, River, Michigan. The t-test and Dunnett’s test p-values show
Virginia, Casa Grande, Arizona, and New York, New York. that the in-place densities for the Walla, Walla, Washington,
The t-test and Dunnett’s test p-values show that the in-place Graham, Texas, and Silverthorne, Colorado (Advera and
densities for the WMA mixes from Walla Walla, Washington, Sasobit) were different than those of their respective HMA
Centreville, Virginia, Jefferson County, Florida and Rapid sections. For two of these projects (Walla Walla, Washington,
River, Michigan, were different from their respective HMA and Graham, Texas) the WMA sections had statistically lower
mixes. For these four projects, the WMA densities were lower densities. On the other hand, the results for Silverthorne,
than for the corresponding HMA. Comparisons of WMA Colorado, show that the Advera and Sasobit had statistically
and HMA mixes in terms of equal, higher, or lower densi- higher densities compared to the control mix. Figure 1.117
ties after about 1 year are presented in Figure 1.116 using the presents the results in Table 1.179 in terms of statistically
statistical analysis presented in Table 1.178. This comparison equal, higher, or lower density results.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

133  

Table 1.177. Summary of statistical analyses of

post-construction in-place density.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std.
F test Avg. t-test
WMA Dev.
Project Location (% of (% of
Technologies
Gmm) p-value Gmm) p-value
Walla Walla, HMA 0.7 94.7
0.854 0.525
Washington AQUABlack 0.7 94.4
Centreville, HMA 1.7 89.1
0.379 0.320
Virginia Astec DBG 1.2 89.9
HMA 1.6 91.3
Baker, Montana 0.822 0.854
Evotherm DAT 1.7 91.2
Jefferson County, HMA 1.1 93.0
0.991 0.117
Florida Terex foam 1.1 92.1
Casa Grande, HMA 2.1 90.6
0.25 0.081
Arizona Sasobit 1.3 92.4
George, HMA 1.6 93.6
0.226 0.810
Washington Sasobit 1.4 93.7
Iron Mountain, HMA 1.1 94.6
0.621 0.580
Michigan Sasobit 0.8 94.3
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
Avg.
WMA Dev. Equal Mean vs.
Project Location (% of
Technologies (% of Variance Control
Gmm)
Gmm)
p-value p-value
HMA 1.1 94.1
Rapid River,
Advera 0.6 0.369 95.0 0.154
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 0.9 94.3 0.901
HMA 1.5 88.7
Evotherm 1.6 90.3 0.352
Munster, Indiana 0.370
Gencor foam 2.2 90.4 0.417
Heritage wax 2.9 88.7 1.000
HMA 2.0 90.9
New York, BituTech PER 1.3 92.4 0.551
0.061
New York Cecabase 2.1 92.2 0.669
SonneWarmix 4.0 89.9 0.830

14
12
Number of Comparisons

10
8
6
4
2
0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.115. Comparison of WMA versus HMA post-

construction densities.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

134

Table 1.178. Summary of statistical analyses of densities of cores

from first inspection (new projects).

Single WMA Technology Projects

Project WMA Std. Dev. F test Average t-test

Location Technologies (% of Gmm) (% of Gmm)
p-value p-value
Walla Walla, HMA 0.4 95.9
0.840 0.003
Washington AQUABlack 0.4 95.2
Centreville, HMA 0.4 94.4
0.049 0.055
Virginia Astec DBG 1.0 93.5
Baker, HMA 0.5 93.6
0.106 0.263
Montana Evotherm DAT 0.9 94.0
Jefferson HMA 0.6 92.6
County, 0.649 0.026
Florida Terex foam 0.5 91.8
Casa Grande, HMA 1.4 93.8
0.046 0.174
Arizona Sasobit 0.6 94.5
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Test for Test of
Project WMA Std. Dev. Equal Average Mean vs.
Location Technologies (% of Gmm) Variance (% of Gmm) Control
p-value p-value
HMA 0.4 97.6
Rapid River,
Advera 0.7 0.089 96.5 0.002
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 0.3 96.9 0.037
HMA 1.7 92.9
Munster, Evotherm 0.7 93.0 0.990
0.122
Indiana Gencor foam 0.9 93.0 0.990
Heritage wax 0.5 92.9 0.999
HMA 1.4 93.9
New York, BituTech PER 1.2 94.4 0.979
0.012
New York Cecabase 2.2 93.4 0.962
SonneWarmix 4.1 92.3 0.489

8
8

7
Number of Comparisons

6
5
5

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.116. Comparison of WMA versus HMA densities—

first inspection.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

Table 1.179. Summary of statistical analyses of densities for

cores aged 2 years to 2.5 years.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Project WMA Std. Dev. F test Average t-test

Location Technologies (% of Gmm) (% of Gmm)
p-value p-value
Walla HMA 0.4 96.3
Walla, 0.239 0.007
AQUABlack 0.2
Washington 95.7
Centreville, HMA 0.7 93.8
0.636 0.402
Virginia Astec DBG 0.9 93.4
Baker, HMA 0.9 93.7
0.670 0.409
Montana Evotherm DAT 1.1 93.3
Jefferson HMA 1.1 91.5
County, 0.987 0.612
Terex foam 1.1
Florida 91.8
Graham, HMA 1.0 96.0
0.004 0.001
Texas Astec DBG 0.2 94.3
Multiple WMA Technology Projects

Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Test for Test of
Project WMA Std. Dev. Average
Equal Mean vs.
Location Technologies (% of Gmm) Variance (% of Gmm) Control
p-value p-value
HMA 1.0 96.6
Rapid River,
Advera 0.4 0.083 97.0 0.496
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 0.5 96.0 0.244
HMA 1.7 93.5
Munster, Evotherm 0.7 93.3 0.967
0.153
Indiana Gencor foam 0.7 93.5 1.000
Heritage wax 0.6 93.2 0.950
HMA 1.1 94.8
New York, BituTech PER 1.0 95.5 0.709
0.369
New York Cecabase 0.8 94.7 0.965
SonneWarmix 1.2 94.6 0.995
HMA 0.2 97.0
Silverthorne, Advera 0.3 97.8 0.001
0.500
Colorado Evotherm DAT 0.3 97.2 0.375
Sasobit 0.3 97.5 0.018

9
10
Number of Comparisons

4
2 2
2

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.117. Comparison of WMA versus HMA densities—

cores aged 2 years to 2.5 years.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

136

Densities for Projects More Than 3 Years Old for mixtures from 1-year and 2-year cores. The plant-produced
mixes were sampled and tested without reheating.
A summary of the statistical analysis of densities from
Table 1.181 summarizes the asphalt absorption results for
cores more than 3 years old is presented in Table 1.180. All all the new projects.
results presented in this table correspond to existing projects. For the plant-produced mixes, binder absorptions of WMA
Only the mixes from Silverthorne, Colorado, were statisti- averaged 0.12% less than for comparable HMA produced
cally different when variances were compared. The t-test and with the same aggregate blend. The differences in absorption
Dunnett’s test p-values show that the in-place densities were ranged from 0.07% greater to 0.52% less. Further analysis
statistically different for Iron Mountain, Michigan; George, of the differences in asphalt absorption between WMA and
Washington; St. Louis, Missouri (Sasobit only); and Silver- HMA did not indicate that mix production temperature had
thorne, Colorado sections (Advera and Sasobit only). For the a clear effect. It is likely that differences in asphalt absorption
Iron Mountain, Michigan; St. Louis, Missouri; and Silver- would be affected by interactions of storage time, tempera-
thorne, Colorado (Sasobit only) sections, the densities of the ture, aggregate characteristics, and binder properties.
WMA sections were statistically lower than the densities of For the 1-year cores, binder absorption averaged 0.03%
the companion control HMA. For George, Washington, and higher for WMA compared to HMA. The differences in calcu-
Silverthorne, Colorado (Advera) sections, the WMA section lated asphalt absorption ranged from 0.3% higher to 0.24%
densities were statistically higher than those of the companion lower, and seven of the 13 comparisons differed by more
control HMA. These results are also presented in Figure 1.118. than 0.1%.
For the 2-year cores, the average asphalt absorption dif-
Binder Absorption ference was also 0.03%. The differences between WMA and
HMA absorptions ranged from 0.25% higher to 0.17%
As part of the volumetric properties determination, the binder lower. The differences in absorptions exceeded 0.1% in five
absorption was calculated for the plant-produced mixes, and of the 12 comparisons.

Table 1.180. Summary of statistical analyses of densities for

cores aged more than 3 years.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Project WMA Std. Dev. F test Average t-test

Location Technologies (% of Gmm) (% of Gmm)
p-value p-value
Iron HMA 0.2 97.3
Mountain, 0.429 0.000
Sasobit 0.3
Michigan 95.5
George, HMA 0.5 95.7
0.476 0.042
Washington Sasobit 0.6 96.3
Multiple WMA Technology Projects

Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Test for Test of
Project WMA Std. Dev. Equal Average Mean vs.
Location Technologies (% of Gmm) Variance (% of Gmm) Control

p-value p-value
HMA 0.9 95.6
St. Louis, Aspha-min 1.5 95.3 0.920
0.325
Missouri Evotherm ET 1.2 96.4 0.340
Sasobit 0.8 94.1 0.038
HMA 0.6 97.3
Silverthorne, Advera 0.3 98.1 0.008
0.028
Colorado Evotherm DAT 0.2 97.0 0.278
Sasobit 0.5 96.5 0.005
HMA 1.9 88.9
Franklin,
Astec DBG 1.9 0.389 88.9 1.000
Tennessee
Evotherm DAT 1.1 88.0 0.557

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

137  

5 5

Number of Comparisons
4
3
3
2
2

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.118. Comparison of WMA versus HMA densities—

cores aged more than 3 years.

Given that there are no replicates for binder absorption, Overall, for some mixes, there is less asphalt absorption for
comparison for WMA and HMA results were made using WMA compared to HMA for samples taken at production.
paired t-tests for all projects. For the field-mix cores, the p-value However, there is no strong evidence that the asphalt absorp-
is 0.041, which indicates that binder absorption of HMA and tion difference is practically significant over time. None of the
WMA is statistically different. On the other hand, for the mixes that had differences in absorption values greater than
1-year and 2-year cores, the p-values were 0.554 and 0.387, 0.1% at the time of construction also had similar differences
which indicates that their absorption values are not different. after 1 year or 2 years. This finding suggests that the binder

Table 1.181. Binder absorption for the plant mix, 1-year and 2-year cores.

Binder Absorption (%)

Project WMA Technology Plant Mix 1-year Cores 2-year Cores
WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA
Walla Walla,
AQUABlack 0.63 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.28 1.03
Washington
Centreville,
Astec DBG 0.92 0.88 0.91 0.61 0.61 0.78
Virginia
Rapid River, Evotherm 3G 0.66 0.59 1.01 0.88 0.91 0.78
Michigan Advera 0.73 0.59 1.04 0.88 0.97 0.78
Baker, Montana Evotherm DAT 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.87 0.72 0.53
Heritage wax 1.51 1.58 1.26 1.29 1.49 1.55
Munster, Indiana Gencor foam 1.18 1.58 1.48 1.29 1.48 1.55
Evotherm 3G 1.27 1.58 1.39 1.29 1.53 1.55
BituTech PER 0.77 0.75 0.50 0.70 0.75 0.71
New York,
Cecabase 0.55 0.75 0.67 0.70 0.68 0.71
New York
SonneWarmix 0.61 0.75 0.71 0.70 0.66 0.71
Jefferson County,
Terex CMI Foam 0.74 0.76 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.77
Florida
Casa Grande,
Sasobit 0.62 0.64 0.27 0.51 NA NA
Arizona
Average difference (WMA-HMA) -0.12 0.03 0.03
Difference range (-0.52, 0.07) (-0.24, 0.3) (-0.17, 0.25)

NA: results not available

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

138

Table 1.182. Temperatures and frequencies used Table 1.183. High test temperature for dynamic
for dynamic modulus testing. modulus testing.

Test Temperature (oC) Loading Frequencies (Hz) High Performance Grade

High Test Temperature (oC)
4.0 10, 1, 0.1 of Base Binder
20.0 10, 1, 0.1 PG 58-XX and lower 35
PG 64-XX and PG 70-XX 40
High testing temperature 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01
PG 76-XX and higher 45

content of WMA mixes should not be reduced to account for hot in the field for the projects in Munster, Indiana, Jefferson
reduced absorption. County, Florida, New York, New York, and Casa Grande, Ari-
zona. The samples for the other four projects were compacted
in NCAT’s main laboratory from reheated mix.
Dynamic Modulus
Dynamic Modulus (E*) testing was performed to quan-
Master Curves
tify the stiffness of the asphalt mixtures over a wide range of
temperatures and frequencies. The E* tests were conducted Data analysis for the E* tests were conducted per the meth-
on the field-produced mixes using an IPC Global Asphalt odology in AASHTO PP 61-10. Dynamic modulus master
Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) with a confining pres- curves were generated for each of the mixes by project (WMA
sure of 20 psi. The E* samples were prepared in accordance technologies and HMA control). The reference temperature
with AASHTO PP 60-09. Triplicate samples were tested from for the master curves was 70°F (21.1°C). Figure 1.119 through
each mix. The temperatures and frequencies used for testing Figure 1.126 present the master curves for each project on a
these mixes were those recommended in AASHTO PP 61-10. logarithmic scale.
For this methodology, the high test temperature is dependent The three projects that appear to have differences in E*
on the high performance grade of the base binder used in mastercurves for the HMA and WMA were Walla, Walla,
the mix being tested. Table 1.182 shows the temperatures and Washington, Baker, Montana, and New York, New York. The
frequencies used, and Table 1.183 shows the selection criteria E* mastercurves for the other projects appear to be very simi-
for the high testing temperature. Samples were compacted lar for HMA and WMA.

Figure 1.119. Dynamic modulus master curves for Walla Walla, Washington.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

139  

Figure 1.120. Dynamic modulus master curves for Centreville, Virginia.

Figure 1.121. Dynamic modulus master curves for Jefferson County, Florida.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

140

Figure 1.122. Dynamic modulus master curves for Baker, Montana.

Figure 1.123. Dynamic modulus master curves for Casa Grande, Arizona.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

141  

Figure 1.124. Dynamic modulus master curves for Rapid River, Michigan.

Figure 1.125. Dynamic modulus master curves for Munster, Indiana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

142

Figure 1.126. Dynamic modulus master curves for New York, New York.

Statistical Comparisons Table 1.186 shows significant differences between the

HMA and WMA mixes at 1 Hz for the following projects:
To establish if there was actually a statistical difference in E*
between HMA and WMA mixes on each project, two sample
• Walla, Walla, Washington: AQUABlack (20, 40°C)
t-test analyses were conducted using a 90% confidence interval.
• Casa Grande, Arizona: Sasobit (4°C)
The first analysis was conducted by pooling together all
• Baker, Montana: Evotherm DAT (4°C)
data (all frequencies and temperatures) for each WMA tech-
nology compared to the control mix. Table 1.184 shows the
results of this statistical analysis. There was a statistically sig-
nificant difference in E* between the HMA and WMA mixes Table 1.184. Summary of statistical analyses
for the following projects: of dynamic modulus test results.

Dunnett’s Test Difference

• Centreville, Virginia: Astec DBG of Mean vs. Statistically
• Walla, Walla, Washington: AQUABlack Project Additive Control Significant?
• Baker, Montana: Evotherm DAT p-value (Y or N)
• New York: BituTech PER, Cecabase, SonneWarmix Centreville, Virginia Astec DBG 0.0784 Y
Walla Walla,
AQUABlack 0.0048 Y
A second t-test analysis was conducted specifically at fre- Washington
quencies of 0.1, 1, and 10 Hz. Table 1.185 through Table 1.187 Jefferson County,
Terex 0.9863 N
show the results of the statistical analyses of E* at 0.1, 1, and Florida
10 Hz, respectively. Baker, Montana Evotherm DAT 0.0604 Y
Table 1.185 shows significant differences between the Casa Grande,
Sasobit 0.6270 N
Arizona
HMA and WMA mixes at 0.1 Hz for the following projects:
Rapid River, Advera 0.8757 N
• Walla, Walla, Washington: AQUABlack (4, 20°C) Michigan Evotherm 0.1687 N
• Baker, Montana: Evotherm DAT (4, 20°C) Evotherm 0.4529 N
• Munster, Indiana: Evotherm (4, 20°C), Gencor foam Munster, Indiana Gencor foam 0.5306 N
(20°C), Heritage wax (20°C) Heritage wax 0.5801 N
• Casa Grande, Arizona: Sasobit (4°C) BituTech PER 0.0056 Y
New York,
• New York, New York: BituTech PER (4, 20°C), Cecabase Cecabase 0.0005 Y
New York
SonneWarmix 0.0377 Y
(4, 20°C), SonneWarmix (20°C)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

143  

Table 1.185. Summary of statistical analyses of dynamic modulus test results

at 0.1 Hz.

Avg. Std. Dev. Std. Dev. 2-sample

Test E* Avg. E* E* E* t-test Diff.
Project WMA Tech.
Temp. (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) p-value Sig.?
(°C) WMA HMA WMA HMA (α = 0.10) (Y/N)
4 7,240 7,699 433 392 0.074 Y
Walla, Walla,
AQUABlack 20 1,613 2,227 20 30 0.002 Y
Washington
40 748 767 16 5 0.248 N
4 7,887 8,694 746 297 0.188 N
Centreville,
Astec DBG 20 2,333 2,564 563 398 0.506 N
Virginia
45 767 765 29 20 0.948 N
Jefferson 4 8,124 8,274 163 372 0.626 N
Terex Water
County, 20 2,616 2,748 27 149 0.211 N
Injection
Florida 45 900 823 49 18 0.14 N
4 3,247 4,460 16 243 0.015 Y
Baker, Evotherm
20 857 1,074 73 106 0.017 Y
Montana DAT
40 561 537 17 9 0.235 N
4 10,519 11,809 236 293 0.042 Y
Casa Grande,
Sasobit 20 3,724 4,117 174 203 0.162 N
Arizona
40 1,066 1,136 69 37 0.340 N
4 2,306 2,371 278 247 0.851 N
20 855 956 33 56 0.189 N
Advera
35 599 639 24 18 0.234 N
Rapid River, 45 543 566 24 20 0.448 N
Michigan 4 2,031 2,371 136 247 0.252 N
20 837 956 61 56 0.218 N
Evotherm
35 601 639 26 18 0.278 N
45 557 566 23 20 0.709 N
4 8,587 9,671 258 558 0.088 Y
Evotherm 20 2,779 3,141 44 106 0.011 Y
40 1,109 1,058 20 29 0.098 N
4 8,903 9,671 297 558 0.115 N
Munster,
Gencor foam 20 2,615 3,141 243 106 0.025 Y
Indiana
40 939 1,058 87 29 0.148 N
4 8,947 9,671 141 558 0.116 N
Heritage wax 20 2,814 3,141 89 106 0.086 Y
40 1,041 1,058 35 29 0.681 N
4 6,356 8,241 302 424 0.029 Y
BituTech
20 1,435 2,385 124 319 0.055 Y
PER
40 725 754 29 36 0.208 N
4 5,970 8,241 309 424 0.006 Y
New York,
Cecabase 20 1,490 2,385 34 319 0.032 Y
New York
40 653 736 42 12 0.105 N
4 7,071 8,241 203 424 0.081 N
Sonne-
20 1,561 2,385 16 319 0.051 Y
Warmix
40 736 754 12 36 0.556 N

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

144

Table 1.186. Summary of statistical analyses of dynamic modulus test results at 1 Hz.

Avg. Avg. Std. Dev. Std. 2-sample

Test E* E* E* Dev. E* t-test Diff.
WMA Temp. (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) p-value Sig.?
Project Tech. (°C) WMA HMA WMA HMA (α = 0.10) (Y/N)
4 10,908 11,306 645 564 0.169 N
Walla, Walla,
AQUABlack 20 3,204 4,378 29 49 0.001 Y
Washington
40 1,087 1,231 15 74 0.079 Y
4 11,560 12,237 1,098 235 0.386 N
Centreville,
Astec DBG 20 4,345 4,763 353 448 0.359 N
Virginia
45 1,106 1,161 68 43 0.192 N
4 11,453 11,433 141 407 0.946 N
Jefferson County, Terex Water
20 4,580 4,716 61 206 0.247 N
Florida Injection
45 1,359 1,192 76 41 0.116 N
4 13,410 15,014 475 275 0.061 Y
Casa Grande,
Sasobit 20 6,299 6,859 191 267 0.140 N
Arizona
40 1,833 1,992 167 63 0.317 N
4 6,046 7,614 90 395 0.026 Y
Baker, Montana Evotherm
20 1,662 2,173 93 241 0.037 N
DAT
40 700 710 25 21 0.531 N
4 4,364 4,297 493 440 0.912 N
20 1,444 1,659 49 101 0.131 N
Advera
35 744 828 32 33 0.154 N
Rapid River, 45 622 672 32 36 0.33 N
Michigan 4 3,921 4,297 192 440 0.396 N
20 1,343 1,659 127 101 0.135 N
Evotherm
35 733 828 40 33 0.144 N
45 630 672 34 36 0.359 N
4 12,702 13,786 445 691 0.125 N
Evotherm 20 5,384 5,787 130 175 0.011 Y
40 1,581 1,739 84 61 0.196 N
4 13,233 13,786 276 691 0.239 N
Munster, Indiana Gencor foam 20 5,066 5,787 405 175 0.033 Y
40 1,365 1,739 123 61 0.053 Y
4 13,027 13,786 263 691 0.946 N
Heritage wax 20 5,400 5,787 138 175 0.247 N
40 1,466 1,739 84 61 0.116 N
4 10,119 11,960 397 473 0.129 N
BituTech
20 3,029 4,604 155 486 0.04 Y
PER
40 977 1,316 53 111 0.033 Y
4 9,400 11,960 321 473 0.009 Y
New York,
Cecabase 20 3,050 4,604 42 486 0.026 Y
New York
40 914 1,316 49 111 0.009 Y
4 10,786 11,960 340 473 0.046 Y
Sonne-
20 3,148 4,604 37 486 0.037 Y
Warmix
40 1,014 1,316 31 111 0.033 Y

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

145  

Table 1.187. Summary of statistical analyses of dynamic modulus test results at 10 Hz.

Std. Dev. 2-sample

Test Avg. E* Avg. E* Std. Dev. E* t-test Diff.
Temp. (MPa) (MPa) E* (MPa) (MPa) p-value Sig.?
Project Additive (°C) WMA HMA WMA HMA (α = 0.10) (Y/N)
4 14,799 15,156 835 695 0.65 N
Walla, Walla,
AQUABlack 20 5,972 6,988 61 855 0.16 N
Washington
40 2,065 2,430 31 319 0.17 N
4 15,509 15,945 1,441 144 0.641 N
Centreville,
Astec DBG 20 7,355 7,863 593 517 0.396 N
Virginia
40 1,979 2,142 163 147 0.13 N
4 14,988 14,790 73 431 0.51 N
Jefferson County, Terex Water
20 7,471 7,504 111 265 0.77 N
Florida Injection
45 2,404 2,043 143 93 0.11 N
4 9,801 11,409 197 595 0.056 Y
Evotherm
Baker, Montana 20 3,600 4,437 140 391 0.038 Y
DAT
40 1,090 1,186 42 91 0.158 N
4 16,239 18,157 709 397 0.095 N
Casa Grande,
Sasobit 20 9,422 10,207 210 312 0.111 N
Arizona
40 3,583 3,842 270 95 0.279 N
4 7,539 7,237 673 689 0.618 N
20 2,881 3,178 92 172 0.165 N
Advera
35 1,158 1,320 62 66 0.117 N
Rapid River, 45 852 948 50 82 0.273 N
Michigan 4 6,959 7,237 188 689 0.738 N
20 2,669 3,178 247 172 0.191 N
Evotherm
35 1,122 1,320 76 66 0.159 N
45 845 948 60 82 0.329 N
4 17,011 17,983 699 787 0.201 N
Evotherm 20 9,141 9,482 302 246 0.096 N
40 2,921 3,394 280 188 0.222 N
4 17,648 17,983 372 787 0.505 N
Munster, Indiana Gencor foam 20 8,887 9,482 655 246 0.137 N
40 2,802 3,394 570 188 0.173 N
4 17,278 17,983 346 787 0.111 N
Heritage wax 20 9,006 17,983 108 787 0.003 Y
40 2,655 3,394 204 188 0.028 Y
4 14,198 15,816 458 525 0.014 Y
BituTech
20 5,877 7,815 220 574 0.025 Y
PER
40 1,765 2,719 118 243 0.009 Y
4 13,183 15,816 278 525 0.014 Y
New York,
Cecabase 20 5,789 7,815 62 574 0.025 Y
New York
40 1,645 2,719 65 243 0.009 Y
4 14,645 15,816 484 525 0.182 N
Sonne-
20 5,943 7,815 83 574 0.036 Y
Warmix
40 1,802 2,719 66 243 0.012 Y

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

146

• Munster, Indiana: Evotherm (20°C), Foam (20, 40°C) however, except for the Casa Grande projects, the p-values for
• New York, New York: BituTech PER (20, 40°C), Cecabase the t-tests comparing the flow number results were fairly low
(4, 20, 40°C), SonneWarmix (4, 20, 40°C) (0.118–0.146), indicating that the WMA mixes have a greater
susceptibility to deformation compared to HMA. Figure 1.127
Similarly, Table 1.187 shows significant differences between summarizes the results presented in Table 1.188.
the HMA and WMA mixes at 10 Hz for the following projects: Table 1.189 shows the results of the confined flow num-
ber tests. All confined flow number tests ran 20,000 cycles
• Baker, Montana: Evotherm DAT (4, 20°C) before being terminated by the software. Because tertiary
• Munster, Indiana: Heritage Wax (20, 40°C) flow was not achieved for any of the mixes, the accumu-
• New York, New York: BituTech PER (4, 20, 40°C), Cecabase lated microstrain at 20,000 cycles was used as the parameter
(4, 20, 40°C), SonneWarmix (20, 40°C) to evaluate the relative deformation resistance. For all the
projects except for New York, New York, the variances were
For all cases where significant differences were found, the not statistically different. The statistical analysis indicates,
WMA had lower E* than the corresponding HMA mix. The however, that there was a difference in mean accumulated
evaluation by frequencies agrees with the overall analysis microstrain between the WMA and corresponding HMA mix
for the projects in Walla Walla, Washington, and New York, for nine of 14 mixes compared. For these nine comparisons,
New York. For Munster, Indiana, Baker, Montana, and Casa the average accumulated microstrain for the WMA mixes
Grande, Arizona, the analyses by frequencies show that the dif- was higher than for the corresponding HMA (Figure 1.128).
ferences are specific to certain temperatures and frequencies. The remaining comparisons between WMA and HMA mixes
were not statistically different for the following projects:
Flow Number
• Walla, Walla, Washington (reheated samples)
Specimens for the flow number test were compacted either • Baker, Montana (reheated samples)
in the field (hot samples) or in the laboratory (reheated sam- • Casa Grande, Arizona (hot samples)
ples), in accordance with AASHTO PP 30. Two sets of flow • George, Washington (reheated samples)
number tests were conducted with three specimens per set. • Munster, Indiana (hot samples, Evotherm 3G only)
The first set was tested unconfined in accordance with the rec-
ommendations from NCHRP Project 9-43. A deviator stress Considering the combined unconfined and confined flow
of 87 psi was used for the unconfined specimens. The second number test results, most WMA mixes were less resistant to
set was tested confined with a confining pressure of 10 psi. A rutting than their corresponding HMA mixes. Although flow
deviator stress of 100 psi was used for confined testing. number results were similar for WMA and HMA in a few
Table 1.188 shows the results of the statistical analysis for the cases, the finding that these laboratory tests generally indicate
unconfined flow number tests for hot and reheated samples. a greater rutting potential in WMA mixes compared to HMA
Variances of the unconfined flow number results were sig- mixes is consistent with other laboratory studies.
nificantly different for all projects except for the hot samples
from Walla Walla, Washington, and Casa Grande, Arizona,
Tensile Strength
and reheated samples from Walla Walla, Washington, and
Jefferson County, Florida. For mixes compacted hot, variances Tensile Strength from Cores
of the HMA mixes were higher than for the corresponding
WMA. HMA mixes had higher unconfined flow number Tensile strength tests were conducted on cores taken after
results than WMA for the following projects: compaction operations were completed on the projects and
on cores taken during project inspections after approximately
• Walla, Walla, Washington (reheated samples) 1 and 2 years of construction for the new projects. Tensile
• Centreville, Virginia (reheated samples) strength tests were also conducted on laboratory-molded
• Jefferson County, Florida (hot samples) specimens tested as part of AASHTO T 283.
• Rapid River, Michigan (reheated samples, both WMA Table 1.190 shows a summary of the statistical analysis of
technologies) tensile strengths from cores taken after compaction. Except
• Munster, Indiana (hot samples, all three WMA technologies) for the Casa Grande project, variances were not statistically
• New York, New York (hot samples, all three WMA different. Mean tensile strengths of WMA and HMA were
technologies) not statistically different (a = 0.10) except for Iron Moun-
tain, Michigan and Rapid River, Michigan (Advera only). On
For the other projects, the differences between HMA and the Iron Mountain project, the Sasobit section had a lower
WMA flow number results were not significant at a = 0.1; tensile strength than the HMA section. On the Rapid River

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

Table 1.188. Summary of statistical analyses of unconfined flow

number results.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std.
F Test Avg. t-test
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev.
(p-value) (cycles) (p-value)
(cycles)
Walla Walla, Washington HMA 111 426
0.025 0.090
(reheated) AQUABlack 13 227
Walla Walla, Washington HMA 94 332
0.183 0.146
(hot) AQUABlack 30 200
Centreville, Virginia HMA 300 1855
0.048 0.015
(reheated) Astec DBG 47 439
Baker, Montana HMA 29 98
0.007 0.140
(reheated) Evotherm DAT 2 58
Jefferson County, Florida HMA 68 231
0.154 0.124
(reheated) Terex foam 20 127
Jefferson County, Florida HMA 70 414
0.062 0.024
(hot) Terex foam 12 157
Casa Grande, Arizona HMA 19 61
0.560 0.367
(hot) Sasobit 12 46
Graham, Texas HMA 202 570
0.029 0.118
(hot) Astec DBG 26 259
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test of Test of
Equal Avg. Mean vs.
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev.
Variance (cycles) Control
(cycles)
p-value p-value
HMA 28 199
Rapid River, Michigan
Advera 1 0.010 60 0.0001
(reheated)
Evotherm 3G 11 65 0.0001
HMA 217 561
Munster, Indiana Evotherm 3G 6 177 0.0067
0.000
(hot) Gencor Ultrafoam 4 217 0.0123
Heritage wax 39 314 0.0594
HMA 56 291
New York, New York BituTech PER 12 0.012 128 0.0004
(hot) Cecabase 3 115 0.0002
SonneWarmix 17 123 0.0003

11
12

10
Number of Comparisons

8
5
6

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.127. Comparison of WMA versus HMA—unconfined

flow number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

148

Table 1.189. Summary of statistical analyses of confined flow number

results, accumulated microstrain at 20,000 cycles.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std.
Project Location WMA Technologies F test Avg. t-test
Dev.
(p-value) (µε) (p-value)
(µε)
Walla Walla, Washington HMA 2223 45,020
0.437 0.468
(reheated) AQUABlack 4202 47,219
Centreville, Virginia HMA 1532 26,338
0.815 0.000
(reheated) Astec DBG 1848 43,379
Baker, Montana HMA 13,376 60,930
0.363 0.869
(reheated) Evotherm DAT 6301 62,531
Jefferson County, Florida HMA 4667 49,802
0.829 0.087
(hot) Terex foam 3927 57,739
Casa Grande, Arizona HMA 7407 42,780
0.664 0.518
(hot) Sasobit 10502 50,774
George, Washington HMA 5332 22,441
0.907 0.872
(reheated) Sasobit 4954 23,051
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
Project Location WMA Technologies Equal Avg. Mean vs.
Dev.
Variance (µε) Control
(µε)
p-value p-value
HMA 5651 41,554
Rapid River, Michigan
Advera 3131 0.630 85,113 0.000
(reheated)
Evotherm 3G 6855 97,706 0.000
HMA 2570 33,188

Munster, Indiana Evotherm 3G 1480 28,976 0.103

0.783
(hot) Gencor Ultrafoam 1489 42,955 0.001
Heritage wax 2748 39,710 0.015
HMA 931 26,568

New York, New York BituTech PER 1995 34,397 0.067

0.010
(reheated) Cecabase 6781 67,141 0.000
SonneWarmix 410 42,722 0.001

9
Number of Comparisons

Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.128. Comparison of WMA versus HMA, accumulated

microstrain at 20,000 cycles—confined flow number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

149  

Table 1.190. Summary of statistical analyses of post-construction core

tensile strengths.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. F test t-test
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev. Avg. (psi)
(psi) p-value p-value
HMA 10.7 161
Walla Walla, Washington 0.643 0.474
AQUABlack 8.4 165
HMA 10.9 132
Centreville, Virginia 0.725 0.578
Astec DBG 12.8 136
HMA 7.2 68
Baker, Montana 0.843 0.646
Evotherm DAT 7.9 65
HMA 19.0 117
Casa Grande, Arizona 0.050 0.120
Sasobit 5.0 132
HMA 10.2 151
Jefferson County, Florida 0.305 0.821
Terex foam 16.7 153
HMA 3.6 52
Iron Mountain, Michigan 0.957 0.014
Sasobit 3.5 46
Multiple WMA Technology Projects

Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev. Equal Avg. (psi) Mean vs.
(psi) Variance Control

p-value p-value
HMA 3.8 54
Rapid River, Michigan Advera 4.4 0.931 59 0.091
Evotherm 3G 3.7 50 0.312
HMA 14.8 90
Evotherm 12.0 106 0.273
Munster, Indiana 0.428
Gencor foam 15.1 101 0.527
Heritage wax 24.5 93 0.962
HMA 13.6 103
BituTech PER 10.5 99 0.914
New York, New York 0.735
Cecabase 16.6 93 0.513
SonneWarmix 17.2 92 0.402

project, the Advera section had a higher tensile strength than tensile strength results were Jefferson County, Florida, and
the HMA section. Overall, tensile strengths on these two Rapid River, Michigan. However, the mean tensile strengths
projects are lower than on the other projects because of the of WMA and HMA were statistically different for all projects
softer virgin binder used (PG 58-34) in the northern part of except for Walla Walla, Washington. It can also be seen that
Michigan. The statistical analyses presented in Table 1.190 are the tensile strengths of the WMA mixes were lower than for
summarized in Figure 1.129. the corresponding HMA except in the New York, New York
Table 1.191 shows a summary of analysis of unconditioned project, which had higher tensile strengths for each of the
tensile strengths from laboratory-molded specimens tested as WMA mixes compared to the HMA mix. Statistically lower
part of AASHTO T 283. All of these specimens were molded tensile strengths for laboratory-molded WMA compared to
in the NCAT mobile laboratory without reheating the mixes. HMA have also been found on several other field projects
The results of the statistical analysis shows that for seven of by the research team. However, the contrast in findings for
the nine projects, variances were not statistically different tensile strengths for laboratory-molded samples and cores
(a = 0.10). The two cases that did have different variances for are surprising and difficult to explain. A possible reason is

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

12
12

Number of Comparisons
10

4
1 1
2

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.129. Comparison of WMA versus HMA tensile

strength—post-construction cores.

Table 1.191. Summary of statistical analyses of laboratory-molded

specimen tensile strengths.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. F test t-test
Avg.
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev.
(psi)
(psi) p-value p-value
HMA 15.1 120
Walla Walla, Washington 0.204 0.192
AQUABlack 5.1 102
HMA 8.2 185
Centreville, Virginia 0.987 0.003
Astec DBG 8.3 143
HMA 2.5 72
Baker, Montana 0.509 0.006
Evotherm DAT 1.5 63
HMA 1.7 198
Jefferson County, Florida 0.069 0.018
Terex foam 8.8 160
HMA 3.5 55
Iron Mountain, Michigan 0.671 0.003
Sasobit 2.5 71
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
Equal Avg. Mean vs.
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev.
Variance (psi) Control
(psi)
p-value p-value
HMA 1.7 50
Rapid River, Michigan Advera 3.0 0.093 31 0.000
Evotherm 3G 0.8 37 0.000
HMA 2.5 160
Evotherm 4.4 97 0.000
Munster, Indiana 0.299
Gencor foam 6.0 111 0.000
Heritage wax 15.1 174 0.008
HMA 3.6 103
BituTech PER 2.9 107 0.000
New York, New York 0.144
Cecabase 8.8 122 0.000
SonneWarmix 9.8 115 0.000
HMA 22.9 142
Evotherm ET 15.1 114 0.000
St. Louis, Missouri 0.356
Sasobit 15.3 106 0.000
Aspha-min 7.4 167 0.021

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

151  

that the thinner field cores allow the WMA binder to cure for only two mixes: St. Louis, Missouri (Sasobit only), and
or stiffen more between the time the specimens are obtained Franklin, Tennessee, (Evotherm DAT only). Both of these
from the field and tested for tensile strength. Figure 1.130 WMA mixes had a statistically higher tensile strength than
summarizes the statistical analyses presented in Table 1.191. did the corresponding HMA mix.
Table 1.192 shows a summary of the statistical analysis of Figure 1.131 through Figure 1.133 summarize the statisti-
tensile strengths from cores taken approximately 1 year after cal analyses presented in Table 1.192 through Table 1.194. In
construction. Except for the New York, New York project, vari- these figures, same means that there was no statistical differ-
ances for WMA and HMA tensile strengths were not statisti- ence between the mean values; lower or higher means there
cally different. Mean tensile strengths of WMA and HMA were were differences.
not statistically different (a = 0.10) except for Baker, Montana,
Rapid River, Michigan (Advera only), and New York, New
Tensile Strength Ratio
York (BituTech PER only). For the Baker, Montana, and New
York, New York, projects, tensile strength of the WMA sec- Table 1.195 summarizes the tensile-strength ratios (TSRs)
tions were lower than those for the corresponding HMA. The for all the mixtures of each project. AASHTO M 323-07 recom-
Advera mix from the Rapid River, Michigan, project had sta- mends a minimum TSR of 0.8 for moisture-resistant mixes.
tistically higher tensile strength values than the HMA. The following mixtures did not pass the minimum criteria:
Table 1.193 provides a summary of the statistical analysis of
tensile strengths from cores after 2 years to 2.5 years. For four • Jefferson, County, Florida (Terex foam)
projects (Walla, Walla, Washington, Baker, Montana, Rapid • Munster, Indiana (Evotherm)
River, Michigan, and New York, New York), variances for • Franklin Tennessee (HMA and Evotherm DAT)
WMA and HMA tensile strengths were statistically different. • St. Louis, Missouri (HMA and Sasobit)
Mean tensile strengths of WMA and HMA were statistically
different (a = 0.10) only for three projects: Baker, Montana, The mix with the poorest TSR was the Evotherm DAT mix
Rapid River, Michigan (Advera only), and New York, New from the Franklin, Tennessee project.
York (BituTech and Cecabase). For the Baker, Montana, proj- According to NCHRP Research Results Digest 351 (28), the
ect and the New York, New York project, the WMA cores had within-laboratory repeatability of AASHTO T 283 is 9%.
lower tensile strengths than did the corresponding HMA Nine of the 22 WMA–HMA comparisons had TSRs that
cores, but the Advera mix from Rapid River had a higher ten- differed by more 9%; six of those had TSRs for the WMA
sile strength than the corresponding HMA mix. more than 9% lower than that for the corresponding HMA
Table 1.194 shows a summary of the statistical compari- (identified by light blue shading in Table 1.195), and three
sons of tensile strengths from cores after at least 3 years. had TSRs for the WMA more than 9% higher than that for
Only the George, Washington, project had statistically dif- the corresponding HMA (identified by light pink shading in
ferent variances for WMA and HMA. Mean tensile strengths Table 1.195). Because there are no replicates for TSR values,
of WMA and HMA were statistically different (a = 0.10) comparison of the WMA and HMA results was made using

9
9
8
Number of Comparisons

7
6
6
5
4
3
1
2
1
0
Same Lower Higher
Figure 1.130. Comparison of WMA versus HMA tensile
strengths—Laboratory-molded samples.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

152

Table 1.192. Summary of statistical analyses of tensile strengths, 1-year cores.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. F test t-test

Project Location WMA Technologies Dev. Avg. (psi)
(psi) p-value p-value

HMA 11.4 105

Walla Walla, Washington 0.128 0.175
AQUABlack 24.1 120

HMA 47.8 111

Centreville, Virginia 0.466 0.240
Astec DBG 33.8 142

HMA 6.1 59
Baker, Montana 0.91 0.070
Evotherm DAT 5.8 51

HMA 32.5 238

Casa Grande, Arizona 0.27 0.395
Sasobit 20.2 249

HMA 17.4 199

Jefferson County, Florida 0.439 0.345
Terex foam 25.1 188

Multiple WMA Technology Projects

Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
Project Location WMA Technologies Dev. Equal Avg. (psi) Mean vs.
(psi) Variance Control

p-value p-value
HMA 5.2 48

Rapid River, Michigan Advera 8.2 0.62 67 0.001

Evotherm 3G 7.3 54 0.250

HMA 8.6 105

Evotherm 16.6 119 0.315
Munster, Indiana 0.539
Gencor foam 14.0 109 0.945

Heritage wax 19.0 120 0.282

HMA 13.2 74

BituTech PER 5.0 55 0.048

New York, New York 0.087
Cecabase 18.3 64 0.368

SonneWarmix 10.8 71 0.954

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

153  

Table 1.193. Summary of statistical analyses of tensile strengths,

cores aged 2 years to 2.5 years.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. F test t-test
WMA Avg.
Project Location Dev.
Technologies p-value (psi) p-value
(psi)
HMA 4.5 177
Walla Walla, Washington 0.001 0.396
AQUABlack 30.6 165
HMA 31.1 166
Centreville, Virginia 0.225 0.704
Astec DBG 55.8 176
HMA 6.0 79
Baker, Montana 0.052 0.005
Evotherm DAT 2.5 70
HMA 45.9 184
Jefferson County, Florida 0.685 0.816
Terex foam 55.6 177
HMA 13.1 258
Graham, Texas 0.899 0.792
Astec DBG 12.4 256
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
WMA Avg.
Project Location Dev. Equal Mean vs.
Technologies (psi)
(psi) Variance Control
p-value p-value
HMA 2.1 71
Rapid River, Michigan Advera 6.0 0.088 79 0.010
Evotherm 3G 3.4 66 0.110
HMA 12.0 124
Evotherm 36.7 130 0.976
Munster, Indiana 0.256
Gencor foam 33.1 143 0.589
Heritage wax 26.9 131 0.952
HMA 32.9 133
BituTech PER 18.8 100 0.028
New York, New York 0.029
Cecabase 7.6 105 0.069
SonneWarmix 14.5 108 0.119
HMA 12.6 94
Advera 6.0 97 0.940
Silverthorne, Colorado 0.6
Evotherm DAT 7.0 97 0.915
Sasobit 7.5 98 0.859

a paired t-test for all projects. The p-value of the paired t-test Table 1.196 shows a summary of the statistical analyses of the
was 0.312, which indicates that overall TSR values of the Hamburg rut depths. The variances were statistically different
WMA and HMA mixes are not significantly different. for two projects—Franklin, Tennessee (groups A and B) and
St. Louis, Missouri. For the Franklin Group A and St. Louis proj-
ects, there was only one replicate for one of the WMA technolo-
Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test
gies evaluated (Sasobit and Aspha-min, respectively). Because
The moisture damage susceptibility of the WMA and HMA of this, the variances for these cases were excluded from the
mixes was also assessed using the Hamburg wheel tracking test analysis. The mean rut depths of the WMA and respective HMA
per AASHTO T 324. All Hamburg specimens were fabricated were statistically different for nine WMA mixes, as follows:
in the field. Two twin sets were tested per mix. Specimens
were conditioned and tested in a 50°C water bath. Submerged • Baker, Montana: Evotherm DAT
specimens were subjected to 10,000 cycles (20,000 passes) of • Jefferson County, Florida: Terex foam
wheel loadings. • Casa Grande, Arizona: Sasobit

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

154

Table 1.194. Summary of statistical analyses of tensile strengths,

cores aged > 3 years.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. F test t-test
WMA Avg.
Project Location Dev.
Technologies p-value (psi) p-value
(psi)
HMA 9.4 71
Iron Mountain, Michigan 0.923 0.123
Sasobit 9.1 81
HMA 11.3 189
George, Washington 0.034 0.357
Sasobit 33.2 175
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Std. Test for Test of
WMA Avg.
Project Location Dev. Equal Mean vs.
Technologies (psi)
(psi) Variance Control
p-value p-value
HMA 33.0 161
Aspha-min 13.0 175 0.491
St. Louis, Missouri 0.122
Evotherm ET 18.0 181 0.230
Sasobit 16.7 188 0.081
HMA 3.1 63
Advera 5.3 60 0.864
Silverthorne, Colorado 0.110
Evotherm DAT 7.1 61 0.925
Sasobit 10.2 56 0.255
HMA 27.3 123
Franklin, Tennessee Advera 14.2 0.147 162 0.015
(Group A) Sasobit 11.0 153 0.035
HMA 10.6 139
Franklin, Tennessee Astec DBG 14.0 0.537 157 0.174
(Group B) Evotherm DAT 19.4 176 0.005

10

10
Number of Comparisons

4
1
2
2

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.131. Comparison of WMA versus HMA tensile

strength—1-year cores.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

155  

11
12

10

Number of Comparisons
8

4 1

2 1

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.132. Comparison of WMA versus HMA tensile

strength—cores aged 2 years to 2.5 years.

• Rapid River, Michigan, Advera and Evotherm 3G WMA from Walla Walla, Washington, had a statistically higher
• Munster, Indiana, Gencor Ultrafoam variance than its corresponding HMA. With regard to com-
• New York, New York, BituTech PER, Cecabase, and parisons of the mean SIPs, the following WMA mixes were sta-
Sonne­Warmix tistically lower (worse) than their corresponding HMA mixes:

Except for the Sasobit mix from Casa Grande, Arizona, all • Franklin, Tennessee: Advera
of these WMA mixes had statistically higher Hamburg rut • Rapid River, Michigan: Advera
depths than did their corresponding HMA mixes. The Terex • New York, New York BituTech: Cecabase, and SonneWarmix
foam WMA from Jefferson County, Florida performed very
well in the Hamburg test, however, and would not be consid- The SIP of the AQUABlack WMA from Walla Walla, Wash-
ered to be different from its companion HMA in a practical ington, was statistically higher (better) than that of its cor-
sense. The statistical results presented in Table 1.196 are sum- responding HMA. It is important to mention that the mixes
marized in Figure 1.134. from Centreville, Virginia, and Jefferson County, Florida did
The results of the statistical analyses of Hamburg stripping not have a stripping inflection point through 10,000 cycles, so
inflection points (SIPs) are shown in Table 1.197. Except for the mean SIP was set at 10,000 cycles but no statistical com-
the Walla Walla, Washington, project, variances of WMA and parisons were conducted. Figure 1.135 summarizes the statisti-
HMA SIPs were not statistically different. The AQUABlack cal analyses presented in Table 1.197; for 12 of 18 comparisons,

8
Number of Comparisons

6 4

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.133. Comparison of WMA versus HMA tensile

strength—cores aged > 3 years.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

156

Table 1.195. TSR results. characteristics of the mix. Second, a controlled crosshead cyclic
fatigue test was performed using the fatigue testing software in
WMA Criteria
Project Location the AMPT to acquire the necessary fatigue data.
Technologies TSR Pass/Fail
Walla Walla, HMA 0.89 P Typically, three samples of mix were required for dynamic
Washington AQUABlack 0.86 P modulus testing and four to six samples were needed to get
HMA 0.89 P sufficient fatigue data. The controlled crosshead fatigue test
Centreville, Virginia
Astec DBG 0.83 P is performed at 19°C at a frequency of 10 Hz.
HMA 1.04 P
Baker, Montana The S-VECD fatigue data analysis was performed in an
Evotherm DAT 0.94 P
HMA 0.98 P
EXCEL® spreadsheet using the parameters developed by the
Casa Grande, Arizona NCSU fatigue analysis software. The data processing involved
Sasobit 0.92 P
Jefferson County, HMA 0.91 P five primary steps, as follows:
Florida Terex foam 0.76 F
HMA 0.90 P 1. The number of testing cycles to failure was determined for
Graham, Texas
Astec DBG 0.87 P each specimen based on the phase angle curve.
HMA 0.95 P
Rapid River, 2. The AMPT dynamic modulus data were entered into the
Advera 0.88 P
Michigan fatigue analysis software.
Evotherm 3G 1.00 P
HMA 0.90 P 3. The fatigue data files were individually analyzed to deter-
Evotherm 0.78 F mine the C (pseudo stiffness) versus S (damage parameter)
Munster, Indiana
Gencor foam 0.83 P curve.
Heritage wax 0.83 P 4. The combined C versus S curve for the mix was then deter-
HMA 0.83 P
mined based on the individual C versus S curves. The com-
New York, BituTech PER 0.85 P
NewYork Cecabase 0.84 P
posite C versus S curve is fit using a power law, shown as
SonneWarmix 0.80 P Equation (1).
HMA 0.73 F
Franklin, Tennessee Astec DBG 0.83 P C = 1 − C11S C12 (1)
Evotherm DAT 0.53 F
HMA 1.00 P where C11 and C12 are the regression coefficients
Silverthorne, Advera 0.83 P 5. Finally, a fatigue prediction is made using the S-VECD
Colorado Sasobit 1.11 P
model. Fatigue predictions for this study were made in
Evotherm DAT 0.80 P
HMA 0.76 F
terms of cycles to failure, Nf, using the controlled-strain
Sasobit 0.78 F assumption based on the formula in Equation (2).
St. Louis, Missouri
Evotherm ET 0.80 P
Aspha-min 1.15 P ( f R )( 23α ) S α−α
f
C12 +1
Nf =
( α + αC12 + 1)(C11C12 ) [(β + 1)( ε0 PP )( E * LVE )]2α K 1
α

the stripping inflection points of WMA and HMA are the same (2)
(no statistical difference); five are lower (worse), and one is
higher (better). where:
C = pseudo-stiffness
Fatigue S = damage parameter
fR = reduced frequency for dynamic modulus shift
Uniaxial fatigue testing was performed to determine fatigue factor at fatigue simulation temperature and
properties of the 11 mixes from Rapid River, Michigan, loading frequency
New York, New York, and Munster, Indiana. The fatigue test- a = damage evolution rate for S-VECD model
ing followed the draft test procedure Determining the Damage e0,pp = peak-to-peak strain for fatigue simulation
Characteristic Curve of Asphalt Concrete from Direct Tension |E*|LVE = dynamic modulus of mix from dynamic modulus
Fatigue Tests developed by the asphalt pavement research mastercurve at the fatigue simulation tempera-
group led by Dr. Richard Kim at North Carolina State Uni- ture and loading frequency
versity (NCSU). To characterize the fatigue behavior of a C11, C12 = power law coefficients from C versus S regression
mixture using the simplified viscoelastic continuum damage b = mean strain condition (assumed to be zero for
(S-VECD) model, two tests were performed in the AMPT. this project)
First, the dynamic modulus test was performed according to K1 = adjustment factor based on time history of
AASHTO TP 79-10 to determine the linear viscoelastic (LVE) loading—function of a and b

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

Table 1.196. Summary of statistical analyses of Hamburg rut depths.

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. Dev. F test Avg. t-test
Project Location WMA Technologies
(mm) p-value (mm) p-value
Walla Walla, HMA 4.853 7.43
0.631 0.730
Washington AQUABlack 3.295 8.69
HMA 0.256 2.483
Centreville, Virginia 0.499 0.966
Astec DBG 0.444 2.497
HMA 1.473 15.00
Baker, Montana 0.230 0.077
Evotherm DAT 4.089 20.94
Jefferson County, HMA 0.218 1.243
0.420 0.009
Florida Terex foam 0.423 2.553
HMA 8.098 20.91
Graham, Texas 0.853 0.939
Astec DBG 6.428 20.27
HMA 0.295 3.85
George, Washington 0.922 0.768
Sasobit 0.273 3.777
HMA 0.567 5.05
Casa Grande, Arizona 0.010 0.093
Sasobit 2.538 1.75
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s
Dunnett’s
Test for
Std. Dev. Avg. Test of Mean
Project Location WMA Technologies Equal
(mm) (mm) vs. Control
Variance
p-value p-value
HMA1 0.382 15.220
Franklin, Tennessee, 0.064 0.825
Advera 7.552 18.540
Group A
Sasobit n =1 rep 8.890 0.661
HMA2 13.831 24.510
Franklin, Tennessee, 0.065 0.335
Astec DBG 0.142 10.500
Group B
Evotherm 7.184 17.780 0.706
HMA 8.988 54.553
Rapid River, Michigan Advera 11.714 0.362 116.10 0.008
Evotherm 3G 25.781 122.44 0.005
HMA 1.031 4.860
Evotherm 2.571 8.863 0.2256
Munster, Indiana 0.323
Gencor Ultrafoam 4.455 11.613 0.0349
Heritage wax 0.711 5.540 0.9779
HMA 1.309 2.930
New York, BituTech PER 3.741 14.966 0.0021
0.492
New York Cecabase 3.666 20.829 0.0002
SonneWarmix 1.742 13.449 0.0049
HMA 5.231 7.392
Evotherm 1.319 3.743 0.107
St. Louis, Missouri 0.008
Sasobit 1.542 3.669 0.121
Aspha-min n=1 3.71 0.498

13
14
12
Number of Comparisons

9
10
8
6
4
2
0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.134. Comparison of WMA versus HMA—Hamburg

rut depths.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

Table 1.197. Summary of statistical analyses of Hamburg stripping inflection

points (SIPs).

Single WMA Technology Projects

Std. Dev. Avg.
Project Location WMA Technologies F test t-test
(cycles) (cycles)
Walla Walla, HMA 58 5767
0.010 0.035
Washington AQUABlack 802 8167
HMA NA > 10000
Centreville, Virginia NA NA
Astec DBG NA > 10000
HMA 420 5433
Baker, Montana 0.266 0.413
Evotherm DAT 1071 4827
Jefferson County, HMA NA > 10000
NA NA
Florida Terex foam NA > 10000
HMA 354 7250
Graham, Texas 0.835 0.241
Astec DBG 460 6575
HMA NA > 10,000
Casa Grande, Arizona NA NA
Sasobit 184 9155
Multiple WMA Technology Projects
Bartlett’s Dunnett’s
Test for Test of Mean
Std. Dev. Equal Avg. vs. Control
Project Location WMA Technologies
(cycles) Variance (cycles)

p-value p-value
HMA1 672 6925
Franklin, Tennessee
Advera 583 0.910 3512 0.058
(Group A)
Sasobit n=1 8600 0.278
HMA2 2563 6925
Franklin, Tennessee
Astec DBG 1255 0.406 3512 0.862
(Group B)
Evotherm 389 8600 0.162
HMA 352 1157
Rapid River, Michigan Advera 114 0.295 703 0.089
Evotherm 3G 142 807 0.184
HMA 1605 5608
Evotherm 298 4438 0.444
Munster, Indiana 0.240
Gencor Ultrafoam 625 4437 0.443
Heritage wax 1237 6450 0.667
HMA 1004 9202
BituTech PER 190 3722 0.000
New York, New York 0.196
Cecabase 297 3163 0.000
SonneWarmix 553 3798 0.000
HMA 2104 8850
Evotherm 1022 8913 0.999
St. Louis, Missouri 0.111
Sasobit 745 9042 0.990
Aspha-min n = 1 rep. 10000 0.753
NA: results not available

12
12

10
Number of Comparisons

6 5

4
1
2

0
Same Lower Higher

Figure 1.135. Comparison of WMA versus HMA—Hamburg

stripping inflection points.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

159  

0.9

0.8
MI HMA
0.7 MI ADV

Pseudo-Sffness (C)
0.6 MI EVO

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000
Damage (S)

Figure 1.136. Pseudo-stiffness (C) versus damage parameter (S) curves

for HMA control mix and WMA technologies, Rapid River, Michigan.

Figure 1.136, Figure 1.137, and Figure 1.138 show the Equation (2) were plotted for each project at different strain
pseudo-stiffness (C) versus damage parameter (S) curves for levels. Figure 1.139, Figure 1.140, and Figure 1.141 show
the mixes from the three projects (Rapid River, Michigan, cycles to failures as a function of microstrain for all the mixes
New York, New York, and Munster, Indiana), respectively. from the three projects mentioned above.
These curves were modeled using the power model shown Of the Michigan mixes, the HMA and the Advera mix had
in Equation (1). The curves are plotted to the average C similar laboratory fatigue results, and the Evotherm mix had
(pseudo-stiffness) at which the samples for that mix failed. a better fatigue result. Of the New York, New York, mixes, the
Based on the results from these figures, the values of Nf from HMA, BituTech PER, and SonneWarmix WMAs had similar

0.9

0.8
NY HMA
0.7 NY BituTech PER
Pseudo-Sffness (C)

NY Cecabase
0.6
NY Sonnewarm
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Damage (S)

Figure 1.137. Pseudo-stiffness (C) versus damage parameter (S) curves

for HMA control mix and WMA technologies, New York, New York.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

160

0.9
IN Evo 3G
0.8
IN Foam
0.7 IN HMA
Pseudo-Sffness (C)

IN Heritage Wax
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Damage (S)

Figure 1.138. Pseudo-stiffness (C) versus damage parameter (S) curves for
HMA control mix and WMA technologies, Munster, Indiana.

1.E+09
MI HMA

MI Evotherm
1.E+08
MI Advera
Cycles to Failure

1.E+07

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04
100 1000
Microstrain

Figure 1.139. AMPT fatigue results for Rapid River, Michigan.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

161  

1.0E+08

1.0E+07 NY HMA
NY Bitutech PER
NY Cecabase

Cycles to Failure
NY Sonnewarm
1.0E+06

1.0E+05

1.0E+04
100 1000
Microstrain

Figure 1.140. AMPT fatigue results for New York, New York.

laboratory fatigue results. The Cecabase mix, on the other times for asphalt mixtures to resist low-temperature crack-
hand, had a better fatigue result in terms of number of cycles ing, for all projects, the WMA mixtures had longer failure
to failure. Of the Indiana mixes, the HMA and the Gencor time and lower critical low temperatures than their corre-
foam mixes had similar fatigue results; the Evotherm 3G and sponding HMA mixtures. This is an indication that WMA
Heritage wax mixes had superior fatigue results compared to mixes should perform equal to or better than HMA with
the HMA. regard to low-temperature cracking.

Indirect Tension Compliance and Strength Comparison of Lab Test Results

and Field Performance
AASHTO T 322-07 was used to evaluate the resistance to
thermal cracking for mixes from project locations with colder This section discusses the results of the laboratory tests
climates. The results are presented in Table 1.198. Although used to assess the resistance of the study mixtures to common
there are no consensus-required tensile strengths or failure asphalt pavement distresses and how those results compare to

1.E+06
Heritage wax
Evotherm 3G
1.E+05 HMA
Gencor foam
Cycles to Failure

1.E+04

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01
100 1000
Microstrain

Figure 1.141. AMPT fatigue results for Munster, Indiana.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

162

Table 1.198. AASHTO T 322 indirect tension testing results.

Critical Low
WMA Average IDT Failure Time
Project Location Temperature
Technologies Strength (MPa) (Hours)
(°C)
Walla Walla, HMA 3,772,509 4.50 -25.00
Washington AQUABlack 4,034,005 4.56 -26.11
HMA 4,588,741 4.50 -25.00
Centreville, Virginia
Astec DBG 4,085,364 4.61 -25.56
HMA 3,922,690 5.17 -31.67
Rapid River,
Evotherm 3G 3,437,111 5.42 -34.17
Michigan
Advera 3,546,542 5.69 -36.94
HMA 4,049,598 5.03 -30.68
Baker, Montana
Evotherm DAT 3,596,706 5.17 -31.67
HMA 4,411,905 4.39 -23.89
Evotherm 3G 4,237,548 4.89 -28.89
Munster, Indiana
Gencor foam 4,451,076 4.39 -23.89
Heritage wax 4,555,655 4.67 -26.67
IDT strength: indirect tensile strength.

actual field performance. The section is organized to discuss receives lower traffic; the mixes that received lower traffic
results and performance related to rutting, moisture damage, were noted (same ESAL range). Mix was placed in different
fatigue cracking, and low temperature cracking. lanes in the same direction for the Walla Walla, Washington,
and Centreville, Virginia, projects; mixes placed in the inner
Rutting lanes were noted. For the Munster, Indiana, project, mixes
were placed in different directions and lanes; mixes placed
Because each of the field projects are subjected to differ- in the inner lanes were noted, but visual observations indi-
ent traffic (and environmental) conditions, comparisons of cated that truck traffic was evenly divided between the lanes
the laboratory results with field performance were sorted in this urban area.
by the expected 20-year design ESALs determined for each Two of the new projects were estimated to have less than
project and compared to the suggested flow number criteria one million ESALs for the 20-year design traffic. These projects
from NCHRP Report 673 for HMA and NCHRP Report 691 were Rapid River, Michigan, and Baker, Montana. Table 1.200
for WMA (21, 29). Those criteria are shown in Table 1.199. summarizes the field-measured rutting and the results of the
The suggested Hamburg criteria shown in the table are based laboratory rutting tests for the mixes from these two projects.
on limited data from the NCAT Test Track (4) for tests con- No recommended flow number or Hamburg rut depth cri-
ducted in accordance with AASHTO T 324 at 50°C. teria exist for mixes used in pavements with design traffic less
All of the projects except Baker, Montana, had WMA and than 3 million ESALs. The flow number results appear to be
HMA sections placed in different lanes. For the Rapid River, satisfactory for all mixes, although the tests were conducted
Michigan, Jefferson County, Florida, and Casa Grande, Ari- on reheated mix samples. The mixes did not perform well in
zona, projects the WMA and HMA mixes were placed in the the Hamburg test. However, no Hamburg criteria have been
travel lane but in opposite directions. The New York, New suggested for this traffic category. As previously noted, the
York, mixes were all placed in the travel lane, but in two Hamburg results for the Rapid River, Michigan, mixes should
different directions. Data indicate that half of the project be viewed with caution because the test temperature was
not adjusted for the soft binder used in this cooler climate.
Overall, the flow number and Hamburg results for these
Table 1.199. Recommended criteria for rutting tests.
mixes seem reasonable and the expected trend is evident—
Minimum Flow Maximum the results for HMA mixes are better than for the respective
Traffic Level Minimum Flow
Number Hamburg WMA mixes. These mixes have performed very well in the
(million Number for HMA
for WMA Rut Depth
ESALs) (cycles)
(cycles) (mm)
field, which reinforces the idea that laboratory rutting tests
<3 -- -- -- are not appropriate for mixes intended for use in light traffic
3 to < 10 53 30 10 applications.
10 to < 30 190 105 8 Two of the new projects were estimated to have about
≥ 30 740 415 6 3 million ESALs for the 20-year design period. Those projects

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

163  

Table 1.200. Laboratory rutting test results and field performance for
projects with estimated design traffic less than 3 million ESALs.

Unconfined Flow Hamburg

Field
WMA Number (Cycles) Rut Depth
Project Location Rutting
Technologies Hot/Reheated (mm)
(mm)
Avg. COV Avg. COV
Baker, Montana, HMA 0.5 --/98 --/30 15.0 9
County Route 322 Evotherm DAT 0.2 --/58 --/3 20.9 20
Rapid River, HMA 0.0 --/199 --/14 54.6* 16
Michigan, Advera 0.0 --/60 --/2 116.1* 10
County Road 513 Evotherm 3G 0.0 --/65 --/17 122.4* 21

COV: coefficient of variation

* Extrapolated values

were Jefferson County, Florida, and Casa Grande, Arizona. number criteria for hot-compacted samples, but probably not
Table 1.201 summarizes the field measured rutting and the for hot-compacted WMA. On the other hand, the Hamburg
result of the laboratory rutting tests for the mixes from these results for the Centreville mixes met the suggested criteria.
two projects. Based on the data from the 13 mixes from eight project
Three projects were estimated to have between 3 and sites, the current flow number criteria developed for assessing
10 million ESALs. They were Walla Walla, Washington, mixes during design seem to also be appropriate for moni-
Munster, Indiana, and New York, New York. Rutting test toring field production. The suggested Hamburg criteria that
results for the mixes from these three projects are shown in were developed for HMA mixes based on performance on
Table 1.202. All of the mixes easily met the flow number crite- the NCAT Test Track seem appropriate for the HMA mixes in
ria for the 3 million to 10 million ESAL range and actually also NCHRP Project 9-47A, but they should probably be increased
met the criteria for the next higher traffic category. Several of slightly for WMA mixes.
the WMA mixes did not satisfy the suggested Hamburg crite-
ria (maximum, 10 mm), however. Although the excellent field
Moisture Damage
performance of these mixes could justify revising the Hamburg
criteria for WMA, it seems risky to raise the criteria so high The TSR test and the Hamburg test were used to evaluate
that all of the WMA mixes would pass. More data would be moisture damage susceptibility of the plant-produced mixes.
helpful in establishing Hamburg criteria for WMA. Table 1.204 summarizes the results of these tests. Only six of
The project with the highest estimated design traffic (about the 34 mixes did not meet the standard minimum TSR cri-
32.5 million ESALs) was Centreville, Virginia. As shown in teria of 0.80 (identified in the table by shaded cells), but four
Table 1.203, the flow number results for the Centreville mixes of those mixes had results just below the criteria with TSRs
meet the flow number criteria for greater than 30 million between 0.76 and 0.78. Some states also consider the con-
ESALs, but the results are for reheated mix samples. It seems ditioned tensile strengths as an indicator of moisture dam-
likely that the HMA mix would have met the minimum flow age susceptibility. Except for the Baker, Montana, and Rapid

Table 1.201. Laboratory rutting test results and field performance for
projects with estimated design traffic of about 3 million ESALs.

Unconfined
Hamburg
Field Flow Number
WMA Rut Depth
Project Location Rutting (cycles)
Technologies (mm)
(mm) Hot/Reheated
Avg. COV Avg. COV
Jefferson County, HMA 2.9 414/231 8/29 1.2 18
Florida 3.0
Terex foam 157/127 17/16 2.6 17
US-98
Casa Grande, HMA 3.2 61/-- 31/-- 1.8 32
Arizona 0.0
Sasobit 46/-- 26/-- 5.0 50
SR-84

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

164

Table 1.202. Laboratory rutting test results and field performance for
projects with estimated design traffic of 3 million to 10 million ESALs.

Unconfined Hamburg
Field Flow Number Rut Depth
WMA (Cycles)
Project Location Rutting (mm)
Technologies
(mm) Hot/Reheated
Avg. COV Avg. COV
Walla Walla, HMA 4.6 332/426 28/26 7.4 65
Washington, 0.0*
AQUABlack 200/227 15/6 8.7 38
US-12
HMA 0.0 561/-- 39/-- 4.9 21
Munster, Indiana, Evotherm 3G 0.0* 177/-- 3/-- 8.9 29
Calumet Ave. Gencor Ultrafoam 0.0 217/-- 2/-- 11.6 38
Heritage wax 0.0* 314/-- 12/-- 5.5 13
HMA 1.9 291/-- 19/-- 2.9 45
New York,
BituTech PER 2.7* 128/-- 9/-- 15.0 25
New York,
Cecabase 0.3* 115/-- 3/-- 20.8 18
Little Neck Pkwy.
SonneWarmix 0.0 123/-- 13/-- 13.4 13

* HMA and WMA were in different lanes, may have had slightly different traffic.

River, Michigan, projects that used softer asphalt grades, Fatigue Cracking
nearly all mixes had tensile strengths above 100 psi. The TSR
Laboratory fatigue cracking tests were conducted on a lim-
and conditioned tensile strength results indicate that the
ited set of mixtures (the mixes from Rapid River, Michigan,
WMA and HMA mixes were generally resistant to moisture
Munster, Indiana, and New York, New York). The uniaxial
damage, which is consistent with the observation of no strip-
fatigue test does not yield a unique test result, but rather a rela-
ping in any field cores. The only mixes with low TSRs and
tionship between strain and the number of cycles to failure,
low tensile strengths were the Evotherm mixes from Munster,
as was shown in Figure 1.139, Figure 1.140, and Figure 1.141.
Indiana, and Franklin, Tennessee.
Therefore, the results provide a relative ranking of the fatigue
There are no nationally accepted criteria for the Hamburg
behavior for a set of mixes that can be compared to field per-
SIP. In other studies, NCAT has used 5,000 cycles as a general formance of sections subjected to the same loads, support
minimum criterion for the SIP (30). Eleven of the 34 mixes in conditions, and climate. Table 1.205 summarizes the cracking
this study did not meet this suggested criterion. It is interest- observed in the field and the relative ranking of laboratory
ing to note that only one mix failed both TSR and Hamburg fatigue characteristics. For each project, A, B, and C indicate
criteria, which indicates that the two methods do not provide relative rankings of fatigue resistance from S-VECD testing.
consistent assessments of moisture damage susceptibility. A indicates a higher fatigue resistance than B, and so forth.
Conflicting TSR and Hamburg results have been reported Mixtures from the same project that appear to have similar
in other studies (31). Given that no moisture damage was fatigue resistance have the same letter. Rankings of mixtures
observed in any of the projects, both tests appear to give some from different projects should not be compared. The labora-
false positive results. However, the TSR test appeared to have tory fatigue rankings are not statistically based, given that the
much fewer false positive results than the Hamburg test. log cycles to failure versus log microstrain relationships are

Table 1.203. Laboratory rutting test results and field performance

for project with estimated traffic greater than 30 million ESALs.

Unconfined
Hamburg
Field Flow Number
WMA Rut Depth
Project Location Rutting (Cycles)
Technologies (mm)
(mm) Hot/Reheated
Avg. COV Avg. COV
Centreville, HMA 3.2 --/1855 --/16 2.5 10
Virginia Astec DBG 2.7* --/439 --/11 2.5 18

* HMA and WMA were in different lanes, may have had slightly different traffic

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

165  

Table 1.204. TSR and Hamburg test results.

Conditioned
WMA Tensile Hamburg
Project Location SIP
Technologies Strength
TSR (psi) (cycles)
Walla Walla, HMA 0.89 119.7 5767
Washington AQUABlack 0.86 101.9 8167
Centreville, HMA 0.89 185.1 >10,000
Virginia Astec DBG 0.83 143.3 >10,000
HMA 1.04 72.1 5433
Baker, Montana
Evotherm DAT 0.94 63.5 4827
Casa Grande, HMA 0.98 117.6 >10,000
Arizona Sasobit 0.92 101.0 9155
Jefferson County, HMA 0.91 198.1 >10,000
Florida Terex foam 0.76 159.6 >10,000
HMA 0.90 141.4 7250
Graham, Texas
Astec DBG 0.87 96.6 6575
HMA 0.95 50.0 1157
Rapid River,
Advera 0.88 30.8 703
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 1.00 36.6 807
HMA 0.90 160.1 5608
Evotherm 0.78 97.1 4438
Munster, Indiana
Gencor foam 0.83 110.6 4437
Heritage wax 0.83 131.3 6450
HMA 0.83 173.3 9202
New York, BituTech PER 0.85 106.7 3722
New York Cecabase 0.84 121.7 3163
SonneWarmix 0.80 114.9 3798
HMA 0.73 115.5 6925
Franklin,
Astec DBG 0.83 109.2 3512
Tennessee
Evotherm DAT 0.53 73.4 8600
HMA 1.00 NA 7067
Silverthorne, Advera 0.83 NA 3300
Colorado Sasobit 1.11 NA 5700
Evotherm DAT 0.80 NA 6200
HMA 0.76 126.9 8850
Sasobit 0.78 101.9 8913
St. Louis, Missouri
Evotherm ET 0.80 102.7 9042
Aspha-min 1.15 160.3 >10,000
NA: results not available

not derived directly from replicate measurements as is com- results do correctly rank the HMA mix as being more resistant
monly done for beam fatigue tests. Rather, the rankings are to fatigue cracking as compared to the Gencor foam WMA
based on engineering judgment considering typical variability section. The other two sections on this project were placed in
of fatigue testing and the observed spacing of the fatigue rela- the inside lane, and no cracking was observed in these lanes.
tionships on the log-log plots. The laboratory fatigue test indicated that these mixes would
The data in Table 1.205 indicate that each section on the Rapid have similar fatigue resistance, and their fatigue characteristics
River, Michigan, project was performing similarly. The minor were better than the mixes placed in the outside lanes. There-
amount of cracking was non-wheelpath, so the cracks were fore, the laboratory fatigue ranking appears to be consistent
probably not load related. The uniaxial fatigue testing indicated with field performance for this project. For the New York proj-
that the Advera mix would be more fatigue resistant. Therefore, ect, differences in cracking were observed in the four sections.
the comparison of laboratory and field results is inconclusive However, the Cecabase section, which had most cracking in the
for this project. For the Munster, Indiana, project, cracking was field, had the best laboratory results. The BituTech section and
observed only in the outside lanes where the HMA and Gencor the SonneWarmix section had similar amounts of cracking in
foam WMA sections were placed. There was a substantial dif- the field, but the laboratory fatigue test ranked them differently.
ference in the amount of cracking of these two sections, but the Therefore, the laboratory fatigue ranking does not appear to
cracks were probably not load-related. The uniaxial fatigue test match field performance for this project. Overall, with regard to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

166

Table 1.205. Observed field cracking and ranking of laboratory

fatigue results.

Project
Location WMA Cracking Severity Lab
Orientation
and Technologies Total Length of Fatigue
of Cracks
Age at (lane) (m) Cracks Ranking
Inspection
HMA
0.3 non-WP Longitudinal Low B
(southbound lane)
Rapid River,
Advera
Michigan, 0.2 non-WP Longitudinal Low A
(northbound lane)
22 months
Evotherm 3G
0.5 non-WP Longitudinal Low B
(northbound lane)
HMA 0.9 Transverse Low
B
(outside lane) 3.3 non-WP Longitudinal Low
Evotherm
Munster, 0 A
(inside lane)
Indiana,
Gencor foam 6.1 Transverse Low
24 months C
(outside lane) 29.6 non-WP Longitudinal Low
Heritage wax
0 A
(inside lane)
5.5 Transverse Low
HMA
0.3 WP Longitudinal Low C
(southbound lanes)
3.0 non-WP Longitudinal Low
New York, BituTech PER
5.2 WP Longitudinal Low B
New York, (northbound lane)
26 months Cecabase
15.8 WP Longitudinal Low A
(southbound lanes)
SonneWarmix
5.2 WP Longitudinal Low C
(northbound lanes)

fatigue test results and field performance, one project appeared Test in accordance with AASHTO T 322 on mixes from five
to match, one did not match, and one was inconclusive. of the projects. The predicted critical low temperatures
for thermal cracking for those mixes are summarized in
Table 1.206. The table also includes a summary of observed
Low Temperature Cracking
transverse cracking for the five projects and the lowest air
Thermal cracking characteristics were evaluated using temperature during the periods between construction and
the Indirect Tensile (IDT) Creep Compliance and Strength the second project inspections from nearby weather stations

Table 1.206. Predicted critical low temperatures for thermal cracking.

Project Location, Observed Critical Low Lowest

WMA
Construction Date, Transverse Temperature Recorded
Technologies
Inspection Age Crack (m) (°C) Temp. (°C)
Walla Walla, Washington, HMA None -25.00
April 2010, -19.2
27 months AQUABlack None -26.11
Centreville, Virginia, HMA None -25.00
June 2010, -12.9
24 months Astec DBG None -25.56

Rapid River, Michigan, HMA None -31.67

July 2010 Evotherm 3G None -34.17 -29.4
22 months Advera None -36.94
Baker, Montana, HMA 3.7 -30.68
August 2010, -32.8
22 months Evotherm DAT 7.3 -31.67
HMA 0.9 -23.89
Munster, Indiana, Evotherm 3G None -28.89
September 2010, -21.2
24 months Gencor foam 6.0 -23.89
Heritage wax None -26.67

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

167  

from the Weather Underground website ([Link] two mixes on that project. For the Munster, Indiana, project,
[Link]). As shown in the table, no transverse cracking the actual low temperature was higher than the calculated
was observed for the first three projects. The recorded air critical cracking temperature for all four test sections. The
temperatures for those projects were well above the criti- two sections with the lowest critical cracking temperature
cal low temperatures determined from the laboratory ther- determined from laboratory tests (HMA and Gencor foam
mal cracking testing and analysis. For the Baker, Montana, WMA) did have cracking, but the amount of cracking was
project, the Evotherm WMA section had more cracking different. The other two WMA sections had higher criti-
than the HMA section, even though the calculated critical cal cracking temperatures, and no transverse cracks were
cracking temperature was 1°C lower for the WMA mixture. observed. Overall, the relationship between the IDT Creep
The actual low temperature for Baker, Montana, was a few Compliance and Strength test results and the observed field
degrees colder than the critical cracking temperature for the performance was inconclusive.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

168

CHAPTER 5

WMA Project Mix Verification

The mixes from the warm mix asphalt (WMA) technology at 30 Ndesign gyrations. Both WMA technologies resulted in a
projects in Michigan, Indiana, and New York, along with the reduction in optimum asphalt content compared to the HMA
mixes from Montana and Florida, were verified according to control.
the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R35: Special Mixture Design Table 1.208 shows the volumetric properties at the asphalt
Considerations and Methods for Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) contents used to bracket the field-measured asphalt content.
presented with NCHRP Report 691: Mix Design Practices for The field volumetric properties are also shown for compari-
Warm Mix Asphalt which is the final report for NCHRP Proj- son. The AASHTO T 312 1s and d2s precision limits for rela-
ect 9-43 (21). This group of mixes provided a range of WMA tive density in multi-laboratory mixes (with NCAT personnel
technologies, aggregate types, and production and compac- in NCAT mobile laboratory and AMS personnel in AMS lab-
tion temperatures. oratory) are 0.6% and 1.7%, respectively. All the laboratory-
to-field comparisons were within the d2s limit. It should
be noted that the JMF gradation was targeted for the HMA
Determination of Optimum
laboratory verification and not the field-produced HMA gra-
Asphalt Content
dation. The HMA verification indicated a 0.02% difference
One goal of the mix verifications was to determine if plant in optimum asphalt content. The difference between rela-
production of WMA could be simulated in the laboratory. tive density at Ndesign of the field-produced and laboratory-
Given that changes in gradation during plant production produced Evotherm 3G was 0.7%.
affect the measured volumetric properties, the as-produced
gradation and asphalt content were used as the target for the
Baker, Montana
laboratory mix design verification for each combination of
location and technology. Thus, within a given project, there For the Montana project, Ndesign was specified as 75 gyra-
were some differences in the target laboratory gradation even tions. Table 1.209 shows the JMF, measured field grada-
though all of the mixes from a given location were based on tions, and gradation checks of laboratory batched samples.
the same design. Table 1.210 shows the volumetric properties at the asphalt con-
tents used to bracket the field-measured asphalt content. The
field volumetric properties are also shown for comparison.
Rapid River, Michigan
The laboratory verification of the Evotherm DAT mix could
Table 1.207 shows the job mix formula (JMF), measured not achieve 4.0% air voids. At the field-measured asphalt con-
field gradations, and gradation checks of laboratory batched tent, the air void content was 4.8%. Higher asphalt contents
samples. For the Michigan project, the laboratory verification appeared to be on the wet side of the voids in mineral aggre-
of the hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixture targeted the JMF rather gate (VMA) curve.
than the field gradation to demonstrate that the research team
could match the contractor’s design. The asphalt contents for
Munster, Indiana
the field mixes are those measured in the field samples; the
laboratory asphalt contents are the optimum asphalt con- For the Indiana project, Ndesign was specified as 75 gyra-
tents determined from the mix verification. For this project, tions. Table 1.211 shows the JMF, measured field gradations,
the optimum asphalt contents were selected at 4% air voids and gradation checks of laboratory batched samples.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

169  

Table 1.207. Michigan design, field, and verification gradations

and asphalt contents.

HMA Advera Evotherm 3G

JMF
Sieve Size Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field
% Passing
19.0 mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 mm 93 94 95 95 95 90 95
9.5 mm 85 86 87 87 87 82 84
4.75 mm 66 67 72 69 68 62 64
2.36 mm 49 51 58 53 51 48 48
1.18 mm 36 38 44 40 38 37 36
0.60 mm 25 26 32 28 26 27 25
0.30 mm 17 17 21 19 18 18 18
0.15 mm 9 10 11 10 10 10 10
0.075 mm 5.8 5.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.4
AC (%) 5.30 5.32 5.00 4.95 5.34 4.83 5.00
Compaction temperature (°F) 300 250 250

Table 1.212 shows the volumetric properties at the asphalt asphalt (Pba, also called percent binder absorbed) was less than
contents used to bracket the field-measured asphalt con- the field Pba in all cases. Also, the Pba of the WMA mixes were
tent. The field volumetric properties are also shown for less than the HMA.
comparison.
All of the laboratory-field comparisons were within the New York, New York
AASHTO T 312 d2s limit; only the Evotherm J1 and wax
WMA exceeded the 1s limit. Higher optimum asphalt contents The New York City Department of Transportation (New
than both the JMF and field production were indicated in all York City DOT) produces approximately 500,000 tons of the
cases. For this set of mixes, the laboratory percent of absorbed 1,000,000 tons of asphalt they place each year. Their typical

Table 1.208. Summary of Michigan volumetric properties.

AC (%) Gmm Air Voids (%) VMA (%) VFA (%) Pba (%)
HMA Field
5.26 2.479 3.9 14.7 73 0.59
HMA Laboratory Verification
4.76 2.504 6.1 15.4 61
5.26 2.486 4.7 15.3 69 0.701
5.76 2.467 3.2 15.1 79
Advera WMA Field
5.34 2.484 3.4 14.2 76 0.66
Advera WMA Laboratory Verification
4.84 2.487 4.3 14.5 70
5.34 2.468 2.9 14.4 80 0.47*
Evotherm 3G Field
5.00 2.493 3.0 13.6 78 0.66
Evotherm 3G Laboratory Verification
4.50 2.501 5.1 14.4 65
5.00 2.482 3.7 14.2 74 0.45*
5.50 2.463 1.2 13.2 91

AC: asphalt content; Pba: Percent of absorbed asphalt; VFA: voids filled with asphalt; VMA:
voids in mineral aggregate
* Maximum specific gravity (Gmm) tests were performed only at one asphalt content.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

170

Table 1.209. Montana design, field, and verification surface mix is a 50-blow Marshall design with 40% reclaimed
gradations and asphalt contents. asphalt pavement (RAP). New York City DOT designed a
Superpave mix with 25% RAP for this project. The Ndesign was
HMA Evotherm DAT
JMF specified as 75 gyrations. Table 1.213 shows the JMF, measured
Lab Field Lab Field
Sieve Size field gradations, and gradation checks of laboratory batched
% Passing
19.0 mm 100 100 100 100 100 samples. Table 1.214 shows the volumetric properties at the
12.5 mm 81 89 87 88 89 asphalt contents used to bracket the field-measured asphalt
9.5 mm 69 75 76 76 75 content. The field volumetric properties are also shown for
4.75 mm 51 54 55 51 54 comparison.
2.36 mm 31 33 30 30 33 New York State DOT Superpave requirements specify that
1.18 mm 20 21 18 20 21 the optimum asphalt content be selected at 3.5% voids. In all
0.60 mm 14 13 12 13 13 cases, the field air voids were higher than the target, therefore
0.30 mm 10 9 8 10 9 the optimum asphalt contents were higher than the values
0.15 mm 7 6 6 7 6 obtained from the field tests.
0.075 mm 5.0 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.0 At the field-produced asphalt content of 5.48%, the BituTech
AC (%) 5.80 5.47 5.69 5.76 5.76
PER laboratory and field voids matched closely. However,
Compaction temperature (°F) 270 235
the laboratory-to-field comparisons for Cecabase RT and

Table 1.210. Summary of Montana volumetric properties.

AC (%) Gmm Air Voids (%) VMA (%) VFA (%) Pba (%)
HMA Field
5.69 2.413 3 14.1 79 0.72
HMA Laboratory Verification
5.19 2.446 4.4 14.0 69
5.69 2.429 2.7 13.6 80 1.01
6.19 2.411 3.2 15.1 79
Evotherm DAT Field
5.76 2.407 4.0 15.5 74 0.65
Evotherm DAT Laboratory Verification
5.00 2.445 7.3 16.5 56
5.76 2.416 4.8 16.0 70 0.80
6.26 2.399 4.6 16.8 73
6.76 2.382 4.6 17.8 74

Table 1.211. Indiana design, field, and verification gradations and

asphalt contents.

HMA Wax Foam Evotherm J1

Sieve Size JMF Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field
% Passing
12.5 mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9.5 mm 92 95 94 95 94 95 94 96 94
4.75 mm 54 62 62 63 61 63 62 62 60
2.36 mm 41 39 40 40 40 40 41 36 39
1.18 mm 30 30 29 31 28 31 29 26 27
0.60 mm 22 22 20 22 20 22 20 18 18
0.30 mm 15 15 13 15 13 15 14 12 11
0.15 mm 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 8 8
0.075 mm 6.0 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.6
AC (%) 5.50 6.27 6.18 6.40 5.95 6.03 5.61 6.69 5.95
Compaction temperature (°F) 285 240 230 240

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

171  

Table 1.212. Summary of Indiana volumetric properties.

AC (%) Gmm Air Voids (%) VMA (%) VFA (%) Pba (%)
HMA Field
6.18 2.526 5.6 16.4 66 1.58
HMA Laboratory Verification
5.68 2.528 7.1 17.3 59
6.18 2.509 5.0 16.5 70 1.29
6.68 2.490 3.7 16.5 78
Foam Field
5.61 2.525 5.6 16.0 65 1.18
Foam Laboratory Verification
5.61 2.513 5.6 16.4 66 0.98
6.11 2.494 3.4 15.6 78
6.61 2.470 2.1 15.7 86
Evotherm J1 Field
5.95 2.517 6.4 17.3 63 1.27
Evotherm J1 Laboratory Verification
5.45 2.526 7.6 17.6 57
5.95 2.507 7.1 18.3 61 1.10
6.45 2.488 5.7 18.0 69
6.95 2.470 2.7 16.5 84
Wax Field
5.95 2.531 4.9 15.5 68 1.51
Wax Laboratory Verification
5.95 2.505 6.1 17.4 65 1.10
6.45 2.486 3.8 16.5 77

S­ onneWarmix exceeded the d2s for relative density. The prepared in an attempt to produce a closer gradation. These
­difference in voids for the HMA exceeded the 1s for relative trials are shown in Table 1.215. The trials seem to confirm that
density. Some of the differences between the laboratory and the differences in gradation were not the primary cause for the
field results for the Cecabase RT and SonneWarmix blends differences in air voids. Instead, it appears that for some rea-
may have been due to differences in gradations, particularly son the laboratory mixes for Cecabase RT and SonneWarmix
for the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieves. Additional trials were did not properly replicate the field mixes.

Table 1.213. New York design, field, and verification gradations

and asphalt contents.

HMA BituTech PER Cecabase RT SonneWarmix

Sieve JMF Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field Lab Field
Size % Passing
12.5 mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100
9.5 mm 91 94 92 94 94 94 95 93 95
4.75 mm 56 57 55 59 59 59 61 58 62
2.36 mm 35 30 34 33 35 33 36 34 36
1.18 mm 25 23 24 24 24 24 26 25 25
0.60 mm 19 17 17 18 17 18 19 18 18
0.30 mm 13 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13
0.15 mm 9 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9
0.075 mm 6.4 5.3 5.0 6.3 5.4 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.1
AC (%) 5.30 6.88 5.38 6.06 5.48 5.96 5.66 6.20 5.30
Compaction temperature (°F) 300 225 225 225

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

172

Table 1.214. Summary of New York volumetric properties.

AC (%) Gmm Air Voids (%) VMA (%) VFA (%) Pba (%)
HMA Field
5.38 2.646 5.4 16.7 68 0.75
HMA Laboratory Verification
4.88 2.656 7.6 18.0 58
5.38 2.634 6.4 18.0 65 0.56
5.88 2.613 5.5 18.3 70
6.38 2.591 4.6 18.6 76
BituTech PER Field
5.48 2.643 5.6 17.1 67 0.77
BituTech PER Laboratory Verification
4.98 2.645 9.1 19.7 54
5.48 2.624 5.5 17.6 69 0.46
5.98 2.602 3.8 17.3 78
6.48 2.581 2.0 16.9 88
Cecabase RT Field
5.66 2.621 3.0 15.7 81 0.55
Cecabase RT Laboratory Verification
5.16 2.637 6.7 18.0 63
5.66 2.616 4.7 17.4 73 0.50
6.16 2.595 1.8 16.0 89
6.66 2.574 1.5 16.9 91
SonneWarmix Field
5.30 2.641 4.9 16.4 70 0.61
SonneWarmix Laboratory Verification
4.80 2.656 7.5 17.8 58
5.30 2.634 6.7 18.3 63 0.50
5.80 2.612 4.4 17.4 75
6.30 2.591 3.3 17.5 81

Table 1.215. Validation tests for SonneWarmix and Cecabase RT.

SonneWarmix Cecabase RT
Field Field
Sieve Size Mix Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Mix Trial 1 Trial 2
12.5 mm 100 99 99 100 100 100 100 100
9.5 mm 95 90 94 95 94 95 94 96
4.75 mm 62 54 62 63 61 61 59 62
2.36 mm 36 33 38 39 38 36 33 35
1.18 mm 25 23 27 27 26 26 24 25
0.60 mm 18 18 20 20 19 19 18 18
0.30 mm 13 12 15 14 13 13 12 13
0.15 mm 9 8 11 10 7 9 8 10
0.075 mm 6.1 5.9 8.6 7.3 5.7 6.3 6.3 6.8
Air Voids (%) 4.9 6.2 3.7 5.6 7.0 3.0 4.7 5.3
VMA (%) 16.4 17.8 15.6 17.2 18.5 15.7 17.4 17.8

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

173  

Figure 1.142. Hydrofoamer (left), polymer strained out of Florida PG 76-22 binder (right).

The asphalt absorption results for all the laboratory mixes shows the volumetric properties at the asphalt contents
were lower than for the corresponding field-produced mixes. used to bracket the field-measured asphalt content. The
Practically, however, the differences were small. field volumetric properties are also shown for compari-
son. The predicted optimum asphalt was the same for both
the WMA and HMA. The optimum asphalt content deter-
Jefferson County, Florida mined from the mix verifications was less than the JMF
The final mix verification was performed on the US-98 even though the percentage of absorbed asphalt (Pba) val-
Terex foamed WMA. The Ndesign was specified as 75 gyrations. ues for the laboratory-produced mix were higher than that
The mix design used a polymer modified PG 76-22 binder. observed in the field.
This initially caused clogging in the laboratory foaming
device. Straining the binder before putting it into the foam- Summary Comparisons
ing device appeared to prevent clogging (Figure 1.142).
Table 1.216 shows the JMF, measured field gradations, and The previous section presented the field and laboratory
gradation checks of laboratory batched samples. Table 1.217 volumetric properties on a project by project basis. This sec-
tion presents overall comparisons.
Table 1.216. Florida design, field, and Maximum specific gravity tends to be a repeatable test.
verification gradations and asphalt contents. Maximum specific gravity is, however, sensitive to differ-
ences in mixture aging and binder absorption. Figure 1.143
HMA Terex Foam shows field to laboratory comparisons for all of the mixtures
JMF
Lab Field Lab Field evaluated. The comparisons were made at the field-measured
Sieve Size % Passing
asphalt content. All of the laboratory samples were aged for
25.0 mm 100 100 100 100 100
two hours at the field compaction temperature. The whisker
12.5 mm 100 100 100 99 99
9.50 mm 91 91 91 91
bars in the figure show the AASHTO T 209 multi-laboratory
89
4.75 mm 63 63 64 63 63 d2s. All of the differences are well within the multi-laboratory
2.36 mm 46 44 45 42 44 d2s. With the exception of the Michigan project, all of the dif-
1.18 mm 35 33 34 31 33 ferences are in one direction (e.g., either all of the field results
0.60 mm 27 25 26 24 25 are higher or all of the laboratory results are higher).
0.30 mm 15 16 15 14 14 Percent binder absorption (Pba) is calculated using the
0.15 mm 8 10 9 8 8 aggregate bulk (Gsb) and effective (Gse) gravities. The effec-
0.075 mm 5.4 4.8 5.5 4.9 4.8 tive gravity is backcalculated using the mixture’s maximum
AC (%) 5.30 5.01 5.33 5.01 4.95 specific gravity (Gmm) and asphalt content. Therefore, dif-
Compaction temperature (°F) 295 250
ferences in Gmm will affect the reported Pba. Figure 1.144

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

174

Table 1.217. Summary of Florida volumetric properties.

AC (%) Gmm Air Voids (%) VMA (%) VFA (%) Pba (%)
HMA Field
5.33 2.542 1.9 13.1 86 0.76
HMA Laboratory Verification
4.83 2.577 4.3 13.6 68
5.33 2.557 3.3 13.8 76 1.02
5.83 2.537 1.6 13.4 88
Terex Foam Field
4.95 2.556 3.4 13.6 75 0.74
Terex Foam Laboratory Verification
4.95 2.568 4.2 13.9 70
5.45 2.548 2.7 13.7 80 0.94

shows the difference between the field and laboratory Pba. As has been noted, the laboratory verifications attempted to
With the exception of the Michigan data, the differences cor- closely match the gradation of the field sample. Figure 1.146
respond to the differences in Gmm (e.g., higher Gmm equates shows the differences between the field and laboratory air voids.
to higher binder absorption). Figure 1.145 shows the dif- The AASHTO T 312 multi-laboratory d2s for relative density
ference between the WMA and HMA binder absorption for (and therefore air voids) is 1.7%. Only one mix, the New York
each project/mixture. As expected, WMA generally results in ­SonneWarmix, exceeded this limit. Additional testing with
reduced binder absorption. alternate gradation adjustments were presented in Table 1.215.
Ideally, the laboratory design should be able to replicate the One method of producing WMA is to foam the binder.
field-produced material in terms of volumetric properties. Early drum plants reportedly used lower temperatures,
Differences in gradation can lead to differences in volumetric resulting in incomplete drying of the aggregate and a degree
properties, and the JMF is not always reproduced in the field. of binder foaming. If the aggregate particles are coated before

2.70

2.65

2.60
Theorecal Maximum Specific Gravity

2.55

2.50

2.45

2.40 Field
Lab Ver.
2.35

2.30

2.25

2.20

Figure 1.143. Comparison of maximum specific gravity (Gmm ) for verification mixtures.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

175  
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Pba Difference, Field - Lab (%)

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
Figure 1.144. Difference between field and laboratory mixtures’ binder absorption.

0.1

0.0

0.1
Difference, WMA - HMA (%)
Percent Binder Absorpon

Field
-0.2
Lab Ver.

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

Figure 1.145. Difference between HMA and WMA binder absorption.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

176

2.0

1.5

1.0
Air Void Difference, Field - Lab (%)

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

Figure 1.146. Difference between voids of field-produced and laboratory-produced mixes.

they are completely dry, heat transfer would tend to result in the contractor’s optimum asphalt content based on the JMF
a degree of foaming with time. Essentially, this is the process and the laboratory-verified optimum asphalt content. In this
used to produce low emission asphalt. Laboratory mix designs case, six of 10 comparisons resulted in higher optimum asphalt
are produced using oven-dry aggregates. Typical water addi- contents for the WMA than what was reported on the JMF.
tion rates for foaming are 2% by weight of binder. If there
is 5% binder by total weight of mix, this would result in a
Coating
mix moisture content of 0.1%. If mix moisture is producing
a degree of foaming of the binder in the field, then this may Conventional HMA mix designs use equiviscous mixing
explain part of the difference between laboratory and field air and compaction temperatures based on rotational viscosity
voids. Figure 1.147 shows field mix moisture contents versus tests. Most WMA technologies cannot be adequately evaluated
the difference between field and laboratory void contents. An using this method. The NCHRP Project 9-43 research team
overall, albeit very poor, trend is seen of higher laboratory proposed using mixture tests as surrogates. These tests do not
versus field air voids with higher field mix moisture contents. determine the appropriate mixing and compaction tempera-
Some of the larger differences occurred with the Munster, ture, but rather evaluate whether the proposed temperature is
Indiana mixes using higher water absorption aggregates and adequate. The test used to evaluate the suitability of the mixing
with the New York City mixes that contained 25% RAP, both temperature is based on coating the aggregates with asphalt
of which may contribute to higher mix moisture contents. binder following the normal laboratory mixing process.
Figure 1.148 shows the difference between the WMA and Once the laboratory optimum asphalt content was deter-
HMA optimum asphalt content for each project. Differ- mined, mixture coating was evaluated using the AASHTO
ences may exist between the target gradation for the HMA T 195 Ross Count procedure. Samples were mixed for 90 sec-
and WMA. In six of 10 cases, the optimum asphalt content onds as specified in the Appendix to AASHTO R 35. As noted
for the WMA was less than that for the HMA. The decrease previously, a more commonly available bucket mixer was
ranged from -0.24% to -0.92%. The overall average difference used to prepare the samples rather than a planetary mixer.
(including the increases) was -0.27%. Table 1.218 shows both As can be seen in Table 1.219, this equipment generally pro-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

177  

2.0

1.5
y = 1.0906x 0.3129
R² = 0.0455
1.0
Difference in Air voids, Field - Lab (%)

0.5 All
MT
MI
0.0
IN
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
NY
-0.5 FL
Linear (All)

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0
Field Mix Moisture Content (%)
Figure 1.147. Field mix moisture content versus air void content difference.

0.6

0.4
Difference in Opmum Asphalt Content, WMA - HMA (%)

Difference = 0
0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

Figure 1.148. Comparison of WMA and HMA optimum asphalt contents.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

178

Table 1.218. Reported and verified optimum asphalt contents.

Asphalt Content (%) Compaction

Project Mix Type JMF Lab Verified Temperature (°F)
Advera 4.95 250
Michigan 5.30
Evotherm 3G 4.83 250
Montana Evotherm DAT 5.80 5.76 235
Wax 6.40 240
Indiana Evotherm 3G 5.50 6.69 230
Foam 6.03 240
Bitutech PER 6.06 225
New York Cecabase 5.30 5.96 225
SonneWarmix 6.20 225
Florida Foam 5.30 5.01 250

duced coating results that were similar to the degree of coat- ratio had optimum asphalt contents that were higher than the
ing achieved in field mixtures. control. Four out of six mixes that failed the compactability
ratio had in-place densities less than 92%. By comparison,
two of four mixtures that passed the compactability ratio had
Compactability
in-place densities less than 92%. Higher optimum asphalt
To evaluate the proposed WMA compaction temperature, contents than that for the corresponding HMA were indi-
the Appendix to AASHTO R 35 specifies that the ratio of the cated for three of five mixes with low in-place density. This
number of gyrations to 92% density at 30°C (54°F) below may indicate that a compaction temperature that was too low
the proposed compaction temperature to the number at the was selected for these mixes. The difference may also have
proposed compaction temperature must be less than 1.25. resulted from differences in gradation.
Two sets of mix samples are mixed and aged at the same tem-
perature, then one set is allowed to cool prior to compaction. Moisture Susceptibility
Table 1.220 shows the optimum asphalt content at which
each mixture was tested, the difference between the optimum As with all Superpave mix designs, the Appendix to AAS-
asphalt content of that mixture and the HMA control based HTO R 35 specifies the tensile strength ratio (TSR) test accord-
on the laboratory mix design verification, the laboratory ing to AASHTO T 283 for WMA mix designs. The tests were
compaction temperature, the compactability ratio, and the conducted at the optimum asphalt content as determined in
average in-place density based on the field cores. the laboratory mix design verification. Figure 1.149 shows
Six of 10 WMA mixes failed the specified compactability a comparison of the TSR results from the field-produced
ratio. Two of the six mixtures that failed the compactability and laboratory-produced mixes. There was good agreement

Table 1.219. Percent coating for WMA.

Asphalt Mixing Coating (%)*

Content Temperature
Project Mix Type (%) (°F) Field Lab
Advera 5.34 275 100.0 98.5
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 5.00 275 99.6 100.0
Montana Evotherm DAT 5.80 250 98.8 98.5
Wax 6.40 270 98.0 100.0
Indiana Evotherm 3G 6.69 255 99.0 100.0
Gencor foam 6.03 275 99.0 96.0
Bitutech PER 6.06 280 99.5 100.0
New York Cecabase RT 5.96 250 100.0 100.0
SonneWarmix 6.20 260 99.5 100.0
Florida Terex foam 5.01 300 99.0 97.0
* The Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35 requires a minimum of 95% coating.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

179  

Table 1.220. Gyratory compactability ratios.

Difference,
HMA and Lab Average
Asphalt WMA Compaction Compact- In-place
Content Optimum Temperature ability Density
Project Mix Type (%) AC (%) (°F) Ratio (%)
Advera 4.95 -0.49 250 1.34 95.0
Michigan
Evotherm 3G 4.83 -0.37 250 0.92 94.3
Montana Evotherm DAT 5.76 0.29 235 2.22 91.2
Wax 6.40 0.13 240 1.31 88.7
Indiana Evotherm 3G 6.69 0.42 230 1.21 90.4
Gencor Foam 6.03 -0.24 240 2.44 90.3
Bitutech PER 6.06 -0.82 225 1.35 92.4
New York Cecabase 5.96 -0.92 225 1.11 92.1
SonneWarmix 6.20 -0.68 225 1.17 89.9
Florida Terex Foam 5.01 0.00 250 1.64 92.1

between the field and laboratory results for six of the 10 mixes. number tests were performed by NCAT in the Asphalt Mix-
Both Michigan WMAs had substantially lower TSR values for ture Performance Tester according to AASHTO TP 79. The
the laboratory-produced mixes, but the laboratory-verified Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35 provides minimum flow
optimum asphalt contents were also lower for these mixes. number requirements based on the 20-year design equiva-
The Indiana wax WMA also showed a lower TSR during the lent single axle loads (ESALs). The average flow number
laboratory verification. Both the unconditioned and condi- for the WMA mixes tested, 20-year design ESALs, and flow
tioned tensile strengths were higher for the field-produced number criteria are shown in Table 1.221. At the optimum
Indiana wax mix. asphalt content determined from the mix verifications, all
of the mixes except the Munster, Indiana, Evotherm 3G mix
met the minimum flow number requirements provided in
Flow Number Test
the Appendix to ­AASHTO R35. After 2 years of service, no
WMA samples were prepared by AMS for flow number rutting was observed in the field for the Indiana Evotherm
testing according to AASHTO PP 60 at the optimum asphalt section, although that section was placed in the passing lane
content determined in the mix design verification. Flow and may have received lower traffic.

1.2

0.8
TSR

0.6

Field
0.4
Lab

0.2

Figure 1.149. Comparison of field and laboratory TSR values.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

180

Table 1.221. Mix verification flow number results. the laboratory-produced mixes are only higher than the flow
number for the field-produced mixes for the two Michigan
R 35
Appendix WMA mixes. The field-produced Indiana Evotherm mix,
20-Year Flow which was produced at a lower asphalt content, meets the
Design Number Average Appendix to AASHTO R 35 flow number criteria.
Project Mix ESALS Criteria FN
Advera 78
Michigan 225,355 NA
Evotherm 66 Proposed Revisions to the Draft
Montana Evotherm DAT 242,990 NA 29 Appendix to AASHTO R 35
Heritage Wax 144
Indiana Evotherm 3G 10,499,416 105 64 Based on the results of these mix verifications, the follow-
Gencor Foam 156 ing revisions to Sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Draft Appendix to
New SonneWarmix 8,251,905 67 AASHTO R 35 developed in NCHRP Project 9-43 (21) are
York BituTech PER 30 49 proposed for consideration by the AASHTO Subcommittee
6,040,268
Cecabase 75 on Materials.
Florida Terex Foam 3,061,037 30 49
3. ADDITIONAL LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
3.1.1 Mechanical mixer
Table 1.222 shows a comparison of the laboratory-mixed
and field-mixed flow number results. Since the laboratory- Note 1 should be eliminated. Ten mix design verifica-
produced samples were prepared at the optimum asphalt tions were performed as part of NCHRP Project 9-47A. A
content determined from the mix verifications, differences in bucket mixer was used to prepare the mixes. In all cases, the
asphalt content as well as potential differences in aging affect laboratory-produced mix exceeded the minimum 95% coat-
the comparisons of the laboratory- and field-produced mix ing recommended in the Draft Appendix using the recom-
results. Some of the field-produced mix was compacted in the mended 90-second mixing time. The two laboratory foam
field without reheating. Other samples were prepared from mixes had lower percent coatings than did the field mix (aver-
reheated field mix. These are noted in Table 1.222. Little or age 2.5% less).
no difference is seen in the asphalt contents of the laboratory-
3.3.1 Laboratory foamed asphalt plant
produced and field-produced samples for Montana and
Florida. In both cases, the field-produced mix resulted in sig- Add the following paragraph to the end of the current lan-
nificantly larger FN. Asphalt contents were reduced for both guage: “In lieu of a laboratory foamed asphalt plant, a trial
Michigan laboratory-produced mixes. The flow number for batch or run may be produced at the asphalt plant. When pro-

Table 1.222. Comparison of laboratory-produced and field-produced flow

number results.

Difference, Lab Field F-test t-test

Lab. versus Equal
Field AC Std. Std. Variances 2 Tail Significant?
Project Mix (%) Avg. Dev. Avg. Dev. (Y or N) p-value (Y or N)
Field flow number samples field compacted without reheating
14
Heritage Wax 0.45 38 314 39 Y 0.006 Y
4
Indiana Evotherm 0.74 64 6 177 6 Y 0.000 Y
15
Gencor foam 0.42 2 217 4 Y 0.000 Y
6
New SonneWarmix 0.90 67 4 123 17 Y 0.005 Y
York BituTech PER 0.58 49 3 128 12 N 0.008 Y
Cecabase 0.30 75 12 115 3 N 0.031 Y
Florida Terex foam 0.06 49 3 157 12 Y 0.005 Y
Field mix reheated to prepare flow number samples
Advera -0.39 78 31 60 1 Y 0.423 N
Michigan
Evotherm -0.17 66 7 65 11 N 1.000 N
Montana Evotherm 0.00 29 10 58 2 Y 0.022 Y
Florida Terex foam 0.06 49 3 127 20 N 0.021 Y

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

181  

ducing a trial batch or run of WMA, it is recommended that In production, contractors could make slight adjustments
the plant level out its production with HMA, then begin the to the target asphalt content, consistent with current state
water injection process and decrease the mixing temperature practices, to ensure acceptable air voids. The field-produced
to the desired WMA production temperature. Once the desired WMA would need to meet the minimum production VMA
WMA temperature is reached, obtain samples for testing.” requirement, also consistent with current state practice.

Commentary Commentary
Full-scale asphalt plant foaming systems appear to provide NCHRP Project 9-47A evaluated 13 WMA mixtures sam-
better mixing and coating than laboratory-scale plants. Com- pled from eight different projects. In all cases, the WMA tech-
mercially available laboratory-scale foaming units use tim- nologies were dropped into existing HMA designs. Ten mix
ers to control the amount of foam produced. The NCHRP design verifications from five projects were performed using
Project 9-47A team utilized two of the three commercially the procedures outlined in the Draft Appendix to AASHTO
available units; the NCHRP Project 9-43 team used the third R 35. When performing the mix verifications, the research team
unit. This experience suggests that the laboratory systems do tried to match, as closely as possible, the field-measured grada-
not control the amount of binder foam accurately enough tion for a particular mix. The optimum asphalt content of the
for mix design purposes. Therefore, when using laboratory comparable HMA control was verified in the same manner.
asphalt foaming systems, the binder needs to be foamed into Using the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35 for the WMA mix
a separate, pre-heated container and then weighed into the design verifications, the optimum asphalt content decreased,
batch on an external scale. The container should be pre- on average, by 0.27% for WMA compared to the respective
heated to the mixing temperature to minimize foam collapse. HMA, with a range of 0.42% increase to 0.92% decrease.
Once the foam is weighed into the batch, the bucket or mix- Several factors could justify lower asphalt contents for
ing bowl is immediately placed into the mixer and mixing is WMA:
started. The half-life of binder foam (or the time it takes for
the volume of foam to reduce by half) is typically measured 1. The binder absorption of WMA is less than for HMA pro-
in seconds. The delay caused by weighing on a separate scale duced with the same aggregate blend.
instead of foaming directly into the moving mixer appears to 2. WMA mixes densify to less than 4% air voids in the
reduce the effectiveness of the foaming. wheelpath.
Problems occurred when using D&H’s Hydrofoamer (mar- 3. WMA mixes are prone to rutting or bleeding in the field,
keted by InstroTek as the AccuFoamer) with polymer modi- suggesting that they are over-asphalted.
fied PG 76-22 binder. Small particles of polymer or asphalt
Binder Absorption.   For the field-produced mix, sam-
repeatedly clogged the binder nozzle going into the foaming pled and tested at the asphalt plant without reheating, the
chamber. These particles may have resulted from reheating the binder absorption of the WMA averaged 0.11% less than
binder in gallon-size cans. The problem could be reduced by for the comparable HMA produced with the same aggre-
straining the binder when pouring it into the Hydrofoamer. gate blend. The difference in measured absorptions ranged
The straining is not expected to affect the binder grade. from 0.07% greater to 0.40% less. For the laboratory mix
produced according to AASHTO R 35, the binder absorption
7. PROCESS-SPECIFIC SPECIMEN
FABRICATION PROCEDURES averaged 0.17% less for the WMA compared to the HMA.
Table 1.223 presents the binder absorption levels measured
Volumetric Mix Design. Section 7 describes procedures for each mix in the laboratory verifications, field mix sampled
for replicating various types of WMA in the laboratory. Table 2 at the plant, and 1-year and 2-year cores. Both the laboratory
of Section 7 provides approximate specimen mass for volu- verifications and field mix samples indicate slightly lower
metric design specimens. How­ever, the Appendix does not spe- binder absorption for the WMA (approximately 0.2% and
cifically state that the volumetric design should be conducted 0.1%, respectively). However, this difference is not apparent
using laboratory-produced WMA. The findings from NCHRP in the 1- or 2-year cores, indicating that after latent absorp-
Project 9-47A suggest the volumetric design should first be tion the mixes are equal. The two exceptions are the 1-year
completed as described in ­AASHTO R 35 without the WMA results for New York, New York, BituTech PER and Casa
additive/technology and then the additional performance Grande, ­Arizona, ­Sasobit. The difference was not apparent in
checks, coating, compactability, moisture sensitivity, and the 2-year BituTech PER cores. Since the binder absorption
rutting resistance (if required) should be completed using levels calculated for the Casa Grande, Arizona, field mix were
laboratory-produced (or in certain cases plant-produced) WMA. almost identical, this exception may be due to e­ xperimental

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies
Table 1.223. Comparison of WMA and HMA binder absorption levels.

Avg. WMA Temperature (°F) HMA Binder Absorption (%)

Field Lab
Project Field Mix 1-Year Cores 2-Year Cores
Technology Field Field* Comp. Verifications
Location Lab
Temp.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Mixing Comp.
(°F) WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA
Walla Walla,
AQUABlack 285 270 NA 310 NA NA 0.63 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.28 1.03
Washington
Centreville,
Astec DBG 288 268 NA 294 NA NA 0.92 0.88 0.91 0.61 0.61 0.78
Virginia
Rapid River,
Evotherm 3G 269 239 250 255 0.45 0.70 0.66 0.59 1.01 0.88 0.91 0.78
Michigan
Rapid River,
Advera 269 227 250 255 0.47 0.70 0.66 0.59 1.04 0.88 0.97 0.78
Michigan
Baker, Montana Evotherm DAT 262 NA 235 282 0.80 1.01 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.87 0.72 0.53
Munster, Indiana Wax 268 235 240 249 1.10 1.29 1.51 1.58 1.26 1.29 1.49 1.55
Munster, Indiana Gencor foam 277 222 240 249 0.98 1.29 1.18 1.58 1.48 1.29 1.48 1.55
Munster, Indiana Evotherm 3G 256 210 230 249 1.10 1.29 1.27 1.58 1.39 1.29 1.53 1.55
New York,
BituTech PER 279 238 225 299 0.46 0.56 0.77 0.75 0.50 0.70 0.75 0.71
New York
New York,
Cecabase 247 221 225 299 0.50 0.56 0.55 0.75 0.67 0.70 0.68 0.71
New York
New York,
SonneWarmix 262 222 225 299 0.50 0.56 0.61 0.75 0.71 0.70 0.66 0.71
New York
Jefferson County,
Terex foam 297 247 250 269 0.94 1.02 0.74 0.76 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.77
Florida
Casa Grande,
Sasobit 276 257 NA 297 NA NA 0.62 0.64 0.27 0.51 -- --
Arizona
NA: not tested; Casa Grande 2-year cores not collected
* Where possible, based on average temperature recorded by PAVE-IR system
Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

183  

error. Overall, this ­suggests that the binder content of pared to the HMA when using the drop-in approach to
WMA mixes should not be reduced to account for reduced WMA mix design.
­absorption.
Rutting Potential.   Although some laboratory tests indi-
Pavement Densification.   Pavements densify under traf- cate otherwise, WMA pavements constructed to date, includ-
fic after construction. In theory, pavements are designed to ing accelerated test sections at the NCAT Test Track and the
reach an ultimate density of 96% of Gmm (4% air voids). For University of California Pavement Research Center, have been
HMA pavements, the majority of the densification occurs rut resistant. The same holds true for the NCHRP Project
in the first year after construction with the ultimate density 9-47A field test sections. Table 1.224 shows the average rut
being obtained after 2 years of traffic (1). Table 1.224 shows depth measured after 1 year and 2 years. The rut depths for the
the average core density at the time of construction and after WMA and HMA sections are negligible and approximately
1 year and 2 years of traffic. The 1-year and 2-year core data equal. Based on the rutting performance observed to date,
were taken from the wheelpath. With two exceptions (New there is no need to reduce the asphalt content of WMA mixes.
York SonneWarmix and Florida Terex foam), the same or
higher in-place densities were obtained with the WMA at Interaction with Compactability.   Based on the Draft
the time of construction. However, in only three cases (New Appendix to AASHTO R 35, after the optimum asphalt con-
York BituTech PER, New York SonneWarmix, and Florida tent is determined, coating and compactability are evalu-
Terex foam), do the 2-year WMA cores have higher densi- ated at the proposed mixing and compaction temperatures.
ties than their HMA counterparts. All of these differences As noted previously, the optimum asphalt content of the
are less than 1% density. The 1-year Arizona Sasobit cores WMA mixes decreased, on average, by 0.27%. Although
also have higher density than the HMA. The fact that the this did not affect the coating, it does appear to have an
WMA and HMA are densifying to the same levels suggests effect on compactability. Figure 1.150 shows the Superpave
that the WMA mixes are not over- or under-asphalted com- gyratory compactor (SGC) compactability ratio, described

Table 1.224. WMA and HMA pavement densification and 1-year rut depths.

In-Place Density (% Gmm ) Average Rut Depth (mm)

Construction
Project Location Technology 1-Year Cores 2-Year Cores 1-Year 2-Year
Cores
WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA WMA HMA
Walla Walla,
AQUABlack 94.4 94.7 95.4 96.2 95.9 96.6 0.00 0.99 0.31 4.59
Washington
Centreville, Virginia Astec DBG 89.9 89.1 94.2 94.2 93.9 94.0 0.00 0.00 2.65 3.18
Rapid River,
Evotherm 3G 94.3 97.1 96.5 0.00 0.00
Michigan
94.1 97.8 97.4 0.00 0.00
Rapid River,
Advera 95.0 95.8 96.6 0.00 0.00
Michigan
Baker, Montana Evotherm DAT 91.2 91.3 95.0 93.8 94.5 94.7 0.18 0.35 0.18 0.52
Munster, Indiana Wax 88.7 92.8 93.1 0.00 0.00
Munster, Indiana Gencor foam 90.3 88.7 93.7 94.0 93.5 94.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Munster, Indiana Evotherm 3G 90.4 92.9 93.0 0.00 0.00
New York,
BituTech PER 92.4 95.1 96.5 0.67 2.65
New York
New York,
Cecabase 92.1 90.8 93.8 94.7 95.0 95.7 0.33 1.00 0.33 1.85
New York
New York,
SonneWarmix 89.9 95.7 96.5 0.00 0.00
New York
Jefferson County,
Terex foam 92.1 93.0 91.6 93.0 90.9 90.4 2.44 1.87 3.02 2.93
Florida
Casa Grande,
Sasobit 92.4 90.6 95.1 94.6 NA NA 0.00 3.18 NA NA
Arizona
NA: not tested; Casa Grande 2-year cores not collected

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

184

96.0

Opt. AC% Dra AASHTO R35

95.0
0.39% increase in AC%
Field AC%
94.0
Sample tested at 250°F,
In-place Density (% of Gmm)

0.17% increase in AC% Field producon avg.273°F

93.0

92.0

91.0
0.74% decrease in AC%

90.0
0.90% decrease in AC%
89.0

88.0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
SGC Compactability Rao
Figure 1.150. SGC compactability ratio versus achieved in-place density.

in the Draft Appendix to AASHTO R 35, versus the aver- 8. WMA MIXTURE EVALUATIONS
age in-place density achieved at the time of construction. 8.4 Evaluating Moisture Sensitivity
The diamonds represent the compactability ratio measured
at the optimum asphalt content determined according to Some WMA technologies contain antistripping additives.
AASHTO R 35. Based on the data determined at optimum Others may affect the asphalt aggregate interaction. There-
asphalt content, there appears to be a poor relationship fore, moisture sensitivity should be evaluated at the optimum
between compactability ratio and the density achieved in- asphalt content determined in a mixture using the WMA
place. The compactability ratio was measured again for four technology. In the case of mechanical foaming technologies
mixes at the asphalt content measured in the field. These in particular, it may be advantageous to test WMA produced
data are indicated by the squares and shows lateral shifts through the asphalt plant (trial batch).
in the compactability ratio. Where the asphalt content
8.5 Evaluating Rutting Resistance
decreased by 0.74% and 0.90%, the compactability ratio
increased; where the optimum asphalt content increased by The rutting performance of field WMA projects to date
0.39%, the compactability ratio decreased, both as expected. does not seem to justify additional testing that is not required
A sample tested with a 0.17% increase in optimum asphalt for HMA. Therefore, flow number test requirements should
content showed essentially no change in the compactability be eliminated except for traffic levels in excess of 30 million
ratio. These data suggests that field compactability is related ESALs. If the agency already requires performance tests for
to the asphalt content of the mixture. WMA is a compac- HMA, than these same tests should be applied to WMA with
tion aid. If the optimum asphalt content of WMA mixes is the understanding that different aging conditions or test cri-
decreased, the compaction benefits may be nullified. teria may be required.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

185  

CHAPTER 6

Cost Analysis of WMA

Economics of a new technology like warm mix asphalt As reported in Part 2, the energy audits for WMA projects
(WMA) often make up one of the principal factors that deter- in this study found energy savings for WMA production to be
mine its acceptance into mainstream practice. In a permissive reasonably approximated by the following relationship:
specification environment, such as for WMA in most cases, it
is probably the dominant factor. For the asphalt contracting Energy savings = 1,100 Btu °F ton ( 3)
industry, the use of WMA has certain costs and potentially
some economic benefits. The costs of WMA depend primar- Although theoretical energy calculations indicate that the
ily on the type of WMA technology that is used. Economic reduction should be less than the result determined from
benefits may be related to energy reductions at the plant, the equation (3), the theoretical models do not appear to fully
potential for higher unit payments resulting from achieving account for the energy transfer to heating the metal in the
higher in-place densities or smoother pavements, extended plant’s drier and ductwork.
paving seasons, and the possibility of eliminating antistripping In practice, WMA production temperatures when using
additives for some WMA additives. water-injection foaming technologies are typically about
Of the WMA technology options, water-injection asphalt 25°F lower than those for hot mix asphalt (HMA) using the
foaming systems typically have the lowest cost per ton. These same mix design. WMA produced with additives tends to
systems require the installation of mechanical equipment and have substantially lower mixing temperatures. For the pur-
some modifications to the plant’s control system. The early pose of estimating energy savings, a temperature difference of
water-injection foaming systems cost around $80,000. Other 50°F is assumed for additive-type WMA compared to HMA
water-injection foaming systems that have entered the market- using the same mix design. Therefore, for water-injection
place in the last few years cost as little as $30,000 installed. type WMA, typical energy savings can be estimated to be
Many contractors depreciate capital expenditures such as this 27,500 Btu/ton, and for additive-type WMA, the energy sav-
over 5 to 7 years. Assuming an average yearly production for ings can be estimated to be about 55,000 Btu/ton.
a plant, the cost of the equipment also can be figured on a per Most asphalt plants in the United States use either recycled
ton basis. For example, if the water-injection foaming system fuel oil (RFO) or natural gas for burner fuel for drying and
cost $50,000 and the plant produces an average of 120,000 tons heating the aggregate. A typical energy density for RFO is
per year, then depreciating the system over 5 years would add 137,000 Btu/gal (34). Recent cost for RFO is about $2.00/gal
about 8¢/ton [$50,000/(5 × 120,000) = $0.08]. (35). Therefore, as shown in equation (4), for a 25°F drop from
WMA additives are reported to increase mix costs by HMA to WMA for typical water-injection systems, the energy
approximately $2.00 to $3.50/ton (33). Additive prices will savings when using RFO is estimated to be $0.39/ton of mix.
also vary due to freight costs. WMA additive prices may have
27,500 Btu ton × 1 gal of RFO 137,000 Btu × $2.00 gal
decreased some during the past few years as the addition of
WMA additives at asphalt terminals has become more common. = $0.39 ton (4)
Mix design costs are also likely to increase if the recom-
mendations from NCHRP Report 691: Mix Design Practices Similarly, for a 50°F drop from HMA to WMA, the energy
for Warm Mix Asphalt are implemented. Adding the coating savings is estimated to be $0.79/ton of mix.
test, compactability test, and flow number test are estimated In 2013, natural gas prices ranged from approximately
to increase mix design costs by $1,500 to $2,000. $4.30 to $5.25 per million Btu (36). Adding approximately

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

186

$1/MMBtu for transportation and the supplier’s overhead Table 1.225. Hypothetical impacts of WMA
and profit, a contractor’s cost for natural gas is estimated to on density pay factors and mix savings.
be $5.78 per million Btu. Therefore, for a 25°F drop from
Actual Adjusted
HMA to WMA, the energy savings when using natural gas Average Average Hypothetical
is estimated to be $0.16/ton of mix, as seen in equation (5): Project Density Density Savings
Project Tons* Pay Factor Pay Factor ($/ton)
27,500 Btu ton × $5.78 1,000,000 Btu = $0.16 ton (5 ) 1 64,000 0.94 0.97 $1.13
2 108,000 0.94 0.96 $0.51
Similarly, for a 50°F drop from HMA to WMA using natural 3 48,000 1.05 1.05 $0.00
gas, the energy savings is estimated to be $0.31/ton of mix. 4 92,000 1.03 1.03 $0.09
A few contractors who have monitored their plants’ energy 5 75,000 1.01 1.02 $0.25
usage with and without WMA have indicated that their fuel 6 92,000 0.87 0.91 $1.10
savings is similar to the estimated values given above. A com- *Partial lots were not evaluated.
mon response from contractors using water-injection foam-
ing systems is that the energy savings is about 10% when
using WMA. Based on this information, the estimated energy
sity, so a higher density for WMA was an advantage for only
savings per ton for RFO-fueled plants would be about $0.39, a few lots. The greatest advantage of the hypothetical 0.17%
and for natural gas-fueled plants the savings are estimated to increase in density for WMA would occur on projects that
be about $0.16/ton. often had pay deductions for density. A small improvement in
Other potential economic benefits to contractors using density resulting from the use of WMA could have a substan-
WMA could include higher pay per unit price based on tial impact on the overall payment that contractors receive
incentive/disincentive specifications for in-place density and on some projects. Some contractors believe that this benefit
smoothness. Improving in-place density is a key to better alone is sufficient justification for their use of WMA.
pavement performance. Data from this study showed that Estimating the potential savings resulting from improved
on a project-by-project basis, post-construction densities for smoothness when using WMA is a little more challenging.
WMA pavements were not statistically different than those Incentive/disincentive specifications for smoothness vary
for HMA pavements with the same mix design. However, considerably among highway agencies. In most cases, pen-
the difference may still be significant from a practical per- alties and bonuses for smoothness only apply to surface lay-
spective. On average, the density improvement for WMA ers. Moreover, though there have been a few WMA projects
compared to HMA was 0.17% of theoretical maximum that reported improved smoothness with a WMA overlay
specific gravity (Gmm). An analysis of the potential finan- on a concrete pavement or overlays pavements with large,
cial gain from a 0.17% higher density was conducted for a sealed cracks, the improvements were not quantified in the
set of six randomly selected projects using a percent within available literature. Nonetheless, as with potential benefit for
limits (PWL) incentive/disincentive specification. The PWL density, many contractors routinely use WMA to help achieve
specification from the Florida Department of Transporta- smoother pavements.
tion (DOT) that is used in this example allows each lot of Because some WMA chemical additives contain anti-
mix to receive up to a 5% bonus or a penalty as low as 80% stripping compounds, some agencies may waive the require-
of the bid price depending on the PWL results. In Florida, ment for an antistripping agent if the mixture with the WMA
in-place density is one of four parameters used in the calcu- additive can pass the agency’s moisture damage susceptibility
lation of the composite pay factor for each lot. Density has test. Eliminating the antistripping agent can also significantly
a weighting factor of 0.35, the highest of the four pay items reduce a mixture’s cost. For example, consider a typical liquid
used in the calculation of the composite pay factor. A typical antistripping dosage rate of 0.5% by weight of asphalt binder, a
bid price of $85/ton was used in this analysis. Florida DOT cost of antistripping agent of $1.50/pound, and a typical asphalt
provided in-place density test results from the six randomly content of 5%. The savings that would be realized by eliminat-
selected projects across the state. A summary of the project ing the antistripping agent (ASA) is shown in equation (6):
information and the results of the hypothetical analysis are
shown in Table 1.225. To simplify the analysis, partial lots 2,000 lb ton × 5% asphalt × 0.5% ASA × $1.50 lb of ASA
were excluded. = $0.75 ton of mix (6)
Project 3 achieved the highest possible pay factor for den-
sity on all lots, so there was no opportunity for a financial Hydrated lime is also required as an antistripping agent by
benefit for achieving higher density by using WMA on that some state DOTs. Although agencies that require hydrated
project. Project 4 also had a high average pay factor for den- lime seem less likely to allow it to be eliminated when a WMA

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

187  

Table 1.226. Summary of estimated costs and potential savings

for WMA technologies.

Water-Injection
WMA Type Additive
Foaming
Typical technology cost ($/ton) ($0.08) ($2.50)
Assumed temperature reduction 25°F 50°F
Typical energy savings ($/ton)
RFO $0.39 $0.79
Natural gas $0.16 $0.31
Typical incentive/disincentive spec. savings ($/ton)
Density improvement 0 to $1.13 0 to $1.13
Smoothness ? ?
Possible savings from eliminated antistripping agent
Liquid ASA 0 0 to $0.75*
Hydrated lime 0 0 to $1.50*
* Applicable only to WMA additives with antistripping capabilities

additive with antistripping capabilities is used, the estimated even if the energy savings is about half of what has been esti-
savings for that case is shown in equation (7): mated from controlled experiments in NCHRP Project 9-47A.
It is important to note that the estimated unit cost for these
1% hydrated lime ton of mix × $150 ton for hydrated lime systems is based on the system operating for all asphalt mix pro-
= $1.50 ton of mix (7 ) duction over the depreciation period. For the WMA additive
technologies, there must be additional savings beyond energy
A summary of the estimated costs and potential economic reduction for the technology to at least break even. It is easy to
benefits associated with the use of WMA is provided in see that in a permissive specification environment that allows
Table 1.226. For water-injection foaming systems for WMA, contractors to choose the WMA technology, an investment that
the cost of the technology can be offset by energy savings alone, has a more certain financial benefit will typically be selected.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

188

CHAPTER 7

Findings

Production and Construction between WMA and HMA ranged from essentially no dif-
of WMA ference to as much as 0.5%. Such differences are likely
attributed to interactions of mix production temperature,
1. Lower mix production temperatures associated with warm storage time, aggregate characteristics, and binder prop-
mix asphalt (WMA) did not cause plant issues or construc- erties. After about 1 year, the differences in absorption
tion problems for any of the project sites evaluated in this between WMA and HMA were not statistically significant.
study. Even with WMA mix temperatures that averaged 5. In almost all cases, using the same roller patterns resulted
48°F (27°C) lower than corresponding hot mix asphalt in statistically equivalent as-constructed densities for WMA
(HMA) mixes, there were no problems with the burner, mixes compared to the corresponding HMA mixes, even
baghouse, motor amperage, or mix storage. Excellent coat- at much lower temperatures for WMA. In only one of the
ing was achieved with all WMA technologies at the lower 15 WMA to HMA comparisons was an as-constructed den-
mix production temperatures. sity of the WMA section statistically higher than that of its
2. In most cases, moisture contents of the WMA mixes were corresponding HMA.
slightly higher than those in the corresponding HMA, but 6. No difference was observed between the opening times to
the differences were small and are believed to be inconse- traffic of WMA and HMA after rolling. This dispels the
quential. WMA that used water foaming process had similar concern that WMA would need to cool for a longer period
moisture contents to mixes using other WMA technologies. of time before opening to traffic.
Measured moisture contents for nearly all mixes were at or
below the common specification limit of 0.5% moisture in
asphalt mixes. Energy and Emissions
3. The mix designs were not altered for any of the WMA trial 1. Producing asphalt mixtures at lower temperatures saves
projects. Laboratory Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) energy. The data collected as part of this study show that
temperatures were set to be equal to the mat temperature at decreasing the mix production temperature by an average
the start of rolling for all HMA and WMA mixes. In most of 48°F (27°C) resulted in an average burner fuel savings
cases, the SGC air void contents of the WMA mixes differed of 22%. The energy savings associated with WMA was
from the corresponding HMA mixes by more than 0.5%, found to be reasonably approximated by the following
but there were a similar number of cases where the WMA relationship:
laboratory air void contents were higher and lower than the
corresponding HMA. In short, other differences between Energy savings ( Btu ) = 1100 BTU ∆° F ton
WMA and HMA pairs, such as differences in asphalt con-
tents and gradations, confounded the effects of mix tem- 2. Reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions measured
perature and WMA technology on laboratory-compacted at asphalt plant stacks were directly proportional to reduc-
air void contents. tions in fuel usage. These data were consistent with results
4. There is evidence that WMA mixes had slightly less asphalt reported in other studies. However, other emissions, such
absorption (0.12%, on average) than corresponding HMA as carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic com-
for mixes sampled after discharge from the plant. For the pounds (VOC) depended more on fuel type and burner
projects in this study, differences in asphalt absorption tuning than the use of WMA.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

189  

3. Worker exposures to respirable fumes during paving with Engineering Properties of WMA
WMA were significantly reduced. Measurements of total
organic matter (TOM) in breathing zones of paving crews 1. Testing of recovered binders from mixes obtained dur-
were obtained on two projects with six different WMA ing construction generally showed that the WMA binders
technologies and two HMA control sections. With one had aged slightly less than the corresponding HMA bind-
exception, the WMA mixtures resulted in at least a 33% ers. The average difference in the high critical temperatures
reduction in TOM. The amount of emissions depends on between HMA and WMA binders recovered from plant-
characteristics of the asphalt binder and paving tempera- produced mixes was 2.3°C, and the average difference for
tures. All of the polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) the low critical temperatures was 1.3°C. Such small dif-
from asphalt fumes reviewed by the International Agency ferences would not be expected to significantly impact
for Research on Cancer (IARC) were below detectable limits pavement performance.
on both projects. 2. Testing of recovered binders from cores taken after approx­
imately 1 to 2 years of service generally indicate that the
true grades of HMA and WMA were not substantially dif-
Short-Term WMA Field Performance ferent. These test results also indicate that very little or no
1. WMA sections have performed the same as corresponding stiffening had occurred for the binders from the time of
HMA sections with regard to rutting. All of the field proj- construction. The PAV conditioning of the recovered bind-
ects have less than 5 mm of rutting after 2 years of traffic. ers as part of the performance grading process may mask
Evaluations of WMA at several accelerated pavement test- the effects of the plant aging and short-term field aging.
ing facilities have also demonstrated that WMA can hold 3. Lower mixing temperatures for WMA can affect the
up to heavy loading. amount of binder absorbed in the pores of the aggregate
2. None of the field projects has had any evidence of moisture for mixes sampled immediately following production. Of
damage. Cores taken from the projects after 1 to 2 years of the 13 WMA to HMA comparisons, the calculated asphalt
traffic were inspected for visual evidence of stripping. Even absorption values were within 0.1% for eight of the com-
the experiment using saturated pavement sections tested parisons. The other five cases had slightly less absorp-
under a Heavy Vehicle Simulator by the University of Cali- tion for the WMA compared to its companion HMA. The
fornia, Davis, did not exhibit moisture damage. amount of absorption in any mix will be affected by tem-
3. The use of WMA did not appear to effect density changes perature, storage time, and aggregate properties. Tests on
under traffic compared to HMA. This observation was mix samples from cores after 1 to 2 years of service gener-
confounded by the fact that many of the WMA test sec- ally indicate that asphalt absorption values are similar for
tions were constructed in different lanes from the HMA WMA and HMA pavements.
section. 4. Statistical analyses indicate that the dynamic moduli of
4. Very little cracking of any type was observed in the field test WMA mixtures are lower than those of corresponding
sections monitored in this study. Transverse cracking was HMA mixtures in most cases. Eleven of the 13 WMA to
the most common type of cracking. Eight of the 14 proj- HMA mix comparisons were found to have a lower E*
ects had minor amounts of transverse cracking, but many for the WMA for at least one temperature and frequency
of these cracks were likely reflection cracks. Only two of used in the standard dynamic modulus test. On average,
the newer projects had any transverse cracking after about the E* of WMA mixes were about 12% lower than those
2 years. Of the projects with transverse cracking, the WMA of the corresponding HMA, but the differences ranged
and HMA sections generally had similar amounts. Four of from about 5% stiffer to 40% less stiff.
the 14 projects had minor non-wheelpath cracking, and 5. Flow number test results for plant-produced WMA mixes
only three projects had low-severity longitudinal wheel- were statistically lower than corresponding HMA mixes
path cracking. In most cases, WMA and HMA sections on in more than 2/3 of the comparisons. The flow number
these projects had similar amounts of cracking. In the few criteria recommended in NCHRP Report 673 for HMA
cases where one section had more cracking than its project and NCHRP Report 691 for WMA seem appropriate for
companion(s), the section with more cracking also had a evaluating plant-produced mixes.
lower asphalt content. 6. Indirect tensile strengths determined on cores obtained
5. All of the test sections had similar amounts of surface tex- immediately after construction were not statistically dif-
ture and texture change after 2 or more years of traffic. ferent in 12 of the 14 WMA to HMA comparisons from
Surface texture measurements were conducted with the the “new” projects. In the majority of cases, the tensile
sand patch test as an indicator of raveling. None of the test strengths of WMA and HMA cores from the same project
sections had significant amounts of raveling. remained statistically equivalent through at least 2 years.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

190

These tensile strength tests were conducted on the same (SIP) in a number of studies. Ten of the 34 mixes evalu-
cores used to determine and compare in-place densities. ated in this study failed that criterion, including nine of
7. Indirect tensile strengths determined on SGC-molded the 22 WMA mixes. These results indicate that the cur-
specimens using hot compacted samples from plant mix rent Hamburg test method or the 5,000-cycle limit for
were statistically different for WMA and corresponding SIP is too severe for evaluating WMA.
HMA mixes. In a little more than half of the comparisons, 11. The uniaxial fatigue test, also called the simplified visco-
tensile strengths were statistically lower for WMA com- elastic continuum damage (S-VECD) test, was conducted
pared to HMA. On the other hand, 38% of the laboratory- using the asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT) on
molded WMA mixtures had higher tensile strengths 11 plant-produced mixes in the study. Although the labo-
compared to the companion HMA mixes. All of these ratory results indicate some differences in fatigue behavior
laboratory-molded specimens had air void contents in among the mixes, without validation of the procedure in
the range of 7±0.5%. The contrast between the compari- a well-controlled field experiment, drawing conclusions
sons of tensile strengths for cores and laboratory-molded about the laboratory results is not appropriate.
specimens indicates that the method of compaction 12. The indirect tensile creep compliance and strength test was
influences the properties of asphalt mixture specimens. conducted on 13 plant-produced mixes from the study
8. The tensile strength ratio (TSR) test was conducted in to evaluate their thermal cracking potential. Overall, the
accordance with AASHTO T 283 on all of the plant- laboratory test results indicate that WMA mixtures would
produced mixtures from existing and new projects evalu- show a small improvement in low-temperature crack-
ated in this study. Eighty-two percent of the mixes passed ing compared to their control HMA mixtures. However,
the standard 0.8 minimum TSR criterion. The six mixes there was not enough observed thermal cracking in the
that failed the criterion included four WMA and two actual pavements with these mixtures at the time of the
HMA mixes. Only two mixes would have failed a mini- last project inspections to validate the laboratory results.
mum TSR limit of 0.75. Since all the field projects have
performed well with no evidence of moisture damage,
Predicted Performance
consideration should be given to adjusting the TSR cri-
terion on plant mix samples to 0.75 to reduce the num- 1. The Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
ber of false negatives with the test. (MEPDG) predicted slightly more rutting for the WMA
9. Hamburg wheel tracking tests were used to assess the sections compared to the HMA sections, on the order of
rutting potential of the plant-produced mixtures as well 0.2 mm. This predicted difference was consistent through
as their resistance to moisture damage. As for the rutting 20-years of service. Statistically, the predicted differences
comparisons, 59% of the WMA mixes had statistically were not significant. Further, comparisons with observed
equivalent Hamburg rut depths to their corresponding field performance over 1 to 2 years suggest the MEPDG
HMA mixes, and the other 41% of the WMA mixes had over-prediction of rutting was greater for WMA as com-
greater Hamburg rut depths than their companion HMA pared to HMA.
mixes. Since no nationally accepted criteria for Hamburg 2. Short-term observed field and long-term predicted rut-
rutting have been established, results were evaluated using ting performance indicate there is a discrepancy between
suggested criteria from the NCAT Test Track based on laboratory and field rutting performance for WMA. Con-
limited data with HMA mixtures. Four of the WMA mix- versely, HMA mixes, as measured by laboratory rutting
tures did not meet the suggested criteria for moderate tests, may be more rut-resistant than they need to be to
trafficked pavements. However, as noted in the conclu- provide adequate field performance.
sions on short-term field performance, all of the WMA 3. The MEPDG performance predictions of top-down, longi-
and HMA pavements have performed very well, indicat- tudinal cracking after both 12 and 20 years of service were
ing that either the Hamburg rut depth criteria should be similar for both WMA and HMA. Numerically, slightly
adjusted for WMA or conditioning of WMA mixtures more cracking was predicted for the HMA compared to
should be changed to yield results consistent with field the WMA sections; statistically they were not different.
performance. 4. Using Level 1, low-temperature indirect tension (IDT)
10. The Hamburg wheel tracking test also is used by a grow- inputs, the MEPDG predicted less low-temperature crack-
ing number of state highway agencies to assess stripping ing with time for the WMA sections compared to the HMA
potential. The Hamburg test currently lacks a precision sections. The differences are not statistically significant.
statement, and there is no consensus regarding criteria 5. Overall, the MEPDG predicted similar long-term perfor-
for evaluating moisture damage. NCAT has used a mini- mance for WMA and HMA mixes using the engineering
mum of 5,000 cycles for the stripping inflection point properties measured from the field-produced mixes.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

191  

Mix Design Verification confirmed using the proposed WMA technology and
temperatures.
1. For laboratory-produced mixes aged for 2 hours at the 2. Based on the field and predicted performance of WMA,
observed field compaction temperature, theoretical maxi- flow number testing should only be required for pave-
mum gravity and calculated binder absorption were gener- ments with predicted traffic over 30 million ESALs.
ally lower than for field-produced mixes. In all cases, the
3. The Appendix to AASHTO R 35 should be modified as
binder absorptions of laboratory-produced WMA were less
described in this report.
than the binder absorptions of laboratory-produced HMA.
4. TSR criteria for plant-produced HMA and WMA should
2. The methods described in the Appendix to AASHTO R 35
be decreased to 0.75 to reduce the number of false nega-
were followed to produce the laboratory WMA. The opti-
tives (failing results but good performance).
mum asphalt contents were verified for 15 mixes (10 WMA
5. If the Hamburg test is used in the future to evaluate WMA
and 5 HMA). In 6 of 10 cases, the optimum asphalt content
mixes, two options may be considered to reduce the num-
for the WMA was less than for the HMA. Overall, the opti-
ber of rejected mixes that would likely provide good field
mum asphalt contents for the WMA mixes averaged 0.27%
performance. One option, used by the Texas Department
less than the HMA.
of Transportation (DOT), is to extend the conditioning
3. A bucket mixer was used to produce the WMA mixes.
of WMA mixtures from 2 hours to 4 hours at 275°F (32).
After 90 seconds of mixing at optimum asphalt content,
Another option is to consider adjusting the rut depth criteria
all 10 of the WMA mixes exceeded the 95% coating speci-
similar to what has been done for the flow number criteria.
fied in the Appendix to AASHTO R 35. Six of 10 mixes
equaled or exceeded the observed field coating.
4. Six of 10 WMA mixes failed the compactability ratio of Production
1.25 recommended in the Appendix to AASHTO R 35.
1. Best practices should be used to minimize stockpile mois-
Four of six mixes that failed compactability had low in-
ture contents in order to maximize fuel savings.
place density in the field; however, the asphalt contents
2. Best practices should be used to maintain adequate bag-
were the laboratory-verified optimum and not that mea-
house temperatures in order to prevent condensation.
sured in the field.
3. Dryer burners should be tuned to maximize performance
5. Three of 10 TSR tests of laboratory-produced WMA
and minimize fuel usage and emissions. Plant manufac-
were less than 0.8. The field-mixed, plant-compacted TSR
turers should consider designs that will allow efficiency
on one of these mixes also failed. As noted previously, no
over a range of firing rates.
moisture damage was observed in the field after 1 to 5 years
4. Handwork may require higher WMA production
of service.
temperatures.
6. Flow number tests were conducted on laboratory-produced
mix at the optimum asphalt content determined from the
mix verifications. Nine of 10 mixes met the Appendix to Other Research
AASHTO R 35 flow number criteria. The mix that failed
NCHRP Report 763: Evaluation of the Moisture Susceptibil-
had 0.0 mm rutting after 2 years and therefore appears to
ity of WMA Technologies presents the final report of another
be a false negative.
significant NCHRP study that has been recently completed.
Readers are advised to review the findings of that report.
Suggestions for Modifying Practice Another major WMA-related project, NCHRP Project 9-49A,
“Performance of WMA Technologies: Stage II—Long-Term
Mix Design
Field Performance,” has issued an interim report that may
1. The drop-in approach for WMA mix designs has worked be obtained on request from NCHRP. The long-term field
well and avoids the potential of designing mixes with performance monitoring aspect of that project continues
lower asphalt contents when using WMA. Therefore, mix through 2015; the final report is anticipated to be completed
designs should be conducted without the WMA tech- in 2016. Also, the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
nology to determine the optimum asphalt content for program has initiated a new WMA experiment that will
the mix. Coating, compactability, and TSR should be involve building and monitoring new test sections.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

192

References

1. Hansen, K. R, and A. Copeland. Annual Asphalt Pavement Indus- 12. Miller, J., and W. Bellinger. Distress Identification Manual for the
try Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm Mix Asphalt Usage: Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. Publication FHWA-
2009–2012, IS-138. National Asphalt Pavement Association, RD-03-031. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.
Lanham, MD, 2013. 13. Bruinsma, J. E., J. M. Vandenbossche, K. Chatti, and K. D. Smith.
2. Taylor, M. A., and N. P. Khosla. Stripping of Asphalt Pavements: Using Falling Weight Deflectometer Data with Mechanistic-Empirical
State of the Art. Transportation Research Record 911, TRB, National Design and Analysis, Volume 2: Case Study Reports. Federal Highway
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 150–158. Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
3. WMA TWG. “Documenting Emissions and Energy Reductions of 14. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Con-
WMA and Conventional HMA,” August 2006. Accessed from www. servation Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed from [Link]
[Link]. [Link]/App/[Link]. Accessed various
4. West, R., D. Timm, R. Willis, B. Powell, N. Tran, D. Watson, M. dates in 2012 and 2013.
Sakhaeifar, R. Brown, M. Robbins, A. Vargas-Nordcbeck, F. Leiva- 15. Pierce, L. M., J. E. Bruinsma, K. D. Smith, M. J. Wade, K. Chatti, and
Villacorta, X. Long, and J. Nelson. Phase IV NCAT Test Track J. M. Vandenbossche. Using Falling Weight Deflectometer Data with
Findings. NCAT Report No. 12-10, National Center for Asphalt Mechanical-Empirical Design and Analysis, Volume 3: Guidelines for
Technology, Auburn University, 2012. Deflection Testing, Analysis, and Interpretation. Federal Highway
5. Prowell, B. D., G. C. Hurley, and E. Crews. Field Performance of Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Warm Mix Asphalt at the NCAT Test Track. Transportation Research 16. Hurley, G. C., and B. D. Prowell. Evaluation of Evotherm for Use
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1998, Trans- in Warm Mix Asphalt. NCAT Report 06-02, National Center for
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, 2006.
D.C., 2007, pp. 96–102. 17. Kvasnak, A. N., J. Moore, A. Taylor, B. Prowell. Preliminary Evalua-
6. Priest, A. L. and D. H. Timm. Methodology and Calibration of tion of Warm Mix Asphalt Field Demonstration: Franklin, Tennes-
Fatigue Transfer Functions for Mechanistic-Empirical Flexible see. NCAT Report 10-01, National Center for Asphalt Technology,
Pavement Design. NCAT Report No. 06-03, National Center for Auburn University, 2010.
Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, 2006. 18. Hou, T., B. S. Underwood, and Y. R. Kim. Fatigue Performance Pre-
7. Willis, J. R. and D. H. Timm. Field-Based Strain Thresholds for diction of North Carolina Mixtures Using the Simplified Viscoelas-
Flexible Perpetual Pavement Design. NCAT Report No. 09-09, tic Continuum Damage Model. Journal of Association of Asphalt
National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, 2009. Paving Technologists, 2010.
8. Jones, D., R. Wu, B. Tsai, and J. T. Harvey. Warm Mix Asphalt 19. Hurley, G. C., B. D. Prowell, and A. N. Kvasnak. Michigan Field Trial
Study: First-Level Analysis of Phase 2 HVS and Laboratory Testing of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies: Construction Summary. NCAT
and Phase 1 and Phase 2 Forensic Assessments. Research Report Report 09-10, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn
UCPRC-RR-2009-02, University of California Pavement Research University, 2009.
Center, UC Davis, UC Berkley, July 2009. 20. Mohseni, A. LTPPBind Version 3.1, Pavement Systems LLC, Devel-
9. Jones, D., R. Wu, B. Tsai, and J. T. Harvey. Warm Mix Asphalt Study: oped for the Federal Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank
Test Track Construction and First-Level Analysis of Phase 3a HVS an Highway Research Center, September 2005.
Laboratory Testing (Rubberized Asphalt, Mix Design #1). Research 21. Bonaquist, R. NCHRP Report 691: Mix Design Practices for Warm
Report: UCPRC-RR-2011-02, University of California Pavement Mix Asphalt, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
Research Center, UC Davis, UC Berkley, July 2011. emies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
10. Prowell, B. D., G. C. Hurley, and B. Frank. Warm Mix Asphalt: Best 22. Leiva-Villacorta, F., and R. West. Relationships Between Laboratory
Practices; Quality Improvement Publication 125, 3rd ed., National Measured Characteristics of HMA and Field Compactability. Jour-
Asphalt Pavement Association, 2012. nal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 77, 2008.
11. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 23. Hurley, G. C., B. D. Prowell, and A. N. Kvasnak. Missouri Field Trial
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Asso- of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies: Construction Summary. NCAT
ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, Report 10-02, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn
D.C., 1993. University, 2010.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

193  

24. Aschenbrener, T., B. Schiebel, and R. West. Three-Year Evaluation of 30. Timm, D., M. Robbins, R. Willis, N. Tran, and A. Taylor. Field and
the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Warm Mix Asphalt Laboratory Study of High Polymer Mixtures at the NCAT Test
Experimental Feature on I-70 in Silverthorne, Colorado. NCAT Track. NCAT Report 13-03, National Center for Asphalt Technol-
Report 11-02, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn Uni- ogy, Auburn University, 2013.
versity, 2011. 31. Willis, J. R., R. West, J. Nelson, A. Taylor, and K. Leatherman. Com-
25. Russell, M., J. Uhlmeyer, J. Weston, J. Roseburg, T. Moomaw, J. bining Warm MixAsphalt Technologies with Mixtures Contain-
DeVol. Evaluation of Warm Mix Asphalt, WA-RD 723.1. Washing- ing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. Presented at 2nd International
ton State Department of Transportation Research Report 08-01, Warm Mix Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, October 2011.
April 2009. 32. Estakhri, C. Laboratory and Field Performance Measurements to
26. Whitehouse, D., and G. R. Hilsinger. Preliminary Pavement Design Support the Implementation of Warm Mix Asphalt in Texas. Texas
Report Transmittal; XL-Pend 501202Z SR-12, “Walla Walla to Transportation Institute Report 5-5597-01-1, July 2012.
Wallula Planning Study,” MPs 307.30 to 335.90, July 28, 2003. 33. Bennert, T. “Evaluation of Warm Asphalt Technology—Feasibility
27. Young, T. J. “Saving Money Through Effective Plant Maintenance,” Study.” New Jersey Department of Transportation Project 2008-01,
Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, Vol. 12, No. 6, November/December Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT),
2007, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, pp. Rutgers University, 2008.
12–15. 34. The Fundamentals of the Operation and Maintenance of the
28. Azari, H. NCHRP Research Results Digest 351: Precision Statements Exhaust Gas System in a HMA Facility. IS-52, National Asphalt
for AASHTO Standard Methods of Test T 148, T 265, T 267, and Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, 1987.
T 283, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 35. Recycler’s World. [Link]
Washington, D.C., 2011. html. Accessed February 28, 2014.
29. Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC. NCHRP Report 673: A Man- 36. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Henry Hub Natural
ual for Design of Hot Mix Asphalt with Commentary, Transportation Gas Spot Price. [Link]
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011. Accessed February 28, 2014.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

194

APPENDIX

Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing

Florida The Advera section was not tested as part of this project. The
core data collected at the 1-year revisit were averaged to deter-
The falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data were provided mine a pavement height of the Sasobit section. The surface
by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). The data layer height was removed from the core height because the
were collected on January 17, 2005 by Applied Research Associ- FWD data were collected before the overlay. The inputs for
ates, Inc. The testing was conducted on SR 30 from milepost this data can be found in Table 1.A.1. The Sasobit section is
0 to 7.412. The testing was done on the eastbound lane. The clearly marked in Figure 1.A.2. The Mr changes significantly
highway was overlaid on October 6, 2010 with both hot-mix in the Sasobit section.
asphalt (HMA) and warm-mix asphalt (WMA). The WMA
was a foaming technology by Terex Corporation. The WMA
was paved in the eastbound lane, and the HMA was paved in Indiana
the parallel westbound lane. The FWD data provided were The FWD data were collected by the National Center for
only for the eastbound lane, so the analysis was performed Asphalt Technology (NCAT) on September 13, 2010. The test-
only on the eastbound (WMA) section. The analysis was com- ing was completed on the outside lanes prior to overlaying the
pleted using ModTag software developed by the Virginia DOT. pavement. According to the field notes, the inside lanes for both
According to global positioning satellite (GPS) readings taken the north and southbound lanes were not tested due to dan-
at construction, the WMA section started at milepost 5.3 and gerous traffic conditions. It was assumed that the inside lane
ended at the Aucilla River. Cores were taken at both the 1-year would be equivalent to the outside lane. The HMA was
and 2-year revisits. The surface lift was not considered in the placed in the outside southbound lanes, while one of the
analysis because it had yet to be placed when the FWD data were WMA technologies, Gencor foam, was placed over the north-
obtained. The cores heights, minus the surface lift, were aver- bound outside lane. Since the FWD data were collected prior
aged and that value was used as an input in ModTag. Inputs for to the overlay, the surface lift height was removed from the
ModTag are summarized at the top of Table 1.A.1. The struc- overall core thickness. There were no available mileposts so the
tural number effective (SNeff ) of the pavement and the resilient test locations were recorded every 500 feet from a known loca-
modulus of the subgrade (Mr) are displayed in Figure 1.A.1. The tion. The southbound section began just north of the intersec-
Mr is labeled as Design Mr because it has been corrected by a tion of Main Street and Calumet Avenue, while the northbound
factor of 0.33, according to the AASHTO standards. section began at the intersection of 45th Avenue and Calumet
Avenue. The FWD analysis can be found in Figure 1.A.3 and
Figure 1.A.4. The average SNeff are similar for the north- and
Arizona
southbound lanes, but the Mr is higher for the northbound lane.
The FWD data were provided by Arizona DOT. The data
were collected on May 26, 2010. The data were collected on
Michigan
SR 84 E between milepost 166.4 and 172.0. The overlay for
the eastbound lane was a section from milepost 169.3 to 172.0. The FWD data were collected by NCAT on July 21, 2010.
This section was paved with a WMA containing Sasobit®. This The HMA and the warm mix technology Advera were placed
project also had an HMA and Advera® section; however they on the surface prior to testing. The Evotherm® section was
were both paved parallel to the Sasobit, in the westbound lane. tested on the intermediate layer. The surface lift height was

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

195  

Table 1.A.1. ModTag inputs for NCHRP Project 9-47A removed from the core height for the Evotherm section;
FWD analyses. however, the HMA and Advera sections used full-depth core
data. The construction start point was at the intersection of
Core Height Unbound Layer
State Technology CR-513 and US-2. The test sections were recorded in feet but
(in.) (in.)
Florida Terex foam 4.6* 192.4 were converted into miles. This allowed the northbound and
HMA 4.2 295.8 southbound sections to be compared. The construction start
Michigan Advera 3.9 296.1 point begins at 0.1 miles. The analysis of the three sections
Evotherm 2.3* 297.7 can be found in Figure 1.A.5, Figure 1.A.6, and Figure 1.A.7.
HMA 2.5 282.5 The SNeff are similar for the HMA and Advera sections, which
Astec PER 2.8 291.2 included the surface layer.
New York**
Cecabase 3.0 282.0
SonneWarmix 2.8 246.2
HMA 2.6 256.4
New York
Indiana
Gencor foam 4.8 295.2 The FWD data were collected by NCAT on October 19
Montana HMA 6.9*** 293.1 and 20, 2010. The testing was conducted on both the north
Arizona Sasobit 4.4* 295.5
and southbound lane of Little Neck Parkway. One full-depth
* Surface lift height removed core was taken at the end of construction and it was deter-
** 6" of existing concrete pavement under asphalt mined that a 6-inch concrete layer existed under the asphalt
***Pavement thickness from GPR data overlay. The SonneWarmix™ and BituTech PER were con-
structed in the northbound lane, and the Cecabase and the
HMA were constructed in the southbound lane. The test
locations were measured in feet from a recorded location.

Florida FWD Analysis for WMA

30000 1.60

1.40
25000
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

1.20

20000
1.00

SNeff
15000 0.80

0.60
10000

0.40

5000
0.20

0 0.00

Staon (Mile Marker)

Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.1. Florida FWD analyses for resilient modulus and structural number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

196

Arizona FWD Analysis

25000 1.200

1.000
20000
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

0.800

15000

SNeff
0.600

10000

0.400

5000
0.200

Sasobit

0 0.000

Staon (Mile Marker)

Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.2. Arizona FWD analysis for resilient modulus and structural number.

Indiana SB FWD Analysis (HMA)

12000 6.00

10000 5.00
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

8000 4.00
SNeff

6000 3.00

4000 2.00

2000 1.00

0 0.00

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.3. Indiana HMA resilient modulus and structural number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

197  

Indiana NB FWD Analysis (Foam)

16000 7.00

14000 6.00
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

12000
5.00

10000
4.00

SNeff
8000
3.00
6000

2.00
4000

2000 1.00

0 0.00

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.4. Indiana Gencor foam resilient modulus and structural number.

Michigan HMA Surface SB

12000 1.80

1.60
10000
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

1.40

8000 1.20

1.00

SNeff
6000
0.80

4000 0.60

0.40
2000
0.20

0 0.00

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.5. Michigan HMA resilient modulus and structural number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

198

Michigan Advera Surface NB

9000 1.80

8000 1.60
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

7000 1.40

6000 1.20

5000 1.00

SNeff
4000 0.80

3000 0.60

2000 0.40

1000 0.20

0 0.00
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.6. Michigan Advera resilient modulus and structural number.

Michigan Evotherm Intermediate NB

9000 1.16

8000 1.14
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

1.12
7000
1.10
6000
1.08
5000 1.06

4000 1.04 SNeff

1.02
3000
1.00
2000
0.98
1000 0.96

0 0.94

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.7. Michigan Evotherm leveling resilient modulus and structural number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

199  

New York HMA SB

12000 5.00

Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

4.50
10000
4.00

3.50
8000
3.00

SNeff
6000 2.50

2.00
4000
1.50

1.00
2000
0.50

0 0.00

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.8. New York HMA resilient modulus and structural number.

There were no mileposts on this section of roadway. The Montana

SonneWarmix section started from the intersection of
87th Drive and Little Neck Parkway, while the BituTech PER The FWD data were provided by Montana DOT. The
section started at the intersection of Hillside Avenue and Little data were collected on June 5, 2013. The data were collected
Neck Parkway. In the southbound lane the Cecabase section on County Road 322 from the intersection of Route 7 to a
started at the intersection Union Turnpike and Little Neck point 2.6 miles east of Route 7. Both the HMA and Evo-
Parkway, while the HMA section started at the intersection therm WMA were placed in the eastbound lane. The WMA
of Hillside Avenue and Little Neck Parkway. The core heights mix started at a point 2.6 miles from the intersection with
from the 1-year and 2-year visits were averaged and used as Route 7. This was apparently not tested, so a comparison
inputs in ModTag. The results for the north and southbound between the HMA and WMA could not be made. The HMA
lanes can be found in Figure 1.A.8, Figure 1.A.9, Figure 1.A.10, SNeff and Mr are shown in Figure 1.A.12. HMA was also placed
and Figure 1.A.11. The SNeff is higher for the BituTech PER; in the westbound lane. Core data were supplemented with
lower for the SonneWarmix. The average Mr was also higher ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing to determine the
for the BituTech PER. pavement thickness.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

200

New York Cecabase SB

16000 6.00

14000
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

5.00
12000
4.00
10000

SNeff
8000 3.00

6000
2.00
4000
1.00
2000

0 0.00

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.9. New York Cecabase resilient modulus and structural number.

New York Sonnewarm NB

20000 4.50

18000 4.00
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

16000 3.50
14000
3.00
12000
2.50
SNeff
10000
2.00
8000
1.50
6000

4000 1.00

2000 0.50

0 0.00

Staon
Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff Sneff Average

Figure 1.A.10. New York SonneWarmix resilient modulus and structural number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

201  

New York Astec PER NB

14000 7.00

12000 6.00
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

10000 5.00

8000 4.00

SNeff
6000 3.00

4000 2.00

2000 1.00

0 0.00

Staon

Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff Sneff Average

Figure 1.A.11. New York BituTech PER resilient modulus and structural number.

Montana FWD Analysis for HMA

6000 1.80

5500 1.60

1.40
5000
Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (psi)

1.20
4500

1.00

SNeff
4000
0.80

3500
0.60

3000
0.40

2500 0.20

2000 0.00

Staon (Mile Marker)

Design Mr Design Mr Average SNeff SNeff Average

Figure 1.A.12. Montana HMA resilient modulus and structural number.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

PA RT 2

Effects of WMA on Plant

Energy and Emissions
and Worker Exposures
to Respirable Fumes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

205  

CHAPTER 1

Background and Problem Statement

Interest in the use of warm mix asphalt (WMA) has grown mix at a lower temperature is not the only factor that should
faster than any other new asphalt technology of the past sev- be considered when selecting production temperatures. Flow
eral decades. WMA technologies allow the complete coating of through the plant and associated motor amperage draws also
aggregates, placement, and compaction at lower temperatures need to be considered when selecting mixing temperatures.
than conventional hot mix asphalt (HMA). Properly tuned burners will affect fuel combustion and the
Although the reduction in temperature varies by technol- resulting emissions at lower burner settings.
ogy, WMA is generally produced at temperatures ranging The first three objectives of NCHRP Project 09-47A
from 25°F lower than HMA to the approximate boiling point are addressed in Part 1 of NCHRP Report 779. The fourth
of water (212°F). Simply put, these technologies are work- objective—to document the relative energy usage, emissions,
ability and compaction aids. and fume exposure for WMA compared to conventional
Benefits of WMA may include reduced emissions, reduced HMA—is addressed in Part 2.
fuel usage, reduced binder oxidation, and paving benefits such
as the potential for increased densities, cool-weather paving,
Experimental Plan
and longer haul distances. These purported benefits need to
be better documented. Although most aspects of designing To collect the necessary data to satisfy Objective 4, the
and constructing WMA are similar to HMA, lower produc- research team worked with several state highway agencies
tion temperatures and binder modifications associated with and contractors to identify appropriate field projects. The
some WMA technologies could result in differences in pave- desire was to obtain plant energy, plant emissions, and field
ment performance relative to HMA. Regardless of the benefits respirable fume data from several projects that included
of WMA, if WMA pavements do not perform as well as HMA, differences in plant configurations, environmental condi-
the benefits are likely negated. tions, and WMA technologies. Three projects that included
Differences in material properties of WMA compared to multiple WMA technologies and control HMA mixes were
HMA may indicate potential problems with field perfor- selected to allow for comparisons of the most important
mance of WMA pavement. Reduced oxidation of the binder energy and emissions measurements without confounding
may improve the cracking resistance of a pavement but may of other factors. The three multiple WMA technology sites
reduce its moisture and rutting resistance. Reduced oxida- were located in Rapid River, Michigan, Munster, Indiana,
tion and better compactability of WMA may allow for higher and New York, New York. The Indiana and New York proj-
percentages of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP); however, ects were also used to collect data on the breathing-zone
the lower mixing temperatures may not facilitate the initial exposure to asphalt fumes for the paving crews. Limited
extent of blending of the aged and virgin binder typically energy usage audits were also conducted at three other
seen with HMA. WMA projects where a corresponding HMA control mix
Additional guidance for producing and constructing WMA was also produced. For each project, the WMA mixes were
is needed. Numerous laboratory studies have attempted to produced with the same mix design as the corresponding
demonstrate the extent to which mixing and compaction HMA. Table 2.1 shows basic information for the projects
temperatures can be reduced. However, densification of the used in this part of the study.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

206

Table 2.1. Project information summary.

Date Project Location Plant Site and Description Mixes

July 19–21, 2010 County Road 513, Escanaba, Michigan, HMA, Advera,
Rapid River, Michigan uninsulated parallel-flow drum Evotherm 3G
Sept. 14–15, 2010 Calumet Avenue, Griffith, Indiana, HMA, Gencor Foam,
Munster, Indiana insulated counter-flow dryer Evotherm 3G,
Heritage Wax
Oct. 19–22, 2010 Little Neck Parkway, New York City, New York, HMA, Cecabase RT,
New York City, batch plant with mini drum SonneWarmix,
New York uninsulated dryer BituTech PER
April 19–20, 2010 US-12 near Walla Walla Walla, Washington, HMA, Maxam Foam
Walla, Washington portable plant, uninsulated
parallel-flow drum
June 21–22, 2010 I-66 eastbound, near Centreville, Virginia, HMA, Astec Foam
Centreville, Virginia double barrel, counter-flow
Aug. 11–12, 2010 Montana Route 322, Baker, Montana, HMA, Evotherm
south of Baker, Montana partially insulated DAT
parallel-flow drum

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

207  

CHAPTER 2

Energy Usage

Background on Energy Used and during cleanout. The stack test data indicate drying
to Produce HMA and WMA and h ­ eating fuel usage for hot mix asphalt (HMA) aver-
age 0.233 MMBtu/ton (million British thermal units).
Asphalt mixtures are produced by drying aggregate particles By comparison, fuel usage based on year-end production
and mixing the dry aggregate with an asphalt binder at a tem- totals averages 0.249 MMBtu/ton, indicating 6.9% waste
perature sufficient to (1) coat the aggregates and (2) allow the compared to steady-state production. This inherent differ-
mixture to be properly compacted after silo storage, haul, and ence between energy use during steady-state operation and
placement. Aggregates start at ambient temperature with mois- historical averages demonstrates that comparisons between
ture contents that vary depending on how they are produced HMA and warm mix asphalt (WMA) must be based on
and stored, and on the local weather conditions. The aggregate identical time intervals to be meaningful.
is heated in the dryer drum for a batch plant or the beginning Reduced fuel consumption saves natural resources and
portion of the drum for a drum plant. The fine aggregate tends cost. Theoretical calculations indicate that a temperature
to be heated by convection while showering through the hot reduction of 50°F (28°C) should result in a fuel savings
exhaust gases. The coarse aggregate is primarily heated by of 11% (Cevarich 2007). Fuel savings reported from early
conduction from the fine aggregate while lying in the bottom European WMA projects ranged from 24% to 55% (Koenders
of the dryer. A significant amount of energy is required to turn et al. 2000, von Devivere et al. 2003, and Ventura et al.
water into steam or otherwise dry the aggregate. Theoretically, 2009), with typical values between 20% and 35% (D’Angelo
the temperature of the aggregate cannot increase above 212°F et al. 2007).
(100°C) until the aggregate is dry. Particles of different sizes Fuel savings and stack emissions data were collected
will dry at different rates because of differences in their spe- from several North American studies. Reported fuel savings
cific surface (smaller particles have more surface area per unit from fifteen WMA projects, representing six technologies,
volume), so the temperature of the aggregate particles of dif- range from a 15.4% increase to a 77% reduction (Harder
ferent sizes is unlikely to be uniform. Once the aggregate is 2008, Davidson 2005a, Davidson 2005b, Lecomte et al. 2007,
dry, continued heating will bring the aggregate to the mixing Chief Environmental Group N.D., ETE 2006, Powers 2009,
temperature. The energy used to dry, and then heat, aggregate Ventura et al. 2009, Davidson and Pedlow 2007, and Middle-
is illustrated in Figure 2.1. ton and Forfylow 2009). The average fuel savings was 23%.
Figure 2.2 shows a frequency distribution of fuel usage The lone increase occurred at the Ohio WMA Open House
based on data collected by a member of the research team with an emulsion technology that is no longer used. The
in the Mid-Atlantic states. Data were collected from both mix was produced at 277°F (136°C), which is high for that
batch plants and drum plants. Fuel types include natu- technology considering considerable energy was required to
ral gas, No. 2 fuel oil, and reclaimed oil. Two distributions vaporize the water in the emulsion. Larger fuel savings typi-
are shown, one for data collected during stack emissions cally occurred with technologies like Low Emission Asphalt
tests at 35 plants and another based on 2-year averages at (LEA), WAM-Foam (Warm Asphalt Mix), and in some cases
the same plants. Typically, plants were operating at maxi- Evotherm™ ET (Emulsion Technology), which tend to have
mum design capacity for the full 3 hours of stack emis- the lowest production temperatures. LEA and WAM-Foam
sion tests. The 2-year average values, however, include fuel production temperatures are usually close to 212°F (100°C).
used during plant warm-up, plant waste, for unsold mix, Casing losses and other inefficiencies are believed to account

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

208

Figure 2.1. Energy use as a function of aggregate heating.

25

20
Frequency (%)

15

10

0
0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38
MMBTU/TON

Stack Test Year-End Totals

Figure 2.2. Typical HMA drying and heating fuel usage in MMBtu/ton.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

209  

for some of the difference between theoretical and observed ficult to properly adjust the burner to maintain the optimum
fuel savings (Harder et al. 2008). fuel-to-air ratio over the whole firing range without appropri-
Asphalt plants use higher burner levels when producing ate gas analyzers. If excess fuel is introduced to increase pro-
HMA than when producing WMA. Improperly tuned burn- duction rate, incomplete combustion will occur, wasting fuel.
ers can result in incomplete combustion, thus wasting fuel. One plant showed a 24.8% reduction in fuel usage for HMA
Elevated levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic after burner tuning.
compounds (VOC) can be indications of incomplete combus- Different plants use different fuels for heating and dry-
tion. Incomplete combustion, when using fuel oil or recycled ing aggregate. Natural gas was the most common fuel type;
oil, can lead to fuel contamination in the mix. Fuel contami- reclaimed fuel oil and liquid propane were also used. For
nation was suspected in at least two WMA projects (Hurley plants using natural gas, data collection was based on gas
et al. 2010a, Hurley et al. 2010b). Fuel contamination may be meter readings. Cumulative production tonnage was collected
less evident with HMA as compared to WMA because higher at approximately the same time that the meter readings were
mix temperatures would tend to volatize the fuel prior to taken. After collecting the data, it was found that commercial
placement. gas meters only update periodically and therefore cannot be
The moisture contents of aggregate and recycled materi- used for accurate measurements of fuel usage over short-term
als stockpiles can have a significant effect on fuel consump- periods (see further discussion in the chapter summary).
tion when producing WMA or HMA. This is evidenced The Rapid River, Michigan, project used reclaimed motor
by the higher fuel savings for WMA technologies, such as oil as fuel. The Rapid River plant did not have a fuel meter, so
LEA, which only dry a portion of the aggregate. Fuel usage fuel consumption was calculated using tank charts and tanks
reportedly increases 10% for every 1% increase in stockpile sticks at the beginning and end of production. The Baker,
moisture content (Prowell et al. 2012). Best practices, such Montana, project used liquid propane (LP). Fuel usage for
as sloping stockpile areas away from the side that the loader the LP was based on percent tank volume. The Griffith, Indi-
obtains material to feed the plant or covering stockpiles ana, New York, New York, Centreville, Virginia, and Walla
to reduce the moisture content of materials being dried, Walla, Washington, projects used natural gas as burner fuel.
are recommended for both HMA and WMA to reduce fuel Measurements for those projects were made based on gas
consumption. meter readings.
Unfortunately, precision of direct fuel measurements was
questionable for a number of reasons and an alternative
Research Approach
method to determine average heat input was investigated.
Fuel usage depends on a number of factors including, but Stack emission tests were conducted at Rapid River, Michi-
not limited to, aggregate (and recycled materials, if used), mois- gan, Griffith, Indiana, and New York, New York, sites with
ture content, production rate, mix temperature, and excess air flow rate and composition of the exhaust gases measured
(damper setting). For NCHRP Project 9-47A, data collection continuously for two 1-hour runs on each WMA technology
forms were developed to collect information on plant energy and HMA control. These stack gas data enabled backcalcula-
usage, including the above factors, during production (see the tion of average heat input using the U.S. EPA’s Method 19 F
appendix). As noted in the background information, energy factor. EPA developed F factors for commercially available
usage will vary depending on whether measurements are taken fuels to calculate the stoichiometric volume of exhaust gases
over a steady-state operating period, such as during a stack generated by burning one MMBtu of fuel. For example,
emissions test, or over a longer period of operation such as burning 961 cubic feet of natural gas (1 MMBtu) results in
a day, week, or year which includes energy spent for start-up, 8,710 dry standard cubic feet of (exhaust) gas at 0% oxy-
clean out, or waste. gen. Zero percent oxygen is what makes it a stoichiometric
The participating contractors were requested to tune their volume.
plants’ burners before producing asphalt for NCHRP Proj- Stack gas velocity was measured according to EPA Method 2.
ect 9-47A. For the three projects where stack emissions tests Molecular weight of stack gas and water vapor in the gas stream
were performed, at Rapid River, Michigan, Griffith, Indiana, were measured using EPA Methods 3 and 4, respectively.
and New York, New York, burner tuning was conducted by a Carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2) concentrations were
member of the project team with expertise in this topic. Most also determined using EPA Method 3. Stack gas velocity was
burners have an actuator motor that drives a mechanical link- converted to dry volumetric flow rate at a standard temperature
age connected to dampers and modulating fuel valves. As the and pressure based on stack area and percent water vapor in
burner percentage is increased, dampers and fuel valves are exhaust gases. These calculations are typically provided in any
opened to increase air and fuel for combustion. It can be dif- stack test report.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

210

Fuel firing rate can be calculated from the average exhaust usage of 0.223 MMBtu/ton for the Gencor Foam WMA was
flow rate and oxygen concentration using the following observed over the course of the day, including start-up, pre-
equation: heat, plant waste, and shutdown. The production temperature
of the Gencor Foam mix was increased to HMA temperatures

Fuel Usage =
60 × Q × ( 20.9 − O2 %
20.9 ) after stack emissions tests were completed.

F
Fuel Savings
where: The average fuel usage for the HMA production based
Fuel Usage = MMBtu/hr; on five projects was 0.249 MMBtu/ton. This compares well
60 = min/hr, converts flow per minute to flow with the 0.233 MMBtu/ton calculated based on the data from
per hour; the mid-Atlantic region that was reported in Figure 2.2. To
Q = average stack gas dry volumetric flow make meaningful comparisons between the WMA and HMA,
rate (dscfm) at standard temperature and the WMA fuel usage data were corrected for the difference
pressure; between the HMA and WMA aggregate moisture content at each
20.9 = standard O2% of air; site. By definition, it takes 1Btu to raise the temperature of 1 lb of
O2% = percent stack O2 by volume, dry basis, water by 1°F. Therefore, it takes 142Btu to raise the temperature
units are percent and not decimal; of water from an ambient temperature of approximately 70°F

(
20.9 − O2 %
20.9 )
= correction factor to remove excess air and
calculate resulting stoichiometric volume;
to 212°F and 1,000Btu to vaporize 1 lb of 212°F water. The fuel
usage was corrected based on 1,142Btu/lb of moisture difference.
The fuel usage for the normalized WMA data indicated an aver-
and
age savings of 0.055 MMBtu/ton, or approximately 22.1% for an
F = volume of combustion products per unit of
average temperature reduction of 48°F. This compares well to
heat content, dscfm/MMBtu: 8,710 dscfm/
MMBtu for natural gas and propane and the average 23% savings reported in the literature. Because final
9,190 for oil (EPA Method 19). mix temperatures for all mixes were greater than 212°F, the theo-
retical fuel savings should be equal to differences between WMA
and HMA mix temperatures multiplied by the specific heat of
Results and Discussion the aggregate. Assuming a specific heat of 0.24Btu/lb/°F for a
Table 2.2 summarizes fuel usage based on direct measure- bituminous mixture, a 48°F reduction in temperature should
ment of fuel consumption and the corresponding cumula- result in 0.0230 MMBtu/ton savings, or 9.3%. The question
tive production. An error was made reading the gas meter for then becomes how to account for the additional 13% in fuel
the Virginia HMA; therefore, fuel usage for that mix is not savings from WMA technologies over and above the theoretical
reported. 9.3% savings due to lower mix temperatures?
The potential error in determining fuel usage over a short
time period based on tank sticks is illustrated in Table 2.2. The Distribution of Fuel Savings
Michigan Advera and Evotherm 3G mixes were produced at
the same average temperature. The production rates are almost Additional calculations were performed to allocate fuel sav-
identical. The aggregate moisture content was 0.2% higher for ings for the multi-technology sites where stack emissions tests
the Evotherm 3G, which would tend to increase fuel usage. were performed. Thermal energy generated to produce HMA
However, the fuel usage calculated for the Evotherm 3G pro- or WMA is consumed by drying aggregate moisture, heating
duction is 0.038 MMBtu/ton (17%) less than that calculated aggregate, heating stack gases, and casing losses. Casing losses
for the Advera WMA. By comparison the fuel usage based on are thermal energy used to heat plant iron and then radiated
stoichiometric calculations of fuel usage, corrected for the slight to the atmosphere, rather than being used to heat the aggre-
difference in aggregate moisture, are identical. gate. Components that account for the majority of casing
Similar inconsistencies between measured mix temperature loss include aggregate dryer, duct work, baghouse, and batch
and fuel usage were noted for the Indiana mixes. The local tower/mixing chamber (if applicable). The difference in fuel
Indiana stack emissions contractor did not take stack velocity usage reported in Table 2.2 was allocated based on thermo­
readings during the HMA and Heritage Wax stack emissions dynamic properties to three sources: (1) differences in mix
runs. Readings were taken only at the end of the run. There- temperature, (2) differences in stack exhaust temperatures,
fore, the stoichiometric calculations of fuel usage for those two and (3) the remainder, believed to consist of casing losses.
mixes are suspect. The Indiana fuel usage in Table 2.2 based Table 2.3 shows the results of calculations to appropriately
on gas meter readings are overall daily averages. Increased fuel allocate energy savings. Differences in thermal energy based

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies
Table 2.2. Fuel usage.

Avg.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Stock- Avg. Avg. Avg. Stoichio- Agg. MMBtu/ton

pile Prod. Mix Stack metric Moisture Corrected
Moist. Rate Temp. Temp. Fuel Use, Fuel Use Correction for Agg. Delta Delta
Site Plant1 Mix (%) (TPH) (°F) (°F) (MMBtu/ton) (MMBtu/ton) (MMBtu/ton) Moisture (MMBtu/ton) (Btu/°F)
Uninsulated HMA 2.6% 316 325 339 0.278 NA NA 0.278
Washington
PF drum Maxam foam 3.0% 310 285 295 0.218 NA 0.009 0.209 0.069 1728
Double HMA 2.3% 270 318 218 NA NA NA NA
Virginia
barrel Astec foam 2.1% 221 288 191 0.203 NA -0.005 0.208
HMA 3.6% 310 300 330 0.271 0.2852 NA 0.285
Uninsulated
Michigan Advera 3.9% 323 269 292 0.225 0.237 0.007 0.230 0.055 1769
PF drum
Evotherm 3G 4.1% 320 269 296 0.187 0.241 0.011 0.230 0.055 1788
Partially HMA 1.3% 370 298 249 0.157 NA NA 0.157
Montana insulated
Evotherm DAT 1.5% 378 252 238 0.137 NA 0.005 0.132 0.025 534
PF drum
HMA 3.2% 292 300 242 0.2262 0.2013 NA 0.226
Insulated Gencor foam 3.5% 300 277 232 0.209 0.223 0.007 0.202 0.024 1037
Indiana
CF dryer Evotherm 3G 3.8% 300 256 221 0.212 0.2073 0.014 0.198 0.028 630
Heritage wax 3.8% 279 268 227 0.201 0.159 0.014 0.187 0.039 1210
Batch- HMA 3.1% 271 332 284 0.260 0.2992 NA 0.299
mini drum Cecabase RT 3.4% 244 240 213 0.236 0.235 0.007 0.228 0.071 770
New York
uninsulated SonneWarmix 2.4% 267 252 195 0.216 0.198 -0.016 0.214 0.085 1063
dryer BituTech PER 3.6% 268 253 202 0.253 0.211 0.011 0.200 0.099 1258
1
PF: parallel-flow; CF: counter-flow.
2
Values in bold used two measures of fuel usage.
3
Stack velocity measurements only taken at end of each stack emissions run; stoichiometric fuel usage believed to be erroneous.
 Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies
Table 2.3. Breakdown of fuel savings.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Fuel Usage,
Avg. Avg. Avg. (MMBtu/ton MMBtu/ton
Prod. Mix Stack corrected Delta % up Stack % % %
Rate, Temp. Temp. for Agg. (HMA-WMA) Mois- (above Stack Mix Casing
Site Plant Mix (TPH) (°F) (°F) Moisture) (MMBtu/ton) ACFM SCFM ture 195°F) Temp. Temp. Loss
Michigan Uninsulated HMA 310 300 330 0.285 53,656 35,997 33.0% 0.0220
PF Drum Advera 323 269 292 0.230 0.0549 50,870 35,853 33.0% 0.0151 13% 27% 60%
Evo. 3G 320 269 296 0.230 0.0554 50,704 35,546 33.0% 0.0158 11% 27% 62%
Indiana Insulated HMA 292 300 242 0.226 48,380 36,526 29.0% 0.0081
CF Dryer Gencor foam 300 277 232 0.202 0.0239 46,844 35,878 28.0% 0.0060 9% 46% 45%
Evo. DAT 300 256 221 0.198 0.0277 49,494 38,520 33.0% 0.0047 12% 76% 12%
Heritage wax 279 268 227 0.187 0.0387 44,944 34,673 33.0% 0.0056 6% 40% 54%
New Batch- HMA 271 332 284 0.299 67,820 48,313 21.0% 0.0206
York Mini Drum Cecabase RT 244 240 213 0.228 0.0709 54,566 42,972 21.0% 0.0041 23% 62% 14%
Uninsulated SonneWarmix 267 252 195 0.214 0.0850 54,088 43,766 16.0% 0.0000 24% 45% 31%
Dryer
BituTech PER 268 253 202 0.200 0.0994 53,267 42,646 14.5% 0.0014 19% 38% 43%
Average 0.0550 15% 45% 40%
Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

213  

on mix temperature were calculated using a specific heat of from the thermodynamic properties of the materials involved.
0.24Btu/lb/°F for the asphalt mixture. The difference in each The Astec spreadsheet was shared with the NCHRP Proj-
pair of average HMA and WMA mix temperatures at each site ect 9-47A team so that comparisons could be made between
was multiplied by 0.24Btu/lb/°F, converted to MMBtu, and Astec’s thermodynamic model and empirical data obtained
expressed as a percentage of the difference (delta) in MMBtu/ during NCHRP Project 9-47A. The Astec spreadsheet uses
ton, corrected for aggregate moisture. Differences in mix tem- the following inputs: plant elevation, drum diameter, asphalt
perature (% Mix Temp.) explained 27 to 76% of the fuel savings, content, recycled (or reclaimed) asphalt pavement (RAP)
with an average of 45%. Actual stack exhaust flow rates in cubic content, RAP moisture content, burner fuel, burner type,
feet per minute (ACFM) were converted to standard conditions production rate, ambient temperature, aggregate tempera-
at 70°F (SCFM). The energy required to heat the air and mois- ture, RAP temperature, mix temperature, stack temperature,
ture in the exhaust gas between the minimum observed stack and drum type. The spreadsheet then calculates fuel usage for
gas temperature of 195°F and the average stack exhaust temper- a range of aggregate moisture contents. The formulas used in
atures was calculated for each mix (MMBtu/ton up stack). The Astec’s spreadsheet are hidden and password protected, how-
average stack gas temperature for NY SonneWarmix was 195°F; ever the thermodynamic properties used in those calculations
therefore, its MMBtu/ton up the stack was 0.000. The calcula- are well established and were used to back calculate actual
tion used a specific heat of 0.44Btu/lb/°F for water vapor and casing loss from NCHRP Project 9-47A data.
0.24Btu/lb/°F for dry air. Air at standard conditions has a mass Figure 2.3 shows a comparison between measured and cal-
of 0.0766 lb/cf. The difference between the HMA and WMA culated fuel usage for the three projects where stack emissions
MMBtu/ton up the stack at a given site (relative to 195°F) tests were conducted (Michigan, Indiana, and New York). In
was expressed as a percentage of the total delta in energy usage two cases out of three, the measured fuel usage, in terms of
per ton (% Stack Temp.). The remaining unexplained differ- MMBtu/ton, exceeds Astec’s predicted fuel usage for the tem-
ences in the measured energy use are attributed to casing losses peratures and moisture contents measured during production.
(% Casing Loss). These losses are heat lost through, for exam- Analysis suggests that Astec assumes that 12% of total fuel
ple, the shell of the drum and ductwork. usage is lost through the plant casing. Figure 2.4 shows a simi-
Harder et al. (2008) reported heat loss measurements at a lar comparison between Astec’s calculated fuel usage and the
batch plant producing 320°F mix at an ambient tempera- measured fuel usage from this study. However, Astec’s 12% cas-
ture of 59°F of 3 kg fuel oil per metric ton (approximately ing loss is replaced by actual backcalculated casing loss for each
0.111 MMBtu/ton). Total fuel usage for HMA production was site. Figure 2.4 shows good agreement with the data when the
7 kg fuel oil per metric ton (approximately 0.259 MMBtu/ton). casing loss is adjusted. It appears that the Astec model generally
Therefore, casing losses were 43% (3/7) of total fuel usage. This underestimates casing losses, especially for uninsulated aggre-
cannot be directly compared to the NCHRP Project 9-47A data, gate dryers. It should be noted that casing losses will vary from
however, because the units are not identical. Harder’s 43% cas- plant to plant, depending on plant type (parallel-flow, counter-
ing loss factor is for total casing losses while the 40% factor deter- flow, double barrel, dual drum, etc.) and level of insulation. For
mined in this study is the percent of energy savings from the the three plants where stack emission tests were performed, the
use of WMA production attributed to reduced casing loss. The double barrel type has the lowest casing lost, followed by the
two factors have different denominators. Also, the 4 kg of fuel parallel-flow type. The counter-flow batch plant with bare steel
per metric ton appears unrealistic as it represents 0.138 MMBtu/ dryer had the highest casing losses.
ton. It takes 0.125 MMBtu/ton to heat the aggregate from The significance of this exercise is that it demonstrates
59 to 320°F, leaving only 0.013 MMBtu/ton to dry moisture. that the energy analysis used in NCHRP Project 9-47A agrees
0.013 MMBtu/ton is only enough energy to dry 0.25% moisture. with the Astec thermodynamic model except for casing loss.
Astec appears to use a uniform 12% factor to estimate casing
loss. Although this appears to be a reasonable assumption for
Comparison of Measured
Astec double barrel plants, that factor may not be accurate for
and Predicted Fuel Savings
other plant types.
When analysis of the fuel usage data from this study was first
presented, some plant manufacturers expressed concern that
Influence of Aggregate Moisture Content
the calculated casing losses were higher than their theoretical
calculations. Astec Industries developed a spreadsheet (Astec A recommended best practice for both HMA and WMA is to
Fuel Calculate 3.0) to assist producers in evaluating efficiency minimize aggregate moisture content. Average aggregate mois-
of actual operations by calculating energy required to heat ture content for the Montana project was 1.4%, 1.9% lower
aggregate, evaporate stockpile moisture, and heat exhaust gases than the average moisture content at the other sites. Measured

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

0.30

NCHRP 9-47A Measured MMBtu

0.25

0.20

Line of Equality

0.15
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Astec Predicted MMBtu

Parallel-flow Double Barrel Counter-flow

Figure 2.3. Astec fuel calculation 3.0 (predicted) vs. NCHRP Project 9-47A (measured) fuel usage.

0.30

y = 1.0052x + 0.0012
R² = 0.9425
NCHRP 9-47A Measured MMBtu

0.25

0.20

0.15
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Astec Calculated MMBtu

Parallel-flow Double Barrel Counter-flow All Linear (All)

Figure 2.4. Astec-predicted casing loss corrected for NCHRP 9-47A observed casing loss.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

215  

fuel usage for the Montana HMA was 0.157 MMBtu/ton, com- • A high potential for error exists when making fuel usage
pared to an average of 0.272 MMBtu/ton for all other HMA measurements over short intervals from tank fuel depth
and 0.256 for the Michigan and Indiana HMA, which were pro- measurements (tank sticks), natural gas meter readings,
duced at the same average temperature. This indicates a savings and corresponding fuel usage with tons of mix produced.
of 0.052 MMBtu/ton per percent of moisture reduction. Thus, A difference of 2 minutes between measurements of fuel
a 1% reduction in stockpile moisture content can produce sav- usage and tonnage produced can result in a 3.3% error in
ings similar to the average savings between HMA and WMA, hourly fuel usage calculations. A 1⁄10-inch error in measur-
0.055 MMBtu/ton. ing the tank depth of a 20,000 gallon horizontal tank at the
10,000 gallon mark results in a 34 gallon (4.715 MMBtu)
error in measured fuel usage.
Summary
• To make meaningful comparisons, fuel usage between
Recommendations
HMA and WMA should be compared over short, steady-
state runs at similar production rates. • Fuel savings should be based on like comparisons between
• WMA mixes were produced an average of 48°F cooler than WMA and HMA at the same production rate and over the
the corresponding HMA mixes, resulting, on average, in a same time period.
22.1% fuel savings. • Stoichiometric fuel measurements, in accordance with EPA
• The measured fuel savings were higher than expected based Method 19, should be made in conjunction with direct
on calculations of the energy required to heat the mix and measurements of fuel consumption.
the difference in stack gas temperatures. • Care must be taken to make fuel use and cumulative ton-
• The additional fuel savings are attributed to casing losses— nage measurements at the same time and over as long an
heat radiated through the drum, ductwork and baghouse, interval as possible to minimize errors due to measurement
or otherwise lost. Well-insulated plants should expect accuracy.
lower fuel savings than uninsulated plants. • Recommendations from this study are incorporated into
• Best practices, such as burner tuning and reduced stock- the appendix titled Documenting Emissions and Energy
pile moisture, produced reductions of similar magnitude Reductions of WMA and Conventional HMA, included
to the use of WMA. with this report.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

216

CHAPTER 3

Stack Emissions

Reported Emissions Reductions to compare HMA and WMA), those results must be normal-
from WMA ized to a uniform percent oxygen to correct for dilution.
Reports by stack test contractors that include a mass emis-
Given that most pollutants of concern from asphalt plants sion rate in pounds per hour, as recommended by the Warm
result from combustion, they can be reduced simply by Mix Asphalt Technical Working Group—WMA TWG (2006),
reducing fuel consumption through production of warm mix still cannot be compared with other runs unless normalized
asphalt (WMA). WMA’s lower discharge temperatures should for production rate and expressed as pounds pollutant per
also reduce binder oxidation and volatilization loss during unit production.
mixing with corresponding emission reductions. However,
WMA’s ability to reduce emissions is poorly verified.
Stack emissions tests have been reported from 17 ­projects Research Approach
worldwide, representing six technologies (Ventura et al. Asphalt plant exhaust gas testing targeted emissions related
2009, Harder 2008, Davidson 2005b, Lecomte et al. 2007, to multiple areas of concern—greenhouse gases (carbon foot-
Chief E ­ nvironmental Group, N.D., ETE 2006, Powers 2009, print), ground-level ozone precursors, condensable particu-
­Davidson and Pedlow 2007, and Middleton and Forfylow lates (PM-10)—and an emerging concern regarding hazardous
2009). The majority of the stack tests completed to date indi- air pollutants. Energy usage, stack emissions, and temperature
cate that WMA reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The reductions are interrelated but can be affected by multiple fac-
only case in which CO2 emissions increased (Chief Environ- tors, such as aggregate moisture, operator, plant configuration,
mental Group N.D.) involved an emulsion that effectively fuel type, production rate, burner tuning, percent reclaimed
increased the moisture content of the mix and required asphalt pavement (RAP), ambient temperature, and so forth.
more heat to dry even at lower mix temperatures. Emis- Variations between mix design, fuel type, production rate, and
sions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were reduced in all cases. Sul- aggregate moisture were minimized to the extent possible by
fur d­ ioxide (SO2) emissions both increased and decreased. testing the same mix over successive days for the same project.
Two projects indicate increased volatile organic compounds At the three multi-technology projects (Michigan, Indiana,
(VOC) with the WMA production (Harder 2008, ETE 2006). and New York), stack emission tests were conducted in accor-
In both cases, reports attributed that increase to poor burner dance with the U.S. EPA’s Title 40 Code of Federal Regula-
tuning rather than to the WMA technology. tions (CFR) Part 60, Appendix A, and generally followed the
Pollutants have been reported in several different units recommendations of the WMA TWG (2006). Reported stack
ranging from stack concentration to pounds per hour, mak- emissions included CO2 to assess greenhouse gas produc-
ing meaningful comparisons of any kind difficult. Too fre- tion, VOC and NOx to assess the potential for ground-level
quently, reported emissions are simply uncorrected average ozone, carbon monoxide (CO) to assess burner tuning, SO2,
(or worse, instantaneous) dry stack concentrations (parts per condensed particulates (a component of PM-10), and form-
million by volume, dry; abbreviated ppmvd). Comparisons aldehyde emissions. Results were analyzed and reported as
between WMA and hot mix asphalt (HMA) based on differ- pounds per unit production consistent with Federal AP-42
ences in raw stack concentrations are suspect because of dilu- emission factors.
tion from excess air and may be unintentionally misleading. EPA Method 1 describes the location of sampling points
To make meaningful comparisons between tests or runs (e.g., to divide the cross-sectional area of the stack into a number

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

217  

of equal areas, each of which will be sampled using a traverse Results and Discussion
point. The number of traverse points depends on the diam-
eter of the stack and the distance of the sampling points from Carbon Dioxide
any obstructions that may cause turbulence in the stack gas Figure 2.5 shows average CO2 emissions for each of the
flow. EPA Method 2 describes the measurement of the aver- mixes tested during the multi-technology projects. The
age gas velocity in the stack. The gas velocity for each traverse shaded bars indicate the average of two tests; the whiskers
point is calculated from the density of the gas and the aver- show the individual test results. Similar to the fuel usage as
age velocity pressure measured with a Type S pitot tube. EPA reported in Table 2.2, CO2 production is reduced for all of
Method 4 is used to determine the temperature and moisture the WMA mixes compared to their corresponding HMA
content of the stack gas. The stack gas flow must be corrected mixtures. It was noted in Indiana that during the HMA and
for moisture to a dry basis because most gas analyzers operate ­Heritage Wax WMA testing the local stack emissions con-
at ambient temperature and require dry samples. Impingers tractor took stack velocity readings only at the end of the
are used to condense and collect water vapor from a metered run, rather than concurrently with the other emission factor
gas sample drawn continuously during measurements of the samples. Based on relatively accurate gas meter readings, this
stack emissions. The emission parameters evaluated and EPA appears to have resulted in an under-reporting of the actual
test methods are shown in Table 2.4. air-flow; hence the derived lb/ton CO2 production.
Local emission testing contractors experienced with these CO2 emissions primarily result from fuel combustion.
methods were used to minimize mobilization costs. The proj- As such, there is a linear relationship between fuel and CO2
ect team expert assessed their credentials and coordinated test- reductions resulting from the use of WMA. Figure 2.6 pre­
ing at each site to ensure that meaningful data were obtained. sents this relationship for both the data obtained from this
Because of the short notice at each project, testing contractor study and the literature. The offset of any data point from
availability became a primary selection criterion. the Line of Equality reflects an inaccuracy in at least one of
As noted previously, burner tuning was conducted at each the two measurements.
of the multiple technology sites prior to stack emissions tests.
In two of three cases, burner tuning reduced CO emissions
Carbon Monoxide and Volatile
tenfold, while the largest WMA reduction measured was
Organic Compounds
59%. In both Michigan and Indiana, initial CO measure-
ments exceeded 10,000 parts per million (ppm). In Michigan, The formation of CO and VOC is affected by burner design,
increasing the air-to-fuel ratio dropped this level to approxi- maintenance, and tuning. A burner that is improperly tuned
mately 50 ppm; in Indiana, to approximately 1,000 ppm. or one that is poorly maintained may result in elevated levels
Further reduction in CO in Indiana would have required the of CO, VOC, or both. For most burners, elevated CO and VOC
natural gas ports to be cleaned and the pre-mix nozzles to be emissions are not a surrogate for efficiency because the energy
replaced. Even so, the Indiana burner adjustments resulted in potential of these emissions are several orders of magnitude
a 24.8% reduction in fuel use on the same mix with no other smaller that energy loss due to excess air, high exhaust gas tem-
process changes. perature, and casing radiation. Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8 show

Table 2.4. Stack emission test parameters and methods.

Number of Test
Runs per Sampling and Analytical
Emission Parameter Technology Methodology
Volumetric flow rate * EPA Methods 1 and 2
Oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) * EPA Method 3A
Moisture content * EPA Method 4
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 2 EPA Method 6
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 2 EPA Method 7E
Carbon monoxide (CO) 2 EPA Method 10
Total hydrocarbons (volatile organic 2 EPA Method 25A
compounds [VOC])
Particulate matter/PM-10 2 EPA Methods 5/202
Formaldehyde 2 EPA Method 316

* Determined concurrently with all emission parameter

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

218

50
46.0
45
39.7
40 38.3
35.9
35
30 28.4
26.8 26.0 25.4
lb/ton

24.2 24.4
25
20 18.6

15
10
5
0

Heritage Wax

Cecabase RT

BituTech PER
HMA

HMA
Advera

Evotherm 3G

HMA
Evotherm 3G

Sonne Warmix
Gencor Foam

MI IN NY

Figure 2.5. CO2 emission rates.

70

60

50
Reducon in CO2 Emission (%)

40

30

20

10

-10
Line of Equality Literature
-20
NCHRP 9-47A
-30
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Reducon in Fuel Usage (%)

Figure 2.6. Reduction in fuel usage versus reduction in CO2 emissions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

219  

0.9

0.8

0.7 0.6825

0.6

0.5
lb/ton

0.392
0.4
0.3255
0.3
0.192
0.2

0.1 0.038
0.0255 0.013 0.031 0.016 0.0125 0.0145
0

Sonne Warmix
HMA

HMA

HMA

Cecabas e RT
Evother m 3G

Evother m 3G

BituTech PER
Heritage Wax
Gencor Foam
Advera

MI IN NY

Figure 2.7. CO emissions.

0.07

0.06 0.057

0.05 0.048

0.040
0.04 0.036
0.035
lb/ton

0.03
0.021
0.018 0.019 0.019
0.02 0.016
0.013
0.01

0
Sonne Warmix
HMA

HMA

HMA

Cecabas e RT
Evother m 3G

Evother m 3G

BituTech PER
Heritage Wax
Gencor Foam
Advera

MI IN NY

Figure 2.8. VOC emissions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

220

the CO and VOC emissions, respectively. Overall, CO emissions all of the VOC readings for the WMA mixes were higher than
were elevated at the Indiana site compared to the other sites. those for the HMA control. However it should be noted that
As noted previously, CO emissions exceeded 10,000 ppm at the VOC emissions for all mixes were among the lowest measured
Indiana site prior to burner tuning. After tuning, CO emissions and reflect state-of-the-art performance in most jurisdictions.
for HMA were reduced to approximately 1,000 ppm. Burner A variety of factors could explain an increase with WMA, but
maintenance issues also resulted in elevated VOC. Additional the uniform increase across three very different WMA tech-
reductions would have required cleaning out the natural gas nologies suggests causes other than WMA itself.
ports and replacing the burner pre-mix nozzles, tasks that
could not be performed within the time allowed for the WMA
demonstration.
Sulfur Dioxide
The thin horizontal line in Figure 2.7 represents the EPA’s When fuels containing sulfur are burned, SO2 is produced.
candidate emission factor for CO of 0.13 lb/ton for drum Sulfur content varies with fuel type. Recycled fuel oil tends to
plants (RTI International 2004) based on stack test data from have the highest sulfur content, followed by fuel oil. Natural
18 drum plants. The range in data averages 89.5% of the mean. gas tends to have the lowest concentration of sulfur in fuels
Although the CO emissions for the Michigan and Indiana commonly used at asphalt plants. Reducing fuel consumption
Evotherm 3G appear elevated compared to their correspond- should reduce SO2 production. Figure 2.9 shows the SO2 stack
ing HMA controls, both values are within 89.5% of the HMA, readings for the three multi-technology projects. Overall, the
indicating that they are within typical testing variability. SO2 emissions from Indiana and New York, both of which
For the Michigan parallel-flow drum plant, WMA pro- used natural gas as fuel, are inconsequential. The spike for the
duction reduced VOC emissions by approximately 50%. A Indiana Gencor Foam could be attributed to a small amount
counter-flow drum plant was used in Indiana. One of the of slag making its way into the mix. The 50% reductions in
Indiana HMA VOC readings (0.012 lb/ton) appears to be an SO2 for the Michigan WMAs, in which the plant used recycled
­outlier. The stack test contractor had problems with the high fuel oil, are significant. Discounting possible changes in the
stack moisture content and took the analyzer off-line fre- recycled oil supply, the 50% reduction suggests an increase in
quently during the run to “dry out”. Excluding that run, the SO2 control efficiency at lower WMA baghouse temperatures.
HMA reading would be 0.059 lb/ton and all of the WMA As might be expected, at lower baghouse temperatures more
results would reflect a reduction. For the New York batch dryer, SO2 condenses out of the exhaust gas stream, is captured by

0.025

0.020 0.019

0.015
lb/ton

0.010 0.009 0.008

0.005 0.005
0.003
0.002
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
0.000
HMA

HMA

Sonne Warmix
HMA

Cecabas e RT
Evother m 3G

Evother m 3G

BituTech PER
Heritage Wax
Gencor Foam
Advera

MI IN NY

Figure 2.9. SO2 emissions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

221  

the baghouse fines, and then becomes encapsulated in the Formaldehyde is a typical byproduct of combustion for all
WMA. For reference, the EPA’s candidate emission factor for carbon-based fuels. The distribution of formaldehyde emis-
a drum plant using recycled fuel oil is 0.058 lb/ton and for sions for the WMA mixes is lower than the distribution for
natural gas it is 0.0034 lb/ton (RTI International 2004). the HMA mixes tested as part of this study. Only four stack
emissions results for formaldehyde are available in the EPA’s
AP-42 database (RTI International 2004). The industry
Nitrogen Oxides HMA data shown in Figure 2.11 represent 24 formaldehyde
NOx emissions are a precursor to the formation of ground- stack emissions tests from the mid-Atlantic region. The
level ozone. NOx emissions are higher for fuel oils compared to WMA formaldehyde emissions are similar to these levels.
natural gas. The EPA’s candidate emission factor is 0.055 lb/ton The results from this study also show that lower formal­
for drum plants burning fuel oil and 0.026 lb/ton for drum dehyde concentrations were measured for WMA compared
plants burning natural gas. Figure 2.10 shows the NOx stack to HMA.
readings for the three multi-technology projects. For the Mich-
igan tests, Advera had lower NOx emissions and the Evotherm
PM-10
3G the same NOx emissions as the HMA. For the Evotherm 3G,
the burner was set at an average firing rate of 26% compared Particulate matter (PM), especially fine particulates (e.g.,
to 75% for the HMA and 43% for Advera. This low firing rate PM-10), are of increasing concern among many environ-
may have resulted in greater excess air available to form NOx, mental agencies. Figure 2.12 shows average condensable
increasing NOx emissions. For the Indiana tests, the WMA fraction (back half of a Method 5 sample train) for HMA
mixes produced the same or lower NOx emissions than the and WMA technologies. Filterable particulates were not
HMA. For the New York City tests, each of the WMA mixes measured. The condensable fraction includes organic and
yielded lower NOx emissions than did the HMA. inorganic compounds with organics less than 1/10 of total
condensables. What is striking about the NCHRP Proj-
ect 9-47A PM-10 data is the scale of PM-10 emissions from
Formaldehyde
limestone aggregates and parallel-flow dryers (Michigan
Figure 2.11 shows frequency distributions of formal- data), and the resulting reduction achieved by WMA tech-
dehyde emissions reported in numerous test programs. nologies and igneous aggregate.

0.07
0.064 0.064
0.06 0.058
EPA Candidate Emission Factor for Drum Plants burning Fuel Oil

0.05

0.04
lb/ton

EPA Candidate Emission Factor for Drum Plantsburning Natural Gas

0.031
0.03
0.023 0.022 0.024
0.021 0.022
0.019
0.02
0.015

0.01

0
Heritag e Wax

Sonne Warmix

BituTec h PER
HMA

HMA

HMA
Evotherm 3G

Evotherm 3G

Cecabase RT
Gencor Foam
Advera

MI IN NY

Figure 2.10. NOx emissions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

222

70

60
EPA AP 42
NCHRP 9 47A HMA
50
Observed Frequency (%)

Industry HMA
NCHRP 9 47A WMA
40

30

20

10

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Formaldehyde Emissions (lbs/ton)

Figure 2.11. Frequency distribution of formaldehyde emissions.

Limestone Aggregate

Traprock Aggregate

Figure 2.12. PM-10 condensable fraction.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

223  

Summary • For the Michigan parallel-flow drum plant, WMA resulted

in a 50% reduction in VOC emissions.
Stack emissions were measured on three multi-technology • For the New York project, VOC emissions were higher for the
projects consisting of a total of eight WMA mixes and three WMA, but comparable with the Michigan VOC emissions.
corresponding HMA control mixes. • The HMA data for the Indiana project were highly vari-
able; a slight reduction in VOC emissions is indicated if
• As expected, reduced fuel consumption resulted in reduced one point is considered an outlier.
CO2 emissions for all of the WMA mixes. • SO2 emissions from reclaimed oil fuel were significantly
• For the stack emissions (multi-technology) sites, on reduced with WMA, suggesting better control at lower
average a 52°F reduction in temperature resulted in a baghouse temperatures.
21% reduction in fuel usage and a 20% reduction in CO2 • Use of WMA generally resulted in slight reductions of NOx.
emissions.
• CO and VOC emissions are related to burner design,
Recommendations
­maintenance, and tuning.
• CO emissions for the WMA were within normal testing To make meaningful comparisons between HMA and
variability of HMA. There appears to be no indication of WMA, it is suggested that companion tests be performed
reduced CO emissions with WMA. using the same fuel, mixture, and production rate.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

224

CHAPTER 4

Worker Exposure

Background nificant compared to a control group. Similar symptoms are

discussed in the Norseth et al. studies (1991) evaluating self-
The primary use of asphalt has been in paving mixes for reported symptoms that included fatigue, reduced appetite,
roadway infrastructures. The United States and Europe com- eye irritation, and laryngeal-pharyngeal irritation that was
bined employ about 400,000 workers in the asphalt paving reported more frequently among workers exposed to asphalt
industry (AI, EU 2011). Asphalt is the non-distillable frac- fumes than among unexposed workers in a statistically sig-
tion of crude oil. Small amounts of volatile and semi-volatile nificant manner.
organic compounds are trapped in this highly viscous material These studies emphasize the need for reducing worker
(Clark et al. 2011). Heating asphalt above the softening point exposure to asphalt emissions. The National Institute for
and agitating it facilitates the release of these emissions, consti- Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended
tuting the potential for worker exposure. use of engineering controls and good work practices to mini-
A large nested case control epidemiology study by Olsson mize worker exposure to asphalt fumes (NIOSH 2001),
et al. (2010) showed no consistent evidence of an association including reduction of the asphalt mix temperature. First
between indicators of either inhalation or dermal exposure developed in Europe during the late 1990s to address worker
to asphalt and lung cancer risk and attributed increased inci- exposure concerns for Gussasphalt placed at high tempera-
dence in cancer to confounding issues like smoking, exposure tures, warm mix asphalt (WMA) mixtures typically are pro-
to coal tar, and so forth. duced at lower temperatures than hot mix asphalt (HMA)
A recent 2-year skin-painting study by Clark et al. (2011) mixtures (D’Angelo et al. 2007). Recent studies (Kriech et al.
confirmed the absence of tumorigenic effects in skin regions 2011) show that reduced asphalt application temperature is
treated with paving asphalt fume condensate. Fuhst et al. predictive of reduced inhalation exposures (Cavallari et al.
(2007) conducted an inhalation study involving exposure of 2011) along with a reduced total absorbed dose of poly­cyclic
Wistar rats to asphalt fumes for 2 years. Results showed that aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polycyclic aromatic
asphalt fumes are not considered to be tumorigenic to rats compound (PAC) metabolites (McClean et al. 2012).
via the inhalation route. Asphalt-related irritant effects were, Information currently in the public domain regarding
however, observed in the nasal passages and in the lungs. worker exposure reduction using WMA technologies is often
Despite the results of these recent studies, in October based on marketing or takes the form of presentations, confer-
2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer con- ence proceedings, or government reports. Few peer-reviewed
cluded that “occupational exposures to straight-run bitumens publications specifically document this promoted benefit of
(asphalts) and their emissions during road paving are ‘possibly WMA. D’Angelo et al. (2007) indicated 30%–50% reductions
carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2B)” (Lauby-Secretan et al., in asphalt aerosols/fumes and PAHs for WMA compared to
2011, IARC 2012). HMA. Measurements by von Devivere et al. (2003) showed a
Other studies have also shown an association with vari- reduction in fume emissions of 75% where zeolite had been
ous health endpoints related to irritation. A recent German added with an application temperature reduction of 26°C.
study in humans by Raulf-Heimsoth et al. (2011) detected In a study of WAM-Foam, exposure values were shown to
potentially sub-chronic irritative inflammatory effects in be in the lower range when compared to exposure measure-
the lower airways of bitumen-exposed workers. Tepper et al. ments conducted on paving HMA (Lecomte et al. 2007). The
(2006) reported throat symptoms that were statistically sig- Ohio Department of Transportation (DOT), in conjunction

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

225  

with Flexible Pavements of Ohio, showed that WMA reduced Collection and Analysis
emissions by 35%–65% (EES Group 2006, Powers 2009). of Breathing Zone Samples
Shifa et al. (2009) claimed a 90.2% reduction of asphalt fumes
for emulsion-based WMA in a long tunnel pavement study. Each worker wore two sorbent tube samplers contain-
NCHRP Project 9-47A was designed to compare WMA ing XAD-2 and charcoal (150 mg XAD-2 followed by 50 mg­
technologies to traditional HMA applications under simi- activated charcoal; see Figure 2.13). A 1-inch piece of
lar conditions, controlling many (albeit not all) variables in Tygon® tubing (dichloromethane rinsed) was added to the
the field to allow a side-by-side comparison of the worker end of tube, once broken, to protect the workers. Care was
breathing zone exposures. Three WMA technologies were taken to break the inlet end of the tube to 4 mm to equal the
compared to one HMA technology at each of two sites—one NIOSH sampler. Set to a flow rate of 2.0 ± 0.2 L/min, pumps
in Indiana and one in New York. were calibrated pre-shift and re-measured post-shift. One
background sample was collected each day or experiment,
positioned upwind of the paving operation. A field blank
Research Approach was collected on each day or experiment for each crew.
Study Population Sorbent tubes were eluted with 5 mL dichloromethane,
charcoal-end up.
During each sampling event, four workers per crew were
studied: the paver operator, two screed operators (includ-
ing, in Indiana, the site foreman), and the raker. Of the entire Sampler Selection Justification
crew, these four workers are exposed to asphalt at the hottest Table 2.5 shows internal data compiled from previous
temperature, so they have the greatest potential for asphalt studies conducted by Heritage Research Group that included
emissions exposure. breathing zone monitoring of workers during three differ-
ent WMA applications. In the previous studies, each worker
Study Design was monitored in a similar manner as that described above.
However, in these studies the breathing zone air entered a
The eight workers in the two crews were monitored for
membrane filter first, followed by the sorbent tube, allow-
four consecutive days. During one day the crew performed
ing determination of total particulates (TP), benzene solu-
under normal working conditions using HMA. During the
ble fraction (BSF), and total organic matter (TOM) using
other three days, the crew performed under similar condi-
NIOSH Method 5042 (NIOSH 2006). BSF levels were all
tions, but using a different WMA technology each day. To
below the level of detection (LOD), hindering quantita-
avoid interference with assessment of asphalt emissions, no
tive comparisons to HMA. Because all samples contained
diesel oil was used as a release/cleaning agent. Within a given
detectable levels of TOM, this was selected as the primary
site, controlled variables included asphalt source, aggregate,
tool for evaluating differences in exposure between HMA
amount of reclaimed asphalt pavement, plant, paving equip-
and WMA.
ment, crew, and similar traffic patterns (paved in congruent
locations). Paving machines were equipped with properly
functioning engineering controls. During each sampling
event, meteorological data were also recorded, including
ambient air temperatures, wind speed, and humidity.
Whereas many studies measure mixture temperature at
the production facility, for this study, application tempera-
tures were monitored at the back of the screed area six times
throughout the workday using an 8-inch dial stem thermom-
eter in the newly placed mat.
For the Indiana crew, diesel oil normally used as a release
agent and to clean tools and equipment was removed from
the site and replaced with B100 biodiesel oil (Bajpai and
Tyagi 2006) (CAS Number: 67784-80-9). Biodiesel contains
no straight chain hydrocarbons or PACs. Workers at the
New York site did not use diesel oil; instead, they use a water- Figure 2.13. A worker at the Indiana site wearing
based product called FO™ Release II (Fine Organics Corp), two XAD-2/charcoal sorbent tubes for collection of
also free of straight chain hydrocarbons or PACs. breathing zone exposures.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

226

Table 2.5. Summary of data made available

from prior studies.

mg/m3
Technology Worker Total Benzene Total
Particulates Soluble Fraction Organic Matter
WMA-1 Raker left 0.69 bdl 0.73
WMA-1 Raker right 0.54 bdl 0.97
WMA-1 Screed area 1.11 bdl 0.66
WMA-1 Screed area 0.78 bdl 1.03
WMA-1 Operator left 0.91 bdl 0.91
WMA-1 Operator right 0.70 bdl 0.93
WMA-1 Operator area 0.55 bdl 1.67
WMA-1 Screed area 0.81 bdl 1.00
WMA-2 Screed operator 0.13 bdl 0.56
WMA-2 Screed operator 0.16 bdl 0.55
WMA-2 Operator 0.20 bdl 0.42
WMA-2 Raker 0.17 bdl 0.59
WMA-2 Raker 0.18 bdl 0.57
WMA-3 Screed operator 0.76 Bdl 0.99
Average 0.52 <0.04 0.81

bdl = below detection limit

Source: Heritage Research Group.

Total Organic Matter held for 7 minutes, to 280°C at 28°C/minute and held for
10 minutes, and finally taken to 350°C at 14°C/minute and
TOM (Kriech et al. 2002a) included hydrocarbons rang-
held for 5 minutes. Four standards supplied by AccuStandard
ing from 6 to 42 carbons (C6 to C42) as determined by gas
Inc. and three from Sigma-Aldrich were used. AccuStandard
chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID). A Var-
Inc. standards included a mix of 24 PACs, a custom-order
ian model 3400 GC with a 1077 split/splitless injector (set at
standard of nine PACs, dibenzo[a,e]fluoranthene, and thi-
250°C) was used, with a 5% phenyl/95% methyl-polysiloxane
anaphthene. Sigma-Aldrich standards included dibenz[c,h]
column (30 m × 0.33 mm ID, 0.25 µm film thickness; Restek
acridine, benz[a]acridine and dibenz[c,h]acridine. Prior to
RTX-5); hydrogen carrier gas was set at 2 mL/min. With the
detector at 310°C, the oven temperature program was 40°C injection, an internal standard mix was added to each cali-
held for 3 minutes, increased to 120°C at 9°C/min, held for bration standard and sample (10 µL to each 100 µL aliquot).
0.5 minutes, then ramped to 305°C at 11°C/min, and held Only the samples with the highest TOM values per experi-
for 10.89 minutes. Calibration included kerosene standards ment were analyzed by GC/TOFMS. Supplier and catalogue
for quantification of the TOM. number information for the products described are provided
in the appendix.
Nine of 13 PACs listed as agents reviewed by the Inter­
Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds national Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Volume 103
Forty PACs (see Table 2.6) were determined using gas for “asphalt and asphalt fumes, and some heterocyclic PACs”
chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC/ were included in the analysis. Four 6-ring PACs are also on
TOFMS) following a modified version of a published proce- the IARC list but were not tested due to lack of available
dure (Kriech et al. 2002b). A Leco Pegasus II GC/TOFMS was standards.
used with a source temperature of 275°C, transfer line tem-
perature of 300°C, mass range of 35–400, and five spectra/sec
Results
with a split/splitless injector (in splitless mode, set at 300°C).
A Varian Select PAH column was used (30 m × 0.25 mm ID, Average HMA mat temperatures for each experiment are
0.15 µm film thickness; Varian CP 7462). Helium carrier gas presented in Table 2.7. New York HMA temperatures were an
rate was 2.0 mL/minute. The oven temperature program was average of 35°C higher than those at the Indiana site. Differ-
50°C held for 0.7 minutes, ramped to 180°C at 85°C/minute ences between the HMA and WMA experiments in Indiana
and held for 0 minutes, then to 230°C at 3°C/minute and were only 15°C or less, whereas the New York mat tempera-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

227  

Table 2.6. PACs investigated in eight worker breathing zone samples.

Benzene
CAS No. PAC CAS No. PAC
Rings
1. 1+ 95-15-8 Benzothiophene 21. 5522-43-0 1-Nitropyrene
2. 2 91-20-3 Naphthalene 22. 27208-37-3 Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene
3. 2+ 83-32-9 Acenaphthene 23. 205-99-2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene
4. 2+ 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 24. 205-82-3 Benzo[j]fluoranthene
5. 2+ 225-11-6 Benz[a]acridine 25. 207-08-9 Benzo[k]fluoranthene
6. 2+ 225-51-4 Benz[c]acridine 26. 194-59-2 7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
7. 2+ 86-74-8 Carbazole 27. 56-49-5 3-Methylcholanthrene
8. 2+ 132-65-0 Dibenzothiophene 28. 50-32-8 Benzo[a]pyrene
9. 2+ 86-73-7 Fluorene 29. 192-97-2 Benzo[e]pyrene
10. 3 120-12-7 Anthracene 30. 53-70-3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
11. 3 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 31. 226-36-8 Dibenz[a,h]acridine
12. 3+ 239-35-0 Benzo[b]naphtho[2,1-d]thiophene 32. 224-42-0 Dibenz[a,j]acridine
13. 3+ 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 33. 224-53-3 Dibenz[c,h]acridine
14. 3+ 243-46-9 Benzo[b]naphtho[2,3-d]thiophene 34. 2997-45-7 Dibenzo[a,e]fluoranthene
15. 4 56-55-3 Benz[a]anthracene 35. 193-39-5 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
16. 4 3697-24-3 5-Methylchrysene 36. 191-24-2 Benzo[ghi]perylene
17. 4 218-01-9 Chrysene 37. 192-65-4 Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
18. 4 129-00-0 Pyrene 38. 189-55-9 Benzo[rst]pentaphene
19. 4 57-97-6 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene 39. 189-64-0 Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
20. 4 217-59-4 Triphenylene 40. 191-30-0 Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene

Benzene rings: the number of 6-membered (or 6-sided) aromatic rings in the structure—a + in this column indicates one
additional 4- or 5-sided ring within the structure. CAS No.: Chemical Abstracts Service registry number. PAC: polycyclic
aromatic compound. In this column, the compounds in shaded cells represent 9 of 13 PACs recently listed by IARC as their
preliminary list of agents to be reviewed for asphalt and asphalt fumes.

tures were ≥44°C lower for the WMA as compared to the cor- sampling, but it then experienced mechanical problems. On
responding HMA. In fact, the HMA at Indiana was within the third day, after 3–4 hours trying to fix the paver, a differ-
the normal temperature range for WMA (100–140°C). The ent paver was used.
HMA from the New York site had an average mat temperature Meteorological data during each sampling event was also
of 161°C, well within the typical HMA range (150–180°C). recorded (see Table 2.8). These data include ambient air tem-
Both sites used PG 64-22 asphalt for the HMA and WMA peratures, wind speed, and humidity, with the table showing
mixes. The source of asphalt was different between Indiana the average and range of recorded data.
and New York, but was the same within each location. TOM results are listed in Table 2.9 for Indiana and Table 2.10
The paver machines were very different for the two sites. for New York, with summary statistics shown in Table 2.11.
At the New York site, one paver was used the first 2 days of Average data are also shown graphically in Figure 2.14 with a
confidence interval of 95% (CI95%). Background and blank
data were all below the LOD of ~0.04 mg/m3. Breathing zone
Table 2.7. Average temperature of the asphalt mat results show that TOM concentrations for the New York site
directly behind the screed for each experiment. were substantially higher than those for the Indiana site.
Mix Temperature WMA arithmetic mean data compared to the correspond-
Behind Screed (°C) Difference (°C) ing HMA arithmetic mean data resulted in a minimum of
HMA, Indiana 126 Indiana reference 33% reduction in TOM exposures, with the exception of the
Gencor Foam 114 12 Indiana Evotherm 3G, which was 8.4% higher. The New York
Evotherm 3G 111 15 TOM data showed a statistically significant difference between
Heritage Wax 116 10 the HMA reference and the collective WMA technologies
HMA, New York 161 New York reference (95% confidence intervals [CI95%] were 1.90–2.52 mg/m3
Cecabase RT 106 55 and 1.29–1.54 mg/m3 respectively). For the Indiana data,
SonneWarmix 109 52
there was not a statistically significant difference between
BituTech PER 117 44
the HMA and the collective WMA technologies (CI95% were

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

228

Table 2.8. Meteorological data during the sampling events.

Temp oF Wind Speed (mph) Humidity %

Date Loca‡on Type
Average High Low Average High Low Average High Low
9/14/2010 IN HMA 74.7 78.3 66.7 3.2 0.0 10.6 47.7 71.6 34.7
9/15/2010 IN WMA 73.8 83.5 61.4 2.6 1.0 4.5 49.1 67.6 35.4
9/16/2010 IN WMA 68.4 70.5 66.0 6.5 3.0 13.9 78.3 86.7 69.0
9/16/2010 IN WMA 70.3 74.4 66.9 5.0 3.0 6.9 60.6 69.0 52.9

10/19/2010 NY WMA 54.5 56.0 53.2 3.1 5.0 1.2 58.7 74.2 35.0
10/20/2010 NY HMA 56.6 61.0 51.2 1.0 1.8 0.0 48.8 60.0 35.0
10/21/2010 NY WMA 56.3 61.0 52.0 9.3 12.0 7.1 69.5 81.0 52.0
10/22/2010 NY WMA 45.8 48.0 45.0 12.5 16.0 10.0 45.8 53.0 42.0

Table 2.9. Indiana site information and TOM data for all samples.

Experiment
Lab TOM
Product Date Tonnage Description Minutes1 L Air2 3 Average TOM
ID (mg/m )
(mg/m3)
51 Operator 350 721 0.30
52 Operator 285 581 0.17
53 Raker 429 875 0.25
Hot Mix, Indiana

54 Raker 430 854 0.24

9/14/2010

Screed
1200

0.32
55 operator 430 851 0.52
Screed
56 operator 430 858 0.53
57 Foreman 430 894 0.21
58 Foreman 430 882 0.33
61 Operator 425 871 0.05
62 Operator 425 876 0.05
Screed
Gencor Foam

63 operator 424 837 0.13

9/15/2010

Screed
1187

0.12
64 operator 424 854 0.09
65 Raker 419 848 0.12
66 Raker 422 850 0.11
67 Foreman 432 886 0.19
68 Foreman 432 873 0.25
71 Operator 262 542 0.27
72 Operator 262 542 0.30
Screed
Evotherm 3G

73 operator 268 531 0.45

9/16/2010

Screed
881

0.34
74 operator 268 547 0.58
75 Raker 267 545 0.27
76 Raker 267 542 0.31
77 Foreman 264 546 0.29
78 Foreman 264 539 0.30
81 Operator 225 464 0.04
82 Operator 225 467 0.05
Screed
Heritage Wax

83 operator 227 452 0.24

9/16/2010

Screed
890

0.15
84 operator 227 462 0.30
85 Raker 228 463 0.12
86 Raker 228 462 0.12
87 Foreman 230 475 0.12
88 Foreman 230 470 0.18
1
Time sample collector running
2
Liters of air collected by sampler

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

229  

Table 2.10. New York site information and TOM data for all samples.
Experiment
Lab L TOM
Product Date Tonnage Description Minutes1 Average TOM
ID Air2 (mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
49 Operator 430 837 2.78
50 Operator 430 834 2.97
Hot Mix, New York Screed
51 operator 436 859 2.15

10/20/2010
Screed

1100
2.21
52 operator 436 857 1.62
53 Raker 447 871 1.84
54 Raker 447 896 1.91
55 Laborer 434 862 2.21
56 Laborer 434 860 2.20
41 Operator 377 744 1.46
40 Operator 377 752 1.78
Screed
42 operator 370 738 1.02
Cecabase RT

10/19/2010

Screed
800

1.17
38 operator 370 733 1.31
44 Raker 373 724 1.11
43 Raker 376 759 1.25
39 Laborer 387 777 0.58
37 Laborer 387 778 0.87
61 Operator 345 695 1.79
62 Operator 345 667 1.57
Screed
SonneWarmix

63 operator 352 683 1.37

10/21/2010

Screed
780

1.40
64 operator 352 681 1.46
65 Raker 362 723 1.29
66 Raker 362 721 0.78
67 Laborer 385 765 1.41
68 Laborer 385 759 1.51
73 Operator 346 696 2.14
74 Operator 347 700 1.81
Screed
BituTech PER

75 operator 382 764 1.60

10/22/2010

Screed
798

1.48
76 operator 382 745 1.58
77 Raker 342 691 1.77
78 Raker 343 680 1.73
79 Laborer 388 770 1.48
80 Laborer 387 766 1.33
1
Time sample collector running
2
Liters of air collected by sampler

Table 2.11. Summary statistics for TOM data.

mg/m3 WMA, New York HMA, New York WMA, Indiana HMA, Indiana
Average 1.42 2.21 0.21 0.32
Minimum 0.58 1.62 0.04 0.17
Maximum 2.14 2.97 0.58 0.53
Standard Deviation 0.36 0.46 0.13 0.14
Number 24 8 24 8

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

230

Note: the Evotherm 3G in Indiana

showed no statistical difference
compared with HMA in Indiana

Figure 2.14. TOM—95% confidence intervals.

0.23–0.41 mg/m3 and 0.16–0.25 mg/m3, respectively). Given in lower TOM exposures within the paving worker breathing
that the Indiana HMA was applied at WMA temperatures, zones. PAC results are shown in Table 2.12 for the s­ amples
this was not surprising. Evaluation of the CI95% for each indi- with the highest TOM concentrations per experiment.
vidual WMA showed that, other than the Indiana Evotherm Only one 4–6 ring PAC (pyrene) was detected in these eight
3G, all the WMA were lower than their corresponding HMA samples. Of the 2–3 ring PACs, naphthalene was detected
as displayed in Figure 2.14. at the highest concentration. Because only the highest
Overall, use of these six WMA technologies resulted in ­samples were tested, comparisons between HMA and WMA
lower application temperatures that subsequently resulted were not made.

Table 2.12. PAC results for the samples with the highest total organic matter concentrations
per site/treatment.

Indiana Site New York Site

HMA, HMA, Gencor Heritage Bitu-
HMA, Evotherm Cecabase Sonne-
Ring 3 Indiana Indiana Foam Wax HMA, Tech
µg/m Screed 3G Screed RT Warmix
Size Back- Field Fore- Screed Operator PER
Operator Operator Operator Operator
ground Blank man Operator Operator
1+ Benzothiophene 0.06 bdl 0.22 0.07 0.23 0.13 0.10 bdl bdl bdl
2 Naphthalene 0.15 bdl 3.60 2.16 5.42 2.74 2.46 2.13 1.91 4.13
2+ Acenaphthene Bdl bdl 0.28 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.06 bdl bdl bdl
2+ Acenaphthylene Bdl bdl bdl bdl bdl Bdl bdl bdl bdl 0.31
2+ Dibenzothiophene Bdl bdl 0.25 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.07 bdl bdl bdl
2+ Fluorene bdl bdl 0.35 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.10 bdl bdl 0.10
3 Anthracene bdl bdl 0.06 bdl bdl Bdl bdl bdl bdl bdl
3 Phenanthrene bdl bdl 0.75 0.27 0.38 0.39 0.11 bdl bdl 0.13
3+ Fluoranthene bdl bdl 0.14 0.06 bdl Bdl bdl bdl bdl bdl
4 Pyrene bdl bdl 0.11 bdl bdl Bdl bdl bdl bdl bdl
Sum of detectable PACs* 0.45 0.40 5.80 3.04 6.80 4.09 3.07 2.56 2.32 4.97
Detection limits 0.049 0.061 0.058 0.057 0.091 0.11 0.060 0.066 0.072 0.072
* PAC: polycyclic aromatic compound. Within this data set, when bdl (below detection limit), the detection limit divided by the square root of 2 was used for
the summation.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

231  

Discussion It is difficult to directly compare these results with other

published data. For example, Shifa et al. (2009) reported
Average TOM data from previous HMA studies (1.69 mg/m3) 21.1 mg/m3 bitumen fume for HMA versus 2.06 mg/m3 for
(Kriech et al. 2002) showed lower results than seen at the WMA (a 90.2% reduction), but methods used and loca-
New York site (2.21 mg/m3). Although the New York HMA tion of sampling are not provided. Shifa et al. also reported
­temperatures were significantly higher than the Indiana results for benzopyrene (HMA = 0.094 mg/m3 versus WMA
HMA, the WMA temperatures were similar, yet the TOM con- = 0.019 mg/m3), whereas no benzo[a]pyrene was detected in
centrations were seven times higher in New York. Although either HMA or WMA on worker samples in this study (aver-
the asphalt grades were both PG 64-22, the sources of the age LOD = 0.07 µg/m3).
asphalt were different and likely the most prominent factor Lecomte et al. (2007) concluded that the volatile fraction
contributing to the differences. To confirm that the asphalt was higher (up to six times more) for HMA and represented
source was the cause, a sample of each HMA obtained dur- almost all the organic emissions (up to 99%). This is consis-
ing the study was Soxhlet extracted to separate the binder tent with Heritage Research Group studies in that the BSF
from mineral aggregates. After evaporation of the dichloro­ were also below the LOD. Also consistent with internal Heri-
methane solvent, each binder was tested using thermal gravi- tage Research Group data, a report by the Virginia Transpor-
metric analysis (TGA). tation Research Council (Diefenderfer et al. 2007) showed all
TGA is performed on samples to determine changes in worker results below the LOD of 0.08 mg/m3 for BSF.
weight in relation to changes in temperature. Previous studies It is interesting to note that the highest TOM concen-
have used this technique to evaluate various roofing asphalts trations occurred for the screed operator/foreman in Indi-
(Kuszewski et al. 1997). Overlays are shown in Figure 2.15 ana. However, in New York, the paver operator consistently
for the two asphalts. An expanded view of the region from received the highest exposure levels. This may be due to
100°C to 250°C shows the application temperatures used in design differences between the types of paver machines, or
this study. It is evident, based on its higher weight loss, that may be related to landscape differences (i.e., with connected
the New York binder is more volatile than the Indiana binder 2-story and 3-story buildings in New York creating an almost
until the crossover at ~236°C, which is well above the applica- tunnel effect compared to the open, more rural Indiana
tion temperatures employed. landscape).

Figure 2.15. TGA on the PG 64-22 asphalt binders used in New York and Indiana
for this study.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

232

All TOM results were above the LOD, demonstrating that • Twenty-two of the 40 individual PACs tested were below
it is a useful measure for assessing reductions in worker the LOD for the eight samples tested.
breathing zone exposures with the use of WMA. Results for –– Naphthalene was detected at the highest concentration.
these two sites appeared to bracket the high and low ends –– Only one 4–6 ring PAC (pyrene) was detected in any
of the spectrum of asphalt paving worker breathing zone of these worker breathing zone samples and it was in a
exposures. HMA sample.
–– The nine PACs tested that are part of the compounds
IARC has reviewed for asphalt, asphalt fumes, and some
Summary
heterocyclic PACs were all below the LOD.
• Overall, use of these six WMA technologies resulted –– Since only one 4-ring PAC was detected, it is unlikely
in lower application temperatures compared to their that the 6-ring compounds not included in this study
corresponding HMA; yielding an average 36% reduc- were present.
tion in TOM exposures within the paving worker breath- –– Not all asphalts are the same; in this study, the different
ing zones. sources resulted in significantly different breathing zone
• Exposures using WMA are not the same across technologies. exposure levels.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

233  

CHAPTER 5

Findings and Conclusions

Findings Historical fuel usage data, available for HMA, typically

include fuel used for plant start-up, plant waste, and end of
An objective of NCHRP Project 9-47A was to provide rela- run cleanout. In NCHRP Project 9-47A, the average reduc-
tive emissions measurements of warm mix asphalt (WMA) tion in mix temperature of 48°F (27°C) associated with
technologies as compared to conventional hot mix asphalt WMA production resulted in average fuel savings of 22.1%.
(HMA). NCHRP Report 779 addresses this objective in terms This was higher than predictions based on thermodynamic
of fuel usage, plant stack emissions, and worker exposure. material properties. The increased fuel savings appear to
The research conducted under this portion of NCHRP Proj- result from larger than expected casing losses—heat radiated
ect 9-47A included the following actions: through the plant’s metal into the surrounding environment
instead of being transferred to the mix for both HMA and
1. Monitoring fuel usage for six of eight projects that con- WMA. Potential errors were identified for direct measures
sisted of seven HMA control mixtures and 11 WMA of fuel usage such as tank sticks and gas meter readings by
mixtures. comparing measured fuel usage to fuel usage calculated from
2. Measuring stack emissions of duplicate production runs stoichiometric plant stack emissions. Gas meters were found
at three projects that had a total of three HMA (control) to update usage only after large time intervals, on the order
and eight WMA mixtures (22 total measurements). of 30 minutes for some meters, inducing error. Best practices
3. Refining procedures for collecting and analyzing worker suggest using methodologies to reduce aggregate stockpile
exposure based on literature review and previous testing moisture, such as sloping stockpile areas away from plant,
of HMA and WMA mixtures to use total organic matter loading on high side of sloped surface, and covering stockpiles
(TOM) instead of benzene soluble fraction (BSF). with high fines content to reduce fuel usage. Significant fuel
4. Collecting worker exposure during a production day to savings were demonstrated for one project with low stockpile
TOM at two multi-technology projects that consisted of moisture contents. Another recommended best practice for
two HMA controls and six WMA mixes. improving plant fuel efficiency is to conduct routine burner
5. Developing revised recommendations for monitoring maintenance including nozzle cleaning and tuning of linkages
fuel usage using stack emission data to evaluate perceived to achieve proper fuel to air ratios over the plant’s normal pro-
energy usage for asphalt mixture production using natural duction rates. One plant in this study had a 24.8% reduction
gas and reclaimed oil fuels. in fuel usage after burner tuning.

Based on the study, the Test Framework for Documenting

Stack Emissions
Emissions and Energy Reductions of WMA and Conventional
HMA was revised. Greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2)
decreased with reduced fuel usage. Carbon monoxide (CO)
and volatile organic compound (VOC) measurements appear
Fuel Usage
to be more related to burner maintenance and tuning and less
Data were presented to show the importance of compar- related to reductions in fuel usage and consequently the use of
ing the energy usage of new technologies, such as WMA, to WMA. One project, with a parallel-flow dryer using reclaimed
HMA over similar, typically short, steady-state, time frames. oil as fuel, indicated a reduction in VOC when producing

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

234

WMA. Significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) were fidence level. The asphalt at one site showed higher overall
observed for the same project. The two other projects used emissions in the temperature range typically associated with
natural gas as fuel, which has lower sulfur content. Nitrogen asphalt production.
oxides (NOx) are a precursor to the formation of ground-level The sample with the highest overall TOM from each mix/site
ozone. NOx emissions are also higher for fuel oils compared combination was tested for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
to natural gas. With one exception, small reductions in NOx (PAHs). Naphthalene was detected in the highest concentra-
were noted for WMA. For the exception, the burner was set tions. Only one non-carcinogenic 4–6 ring polycyclic aromatic
at 26% of its firing rate for the WMA, compared to 75% for compound (PAC), pyrene, was detected and it was from an
the corresponding HMA at the same production rate. This HMA sample. All of the nine PACs listed by IARC for asphalt
low firing rate may have resulted in extra excess air, con- were below detectable limits.
tributing to NOx formation. Formaldehyde is classified as a
hazardous air pollutant. It is a byproduct of the combustion
Conclusions
of carbon-based fuels. The distribution of WMA formal-
dehyde measurements was lower for WMA than for HMA WMA demonstrated reductions in fuel usage. These reduc-
and comparable to state-of-art performance observed in the tions can help offset the cost of WMA technologies or equip-
mid-Atlantic states. ment. Reductions in stack emissions of greenhouse gases
corresponded to reductions in fuel usage. WMA should receive
credit for reductions in greenhouse gases in life-cycle assess-
Worker Exposure
ments. WMA also resulted in reductions in SO2 when using
Worker exposure to asphalt fumes has typically been high-sulfur fuels such as reclaimed oil.
assessed by measuring BSF. In studies comparing worker The following revisions are proposed to the Test Frame-
exposure between HMA and WMA, most cases have found work for Documenting Emissions and Energy Reductions of
BSF below detectable limits. Thus, quantitative comparisons WMA and Conventional HMA:
could not be made. For NCHRP Project 9-47A, Heritage
Research Group utilized the newly developed TOM measure. • Corresponding WMA and HMA measurements should be
Worker exposure was measured at two multi-technology made over similar time periods of steady-state production
sites. At one site, HMA temperatures behind the screed were to compare fuel usage and stack emissions of WMA and
within the expected temperature range for WMA; the WMA HMA.
mixes were, on average, only 12°C cooler. At the other site, • Direct fuel measurements (e.g., tank sticks, fuel meter, or
mat temperatures immediately behind the screed were, on gas meter readings) should be supplemented with stoi-
average, 50°C cooler. With one exception, the WMA mixtures chiometric fuel measurements in accordance with EPA
at both sites resulted in at least a 33% reduction in TOM; Method 19.
the one exception was an 8.4% increase at the site where the • Total organic matter (TOM) should replace benzene sol-
HMA was placed at WMA temperatures. The reduction for uble fraction (BSF) for quantitative comparison of WMA
five of six mixes was statistically significant at the 95% con- and HMA worker exposure.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

235  

References

Asphalt Institute and Eurobitume. The Bitumen Industry—A Global Fuhst, R., O. Creutzenberg, H. Ernst, T. Hansen, G. Pohlmann, A. Preiss,
Perspective, Production, Chemistry, Use, Specification, and Occu- S. Rittinghausen. 24 Months Inhalation Carcinogenicity Study of
pational Exposure. 2nd ed. (2011). Available electronically at: http:// Bitumen Fumes in Wistar (WU) Rats. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 4(S1),
[Link]/public/IS230_2ndedition.pdf. 2007, pp. 20–43.
Bajpai D., and V. K. Tyagi. Biodiesel: Source, Production, Composition, Harder, G. A. LEA Half-Warm Mix Paving Report, 2007 Projects for
Properties and Its Benefits. J Oleo Sci. 55(10), 2006, pp. 487–502. NYSDOT. McConnaughay Technologies, Cortland, NY, 2008.
Cavallari, J. M., L. V. Osborn, J. E. Snawder, A. J. Kriech, L. D. Olsen, R. F. Harder, G., Y. Le Goff, A. Loustau, Y. Martineau, B. Heritier, and
Herrick, and M. D. McClean. Predictors of Airborne Exposures to A. Romier. Energy and Environmental Gains of Warm and Half-
Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds and Total Organic Matter among Warm Asphalt Mix: Quantitative Approach. Paper #08-2456. Pre-
Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Workers and Influence of Work Condi- sented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
tions and Practices. Ann Occup Hyg. 56(2), 2011, pp. 138–147. Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
Cervarich, M. Foaming the Asphalt: New Warm-Mix Technique Chal- Hurley, G., B. Prowell, and A. Kvasnak. Missouri Field Trial of Warm
lenges Conventional Wisdom. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, 12(4), Mix Asphalt Technologies: Construction Summary. NCAT Report
July/August 2007, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, No. 10-02. National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL,
MD, pp. 23–24, 42. June 2010a.
Chief Environmental Group, LTD. Emission Test Results for: Warm Mix Hurley, G., B. Prowell, and A. Kvasnak. Wisconsin Field Trial of Warm
Asphalt Trial Project Mar-Zane Materials, Inc. Asphalt Plant #13, Mix Asphalt Technologies: Construction Summary. NCAT Report
Byesville, Ohio. No Date. No. 10-04. National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL,
Clark, C. R., D. M. Burnett, C. M. Parker, E. W. Arp, M. S. Swanson, November 2010b.
G. D. Minsavage, A. J. Kriech, L. V. Osborn, J. J. Freeman, R. A. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the
Barter, P. E. Newton, and C. W. Stewart. Asphalt Fume Dermal Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Available online at:
Carcinogenicity Potential: I. Dermal Carcinogenicity Evaluation [Link] Accessed March 2012.
of Asphalt (Bitumen) Fume Condensates. Reg Tox Pharmacol, Koenders, B., D. Stoker, C. Bowen, P. de Groot, O. Larsen, D. Hardy,
April 18, 2011 (e-pub). K. Wilms. Innovative Process in Asphalt Production and Placement to
D’Angelo, J., E. Harm, J. Bartoszek, G. Baumgardner, M. Corrigan, Obtain Lower Operating Temperatures. Presented at 2nd Eurasphalt
J. Cowsert, T. Harman, M. Jamshidi, W. Jones, D. Newcomb, B. D. & Eurobitume Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 2000.
Prowell (report facilitator), R. Sines, and B. Yeaton, Warm-Mix Kriech A. J., J. T. Kurek, H. L. Wissel, L. V. Osborn, and G. R. Blackburn.
Asphalt: European Practice. International Technology Scanning Evaluation of Worker Exposure to Asphalt Paving Fumes Using
Program, Federal Highway Administration, December 2007. Traditional and Nontraditional Techniques. AIHAJ 63(5), 2002a,
Davidson, J. K. Evotherm Trial in Aurora, Ontario, on August 8, 2005. pp. 628–635.
McAsphalt Engineering Services, Toronto, Ontario. 2005a. Kriech A. J., J. T. Kurek, L. V. Osborn, H. L. Wissel and B. J. Sweeney.
Davidson, J. K. Evotherm Trial, Ramara Township, Road 46. McAsphalt Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds in Asphalt and
Engineering Services, Toronto, Ontario, December 2005b. in Corresponding Leachate Water. Polycycl Aromat Cmpd. 22(3–4),
Davidson, J. K., and R. Pedlow. Reducing Paving Emissions Using 2002b, pp. 517–535.
Warm Mix Technology. Proc. of the 52nd Annual Conference of Kriech, A. J., J. E. Snawder, R. F. Herrick, L. D. Olsen, M. D. McClean,
the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, 2007, pp. 39–59. J. M. Cavallari, L. V. Osborn and G. R. Blackburn. Study Design
Diefenderfer, S. D., K. K. McGhee, B. M. Donaldson. Installation of and Methods to Investigate Inhalation and Dermal Exposure to
Warm Mix Asphalt Projects in Virginia. Virginia Transportation Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds and Urinary Metabolites from
Research Council and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Asphalt Paving Workers: Research Conducted Through Partner-
Highway Administration. VTRC 07-R25, April 2007. ship. Polycycl Aromat Cmpd. 31(4), 2011, pp. 243–269.
EES Group Inc., Asphalt Emissions Study. Prepared for Shelly & Sands, Kuszewski, J. R., W. B. Gorman, and E. G. Kane. Characterization of
Inc., October, 2006. Asphalt Volatility Using TGA and Iatroscan Analyses. Proceedings
ETE. Warm Mix Stack Emission Test, Environmental Technology & of the 4th International Symposium on Roofing Technology, NRCA,
Engineering Corporation, Elm Grove, WI, June, 20, 2006. Rosemont, IL, 1997.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

236

Lauby-Secretan, B., R. Baan, Y. Grosse, F. El Ghissassi, V. Bouvard, Norseth, T., J. Waage, and I. Dale. Acute Effects and Exposure to Organic
V. Benbrahim-Tallaa, et al. Bitumens and Bitumen Emissions, Compounds in Road Maintenance Workers Exposed to Asphalt.
and Some Heterocyclic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Lancet Amer J Ind Med. 20, 1991, pp. 737–744.
Oncol. 12(13), 2011, pp. 1190–1191. Olsson, A., H. Kromhout, M. Agostini, J. Hansen, C. F. Lassen,
Lecomte, M., F. Deygout, A. Menetti. Emission and Occupational C. Johansen, K. Kjaerheim, S. Langård, I. Stücker, W. Ahrens,
Exposure at Lower Asphalt Production and Laying Temperatures. T. Behrens, M. L. Lindbohm, P. Heikkilä, D. Heederik, L. Portengen,
WAM Environmental Benefits of Reducing Asphalt Production J. Shaham, G. Ferro, F. de Vocht, I. Burstyn, and P. Boffetta. A Case-
and Laying Temperature, Shell Bitumen, 2007. Accessed from Control Study of Lung Cancer Nested in a Cohort of European
[Link]/static/bitumen/downloads/wam_field_test_ Asphalt Workers. Environ. Health Persp. 118, 2010, pp. 1418–1424.
results_italy.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2011. Powers, D. Warm Mix Asphalt 2008 ODOT Field Trials. Presented at
McClean, M. D., L. V. Osborn, J. E. Snawder, L. D. Olsen, A. J. Kriech, 2009 Ohio Asphalt Paving Conference, February 4, 2009.
A. Sjödin, Z. Li, J. P. Smith, D. L. Sammons, R. F. Herrick, and Prowell, B. D., G. C. Hurley, and B. Frank, Warm Mix Asphalt: Best Prac-
J. M. Cavallari. Using Urinary Biomarkers of Polycyclic Aromatic tices, 3rd ed. (2012). Quality Improvement Series 125, National
Compound Exposure to Guide Exposure-Reduction Strategies Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, 2012.
Among Asphalt Paving Workers. Ann Occup Hyg., September 20, Raulf-Heimsoth, M., B. Pesch, B. Kendzia, A. Spickenheuer, R. Bramer,
2012 (e-pub). B. Marczynski, R. Merget, and T. Brüning. Irritative Effects of
Middleton, B., and R. W. Forfylow. An Evaluation of Warm Mix Asphalt Vapours and Aerosols of Bitumen on the Airways Assessed by Non-
Invasive Methods. Arch Toxicol. 1, 2011, pp. 41–52.
Produced With The Double Barrel Green Process. Transportation
RTI International. Emission Factor Documentation for AO-42 Section
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Final Report. U.S. Environmental
Vol. 2126, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
Protection Agency, February 2004.
emies, 2009.
Shell Bitumen. Asphalt Production and Laying Temperature. Accessed
National Asphalt Pavement Association and European Asphalt Pave-
from [Link]/static/bitumen-en/ . . . /wrc/ . . . /
ment Association. The Asphalt Paving Industry, A Global Perspective. wam_english.pdf.
GL 101, 2nd ed., 2011. Shifa, X., X. Liting, J. Jonathan, X. Yongquing. The Application of Emul-
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Benzene Solu- sion Warm Mix Asphalt in Long Tunnel Pavement. Geotechnical
ble Fraction and Total Particulate (Asphalt Fume): Method 5042. Special Publ., No. 193, 2009.
In: Eller P. M., and M. E. Cassinelli, eds., NIOSH Manual of Ana- Tepper A. L., G. A. Burr, H. A. Feng, M. Singal, A. K. Miller, K. W.
lytical Methods, 4th ed., 2nd supplement. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub- Hanley, and L. D. Olsen. Acute Symptoms Associated with Asphalt
lication No. 98-119. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health Fume Exposure Among Road Pavers. Am. J Ind Med. 49, 2006,
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease pp. 728–739.
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety Ventura, A., P. Moneron, A. Jullien, P. Tamagny, F. Olard, and D. Zavan.
and Health, 1998. Environmental Comparison at Industrial Scale of Hot and Half-
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Hazard Review: Warm Mix Asphalt Manufacturing Processes. Paper #09-1274,
Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt. DHHS presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
(NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-110. U.S. Department of Health Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Von Devivere, M., W. Barthel, and J-P. Marchand. Warm Asphalt Mixes
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety by Adding Aspha-min, a Synthetic Zeolite. XXIInd PIARC World
and Health, 2001. Road Congress, Durban, South Africa, 2003.
Newcomb, D. An Introduction to Warm-Mix Asphalt. National Asphalt WMA TWG. “Documenting Emissions and Energy Reductions of
Pavement Association. Accessed from [Link] WMA and Conventional HMA.” August 2006. Accessed from www.
Introduction_to_Warm-mix_Asphalt.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2007. [Link]. Accessed November 6, 2013.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

237  

APPENDIX

Documenting Emissions and Energy Reductions

of WMA and Conventional HMA During Plant
and Paving Operations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

238

PROPOSED REVISION

Project Summary

Attached is a project summary data entry sheet for use in identifying warm mix asphalt (WMA)
technologies and binder characteristics, aggregate, and plant type. As indicated on the project
summary data entry sheet, recorded information will include:

WMA technology and binder characteristics,

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) usage/rate (if applicable),
Recycled asphalt shingle (RAS) usage/rate (if applicable),
Aggregate type(s),
Aggregate moisture content,
Anti-stripping agent or other additives, and
Plant type.

Plant Emissions Stack Testing and Energy Requirements

Introduction:
Stack testing should include mass emissions rate measurement of NOx, CO2, and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) to compare stack emissions from WMA technologies and conventional hot mix
asphalt (HMA). It is suggested that stack emissions reporting be standardized as lbs. per ton (of mix
produced) and include a recording and reporting of average production rate in tons HMA or WMA
produced per hour, during each test period. Testing should be performed by a certified tester and
should include either two (2) or three (3) 60-minute stack sampling runs per technology, if possible.
The number of runs may have to be adjusted to the available run time using the WMA technology.
Production rates should be recorded every 15 minutes during each test run and used to determine
average production rate in tons mix produced per hour for each run. The data from all individual test
runs during a test period (conventional HMA or WMA) should be averaged to determine the overall
results for each technology. Stack gas volumetric flow rate based on full traverse of stack cross
section during hour run, moisture content, temperature, and a variety of other parameters should also
be determined for each run, in accordance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) stack testing methodology.
In order to assess fossil fuel and energy use reductions, it is suggested that beginning and end
fuel usage data be recorded for each test run. This may be accomplished with direct fuel usage meter
readout, where available, or by tank gauging as appropriate. To validate accuracy of direct fuel
measurements, stoichiometric fuel usage calculations should be made from stack gas flow rate in
accordance with U.S. EPA Method 19.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

239  

Stack Emissions Testing and Analytical Methods:

Suggested test methods are in accordance with U.S. EPA protocol used historically in the HMA
industry and are as follows:

Sampling point locations per U.S. EPA Method 1, if ports have not been established during previous
stack testing. If ports have been previously established, the test firm should confirm that their
location is consistent with that specified by U.S. EPA Method 1. Access platforms and an
appropriate power source must also be available during testing. The remaining stack emission test
parameters and methods are defined in Table 2.A.1.

Table 2.A.1. Stack emission test parameters and methods.

Minimum
Number of Test
Runs per Sampling and Analytical
Emission Parameter Technology Methodology
Volumetric flow rate * U.S. EPA Methods 1 and 2
Oxygen (O2) and carbon * U.S. EPA Method 3A
dioxide (CO2)
Moisture content * U.S. EPA Method 4
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 2 U.S. EPA Method 6
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 2 U.S. EPA Method 7E
Carbon monoxide (CO) 2 U.S. EPA Method 10
Total hydrocarbons (VOC) — 2 U.S. EPA Method 25A
reported as molecular weight
of propane
Particulate matter/PM-10 2 U.S. EPA Methods 5/202
Formaldehyde 2 U.S. EPA Method 316
* Determined concurrently with all emission parameters

Energy Requirements and Operational Data:

Attached is an operational data entry sheet for use in determining the average production rate,
average mix temperature, for calculating the amount of energy required to produce the mix, for
documenting burner settings, and monitoring baghouse temperature and pressure. As indicated on
the operational data entry sheet, recorded information will include:

Production rate recorded in 15-minute intervals. Any plant starts/stops should be noted.
Mix discharge temperature.
Fuel meter readings or tank dips at the beginning and end of steady-state production runs.
Tank dips should be measured to the nearest 0.1 inch. Many gas meters only update
periodically—up to 30 minutes between changes. Someone could monitor the meter and call
the tower for cumulative production tonnage the instant the meter updates. Time lags
between updates or recording tonnage result in errors. Slat conveyor voltage should be
recorded in addition to amperage in order to estimate power used.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

240

Suggested
gg Reporting of Stack Emissions and Energy Results:
Average mix production rate in tons/hour
- Conventional mix test period
- WMA test period
Pounds of each pollutant per ton of mix produced
- Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
fine particulates (PM-10), and formaldehyde
- Conventional test period (average all runs)
- WMA test period (average all runs)
Fossil fuel usage—Gallons or cubic feet gas/ton mix
- Type of fuel used (i.e., #2 oil, natural gas, other)
- Conventional test period (average all runs)
- WMA test period (average all runs)
- Percent reduction corrected for differences in aggregate moisture content
Include appendix for field test data and calculations summary

Approximate Costs Associated with Stack Emissions Testing:

Any travel costs, outside locality, are not included.
Complex reporting of results will incur extra charges; this is not anticipated.
Costs for developing test plans (test protocol) are not included; however, test plans are not
anticipated to be needed.
There are minimal differences in costs (+/- $300) associated with conducting either two or
three stack tests.
Baseline costs are anticipated to be approximately $3,000–$5,000 per day.
- Multiple technologies (comparison with conventional HMA is an additional
technology) typically require a day per technology. Includes three stack tests.
- Includes simple reporting of results.
- Formaldehyde, Sox, and PM-10 analysis add a small additional cost.
- Costs are for a local company to conduct the emissions testing—travel costs would be
incurred for non-local companies.

Emissions Surrounding Laydown Operations

Introduction:
Ideally, placement of each mix, conventional and WMA, would use the same paving equipment;
material placed oneday apart, approximately during the same time-frame. To minimize variability,
it is also recommended that the paving machines utilized are equipped with properly functioning
engineering controls. The recommended test period, for field emissions, is between 3 and 4 hours.
More detail follows.

Placement of Monitors:
During the placement of each technology, conventional HMA and WMA, paving crew members will
be monitored for asphalt fume emissions. The purpose of this testing is to document, with some
statistical power, the reduction in field application emissions using WMA as compared with using
conventional HMA. Monitoring four workers is recommended. The four workers with the greatest
potential for asphalt emission exposure are: paver operator, screed operators, and raker. If diesel oil

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

241  

is normally used as a release agent, a substitute such as B-100 (biodiesel)

(CAS Number: 67784-80-9) should be used when monitoring laydown emissions.

Sampling and Analytical Method:

Traditional gravimetric procedures used to quantify asphalt fume emissions such as National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 5042 measurements of total
particulates (TP) and benzene soluble fraction (BSF) generally prevent quantitative comparisons
between HMA and WMA since most readings are below detectable limits. An alternate procedure to
measure total organic matter (TOM) developed by Heritage Research Group, in conjunction with
NIOSH Method 5042, is recommended.

Each worker to be monitored can be equipped with two samplers: the NIOSH 5042 sampler if
required, and a sorbent tube containing XAD-2 and charcoal (150 mg XAD-2 followed by 50 mg
activated charcoal). A 1-inch piece of Tygon® tubing (dichloromethane rinsed) is added to the end
of the sorbent tube, once broken, to protect the workers. Care should be taken to break the inlet end
of the tube to 4-mm to equal the NIOSH sampler. Set to a flow rate of 2.0 + 0.2 L/min., pumps
should be calibrated pre-shift and re-measured post-shift. One background sample should be
collected each day/experiment, positioned upwind of the paving operation. Sorbent tubes were
eluted with 5 mL dichloromethane; charcoal end up.

A field blank should be collected on each day/experiment for each crew. If NIOSH 5042 is
performed, this method requires five field blanks per day. Descriptive data should be collected on
potential confounders from the site, e.g., construction dust and any other background interferences.
One background sample per day, upwind of the paving operation, is highly recommended.

Keep completed samples dry and cold by placing them in a cooler with ice packs and protect them
from light by wrapping them with foil. This allows further chemical-specific analysis, if warranted.
Minimum field sampling collection times should be between 3 and 4 hours; 6 to 8 hours would be the
preferred sampling time using one single media cartridge.

TOM (Kriech et al. 2002) included hydrocarbons ranging from C6 to C42 as determined by gas
chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/FID). A Varian model 3400 GC with a 1077
split/splitless injector (set at 250°C) was used, with a 5% phenyl /95% methyl-polysiloxane column
(30 m x 0.33 mm ID, 0.25 µm film thickness; Restek RTX-5); hydrogen carrier gas was set at
2 mL/min. With detector at 310oC, the oven temperature program was 40°C held for 3 minutes,
increased to 120oC at 9oC/min, held for 0.5 min, then ramped to 305oC at 11oC/min, and held for
10.89 min. Calibration should include kerosene standards for quantification of the TOM. The
sample can also be tested for individual polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) and/or 4-6 ring
PACs by Fluorescence spectroscopy (Osborn et al. 2001). A complete list of field equipment for
monitoring lay down temperatures, collection of worker exposure samples, TOM testing, and PAC,
testing (if desired), is shown in Table 2.A.2. Any equivalent or better instrumentation or supplies
can be used; details are provided for convenience.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

242

Table 2.A.2. Supply information with catalog numbers.

Supplier Description CAT. NO. City State
HMA Lab Supply, Inc. Stainless Steel Dial Stem thermometer, with a - TM-4500 Richmond VA
18 to 204 °C range
SKC, Inc. 150 mg XAD-2 followed by 50 mg activated CPM032509-001 Eighty Four PA
charcoal
Fisher Scientific Tygon® tubing 14-176-272 Pittsburg PA
EMD Dichloromethane HPLC Grade OmniSolv® DX0831-1 Gibbstown NJ
High Purity
AccuStandard, Inc. Kerosene standards FU-005N Neat New Haven CT
AccuStandard, Inc. Custom mix of 24 PACs H-QME-01 New Haven CT
AccuStandard, Inc. Custom mix of 9 PACs S-13911-R1 New Haven CT
AccuStandard, Inc. dibenzo[a,e]fluoranthene Cat. No. H-247S New Haven CT
AccuStandard, Inc. thianaphthene Cat. No. H-238N New Haven CT
Sigma-Aldrich dibenz[c,h]acridine BCR 156R St. Louis MO
Sigma-Aldrich benz[a]acridine R308714 St. Louis MO
Sigma-Aldrich dibenz[c,h]acridine BCR 156R St. Louis MO
Supelco Internal standard mix 4 8902 St. Louis MO

While sampling in the field, mix temperatures (both in the hopper and on the mat as it exits the
screed strike area) should bemonitored and recorded approximately every 30 minutes, during the test
period, with a dial stem thermometer; provided it can be taken safely.

It is essential that weather-related information be collected and documented at least four times during
the sampling period. Information would include, at minimum: wind speed and direction, air
temperature, humidity, and other weather-related comments.

For any personal sampling, names of all workers will be recorded along with observations during
sampling including smoking habits. Workers may be asked not to smoke; if they do smoke,
smoking should be documented. Pumps may be turned off while smoking. Document pertinent
information regarding work positions and activities.

Photographs, illustrating field application of these technologies, will be taken throughout the
sampling event. Diagrams noting the area sample locations and locations of workers are also helpful.
Noting the direction of the paving application is important, especially in relation to wind direction.

Suggested Reporting of Results:

Anomalies in sampling and results
Visual observations of emissions
- Conventional test period
- WMA test period
Mix temperature (hopper and mat)
- Conventional test period
- WMA test period
- Percent reduction

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

243  

Weather data including ambient temperature and humidity

Worker activities
Diagrams and/or photographs documenting activities and sampling locations
Notation whether paver is equipped with functioning engineering (emission
reduction) controls
Background-corrected asphalt fume emissions (TP, BSF, and TOM) reported
in mg/m3
- Conventional test period (average all runs)
- WMA test period (average all runs)
- Percent reduction

Approximate Costs Associated with Occupational Hygiene Field Emissions Testing:

Any travel costs, outside locality, are not included.
Analytical costs are approximately $100 per sample (11 samples per 3–4 hour
event) x 2 events per day.
Labor at approximately $110 per hour (10 hours) x 2 people.
Report writing and miscellaneous at approximately $600.
Baseline costs are anticipated to be approximately $5,000–$6,000.
- Per technology (comparison with conventional HMA is an additional
technology—i.e., a complete round of testing would be needed).
- Costs are for local hygienists to conduct the field monitoring—travel
costs would be incurred for non-local hygienists.
- Monitoring equipment (pumps) may or may not be included in the
labor rates but should not substantially affect the estimated baseline
costs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

244

Data Collection Forms

General Plant Information

Project Identification: _______________________ Date: __________

Contractor: ______________________________________

Plant Location: __________________ GPS Coordinates: ______________

Plant Type: _______________________________________ (batch, counter-flow drum,

parallel flow drum, or etc.)

Plant Manufacturer: _______________________________________________

Burner Model/Type: _______________________________________________

Fuel Type: __________________________ Fuel Temperature (if oil): ______

Describe any modifications for producing WMA: ______________________

________________________________________________________________

Binder, Aggregate, Additive Information

Binder Grade: _____________ Supplier: _____________

If modified, type of modification (e.g., polymer modified SBS): ____________

Anti-stripping Additive: ________________________ Dosage: _________

Warm Mix Asphalt Technology: _____________________________________

Aggregate Type(s): ________________________________________________

(e.g., limestone, granite, or etc.)

RAP/RAS Usage/Rate: _____________________________________________

Aggregate Moisture Content

Date/Time Composite Moisture Content (%)

Truck Release Agent: ______________________________________________

Notes:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies
PROCESS DATA SHEET

HMA or WMA Technology: ___________________________ Date: ___________________ Page: ____

Aggregate Stack Baghouse

Production Mix Temp. Temp. Temp. % Delta Tons
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Drag
Time Rate Burner % (°____) (°____) (°____) Damper Pressure Produced Amperage Comment

Fuel Reading Start of Run/Units/Time: _________________ Fuel Reading End of Run/Units/Time: _________________
Field Performance of Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
[Link] United States Department of Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.