SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Annual Meeting Phoenix, AZ Thursday, August 10, :15 12:00 PM MST

Transcription

1 SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Annual Meeting Phoenix, AZ Thursday, August 10, :15 12:00 PM MST TECHNICAL SECTION 2b Liquid Asphalts MINUTES I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks A. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed) II. Roll Call Membership List (Attendees highlighted) For full attendance see Attachment A, page 7-8. Name Company Address Designation Type Lyndi Blackburn Alabama DOT Chair Voting Barry Paye Wisconsin DOT Vice Chair Voting Evan Rothblatt AASHTO AASHTO Staff Non-Voting Brian Johnson AASHTO Re:source Liaison Non-Voting Maria Knake AASHTO Re:source Liaison Non-Voting Paul Burch Arizona DOT Member Voting Bill Schiebel Colorado DOT Member Voting Robert Lauzon Connecticut DOT Member Voting Eliana Carlson Connecticut DOT Member Non-Voting Wasi Khan District of Columbia DOT Member Voting Tim Ruelke Florida DOT Member Voting Peter Wu (Sheila Georgia DOT Member Voting Hines) Eric Shishido (Jimmy Hawaii DOT Member Voting Kephart) Brian Pfeifer Illinois DOT Member Voting Kelly Morse Illinois DOT Member Non-Voting Jim Trepanier Illinois DOT Member Non-Voting Christopher Leibrock Kansas DOT Member Voting Allen Myers Kentucky Transportation Member Voting Cabinet Jason Davis Louisiana DOT & Development Member Voting John Grieco Massachusetts DOT Member Voting Sejal Barot Maryland DOT Member Voting Chandra Akisetty Maryland DOT Member Non-Voting Steven Lenker AASHTO Re:source Member Non-Voting Robert Lutz AASHTO Re:source Member Non-Voting Richard Bradbury Maine DOT Member Voting Matt Strizich (Oak Montana DOT Member Voting Metcalfe) Christopher Peoples North Carolina DOT Member Voting Denis Boisvert New Hampshire DOT Member Voting Darin Tedford Nevada DOT Member Voting Donald Streeter New York State DOT Member Voting Page 1 of 6

2 Membership List (Continued) Name Company Address Designation Type Eric Biehl Ohio DOT Member Voting Becca Lane Ontario MOT Associate Voting Member Anne Holt Ontario MOT Member Non-Voting (Proxy for ON) Pamela Marks Ontario MOT Member Non-Voting Timothy Ramirez Pennsylvania DOT Member Voting Michael Byrne (Mark Rhode Island DOT Member Voting Felag) Brian Egan Tennessee DOT Member Voting Darren Hazlett (Brett Texas DOT Member Voting HaggertyRoger) Scott Andrus Utah DOT Member Voting William Bailey Virginia DOT Member Voting Mladen Gagulic Vermont Agency of Member Voting Transportation Paul Farley (Travis West Virginia DOT Member Voting Walbeck) Michael Arasteh FHWA Ex Officio Non-Voting Tim Aschenbrener FHWA Ex Officio Non-Voting John Bukowski FHWA Ex Officio Non-Voting Tom Harman FHWA Ex Officio Non-Voting Victor Gallivan Gallivan Consulting Inc. Friend Non-Voting James Willis NAPA Friend Non-Voting Larry Tomkins Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Friend Non-Voting Inc. Robert Horan Asphalt Institute Friend Non-Voting Amy Ridenour AASHTO Re:source Other None III. Approval of Technical Section Minutes 2017 Mid-Year Minutes distributed with this agenda as Attachment B (Pages 9-26). Motion for approval as submitted: Illinois, 2 nd Montana, Motion approved. IV. Old Business A. SOM Ballot Items 1. Outstanding items from Mid-Year Meeting T48 Flash Point Temperature 219 C proposed. Did not make it to TS ballot due to technical issues in just updating the standard for publication (figures). So a clean version was not available. (Attachment C, Pages 27-35) The C equivalent will also need to be updated for the minimum flash point in the draft. o Chair called for a Technical Section voice ballot for the proposed corrections to the minimum flash point temperature and the addition of Section 6.1. Ballot carried with all in favor. o Motion to move these changes to SOM ballot: Maryland, 2 nd Florida. Motion carried. M 320 Revision to Note 4 PA to recommend revised note. Tim Ramirez (PA) will send something to the Chair for review before the next mid-year meeting. Page 2 of 6

3 B. TS Ballot #1 Ballot Results and all comments are included as Attachment D (Pages 36-46). 1. Item Number: 1 (1 Negative - GA) Description: Ballot to revise and update R 15, "Standard Practice for Evaluation of Asphalt Additives and Modifiers." Sent back to GA with explanation requesting their input. Proposed to Editorially delete examples so the section title is Extenders/Softeners GA Withdrew Negative. Motion to send forward as a concurrent ballot after having made changes received in the TS ballot: Nevada 2 nd North Carolina Motion carried. (Attachment E, Pages 47-56) 2. Item Number: 2 (1 Negative - PA) Description: Revise M 332, "Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test to remove the elastic component. This item is tied to Item #3 to create a new standard practice for the elastic component. All discussion for the Pennsylvania negative is included under Item 3 below except for the vote. Motion to move forward with change to terminology that addressed NV s concerns: Nevada, 2 nd : North Carolina. Motion carried. (Attachment F, Pages 57-65) 3. Item Number: 3 (2 Negatives PA, NV) Description: Ballot to add a new standard practice for the elastic component removed from M 332. Nevada withdrew their negative because in Section 5.1, a correction will be made in terminology that addressed the NV concerns. This practice allows a state to have a practice to use that incorporates the elastic recovery component. PA chose to not withdraw the negative since a state would now need to specify both (the new R XX practice along with either M320 or M332) if they wanted to use both components. Discussion of the issue is included in Attachment G, Pages Motion to find the PA negative non-persuasive and move the standard to Concurrent ballot: North Carolina, 2 nd Florida with the rationale: It does not matter whether it becomes an annex or goes into a second standard. The state can decide how it needs to determine how it specifies the use of these specifications either way. The vote results: 17 for a non-persuasive vote, 7 against. The negative was found to be non-persuasive. (Attachment H, Pages 68-73) 4. Item Number: 4 (No Negatives) Description: Ballot to revise TP 102, Provisional Standard Test Method for Asphalt Release Agents. Move to SOM Ballot with Changes. Motion to a Concurrent Ballot for a full Standard: Virginia, 2nd Montana. Motion carried. (Attachment I, Pages 74-85) 5. Item Number: 5 (1 Negative - NV) Description: Ballot for Provisional Test Method for Performance Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments. The following attachments are included: An updated version of the specification, AASHTO SPG Spec Hot Applied pdf, that was balloted last year at SOM for a new ballot; The ballot comments with responses to address them, TS2b Results-with comments addressed.pdf; A presentation from the researcher, Dr. Amy Epps-Martin of TAMU/TTI, Short Course_Oct16_SPG_AEppsMartin_REVISED; Original research reports, , s. and Final. The new spec: 1) Uses 6 degree increments for high and low temperatures. This reduces the number of grades. 2) The grades are offset from PG by 3 degrees to reduce confusion. 3) Changes the requirement for phase angle to a UTI of 86 or more. This old requirement of 89 does not exist in this 6-degree increment scenario. So I had to Page 3 of 6

4 choose to go up to 92 or down to means more materials are modified (more conservative and what users want more modified binders). 4) Addresses the other comments that were mostly editorial. Nevada s Negative had 3points. Texas supplied responses to NV points. Texas agreed on the 2 nd point: Table 1, footnote 2 States referee method will use a #21 spindle. This refers to a Brookfield viscometer which is not required by the test procedure. This has been changed to only specify T 316 and not specific conditions of the test, with this revision NV will withdraw their negative. Motion to move to concurrent ballot: Texas, 2 nd Georgia. Motion carried. (Attachment J, Pages 86-90) C. Task Force Reports Task Force (T 48) Task Force members are Maria Knake (AMRL), Bill Bailey (Virginia), Jerry Peterson (Texas), and Ron Horner (North Dakota). Task Force to consider rewrite of T 48. The task force provided a draft specification for consideration. Thanks to the task force for their work. This task force will sunset as of this meeting. Task Force Review ETG recommendations for elastic response, T 350, and M 332. Barry Paye(WI), and Matt Corrigan(FHWA). The ETG is proposing a separate standard practice for evaluating elastic response. TS Ballot 1 Item #2 and Item #3 One negative on Item #2 and two negatives on Item #3. See discussions above and Attachment G, Pages Task Force 16-A: Review the options available and write a procedure for checking TFO/PAV pans for excessive warping. Members: Delaware (Karl Zipf), Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), and AMRL (Maria Knake). Dave Anderson is working on a method for checking pan warping. Task Force 16-B: To review the precision statement for T240, review the ASTM method and more recent AMRL data. Members: AMRL (Maria Knake) and Virginia (Bill Bailey) Volunteers to help were requested at the mid-year meeting. No actions at this time. This item will be rolled into a P&B task force. Maria will get the data from the AASHTO Re:source PSP. Task Force 16-C: Review contradictory statements in Section 12.1 and X1.8.1 regarding the linear region in T315 and consider revision to current guidance in standard. Members: Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), Virginia (Bill Bailey), Nevada (Charlie Pan), John D Angelo (Consultant), Kathy Sokol. Task Force 17-A: Precision and bias for T 350. Members: Joe DeVol (WA) will lead the effort. Matthew Corrigan (FHWA), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), John Malusky (AASHTO re:source), Lyndi Blackburn (AL). report from Joe DeVol: Mike, Bob and I had a phone conference in early June in which we reviewed the results of all five Interlaboratory Studies that have been conducted to date. From these results, we are proposing use of three, the NEAUPG (2010), NEUAPG (2012) and the PCCAS (2013) to establish precision and bias statements for AASHTO T 350. While each of these ILS have merit, we chose the three studies based on the date, number of participating labs and the number and grade of binders tested. The plan at this point would be to establish a precision and bias for T 350 based on an average to the three ILS. If any of you have any suggestions or concerns with the approach, please let me know and we will consider them before moving forward with the plan as stated. Bob Horan with the Asphalt Institute gave an update as stated in the mentioned above. Bob also stated that a draft had been sent to the Chair. Page 4 of 6

5 V. New Business A. Research Proposals RPS 2. Full NCHRP RPS AFK 20 Thermal Cracking Resistance of Asphalt Binders (Attachment K, Pages 91-93) Motion to support: Maine, 2 nd Texas, Motion carried. B. AASHTO Re:source - Observations from Assessments? None C. NCHRP Issues D. Correspondence, calls, meetings Precision and Bias Technical Section 2b Liquid Asphalts (Attachment L, Pages 94-95) a. We may want to form a Task Force to work on incorporating some new precision and bias statements based on the most recent data from AASHTO re:source proficiency samples. The test methods being evaluated are T 240, T 313, T 315, T 316, and T TP 102 grade requirements PG64E-22 and PG76-22 (Attachment M, Page 96-99) a. This became an issue with NTPEP. The binder will be evaluated to see if the PG76-22 passes at the PG64E-22 grade. If not, we will discuss at the next meeting a possible need to change the standard. 3. T 228 request for change or clarification to allowing the removal of the beaker from the bath for the time period in which the pycnometer is filled and viewing of the pycnometer for bubbles. Montana (Attachment N, Page ) a. This standard is a C standard and needs to be rewritten into an A standard. Georgene will work on this re-write (approved by Evan). There will be a Task Force created on this issue: (Georgene Geary, Oak Metcalfe (MT), and Maria Knake (AASHTO). E. Presentation by Industry/Academia 1. Standard Method of Test of Quality Control and Quality Assurance of Asphalt Binders & Results of an examination of delta Tc using acceptance test data from 20 + States - Jack Youtcheff a. A presentation was given on the new test method, which will be included in the minutes. 45 different grades were presented from 20+ states. A survey will be sent out to the states to follow up on this. A PDF of the second presentation, which was missing, will be sent out to the attendees. High REOB content results in a high Δ Tc. This is in research at this point to see what happens with aging of binders. ISQ 35(?) is the standard practice for REOB-VTAE. Δ Tc with a 40-hour PAV is being looked at as a way to test for materials that may have longterm aging issues, which includes the addition of shingle materials and REOB. (Attachment O, Pages ) b. A new task force will be created to develop a standard: (Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), FHWA (Jack Youtchef), FHWA (Matt Corrigan as the ETG liaison). Rick Bradbury (ME) said that Greg Harder (Asphalt Institute) submitted information to NEAUPG on the conditioning protocols. Should we make a practice that explains how to use Δ Tc. F. Proposed New Standards G. Proposed New Task Forces 1. Task Force 17-01: This task force was formed to re-write T 228 which is currently a C standard. Task Force members are Leslie White (Montana), Maria Knake (AASHTO), and Georgene Geary (AASHTO Consultant). 2. Task Force 17-02: This task force was formed to look at developing a new standard for long term aging, the determination of ΔTc and a practice explaining how to use ΔTc. Task Force members are Lyndi Blackburn (AL), Chris Peoples (NC), Anne Holt (ON), Tim Ruelke (FL), Rick Bradbury (ME), Brett Haggerty (TX), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), Denis Boisvert (NH), Jack Youtchef (FHWA), and Matt Corrigan (ETG liaison). Page 5 of 6

6 H. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation (Attachment P, Pages ) 1. M , Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test 2. R (2013), Certifying Suppliers of Performance Graded Asphalt Binders 3. R (2013), Determination of Low Temperature Performance Grade (PG) of Asphalt Binders 4. T , Solubility of Bituminous Materials 5. T (2013), Ductility of Asphalt Materials 6. T (2013), Softening Point of Bitumen (Ring and Ball Apparatus) 7. T (2013), Spot Test of Asphaltic Materials 8. T (2013), Effect of Heat and Air on Asphalt Materials (Thin Film Oven Test)) 9. T (2013), Specific Gravity of Semi Solid Asphalt Materials 10. T , Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) I. SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies) 1. Summary of Ballot are included as Attachment Q, Page 113. VI. VII. Open Discussion Maria Knake (AASHTO): There is an ASTM standard that specifies REOB/VTAE that will be published. It is a specification that allows the industry to describe parameters in defining properties to expect for these products. The Asphalt Institute Guide on REOB is available on the Asphalt Institute website. Adjourn Page 6 of 6

7 ATTACHMENT A Technical Secton 2b Liquid Asphalts Attendance Register First Name Tracy Ryan Deborah Maria John John Greg Lyndi Scott Steven Nye Rehnuma Jesus Robert Robert David Bill Robert Karl LARRY Scott Jack Jack Ammon Timothy Will Will Neoma Sheila Georgene Jim James John Brian Wes Rick Christopher Michael Amanda Allen Last Name Barnhart Fragapane Kim Knake Malusky Malusky Uherek Blackburn George Ingram McCarty Rahman Sandoval Gil Horan Humer Savage Schiebel Lauzon Zipf TOMKINS Metcalf Springer Youtcheff Heier Ruelke Rogers Rogers Cole Hines Geary Bibler Kephart Bilderback Pfeifer Musgrove Barezinsky Leibrock Black Dees Myers Address tbarnhart@aashtoresource.org rfragapane@aashto.org dkim@aashto.org mknake@aashtoresource.org jmalusky@aashtoresource.org jmalusky@aashtoresource.org guherek@aashtoresource.org blackburnl@dot.state.al.us georges@dot.state.al.us ingrams@dot.state.al.us NMcCarty@azdot.gov rrahman@azdot.gov JSandoval Gil@azdot.gov bhoran@asphaltinstitute.org rhumer@asphaltinstitute.org davesavage@cmec.org bill.schiebel@state.co.us robert.lauzon@ct.gov Karl.Zipf@state.de.us larry.tomkins@ergon.com scott.metcalf@ergon.com jack.springer@dot.gov jack.youtcheff@dot.gov ammon.heier@dot.gov timothy.ruelke@dot.state.fl.us wrogers@gahotmix.com wrogers@gahotmix.com ncole@dot.ga.gov shines@dot.ga.gov ggeary@ggfga.com jbibler@gilsonco.com james.a.kephart@hawaii.gov John.Bilderback@itd.idaho.gov brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov wes.musgrove@iowadot.us rick.barezinsky@ks.gov christopher.leibrock@ks.gov michael.black@ky.gov amanda.dees@ky.gov allen.myers@ky.gov Company AASHTO AASHTO AASHTO AASHTO re:source AASHTO re:source AASHTO re:source AASHTO re:source Alabama Department of Transportation Alabama Department of Transportation Alabama Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Asphalt Institute Asphalt Institute CMEC Colorado Department of Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation DelDOT ERGON ASPHALT & EMULSIONS INC Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions Inc. Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration FHWA Florida Department of Transportation Georgia Asphalt Pavement Association Georgia Asphalt Pavement Association Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Department of Transportation GGfGA Engineering, LLC Gilson Company, Inc. Hawaii DOT, Materials Lab Idaho Transportation Department Illinois Department of Transportation Iowa DOT Kansas Department of Transportation Kansas DOT Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Registration Type AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) Sponsor/Exhibitor AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) Sponsor/Exhibitor Page 7 of 113

8 ATTACHMENT A Richard Sejal John Carole Anne Brett John Chris Darin Charles Denis Scott Kenny Anne Delmar Delmar Timothy Mark Temple Merrill Tom Michael BRETT Amir Scott Nick William Mladen Garth Stephen "Todd" TRAVIS RON Greg Bradbury Barot Grieco MacDonald Trautman Donahue Peoples Tedford Dusseault Boisvert Seiter Seward Holt Salomon Salomon Ramirez Felag Short Zwanka Grannes Doran HAGGERTY Hanna Andrus Van Den Berg Bailey Gagulic Newman Rumbuagh WALBECK STANEVICH Milburn Richard.Bradbury@maine.gov sbarot@sha.state.md.us john.grieco@dot.state.ma.us caroleanne.macdonald@ontario.ca brett.trautman@modot.mo.gov john.donahue@modot.mo.gov cpeoples@ncdot.gov dtedford@dot.nv.gov Chuck.Dusseault@dot.nh.gov Denis.Boisvert@dot.nh.gov sseiter@odot.org kseward@odot.org anne.holt@ontario.ca delmar@technopave.com delmar@technopave.com tramirez@pa.gov mark.felag@dot.ri.gov shorttk@scdot.org zwankame@scdot.org tom.grannes@state.sd.us Michael.Doran@tn.gov brett.haggerty@txdot.gov ahanna@nas.edu scottandrus@utah.gov nick.vandenberg@vermont.gov bill.bailey@vdot.virginia.gov mladen.gagulic@vermont.gov garth.newman@itd.idaho.gov stephen.t.rumbaught@wv.gov travis.b.walbeck@wv.gov ron.l.stanevich@wv.gov greg.milburn@wyo.gov Maine Department of Transportation Maryland State Highway Administrtion MassDOT Ministry of Transportation Ontario Missouri Department of Transportation Missouri DOT NCDOT Nevada DOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation NHDOT Oklahoma Department of Transportation Oklahoma Department of Transportation Ontario Ministry of Transportation Pavement Preservation Systems LLC Pavement Preservation Systems LLC Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Rhode Island Department of Transportation SCDOT SCDOT South Dakota Dept. of Transportation TDOT Texas Department of Transportation TRB/NCHRP Utah Department of Transportation Vermont DOT Virginia Department of Transportation VTrans Vermont WAQTC West Virginia Department of Transportation West Virginia Division of Highways WV DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS MATERIALS Wyoming Department of Transportation AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) AASHTO Non Member (industry representative) Page 8 of 113

9 ATTACHMENT B SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Mid-Year Meeting Minutes Monday, January 30, :00 am-12:00 pm EST TECHNICAL SECTION 2b Liquid Asphalts I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks II. Roll Call Voting Members First Lyndi Paul Bill Eliana Allen Kelly Christopher Rick Bob Oak Denis Don Kelly Eric Becca Tim Michael Last Blackburn Burch Schiebel Carlson Cassady Morse Leibrock Bradbury Voelkel Meltcalfe Boisvert Streeter Croft Biehl Lane Ramirez Byrne State or Organization Alabama Arizona Colorado Connecticut Florida Illinois Kansas Maine Maryland Montana New Hampshire New York North Carolina Ohio Ontario Pennsylvania Rhode Island Status Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Proxy Proxy Proxy Voting Member Voting Member Proxy Proxy Voting Member Voting Member Proxy Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Brian Darren Howard Mladen Bill Barry Egan Hazlett Anderson Gagulic Bailey Payne Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Wisconsin Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Non-Voting Member, Friends, and Guests First Name Last Name State or Organization Page 9 of 113

10 Brian John Ben Maria Chance Craig Michael Bob Matt Wayne Lee Mike Richard Todd Ron Roger Scott Kenny Anne Pamela Temple Merrill Matthew Michael Heather Tyler Hong Andy Steve Johnson Malusky Sade Knake Armstead Wilson Benson Horan Corrigan Rilko Gallivan Santi Willis Whittington Horner Corbin Seiter Seward Holt Marks Short Zwanka Chandler Doran Hall Lacy Park Babish Davis AASHTO AASHTO AASHTO AASHTO Alabama Arizona Arkansas Asphalt Institute FHWA Florida Gallivan Consulting Inc. Idaho NAPA North Carolina North Dakota Ohlahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Ontario Ontario South Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Virginia Washington Joe DeVol Washington ATTACHMENT B III. Approval of Technical Section Minutes Request discussion and approval of Annual Meeting minutes from August 4, 2016 meeting. Discussion: None, Approval: 1. WI, 2. TX. Minutes are approved. IV. Old Business A. SOM Ballot Items Item Number 21 Affirmative: Negative: No Vote: 43 of 51 0 of 51 8 of 51 SOM ballot item to revise M 320 to add Note 4 to allow for extended binder grades. See pages 61 to 64 of minutes. Comments Page 10 of 113

11 ATTACHMENT B Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Note 4 only indicates how to specify the asphalt binder grades outside of the tables. There should be some text added to either this Note 4 or to another Note specifying the requirements for the asphalt binder grades outside of the tables. The note should indicate that the same Table 1 or Table 2 requirements (Original, RTFO, and PAV) are to be met by the asphalt binder grade that is outside of the tables, but it is to meet the requirements when tested at the specified high, low and intermediate temperature grades. Arkansas State Highway and It would be helpful to indicate what is meant Transportation Department (Michael C by "high, low, and intermediate" Benson) temperature. While those of us that are (michael.benson@arkansashighways.com) familiar with the specification understand it is not apparent when referencing Table 1 or 2. Tennessee Department of Transportation Editorial- Should define "intermediate (Brian K. Egan) (brian.egan@tn.gov) temperature"- is this the temperature requirement for PAV aged DSR/BB? This will be published as is and intermediate temperature will be clarified later on. Tim Ramirez (PA) said that there needs to be something to tell the user how the requirements will apply to grades that are not specifically listed in the table. Lyndi Blackburn (AL): States do not always specify the grades are in the table, and the states make their own adjustments to accommodate the grades that are not specified in M 320. Action Item: PA will work on revising Note 4 and submitting a TS ballot. B. SOM Concurrent Ballot Items Item Number 22 Full Committee Affirmative: 43 of 51 Negative: 0 of 51 No Vote: 8 of 51 Concurrent ballot item to adopt TP 78 as a full standard. See pages 65 to 68 of minutes. Detection of PPA Technical Section Affirmative: 28 of 29 Negative: 0 of 29 No Vote: 1 of 29 Comments Only 2 Editorial Comments TP 78 will be published as a full standard with editorial comments being addressed. Item Number 23 Full Committee Affirmative: 42 of 51 Negative: 1 of 51 No Vote: 8 of 51 Concurrent ballot item to revise T 48 with extensive changes to rates and other requirements to make this standard specific to asphalt binder. See pages 69 to 77 of minutes. Technical Section Affirmative: 27 of 29 Negative: 1 of 29 No Vote: 1 of 29 Page 11 of 113

12 North Carolina Department of Transportation (Christopher A Peoples) (cpeoples@ncdot.gov) Negative Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (Michael C Benson) (michael.benson@arkansashighways.c om) ATTACHMENT B Replace hand drawn figures with electronic versions. Same Comment. Figure 3 includes the fill mark (F) but the drawing is unclear that that line is from the top of the cup. Additionally, the dimensions for F later in the method are indicated to the nearest 1/100th, rather than the nearest 1/1000th. (see Section 4.3 and 7.2). In Section 6.1 a reference is made to "a flash room and "well toward the back of a draft shield." What defines a flash room? What defines a draft shield? Well toward the back is relative depending on the depth of the draft shield. Recommendation to change to verbiage stating that the unit is to be placed in a draft free location or shielded from any drafts which could impact testing. It was noted that no guidance is given concerning the preparation of the test cup. Steps listed in D92 have been helpful in eliminating any possible false results due to unkept test cups. If this method is applicable for asphalt binders with flash points as low as 80 C as stated in Section 1.2. the material should not be conditioned in Section 7.1 to 163 C. Perhaps the range in Section 1.2. should be changed to reflect flash points of asphalt binders. Based on the guidance in D92 the minimum flash point of the material if heated to 163 C would be 219 C (163+56). As long as method inspectors are not too critical with the terminology "approximately" the changes to modify the temperature for adjusting the rate of rise from 56 C (100 F) below the expected flash point to 50 C (90 F) should still allow for programs established with automated systems. Section indicates that a test should be discontinued if the material foams during the last 28 C (50 F) of the method. It has been the experience of this test facility that some asphalt binders may have what might be considered foaming during this portion of the testing. Directions concerning removal of the source of the foam or how this should be handled is needed. Page 12 of 113

13 ATTACHMENT B Is the flash point determined by the method in considered reportable? Note in D92 considers it an approximate requiring retest. It has been this facility s observation that the fill mark may need to be adjusted slightly on the automated devices depending on how the flash is detected. On some automated devices the detection point is inside the cup which can give a false flash point if the asphalt expands to contact the ring. It is recommended that some leeway be given for automated systems on the cup fill level. Arkansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Had Editorial Comments that will be addressed. South Carolina and Texas Action Item: AASHTO can make the hand-drawings into electronic versions. NC will withdraw their negative based on this action item being completed. Arkansas s comments were not editorial, and the standard will be pulled back and reworked based on some comments from AASHTO re:source and the task group. The notes that show how Arkansas s comments are being addressed will be included in the minutes. Attachment A includes the Arkansas comments with the suggested resolutions. There was a disagreement between Figure 3 and the text. The text will be changed to match the figure. Maria suggested some wording about the draft-free location. The 80C comment should be revised since no asphalts have flash points that are intended to be that low - 219C will be proposed. M 226 goes down to an AC 2.5 with a minimum of 163 C so this should accommodate that grade. Maria asked about foaming asphalts during the meeting to see if anyone else had experience regarding foaming. Darren Hazlett (TX) agreed that the test should be discontinued when it foams due to safety concerns. When there is an unknown flash point, should you retest? 8C repeatability was proposed as the range between acceptable points. No one commented. Some automated devices can give a false flash the level of the cup may need to be adjusted. A question was asked about units no one commented. T 48 will not be published at this time but will be submitted as a TS ballot to address these comments. Item Number 24 Concurrent ballot item to adopt TP XX "Determining the Fracture Energy Density of Asphalt Binder Using the Binder Fracture Energy (BFE) Test" as a provisional method. See pages 78 to 101 of minutes and the attached word document of the standard to see the drawing on pages of the minutes. Page 13 of 113

14 Full Committee Affirmative: 43 of 51 Negative: 0 of 51 No Vote: 8 of 51 ATTACHMENT B Technical Section Affirmative: 27 of 29 Negative: 1 of 29 No Vote: 1 of 29 Comments Ohio Department of Transportation 2.1: Add M332 for MSCR? (Eric R Biehl) (eric.biehl@dot.ohio.gov) 10.5: Is this spec defining ambient - Negative temperature when it says 25 C or lower in parentheses? If so, then the spec needs to specify a temperature range. 10.6: Would "buttering" like you do with BBR beams prior to trimming (heat the surface up with the spatula prior to trimming) be acceptable prior to trimming? : PG with 8.5% SBS. This seems like too much SBS for this grade. ODOT PG 88-22M only has 7-7.5% SBS with a 90% elastic recovery. 14.1: Would acetone be sufficient to clean oil film residue? Acetone is to be used after mineral spirits for AASHTO T315 (DSR). 15.1: FEA needs defined. We don't need another binder "fatigue" test. This test seems very similar to the direct tension and there were a lot of issues and concerns that the sample preparation made significant variations in results. There is also NCHRP Project 9-59 looking at a binder fatigue test and this test is not one of the main candidates. So until further development and more comparisons are made with field performance, I do not see a reason to adopt as a provisional standard at this time. Pennsylvania Department of Affirmative with editorial comments: Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) One Comment Considered Technical: (tramirez@pa.gov) 5) In Section 10.4, 1st line, the text indicates "Remove the mold from the oven", but there was no previous step that indicated to put the mold in the oven or at what oven temperature and for how long to keep in oven. Suggest adding another section to specify putting the assembled mold into an oven at specific oven temperature with +/- tolerance and specify length of time in oven with +/- tolerance. Illinois Department of Transportation Section 6 (Brian Pfeifer) The word "Apparatus" is misspelled in the (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) title. The maximum capacity of the load cell in should use the approximately Page 14 of 113

15 ATTACHMENT B equivalent pounds of force (approximately lbs) What load cell resolution is required? What type of displacement transducer is required and what is the required resolution of the transducer? What is the necessary travel length needed for the testing fixture? What is the testing rate tolerance? Section 9 What is the testing frequency required for Calibration and Standardization? Is the obtained frictional force subtracted at every displacement value? Section 15 The authors should add actual (FEA) data points to Figs. 15-1, 15-2, and 15-4 to demonstrate the quality of fit using the functions shown in those figures. What range of material stiffness was used in the FEA simulations? According to Roque et al. (2012), the FEA simulations were non-linear. Were the material properties nonlinear? If so, was the asphalt binder considered linear viscoelastic or non-linear viscoelastic? In , the measured force definition of "F" should be modified to remove the frictional force effects measured in Section 9. Texas Department of Transportation Love that first paragraph. Figures 6.1 to 6.4 (Darren Hazlett) don't display. (darren.hazlett@txdot.gov) There is still lots of explanation of the theory behind the calculation in section 15. I think the test procedure should have step by step instructions for doing the calculations. Background and theory of why those calculations are being used should be in the appendix. Georgia Had Editorial Comments that will be addressed. Ohio s negative has been withdrawn. There are many comments that will need to be addressed. The comments are not considered to be editorial. The chair felt that this should be sent back to TS ballot based on the number of comments and the technical nature of those comments. Attachment B includes the ballot comments with the suggested resolutions. Maria (AASHTO re:source) RTFO-aged should be RTFO-conditioned. TP XX "Determining the Fracture Energy Density of Asphalt Binder Using the Binder Fracture Energy (BFE) Test will not be published at this time but will be submitted as a TS ballot to address these comments. Page 15 of 113

16 ATTACHMENT B C. Technical Section Reconfirmation Ballot All Items: Item Number 1 Pennsylvania & Tennessee Affirmative: 28 of 30 Negative: 0 of 30 No Vote: 2 of 30 M (2012) Viscosity Graded Asphalt Cement Comments: Both inquired about discontinuing this Standard The Chair (AL) asked if anyone is using this specification. Darren Hazlett (TX) said that TXDOT still uses viscosity-graded materials. TXDOT has their own specification, but it s essentially the same standard. It is used for chip seals. AC-20 and AC-30 have been replaced by PG binder. Barry Paye (WI) proposed that a survey is sent out to see who is still using this standard. The standard is being reconfirmed. Item Number 2 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) R (2012) Asphalt Additives and Modifiers Comments: Affirmative with comments: 1) In Section 1.1, 1st sentence, consider revising from "in both neat asphalt and in asphalt-aggregate hot mixtures' to "in both asphalt binders and in asphalt mixtures". 2) In Section 1.1, last line, consider revising from "hot mix asphalt" to "asphalt mixture". 3) In Section 1.2, suggest expanding the list of common purposes to include "Warm Mix Asphalt Technologies/Compaction Aids", "Extenders/Softeners (i.e., Re-refined Engine Oil Bottoms (REOB)/Vacuum Tower Asphalt Extender (VTAE)". 4) In Section 2.1.1, consider including the following additional asphalt binder referenced documents: M 332, T 350, TP 78, TP 92, TP 101, and TP ) In Section 2.1.3, consider including the following additional asphalt mixture referenced documents: T 321, T 322, T 324, T 340, T 342, PP 60, PP 61, TP 72, TP 79, TP 105, TP 107, TP 108, and TP ) In Section 3.1, 1st sentence, consider revising from "hot mix asphalt" to "asphalt mixture" 7) In Section 4.1, 2nd paragraph, consider revising from "hot mix asphalt" to "asphalt mixture". 8) In Section 5, all subsections, consider revising from "hot mix asphalt" to "asphalt mixture". 9) In Section 6, Note 1, revise from "AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) to "AASHTO re:source" and from "AMRL" to "AASHTO re:source" at very end of note. 10) In Section , last sentence, revise from "are found in M 320" to "are found in either M 320 or M 332". 11) In Section 6.3, consider revising the order listing of the Phase 1 testing to coincide with the order in how they are typically done. For example, move Subsection for "Sampling" up to be listed as first Subsection Page 16 of 113

17 ATTACHMENT B Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl) (eric.biehl@dot.ohio.gov) ) In Section 6.3, consider adding the additional asphalt binder methods of tests and practices that are suggested to be added above in comment #4). 13) In Section 6.4, consider revising from "Hot Mix Asphalt" to "Asphalt Mixture". 14) In Section 6.4, consider adding the additional asphalt mixture method of tests and practices that are suggested to be added above in comment #5). No changes. Would want to see outcomes from NCHRP Project 9-60, which I believe is looking at this item. Rick Bradbury (ME) is currently updating and revising. These comments were forwarded to him. ME and other northeast states are looking at this because of the REOB-VTAE task force work. The revised R 15 will be sent out as TS ballot. Item Number 3 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl) (eric.biehl@dot.ohio.gov) T Effect of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt Binder (Rolling Thin Film Oven Test) Comments: Affirmative with editorial comments: 1) In Section 4.1, 1st sentence, if applicable, can the text be revised from "conventional batch plant mixing" to "conventional batch plant and drum mix plant mixing"? 2) In Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 5.1.5, dimensions are provided within the text, but the dimensions do not include the tolerances as shown in the referenced Figure 1 and Figure 2 (e.g., Section indicates "air space being 38 mm (11/2 in.) deep", but Figure 1 shows "38.1 mm +/- 4.8 mm (11/2" +/- 3/16"). I am not sure what the proper formatting is, but it seems a little odd that if the dimensions are included in the text of the referenced sections, that the dimensions should match what is shown in the Figures including the number of decimal places and the +/- tolerances as they are shown in the corresponding Figures. Perhaps the text should just reference the Figures for the dimensions and tolerances and not include the dimensions/tolerances at all. 3) In Section 5.1.4, 1st sentence, revise from "circular carriage" to "circular metal carriage" to match the Figure 2 caption text of "Circular Metal Carriage". 4) In Section 5.1.5, next to last sentence, revise from "regulated air." to "regulated air (Note 1).". 5) Move location of Note 1 from its current location after Figure 3 to before Figure 1 and immediately following Section Note 1 seems lost in its current location. No changes. Would want to see outcomes from NCHRP Project 9-61, which is looking at this item. Page 17 of 113

18 Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) ATTACHMENT B Language should be added to allow the technician to turn off the fan when removing bottles from the oven. A moving fan is a safety hazard during bottle handling. This was an AMRL finding during an audit of our lab and without the specific language in the test method, there is an opening for interpretation. We have since been audited and the fan was allowed to be shut off during the removal of the bottles. Clarity would be helpful. The technical section is going to look at these comments. This standard was confirmed. Item Number 4 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) T Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using RT o3t1a6ti o1n3al Viscometer Comments: Affirmative with editorial comments: 1) In Section 4.1, 2nd sentence, revise from "asphalt sample" to "asphalt binder sample". 2) In Section 5.1, revise from "of asphalt at" to "of asphalt binder at". 3) In Section 5.2, last line, revise from "hot mix asphalt mix design" to "asphalt mixture design". 4) In Section 6.5, revise from "in asphalt at" to "in asphalt binder at". 5) In Section 10.2, 1st sentence, revise from "an asphalt sample" to "an asphalt binder sample". 6) In Section 12.4, revise from "to desired test temperature" to "to the desired test temperature". 7) In Section 12.6, revise from "asphalt into" to "asphalt binder into". 8) In Section 12.8, 2nd sentence, revise from "into the asphalt so that asphalt covers" to "into the asphalt binder, so that the binder covers". 9) In Section 12.9, 1st sentence, revise from "the asphalt sample to the desired temperature" to "the asphalt binder sample to the desired test temperature". 10) In Section 12.10, 1st sentence, revise from "asphalt sample" to "asphalt binder sample" and, in last line, revise from "new sample" to "new asphalt binder sample". 11) In Section 12.11, 1st line, revise from "asphalt sample" to "asphalt binder sample". What is the justification or value to writing down the time the test was run? If no added value or relevance to the test performed, we suggest it be removed. The editorial comments will be addressed. This standard was confirmed. The chair asked if there were any other comments about these ballot items. No comments. Page 18 of 113

19 ATTACHMENT B D. Task Force Reports Task Force (T 48) Task Force members are Maria Knake (AMRL), Bill Bailey (Virginia), Jerry Peterson (Texas), and Ron Horner (North Dakota). Task Force to consider rewrite of T 48. The task force provided a draft specification for consideration. Ballot Item Number 23. Task Force (M 320) Task force was formed to explore the issue of extending the range of PG grades in M 320 for specialty uses. Members of the task force are John D Angelo (consultant), Jesus Sandoval-Gil (Arizona), Ala Mohseni (Pavement Systems), and Bill Bailey (Virginia). Ballot Item Number 21. PA is going to look at Note 4 and prepare a TS ballot item. This task force is being dissolved. Task Force Review ETG recommendations for elastic response, T 350, and M 332. Barry Paye(WI), and Matt Corrigan(FHWA). The ETG is proposing a separate standard practice for evaluating elastic response. The recommendation from the ETG is that Jnr is the key item in the MSCR. The elastic recovery in the curve is more like a secondary indicator on polymer content. The ETG members have developed a practice for looking at the elastic response in MSCR testing instead of having it in M 332. There will be two TS ballots one on the new practice taken from the appendix of M 332 and the second ballot on the revision to M 332 to remove the appendix. The new practice will go forward for a TS ballot as a full standard. Task Force 16-A: Review the options available and write a procedure for checking TFO/PAV pans for excessive warping. Members: Delaware (Karl Zipf), Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), and AMRL (Maria Knake) Maria Knake (AASHTO re:source) said that the TS needs some help. If anyone can send any warped PAV pans to the group for checking, they should contact Maria at mknake@aashtoresource.org. This will help the task force further develop the procedure. Task Force 16-B: To review the precision statement for T240, review the ASTM method and more recent AMRL data. Members: AMRL (Maria Knake) and Virginia (Bill Bailey) No work has been conducted yet, but there is a request for more volunteers to keep this moving. No volunteers at the meeting. Task Force 16-C: Review contradictory statements in Section 12.1 and X1.8.1 regarding the linear region in T315 and consider revision to current guidance in standard. Members: Asphalt Institute (Mike Anderson), Virginia (Bill Bailey), Nevada (Charlie Pan), John D Angelo (Consultant), Kathy Sokol. Bill Bailey (VA) said that Asphalt Institute was going to work on Kathy Sokol s comments. She seems to be correct about her comments, but it has to be reviewed further. V. New Business A. Research Proposals 20-7 RPS Full NCHRP RPS Page 19 of 113

20 ATTACHMENT B The Chair had one topic that she hopes to put into a research problem statement for the fall meeting. Darren Hazlett (TX) said that the idea could be sent to AFK20 at TRB so that the SOM members could get some help writing the problem statement. B. AMRL/CCRL - Observations from Assessments? C. NCHRP Issues D. Correspondence, calls, meetings Performance-Grades for Binder used in Surface Treatments TX put some more work into this standard, and it is ready to go forward for ballot to a full standard. The change reduces the number of grades. The new item has 6 C increments instead of 3 C increments. There will be a 3 C offset from the PG grades. Comments were addressed from the last ballot. E. F. G. H. I. VI. on proposed changes to TP 102. There were other comments that came out of the NTPEP work plan. See attachments. on precision and bias for T 350 from Joe DeVol (Washington State) AASHTO re:source (John Malusky) has been looking to see if he determine anything from the proficiency samples. Asphalt Institute has been working on this as well. Joe DeVol (WA) requested that the SOM keep working on this so it can be resolved. There may need to be another ILS, in which WA would be happy to participate. Matthew Corrigan (FHWA) has been working on this with the Asphalt Institute. Joe DeVol (WA) is working on a regional task group with ID, MT, NV, OR, CA, and FHWA-WFLHD to come up with some data. A Task Force will be created to look at this. Members: Joe DeVol (WA) will lead the effort. Matthew Corrigan (FHWA), Bob Horan (Asphalt Institute), John Malusky (AASHTO re:source), Lyndi Blackburn (AL). Presentation by Industry/Academia - none Proposed New Standards PG grade for surface treatments Proposed New Task Forces T 350 Standards Requiring Reconfirmation TS/SOM Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies) 1. TS Ballot TP The ARA technical committee would like to submit some changes for ballot. 2. TS Ballot - Performance Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments 3. T 48 will be balloted based on Arkansas comments 4. Fracture energy provisional standard 5. R M 332 to remove the curve for elastic recovery 7. New ballot item (full standard) for the elastic recovery component practice of MSCR 8. Note 4 of M 320 Open Discussion ASTM has been working on a standard for REOB-VTAE that people should know about. It is a joint standard between D08 (roofing materials) and D04 (asphalt paving materials) that is going to be balloted in subcommittee D The following questions were asked: If an agency has banned the use of the product, does the ASTM standard force the agency to permit it? No. The agency can still make decisions on the use of the materials. Page 20 of 113

21 ATTACHMENT B This is really a quality control standard for the re-refiners. The intent is not to propose whether it is good to use it or how much to use. The intent is to have a quality control standard for the producers of materials that include the products. Will this cut down on the variability of the materials? It should. It s important to continue to evaluate the performance of the materials. The Chair thanked everyone for their attendance and assistance. VII. Adjourn Page 21 of 113

22 ATTACHMENT B Knake Suggestions to Address Arkansas Comments on T48 Ballot 1/12/17 Figure 3 includes the fill mark (F) but the drawing is unclear that that line is from the top of the cup. Additionally, the dimensions for F later in the method are indicated to the nearest 1/100th, rather than the nearest 1/1000th. (see Section 4.3 and 7.2). Knake comments: Agreed. Suggest adding -distance from top of cup after F in the Figure 3 Table. Recommend changing and to 0.35 and 0.39 to match the rest of text. In Section 6.1 a reference is made to "a flash room and "well toward the back of a draft shield." What defines a flash room? What defines a draft shield? Well toward the back is relative depending on the depth of the draft shield. Recommendation to change to verbiage stating that the unit is to be placed in a draft free location or shielded from any drafts which could impact testing. Knake comments: Agreed. Suggest changing 6.1 to read The Cleveland open-cup tester shall be placed in a firm and level position on a solid, vibration-free table. The device shall be placed in a draft-free location or shall be shielded from any drafts which may impact testing. The top of the tester shall be shielded from strong light so that the flash may be easily seen. It was noted that no guidance is given concerning the preparation of the test cup. Steps listed in D92 have been helpful in eliminating any possible false results due to unkept test cups. Knake comments: I agree that cleaning of the cups needs to be addressed. Suggest adding a new section to Section 6 (should be the first section) that states The cup shall be cleaned prior to each use and any remaining residue from previous tests shall be removed. Solvents and steel wool have been found suitable for this purpose. The test cup shall be dried, with no remaining water or solvent, prior to use. Also, add a note under this section that states A hot plate, oven, or open flame have been found useful in ensuring that the cup is completely dry before use. The ASTM method does state in the preparation section that the test cup should be cooled to at least 56 C below the expected flash point, but this is stated again later in the standard, and is repetitive. If this method is applicable for asphalt binders with flash points as low as 80Â C as stated in Section 1.2. the material should not be conditioned in Section 7.1 to 163Â C. Perhaps the range in Section 1.2. should be changed to reflect flash points of asphalt binders. Based on the guidance in D92 the minimum flash point of the material if heated to 163Â C would be 219Â C (163+56). Knake comments: I agree that 80C is unrealistically low for any asphalt binder. I can only assume that this temperature was taken from ASTM D92, which states 79C as the low-end temperature. The ASTM standard is for all petroleum products and is not specific to asphalt binders (which is why AASHTO is writing its own standard). I believe that others should be consulted and should provide input on an appropriate value for the scope statement. I agree that 219 C (426F) is much more reasonable. If no other feedback is received, I would use this value. As long as method inspectors are not too critical with the terminology "approximately" the changes to modify the temperature for adjusting the rate of rise from 56Â C (100Â F) below the expected flash point to 50Â C (90Â F) should still allow for programs established with automated systems. Knake comments: I agree that 56 is approximately 50 in this case. Our assessors would not write a finding on this. To ensure consistency in how the standards is being interpreted, I still suggest adding a note after Section that states Some automated testers may begin Commented [BWRIP(1]: This number should be 50. In the markup it was written as 506 (50 strikethrough 6). The intend is 50. Page 22 of 113

23 ATTACHMENT B passing the ignition taper across the sample at approximately 56 degrees. This is considered acceptably close to 28C (50F) below the anticipated flash point. Section indicates that a test should be discontinued if the material foams during the last 28Â C (50Â F) of the method. It has been the experience of this test facility that some asphalt binders may have what might be considered foaming during this portion of the testing. Directions concerning removal of the source of the foam or how this should be handled is needed. Knake comments: This is a good comment. It would be useful to get feedback from others on how they handle this situation when it arises, as I am not exactly sure how it should be handled. I would recommend that a new test sample be obtained and tested. If foaming recurs, the test should be ended, and no results reported. For the purposes of M320, I would consider this a failing/undetermined result. However, others might have a better solution, and I would recommend opening up this point for wider discussion. Is the flash point determined by the method in considered reportable? Note in D92 considers it an approximate requiring retest. Knake comments: This is a good question. Notes are non-mandatory in D92, so I am not sure how many laboratories are following that recommended protocol. During assessments, AASHTO re:source typically sees laboratories test materials with a known flash point, so we don t have a lot of experience with materials that do not have a known value. I I do think it is good practice to run the test again if you are testing a material with an unknown flash to verify the first result. I recommend adding the following to the end of Repeat the test procedure with a new sample of asphalt binder. The flash point recorded for the replicate tests shall be no more than 8C (15F) apart. If the results are more than 8C (15F) apart, the test shall be repeated until two consecutive flash point results obtained are within 8C (15F) of each other. I used 8 C since that is the repeatability precision estimate in the current version of T48 as well as D92. It has been this facilityâ s observation that the fill mark may need to be adjusted slightly on the automated devices depending on how the flash is detected. On some automated devices the detection point is inside the cup which can give a false flash point if the asphalt expands to contact the ring. It is recommended that some leeway be given for automated systems on the cup fill level. Knake comments: Agreed. Suggest adding a note below Section that states Some automated devices may detect a flash point prematurely if the asphalt binder expands to contact the detection ring during heating. The level to which the cup is filled may need to be adjusted to be slightly below the fill mark to prevent premature detection by the automated device. Commented [BWRIP(2]: The intent is 50. Other Knake Comments: Once this new method is established and has been in use for a while, it is recommended that updated proficiency testing data be reviewed and updated precision estimates provided. Section 1.3 states The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard, but measurements are also provided in inch-pound units throughout the standard. These appear to be soft conversions (not exact equivalents). I think that either inch-pound units need to be removed (less appealing option) or that Section 1.3 should be revised to state how the units in parenthesis should be used. Page 23 of 113

24 ATTACHMENT B Responses (in red italics) to comments for Determining the Fracture Energy Density of Asphalt Binder Using the Binder Fracture Energy (BFE) Test" as a provisional method. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Affirmative) 1. In Section 1.1, 4th line, revise from "T240" to "T 240" and revise from "R28" to "R 28". Corrected. 2. In Section , 1st line, revise from "include" to "includes". Corrected. Now Section after alphabetization. 3. Figure 4-1, Figure 6-1(A), Figure 6-1(B), Figure 6-1(C), Figure 6-2A), Figure 6-2B), Figure 6-3A, Figure 6-3B, Figure 6-4A, and Figure 6-4B did not show up in the balloted document. These figures were included in the original Word document. We will send a pdf file that includes them as well. 4. In Section 7.1, 1st line, revise from "PAV-aged" to "RTFO-aged" for consistency with Section 1.1 and Section Section 1.1 was revised for clarity. Section 10.1 was revised to be consistent with Section In Section 10.4, 1st line, the text indicates "Remove the mold from the oven", but there was no previous step that indicated to put the mold in the oven or at what oven temperature and for how long to keep in oven. Suggest adding another section to specify putting the assembled mold into an oven at specific oven temperature with +/- tolerance and specify length of time in oven with +/- tolerance. Corrected. The step of pre-heating the mold is not necessary and has been removed from the method. Georgia Department of Transportation (Affirmative) 1. Figures 6-1(A) through 6-4 can't be found. They did not show up on the PDF files downloaded. Please check. These figures were included in the original Word document that was distributed. We will send a pdf file that includes the figures as well. Illinois Department of Transportation (Affirmative) 1. Section 6: The word Apparatus is misspelled in the title. Corrected. 2. The maximum capacity of the load cell in should use the approximately equivalent pounds of force (approximately lbs.). 100 lb is shown in the method based on comments from a previous review. 3. What Load cell resolution is required? A 100 lb load cell with a resolution of 0.01 lb. The required resolution was added to the method. 4. What type of displacement transducer is required and what is the required resolution of the transducer? A linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) with a resolution of in. This information was added to the method. 5. What is the necessary travel length needed for the testing fixture? 1.2 in. The method has been updated with this requirement. 6. What is the testing rate tolerance? 2% maximum. The method has been updated with this requirement. 7. Section 9: What is the testing frequency required for Calibration and Standardization? Annually. The method has been updated with this requirement. 8. Is the obtained frictional force subtracted at every displacement value? Yes. 9. Section 15: The authors should add actual (FEA) data points to Figs. 15-1, 15-2, and 15-4 to demonstrate the quality of fit using the functions shown in those figures. Corrected. 10. What range of material stiffness was used in the FEA simulations? A stiffness value of 1 MPa was used in the FEA analysis. It is emphasized that the relationships (extension-strain/changes in Page 24 of 113

25 ATTACHMENT B specimen geometry, Figures 15-1, 15-2, and 15-4) obtained from the FEA analysis are independent of the material stiffness. 11. According to Roque et al. (2012), the FEA simulations were non-linear. Were the material properties nonlinear? If so, was the asphalt binder considered linear viscoelastic or non-linear viscoelastic? The material properties are linear, but the resulting relationships are non-linear because large strain formulation was used to account for changes in specimen geometry during the loading process. 12. In , the measured force definition of F should be modified to remove the frictional force effects measured in Section 9. Corrected. Texas Department of Transportation (Affirmative) 1. Love that first paragraph. It was revised slightly based on other comments from this ballot. 2. Figures 6.1 to 6.4 don t display. These figures were included in the original Word document that was distributed. We will send a pdf file that includes the figures as well. 3. There is still lots of explanation of the theory behind the calculation in section 15. I think the test procedure should have step by step instructions for doing the calculations. Background and theory of why those calculations are being used should be in the appendix. Additional detail and reference (19.4) was provided. Ohio Department of Transportation (Negative) : Add M332 for MSCR? M 332 is not listed because it was not used for this test method, nor was it used during the development of the method : Is this spec defining ambient temperature when it says 25 deg C or lower in parentheses? If so, then the spec needs to specify a temperature range. The temperature range shown in this section was removed from the test method : Would "buttering" like you do with BBR beams prior to trimming (heat the surface up with the spatula prior to trimming) be acceptable prior to trimming? This would need to be determined. It was not performed during the research and development of this test method : PG with 8.5% SBS. This seems like too much SBS for this grade. ODOT PG 88-22M only has 7-7.5% SBS with a 90% elastic recovery. This section was revised. The PG grade and polymer content were removed : Would acetone be sufficient to clean oil film residue? Acetone is to be used after mineral spirits for AASHTO T315 (DSR). Yes. The method was revised to allow acetone as a cleaner : FEA needs defined. A definition of FEA was provided. 7. We don't need another binder "fatigue" test. This test seems very similar to the direct tension and there were a lot of issues and concerns that the sample preparation made significant variations in results. This test was specifically designed to overcome the deficiencies (e.g. variations) of the direct tension test. In addition, this test is applied to evaluate the fracture tolerance of asphalt binders at intermediate temperatures, whereas the direct tension test was designed for low temperatures. 8. There is also NCHRP Project 9-59 looking at a binder fatigue test and this test is not one of the main candidates. So until further development and more comparisons are made with field performance, I do not see a reason to adopt as a provisional standard at this time. The researchers are aware of NCHRP Project 9-59; however, the binder fracture energy test is relatively new and the NCHRP project started before the researchers finalized the development of this test and data analysis method. Nevertheless, extensive research studies have been conducted through FDOT funded research projects, and promising results encouraged the development of this provisional standard. Page 25 of 113

26 ATTACHMENT B Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (Affirmative) 1. Terminology would be much cleaner if it was in alphabetic order. The method has been revised to show the terminology in alphabetic order. Page 26 of 113

27 ATTACHMENT C Standard Method of Test for Flash Point of Asphalt Binder by Cleveland Open Cup AASHTO Designation: T Technical Section: 2b, Liquid Asphalt Release: Group 3 (August 2017) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C Page 27 of 113

28 ATTACHMENT C Standard Method of Test for Flash Point of Asphalt Binder by Cleveland Open Cup AASHTO Designation: T Technical Section: 2b, Liquid Asphalt Release: Group 3 (August 2017) 1. SCOPE 1.1. This method covers the procedure for the determination of flash point of asphalt binder by the Cleveland open-cup apparatus This test method is applicable to asphalt binder with flash point between C ( F) and 400 C (750 F). Note 1 Specifications commonly designate the Tag Open-Cup method (T 79) for asphalt binders and cutback asphalts having flash points below 93 C (200 F) The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard This test may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This test does not purport to address all of the safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: R 18, Establishing and Implementing a Quality Management System for Construction Materials Testing Laboratories R 66, Sampling Asphalt Materials T 79, Flash Point with Tag Open-Cup Apparatus for Use with Material Having a Flash Point Less Than 93 C (200 F) 2.2. ASTM Standards: C670, Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test Methods for Construction Materials E1, Standard Specification for ASTM Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers E220, Standard Test Method for Calibration of Thermocouples By Comparison Techniques E644, Standard Test Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance Thermometers Page 28 of 113 TS-2b T 48-1 AASHTO

29 ATTACHMENT C 2.3. NCHRP Report: D.W. Christensen, and R. F. Bonaquist. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 530: Evaluation of Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) Procedures for Low-Temperature Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD 3.1. The sample is placed in the tester and heated rapidly to begin with then at a slow rate. A small test flame is passed at a uniform rate in a level plane across the cup at specified intervals. The flash point is the lowest temperature at which application of the test flame causes the vapor at the surface of the liquid to flash. 4. APPARATUS 4.1. Cleveland Open-Cup Tester Consisting of the following parts; the parts must conform to the dimensions shown and have the additional characteristics as noted. (See Figure 1.) The Cleveland open-cup tester may be manual or automated. If automated, the flash point instrument shall perform the test in accordance with Section 7. Thermometer B D F Diameter of Orifice Open Cup with Asphalt A Diameter of Metal Bead E C Diameter of Tubing Heating Plate Gas Supply Gas or Electric Heat Source Figure 1 Cleveland Open-Cup Apparatus Page 29 of 113 TS-2b T 48-2 AASHTO

30 ATTACHMENT C Millimeters Inches Min Max Min Max A Diameter B Radius 152 nominal 6 nominal C Outside Diameter D E 6.4, approximately 0.25, approximately F Inside Diameter 0.8 nominal nominal Figure 1 Cleveland Open-Cup Apparatus (continued) Test Cup Cup made of brass or other metal of similar conductivity conforming to Figure 2. The cup may be equipped with a handle. I B H 45 Filling Mark E F G D A C Millimeters Inches Min Max Min Max A B C D Radius 4, approximately 0.16, approximately E F -Distance from the top of the cup. G H I Figure 2 Cleveland Open Cup Page 30 of 113 TS-2b T 48-3 AASHTO

31 ATTACHMENT C Heating Plate Plate that ensures the heat is evenly distributed over the bottom of the test cup and that extraneous heating to other surfaces is minimized. See Figure 3 for plate dimensions. F E C D B Metal Thermal Insulation A Millimeters Inches Min Max Min Max A 6.4, nominal 0.25, nominal B C 6.4, nominal 0.25, nominal D Diameter E Diameter F Diameter 150, nominal 6, nominal Figure 3 Heating Plate Heat Source Gas burner or electric heater centered under the opening of the heating plate with no local overheating. If using a gas burner, protect the flame from drafts using suitable shields that do not project above the top of the heating plate Thermometer Holder Supplied with the tester; it shall support the thermometer firmly in a vertical position Heating Plate Holder Support to hold the heating plate level and steady Ignition Source Applicator The device for applying the test flame; may be of any suitable design, but the tip shall be 1.6 to 5.0 mm (0.06 to 0.20 in.) in diameter at the end and the orifice shall have an approximate diameter of 0.8 mm (0.031 in.). The device for applying the test flame shall be so mounted to permit automatic duplication of the sweep of the test flame, the radius of swing being not less than 150 mm (6 in.) and the center of the orifice moving in a plane not more than 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) above the cup. A bead having a diameter of 3.8 to 5.4 mm (0.15 to 0.21 in.) shall be mounted in a convenient position on the apparatus so the size of the test flame can be compared to it Thermometer An ASTM 11C (11F) thermometer as prescribed in ASTM E1 with an accuracy of 0.2 C (0.5 F). The thermometer shall be calibrated according to the requirements specified in R 18. This thermometer shall be used to make all temperature measurements required by this method. Page 31 of 113 TS-2b T 48-4 AASHTO

32 ATTACHMENT C The test thermometer may be replaced with an alternative thermometric device, provided the following requirements are met: The thermometric device shall be mounted in the same position as the test thermometer it replaces The thermometric device shall 1) have a maximum scale error no greater than that of the test thermometer it replaces, 2) be capable of indicating temperature within 0.1 C (0.2 F), and 3) have the same temperature response The thermometric device shall be standardized at the interval specified in R 18. Guidance for performing the standardization is given in ASTM E220 or E Filling Level Gauge (optional) A device to aid in the proper adjustment of the sample level in the cup. It may be made of suitable metal with at least one projection, but preferably two, for adjusting the sample level in the test cup to 9 to 10 mm (0.35 to 0.39 in.) below the top edge of the cup. A hole 0.8 mm (0.031 in.) in diameter, the center of which is located not more than 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) above the bottom edge of the gauge, shall be provided for use in checking the center position of the orifice of the test flame applicator with respect to the rim of the cup. (Figure 4 shows a suitable version.) Figure 4 Filling Level Gauge 5. CALIBRATION AND STANDARDIZATION 5.1. The thermometer or thermometric device shall be standardized at the interval specified in R 18. TS-2b T 48-5 AASHTO Tech Section 2b Page 32 of 113

33 ATTACHMENT C 5.2. The performance of the apparatus shall be verified at least once per year by determining the flash point of a known reference material. Run the test according to Section 7 on a certified flash point material. The certified flash point material shall have test results for T 48 or for ASTM D92. To be considered acceptable, the flash point shall be within ±8.0 C (±14.4 F) of the certified test result. If the test result is out of tolerance, check the apparatus for compliance with Section 4 and rerun with a new sample. 6. ASSEMBLY AND PREPARATION OF APPARATUS 6.1. The cup shall be cleaned prior to each use and any remaining residue from previous tests shall be removed. Solvents and steel wool have been found suitable for this purpose The test cup shall be dried, with no remaining water or solvent, prior to use. Note 2 A hot plate, oven, or open flame have been found useful in ensuring that the cup is completely dry before use The Cleveland open-cup tester shall be placed in a firm and level position on a solid, vibrationfree table. The device shall be placed in a draft-free location or shall be shielded from any drafts which may impact testinghood or flash room, or well toward the back of a draft shield. The top of the tester shall be shielded from strong light so that the flash may be easily seen The temperature measuring device shall be positioned with the bottom of the device being 6.4 ± 1.0 mm (0.25 ± 0.04 in.) above the bottom of the test cup and approximately halfway between the center and the inside edge of the test cup on the side opposite the test flame applicator mounting position Follow manufacturer s instructions for setting up the manual or the automated apparatus for operation. Set the automated tester to run the test in accordance with Section PROCEDURE 7.1. Obtain the asphalt binder sample according to R 66. Heat the sample in its container with a loosely fitted cover in an oven not to exceed 163 C (325 F) for the minimum time necessary to ensure that the sample is completely fluid. Manually stir the sample but avoid incorporating air bubbles Fill the cup with material to be tested to the filling mark 9 to 10 mm (0.35 to 0.39 in.) below the rim of the cup. If the filling level gauge is used, fill the cup until the level of material just touches the pointers of the leveling device. Note 33 The test sample should be at least 50 C (90 F) below the anticipated flash point. Note 34 The sample cup may be filled away from the apparatus provided the thermometer is preset with the cup in place and the sample level is correct at the beginning of the test. A shim 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) thick is useful in obtaining the correction distance from the bottom of the bulb to the bottom of the cup Manual Flash Point Testing: Light the test flame and adjust it to a diameter of 3.8 to 5.4 mm (0.15 to 0.21 in.) For testing of a sample for which the expected flash point temperature is known, apply heat initially at such a rate that the temperature indicated by the temperature-measuring device increases 10 to 20 C (18 to 36 F)/min. When the test specimen temperature is approximately 50 C (90 F) below the expected flash point, decrease the heat so that the rate of temperature rise during the last 28 C (50 F) before the flash point is 4 to 10 C (7 to 18 F)/min. Page 33 of 113 TS-2b T 48-6 AASHTO

34 ATTACHMENT C At approximately 28 C (50 F) below the anticipated flash point and at successive 2 C (5 F) intervals, pass the ignition taper across the sample in a continuous motion so that the time consumed for each pass is 1 s. The center of the test flame must move in a horizontal plane not more than 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) above the plane of the upper edge of the cup and pass in one direction only. At the time of the next test flame application, pass the test flame in the opposite direction of the preceding application. Note 45 If a surface film forms on the sample, it is recommended that the film be moved to the side using a paperclip or spatula prior to application of the test flame From 28 C (50 F) below the anticipated flash point to the end of the test, take care to avoid disturbing the vapors in the test cup If a foam persists during that last 28 C (50 F) temperature rise below the anticipated flash point, end the test and disregard the results For testing of a sample for which the expected flash point temperature is not known, heat the sample to the temperature used for pouring in Section 7.1. Continue heating the test specimen at 4 to 10 C (7 to 18 F)/min and testing the material every 2 C (5 F) as described in Section until the flash point is obtained Record, as the observed flash point, the temperature read on the thermometer at the time the test flame application causes a distinct flash in the interior of the test cup. Note 56 The application of the test flame may cause a halo or enlargement of the test flame. This is not considered the flash point. A large flame that propagates on the surface denotes that the flash point has been reached Automated Flash Point Testing: If necessary, light the test flame, and adjust it to a diameter of 3.8 to 5.4 mm (0.15 to 0.21 in.). Note 67 Some automated apparatus can light and adjust the test flame automatically, and some automated apparatus pass the test flame in one single direction Start the automated apparatus according to the manufacturer s instructions. The automated apparatus shall conduct the procedure as required in Section Record, as the flash point, the temperature read on the thermometer at the time the test flame application causes a distinct flash in the interior of the test cup. 8. CALCULATIONS 8.1. Observe and record the ambient barometric pressure in the laboratory at the time of the test. If the barometric pressure varies from kpa (760 mmhg), calculate the corrected flash point as follows: Corrected flash point ( C) = C (101.3 A) (1) Corrected flash point ( F) = F (760 B) (2) Corrected flash point ( C) = C (760 B) (3) where: C = observed flash point, C; A = ambient barometric pressure, kpa; F = observed flash point, F; and B = ambient barometric pressure, mmhg. Page 34 of 113 TS-2b T 48-7 AASHTO

35 ATTACHMENT C 9. REPORT 9.1. Report the corrected flash point, in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit, as the Cleveland Open-Cup Flash Point. Report flash point to the nearest whole number. 10. PRECISION AND BIAS Precision Criteria for judging the acceptability of test results for the flash point of asphalt binders obtained by this method are given in Table Single-Operator Precision (Repeatability) The figures in Column 2 of Table 1 are the standard deviations that have been found to be appropriate for the conditions of test described in Column 1. Two results obtained in the same laboratory, by the same operator using the same equipment, in the shortest practical period of time, should not be considered suspect unless the difference in the two results exceeds the values given in Table 1, Column Multilaboratory Precision (Reproducibility) The figures in Column 2 of Table 1 are the standard deviations that have been found to be appropriate for the conditions of test described in Column 1. Two results submitted by two different operators testing the same material in different laboratories shall not be considered suspect unless the difference in the two results exceeds the values given in Table 1, Column 3. Table 1 Precision Estimates a Acceptable Standard Deviation Range of Two Results Condition (1s) b (d2s) b Single-Operator Precision: Flash Point ( C) 3 8 Multilaboratory Precision: Flash Point ( C) a The precision estimates for flash point given in Table 1 are based on the analysis of test results from eight pairs of AMRL proficiency samples. The data analyzed consisted of results from 98 to 148 laboratories for each of the eight pairs of samples. The analysis included four binder grades: PG 52-34, PG 64-16, PG 64-22, and PG Average flash points ranged from to C. The details of the analysis are in the final report for NCHRP Project No. 9-26, Phase 3. b These values represent the 1s and d2s limits described in ASTM C Bias The procedure of this test method has no bias because flash point can be defined only in terms of this test method. 11. KEYWORDS Asphalt binder; Cleveland open cup; flash point. 1 This standard was rewritten to make it specific to asphalt binder and first published as such in Page 35 of 113 TS-2b T 48-8 AASHTO

36 ATTACHMENT D Ballot Name: TS Ballot # Ballot Manager: Lyndi D Blackburn Ballot Start Date: 6/2/2017 Ballot Due Date: 6/23/2017 Item Number: 1 Description: Ballot to revise and update R 15, "Standard Practice for Evaluation of Asphalt Additives and Modifiers." Affirmative: 28 of 30 Negative: 1 of 30 No Vote: 1 of 30 Agency (Individual Name) Decision Comments Illinois Department of Transportation (Kelly L Morse) (Kelly.Morse@illinois.gov) In the scope I would recommend removing Recycling and add a statement in 1.1 stating that the practice does not include recycling. It is unusual for AASHTO to cite what is excluded. In the asphalt binder evaluation section there is not an emphasis on long term aging of the binder. This was an area of significant degradation during past modifier testing in IL. PAV methods are cited, perhaps double PAV is intended? Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Affirmative with comments: 1. In Section 1.2.4, revise from "Warm Mix Asphalt technologies Compaction aids" to "Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Technologies/Compaction Aids". 2. In Section 2.1.1, bullet for "TP 113", revise from "TP " to "TP 113". 3. In Section 2.1.1, bullet for "TP 122", revise from "TP " to "TP 122". 4. In Section 2.1.1, last bullet, no specific standard is referenced for "Difference in Critical Low Temperature (delta Tc)". Perhaps consider referencing "PP 78" and specifically "PP 78, Section 7.2, Evaluating Embrittlement Using the Critical Low-Temperature Difference and Section 7.3, Testing". 5. In Section 2.1.3, bullet for "PP 60", revise from "PP (2016)" to "R 83" as PP 60 was adopted as a full standard for publishing in In Section 2.1.3, bullet for "PP 61", revise from "PP 61" to "R 84" as PP 61 was adopted as a full standard for publishing in In Section 2.1.3, add new bullet for "T 378 Determining the Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number for Asphalt Mixtures Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT)" 8. In Section 2.1.3, next to last bullet for "T 320" is proposed to be deleted. Why? Although there are limited equipment available, equipment is still available and operational. Suggest keeping this bullet reference to T In Section 5.1, next to last line, suggest revising from "corresponding neat asphalt binders" to "corresponding unmodified asphalt binders" since revisions to Section 1.1 propose to delete the Page 36 of 113

37 ATTACHMENT D word "neat" and Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, makes reference to "asphalt binder unmodified". In Section 5.1.1, 1st line,suggest revising from "corresponding neat asphalt binders" to "corresponding unmodified asphalt binders" since revisions to Section 1.1 propose to delete the word "neat" and Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, makes reference to "asphalt binder unmodified". In Section 5.1.2, 1st line, suggest revising from "corresponding neat asphalt binders" to "corresponding unmodified asphalt binders" since revisions to Section 1.1 propose to delete the word "neat" and Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, makes reference to "asphalt binder unmodified". In Section 5.1.3, 1st line, suggest revising from "corresponding neat asphalt binders" to "corresponding unmodified asphalt binders" since revisions to Section 1.1 propose to delete the word "neat" and Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, makes reference to "asphalt binder unmodified". In Section 6.2.1, end of 5th line, suggest revising from "If the neat" to "If the unmodified" since revisions to Section 1.1 propose to delete the word "neat" and Section 4.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, makes reference to "asphalt binder unmodified". In Section , delete this entire subsection for RTFO, since subsection was added for RTFO. In Section 6.4.3, revise from "Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Specimens by Means of the SHRP Gyratory Compactor" to "Preparing and Determining Density of Asphalt Mixture Specimens by Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor". In Section , revise from "Specific Gravities" to "Specific Gravity". In Section 6.4.5, revise from "Moisture Damage Test" to "Moisture-Induced Damage Test". In Section 6.4.5, Note 3, revise from "the retained ratio" to "the tensile strength ratio" and revise from "70 percent" to "0.70" to coincide with reporting of tensile strength ratio in T 283. In Section 6.4.6, consider separating this into two subsections to address rutting separately from moisture susceptibility since T 340 is only for rutting and to add other Flow Number test for an additional rutting test. Revise from "6.4.6 Rutting and moisture susceptibility - T 324 and T 340" to "6.4.6 Rutting - T 324, T 340, and T 378, Procedure B" and "6.4.7 Moisture Susceptibility - T 324". Perhaps include T 324 under Section and revise Section from "Moisture Damage Test - T 283" to "Moisture Susceptibility - T 283 and T 324". In Section 6.4.6, it is proposed to delete existing Section referencing T 320. Why? Suggest keeping existing Section referencing T 320 as noted in comment 8) above. In Section 6.4.6, revise from "Note 5" to "Note 4" In Section 6.4.7, consider combining Section with Section and renaming to "Rutting and Permanent Deformation" [See comment 19) above]. In Section , revise from "PP 60" to "R 83". In Section , revise from "TP 79" to "T 378". In Section , revise from "PP 61" to "R 84". In Section 8.1, add "asphalt mixture". In Section X1.1, revise from "(trade name, generic name, and specific chemical identity)" to "(trade name, generic name, formula designation, and specific chemical identity)" as many Page 37 of 113

38 ATTACHMENT D additives have a formula code/designation (e.g., WMA Technologies from Ingevity including Evotherm M1, Evotherm J1, etc.). 28. In Section X1.5.2, revise from "In hot mix asphalt" to "In asphalt mixtures". 29. In Section X1.7, consider adding a new subsection for "X1.7.1 Liquid or Semi-Liquid Modifiers Product Formulation Reference Parameters" requiring a reference infrared spectrum (FTIR) from a representative modifier sample in accordance with ASTM E1252, Specific Gravity from a representative modifier sample in accordance with ASTM D1475, Viscosity, and ph of a representative modifier sample in accordance with ASTM E In Section X1.7.3, revise from "In hot mix asphalt" to "In asphalt mixture". 31. In Section X1.9, add a new subsection "X1.9.# Product Data Sheet". 32. In Section X1.9, add a new subsection "X1.9.# Product bulk shipment and package shipping information including bulk shipment Bill of Lading (BOL) description, lot/batch identification, and schematic diagram with key identifying information included on package product labels." Comments from Troy Lehigh, PennDOT Bituminous Studies Lab Manager: 33. Section should be separated into two sections (6.4.6 and 6.4.7) since there are two different tests listed. 34. An indication is needed to state that all of the tests listed may not be required or needed and the agency should determine which tests to perform. Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) (Richard.Bradbury@maine.gov) Affirmative Several Provisional standards are referenced that have recently become full standards - these will need to be updated. Maryland Department of Transportation (Sejal Barot) (sbarot@sha.state.md.us) Affirmative Good with revisions. Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl) (Eric.Biehl@dot.ohio.gov) Affirmative Nice additions. Did TP 105 get a new name? Maybe it's TP 124 I am thinking of. Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) Affirmative Section 6 lists T 240 twice - once in and again in New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Denis M. Boisvert) (Denis.Boisvert@dot.nh.gov) Affirmative Section 2: Should extended PAV aging be included as well, or combined with the Difference in Critical Low Temperature (delta Tc)? Section and are duplicates for T-240 Page 38 of 113

39 ATTACHMENT D Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) (pwu@dot.ga.gov) Negative We can change vote from "Negative" to "Affirmative" if Section can be deleted (1.2.5 Extenders/softeners (e.g. Re-refined Engine Oils Bottoms (REOB), Vacuum Tower Asphalt Extenders (VTAE), Vacuum Gas Oils (VGO). By including REOB/VTAE would give readers an impression that AASHTO is endorsing the use of REOB/VTAE as additives and modifiers in asphalt binder. Item Number: 2 Description: Revise M 332, "Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test to remove the elastic component. This item is tied to Item #3 to create a new standard practice for the elastic component. Affirmative: 28 of 30 Negative: 1 of 30 No Vote: 1 of 30 Agency (Individual Name) Decision Comments Illinois Department of Transportation (Kelly L Morse) (Kelly.Morse@illinois.gov) General comment is that this standard practice does little more than cite all applicable binder and mix testing procedures. There is little guidance on what expectations one should have of a modifier or sensitivities an agency should have regarding long term aging. I would prefer this effort follow the conclusion of the NCHRP research on this topic in order to include more relevant and substantiated guidance for testing considerations. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (Jason Davis) (jason.davis@la.gov) Affirmative I'm assuming the recovery graph is moving. The text around it was red-lined, but the graph didn't have a strike-through. Section 1.3 has a "14" on the end of the reference to the new test. That text shouldn't be there. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Denis M. Boisvert) (Denis.Boisvert@dot.nh.gov) Affirmative With the elastic component as a separate specification, changes are needed for ordering procedures by both contractors and agencies to assure the correct product is received. Added awareness and attention will be required by all, including suppliers. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Negative with comment: 1. Reason for Negative: After review of proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1 seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedure involves. The R XX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in a different format) or Page 39 of 113

40 ATTACHMENT D performing 1 additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 test result. At bottom, see comment from Troy Lehigh with similar thought. Other Editorial/Technical comments: 2. In Section 4.1.1, 1st line, revise from "requirements in in R-XX" to "requirements in R XX". 3. In Section and in the example, why would you need to include "Percent Recovery of X" in the purchase order? In R XX, data plotted on or above the curve in R XX Figure 1 or alternatively meeting the minimum required Rec-3.2 value by the equation in R XX, Section or the criteria in R XX, Section or Section is considered to have a significant elastic response. So, why would the purchase order be required to specify a "Percent Recovery of X"? It doesn't seem necessary to specify this based on R XX. Comments from Troy Lehigh, PennDOT Bituminous Studies Lab Manager: 4. I don't understand why Appendix X1 needs removed and placed in it's own standard practice. Item Number: Description: Affirmative: Negative: No Vote: 3 Ballot to add a new standard practice for the elastic component removed from M of 30 2 of 30 1 of 30 Agency (Individual Name) Decision Comments Illinois Department of Transportation (Kelly L Morse) (Kelly.Morse@illinois.gov) Appreciate AASHTO recognizing the need to take out the percent recovery test from M332 and making it its own spec. The question for us is: Does IL agree with the curve that is provided? We will evaluate our data collected and any other data we deem relative and either suggest modifications to the M332 curve or create our own for IL materials. Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl) (Eric.Biehl@dot.ohio.gov) Affirmative Since we're getting a result out of this, shouldn't this be a "T" standard and not an "R"? Section 6: Should T240 and R28 be included as well since you need that apparatus to age the material to be able to run this test? Section 9: Not sure I agree that this should be a full standard until there is a precision and bias, however, there is currently no precision and bias for T 301 that Ohio currently deems an acceptable standard. My assumption is that there is enough data to develop a precision and bias either through proficiency samples, rounds robins (Ohio DOT, user producer groups, etc.), and other small research projects. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Denis M. Boisvert) (Denis.Boisvert@dot.nh.gov) Affirmative Section 4.2. does not include 10 conditioning steps at low stress level, 0.1 kpa. Page 40 of 113

41 ATTACHMENT D Nevada Department of Transportation (Darin Tedford) (dtedford@dot.state.nv.us) Negative 1. Section 5, Significance and Use â The way this is written implies that it has no significance at all. It has continually been stressed that SHRP tests are designed to be performance based. Yet it is stated that this has no relationship to performance. In addition, it also implies that the only reason it is being implemented to satisfy people that have some erroneous misconception that polymers are beneficial. This paragraph should be deleted as written. The question of the significance or benefit of polymer modification should not be addressed. If the end user wants to purchase polymer modified asphalt, then that is his choice. The significance of the procedure (same as elastic recovery, ductility, toughness and tenacity) is to ensure that an asphalt is properly polymer modified if that is what the user desires. 2. Section 7 and Graph â The recommended specifications for percent recovery are too low for a properly modified asphalt. The percent recovery can still be used when Jnr is above 2.0. Basically this says that polymer is not needed for the "S" Standard Designation traffic requirement. However, polymers are beneficial for multiple distress parameters including rutting, cracking, flexibility, life span, and stripping. They shouldnâ t only be used for increased traffic loading. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Negative with comment: 1. Reason for Negative: After review of proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1 from M 332 and creation of R XX seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedure involves. The R XX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in a different format) or performing 1 additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 test result. At very bottom, see comment from Troy Lehigh with similar thought. Other editorial/technical comments: 2. In Section 1.3, it indicates that "This practice may be used in conjunction with M 320"; however, that would require testing in accordance with T 350 which M 320 does not specify or require. The purchasing agency or purchase order using M 320 and desiring to use this practice would need to significantly modify their purchase order to use this practice in conjunction with M 320 to include T 350. I do not see any proposed ballot item within this TS Ballot proposing revisions to M 320 to include a reference indicating the specifying agency may require compliance with R XX as was done in the previous ballot item (Item Number 2) for M 332, Section 1.3. It is recommended to revise R XX, Section 1.3 to read "This practice may be used in conjunction with M 332". I don't think it is necessary to include the title of M 332 in Section 1.3 either since M 332 is included as a referenced document in Section In Section 2.1, reorder the referenced documents so that the M standards are listed first, then the R standards, then the T standards. 4. In Section 2, include another subsection to reference the LTPPBind 3.1 since it is referenced in Section 7.3. Add as follows (similar/same to R 35, Section 2.3): "2.3 Other references: {Bullet} LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.1, " 5. In Section 3.2.3, revise from "percent recovery (Rec)--the ratio of the difference" to "average percent recovery (R)"--the ratio of the average difference". In AASHTO T 350, the average Page 41 of 113

42 ATTACHMENT D percent recovery is reported and it is assumed that the average percent recovery value is the value to be used in this R XX standard. Also, T 350 shows average percent recovery as "R", not "Rec". The terms used in R XX should be consistent with the terms used in T 350 to reduce confusion and to ensure proper analysis. In Section 4.1, 1st line, revise from "using T 240 (RTFOT)" to "in accordance with T 240". In Section 4.2, beginning of 2nd line, revise from "using T 350 (MSCR)" to "in accordance with T 350". In Section 4.2, last line, revise from "and percent recovery (Rec)" to "and average percent recovery (R)". In Section 4.3, 1st line, revise from "Using the Jnr and Rec values" to "Using the Jnr and R values" and in 2nd line, revise from "and Rec-3.2, respectively) data is compared to a curve of Rec as a function of Jnr" to "and R3.2, respectively) data is compared to a curve of R3.2 as a function of Jnr3.2" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 4.3.1, in two places, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 5.1, 3rd line, revise from "asphalt binder - such as Elastic Recovery - the MSCR percent recovery, Rec-3.2" to "asphalt binder, such as Elastic Recovery, the MSCR average percent recovery, R3.2". In Section 5.1, end of 5th line, revise from "In any case the" to "In any case, the" (i.e., add comma after the word "case"). For Sections 7.1 to 7.3, consider deleting these three subsections and replacing with one Section 7.1 that reads "As specified in M 332, conduct testing in accordance with T 350. If comment #13) is not done, then for Section 7.2 and Section 7.3, consider combining these two subsections into one subjection to read "Preparing test specimens and testing--prepare test specimens and test the specimens in accordance with T 350. For most asphalt binders, the test temperature..." If Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 are not combined, in Section 7.2, revise to imperative mood, active-voice similar to Sections 7.1 and 7.3 to read "Preparing test specimens--prepare test specimens in accordance with T 350 (same as preparing 25-mm specimens in T 315). Control the specimen test temperature in accordance with T 315.". It is noted that T 350 does not specify any type of control of the specimen test temperature. Shouldn't something be added for specimen temperature control in T 350 and then it would not need to be included in this R XX? In Section 7.4, 1st line, revise from "Jnr-3.2 and Rec-3.2" to "Jnr3.2 and R3.2" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 7.4, last line, revise from "has been modified)" to "has been modified by an elastomeric polymer)" for consistency with language in Section 1.2 and Section 4.3. In Section 7.4.1, in two locations, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" and in another two locations, revise from "Rec-3.2min" to "R3.2min" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 7.4.2, revise from "Rec-3.2min" to "R3.2min" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 7.4.3, revise from "Rec-3.2min" to "R3.2min" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 7.4.4, in two locations, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" and in another two locations, revise from "Rec-3.2min" to "R3.2min" for consistency with terms in T 350. In Section 7.4.4, 2nd line, revise from "in to or the curve shown in Figure 1)" to "in Section to Section (represented by the curve shown in Figure 1)". Page 42 of 113

43 ATTACHMENT D 23. In Section 7.4.4, 3rd line, revise from "value (represented by the curve shown in Figure 1), then" to "value, then" since "(represented by the curve shown in Figure 1)" is included in the previous sentence (Section 7.4.4, 2nd line). 24. In Section 7.4.4, 4th line, revise from "compliance - indicating" to "compliance indicating". 25. In Section 7.4.4, Note 1, 1st line, revise from "Rec-Jnr curve" to "R-Jnr curve" and revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" for consistency with terms in T In Section 7.4.4, Note 1, the last sentence seems to be more than non-mandatory information and seems to conflict with the requirements in Section regarding a Jnr-3.2 value greater than 2.00 kpa^-1. Should last sentence be moved from Note 1 to one of the mandatory subsections in the standard, such as, Section 7.4.3? 27. In Section 8.1.1, consider deleting Sections to as these are reporting requirements in T 350. Why repeat here? When specifying M 332, testing is specified to be in accordance with T 350 and its reporting requirements. When compliance to R XX is required by the purchasing agency, R XX should only require reporting information currently required in Section In Section 8.1.3, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" for consistency with terms in T In Section 8.1.5, in three locations, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" and in one location, revise from "Rec-3.2min" to "R3.2min" for consistency with terms in T In Figure 1 caption, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2", in Figure 1 vertical axis title, revise from "Rec-3.2, %" to "R3.2, %", and in Figure 1 text box in two locations, revise from "Rec-3.2" to "R3.2" for consistency with terms in T 350. Comments from Troy Lehigh, PennDOT Bituminous Studies Lab Manager: 31. I don't understand why Appendix X1 needs removed from T 350 and placed in it's own standard practice. Item Number: Description: Affirmative: Negative: No Vote: 4 Ballot to revise TP 102, Provisional Standard Test Method for Asphalt Release Agents. 29 of 30 0 of 30 1 of 30 Agency (Individual Name) Decision Comments Illinois Department of Transportation (Kelly L Morse) (Kelly.Morse@illinois.gov) Section 8 Additional sentence in 8.2 "Samples shall be dried back to constant weight prior to being run." What temperature are they being dried? Same as the percent solids ASTM D2369? Adding a temperature or method may help clarify the intent of the sentence. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Affirmative with comments: 1. In Section , 2nd line, revise from "tile angle" to "tilt angle". Page 43 of 113

44 ATTACHMENT D 2. In Section 8.1, 2nd line, should the text be revised from "ASTM D92, ASTM D93, and ASTM E502" to "ASTM D92, ASTM D93, or ASTM E502"? It is assumed that one of these flash point methods, but not all of these methods, will be used to measure the flash point of the ARA. 3. In Section 8.2, 3rd line, revise from "dried back to a constant weight" to "dried to a constant weight". 4. In Section 9.1.3, 2nd line, move the text "The flash point of the ARA sample;" from here to a new subsection and add "and the test method used to measure flash point". The addition is suggested due to multiple methods available to determine flash point. 5. In existing Section 9.1.4, consider revising from "with contact information for obtaining the original data" to "with laboratory contact information for obtaining the original data". 6. In the Section 10 title, move the first part of title which reads "THE PH OF THE ARA SAMPLE." up under Section 9.1 as a new subsection [if comment #3) above is accepted]. Note, this issue appears to be fixed in the Current Production Materials Library version of TP 102. Maryland Department of Transportation (Sejal Barot) (sbarot@sha.state.md.us) Affirmative Good with this and we had NTPP accept several release agents for us. Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) (Richard.Bradbury@maine.gov) Affirmative Suggest specifying a grade of filter paper that provides similar results to "Brew-Rite coffee filters." suggest deleting the 2nd sentence Don't understand this statement: "Hold the plate at the tile angle..." should this say "tilt angle"? Illinois Department of Transportation (Brian Pfeifer) (brian.pfeifer@illinois.gov) Affirmative For the new sentence in 8.2, "Samples shall be dried back to constant weight prior to being run": what temperature are they being dried, the same as percent solids in ASTM D2369? Adding a temperature or method would help clarify the intent. Item Number: 5 Description: Ballot for Provisional Test Method for Performance Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments. The following attachments are included: An updated version of the specification, AASHTO SPG Spec Hot Applied pdf, that was balloted last year at SOM for a new ballot; The ballot comments with responses to address them, TS2b Results-with comments addressed.pdf; A presentation from the researcher, Dr. Amy Epps-Martin of TAMU/TTI, Short Course_Oct16_SPG_AEppsMartin_REVISED; Original research reports, , s. and Final. Page 44 of 113

45 ATTACHMENT D The new spec: 1) Uses 6 degree increments for high and low temperatures. This reduces the number of grades. 2) The grades are offset from PG by 3 degrees to reduce confusion. 3) Changes the requirement for phase angle to a UTI of 86 or more. This old requirement of 89 does not exist in this 6-degree increment scenario. So I had to choose to go up to 92 or down to means more materials are modified (more conservative and what users want â more modified binders). 4) Addresses the other comments that were mostly editorial. Affirmative: 28 of 30 Negative: 1 of 30 No Vote: 1 of 30 Agency (Individual Name) Decisions Comments Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Timothy L Ramirez) (tramirez@pa.gov) Affirmative with comments: 1. In Section 2, consider including another subsection to reference the LTPPBind 3.1 if it can be easily modified (change depth) to represent the surface temperatures as indicated in the Table 1, footnote ^1. If LTPPBind 3.1 can be easily modified, add to Section 2 as follows (similar/same to R 35, Section 2.3): "2.3 Other references: {Bullet} LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.1, " 2. In Section 5.2, 2nd line, revise from "asphalt cement" to "asphalt binder". Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) (pwu@dot.ga.gov) Affirmative 1. We see the need of this special PG grade surface treatment binder standard for Texas (and may be for Oklahoma) since the Texas and Oklahoma experience some wide temperature fluctuations. The original climates map shows 5 regions which prompts multiple small increments in temperature. The high plains are in a unique region of the United States which sees some of the largest temperature swings. The relatively high elevation, dry air, proximity to the north-south oriented Rocky Mountains, and frequency of strong cold fronts all contribute to this area having some of the wildest temperature swings in the country. 2. However, our state is probably not going to use this special PG grade surface treatment binder standard due to possible high supply cost with numerous new SPG grade binders, with relatively much less fluctuated temperature in the state. Maine Department of Transportation (Richard L Bradbury) (Richard.Bradbury@maine.gov) Affirmative The title of Section 9 should be "Rejection and Retesting." Page 45 of 113

46 ATTACHMENT D Ohio Department of Transportation (Eric R Biehl) (Eric.Biehl@dot.ohio.gov) Affirmative vote but needs may need some revisions based on a few comments below. Other comments would be revisions to the MP at a later time. 1) I've worked on collecting data using TX DOT's specs for the past 3 years for Ohio chip seal binders so seeing this makes me excited. However, for PAV aged binder, the BBR cannot just be the solution. There needs to be another test. 2) 5.4: Should this be the Ash Content Test per T111 since M140, M208, and M316 are that now? If no, then should ASTM D7553 be allowed as an alternative to trichloroethylene? 3) Note 2 in Table 1: Should that be 20 r/min per T316 instead of 50 r/min? Also, T316 uses units of rpm instead of r/min. Should this be changed to rpm to be consistent? 4) Table 1: I'm curious how many technicians have poured an BBR mold using SBR modified binder after PAV aging? Not the easiest task in the world and honestly relatively hard, especially for higher SBR contents (3.5%+). You have to heat the binder to extreme temps as well as warm the BBR mold. There needs to be another test that can replace the BBR such as the 4 mm DSR to determine the stiffness. If another test cannot be accommodating, then T 316 needs modified to address SBR modified binders specifically for SPG testing. New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Denis M. Boisvert) (Denis.Boisvert@dot.nh.gov) Affirmative It seems confusing to add a SPG system. Changing the upper and lower design temperatures that identify the grade primarily to satisfy distinction between PG and SPG systems seems counterintuitive. Ultimately, it is still the performance at the environmental temperatures that should be of concern. Nevada Department of Transportation (Darin Tedford) (dtedford@dot.state.nv.us) Negative 1. Do not agree with changing all the temperatures grades from standard SHRP temperatures. What is the point? Why use 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, and 79 instead of 52, 58, 64, 70, 76? Confusing and unnecessary. 2. Table 1, footnote 2 â States referee method will use a #21 spindle. This refers to a Brookfield viscometer which is not required by the test procedure. 3. Table 1, Phase angle â specifies phase angle at G*/sin Î = Why? Increases test time by requiring testing at multiple temperatures. Again, what is purpose? Maximum phase angles normally used to obtain polymer. If this is purpose, use MSCR. Page 46 of 113

47 ATTACHMENT E Standard Practice for Evaluation of Asphalt Additives and Modifiers AASHTO Designation: R ( )1 Technical Section: 2b, Liquid Asphalt Formatted: Cover Subtitle Release: Group 3 (August 2017) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C Page 47 of 113

48 ATTACHMENT E Standard Practice for Evaluation of Asphalt Additives and Modifiers AASHTO Designation: R (20127)(2012)1 Technical Section: 2b, Liquid Asphalt Release: Group 3 (August 2017) 1. SCOPE 1.1. This standard practice covers the laboratory testing required to evaluate asphalt additives and modifiers in both neat asphalt and in asphalt- -aggregate hot asphalt binders and mixtures. The terms additive and modifier are used interchangeably and are broadly interpreted to include any materials added to asphalt binder in minor amounts, other than mineral fillers, sand, and aggregates, whose purported effect is to change the effective performance grade of the asphalt binder, or to otherwise improve the performance and service life of pavements or maintenance materials by improving the properties of the asphalt binder or hot mix asphalt mixture, or both. This standard does not include modifications due to the use of recycled materials Following is a list of the common purposes for which an additive/modifier may be added: Anti-Rutting (permanent deformation) Anti-Cracking Thermal Cracking (low-temperature cracking, thermal-fatigue cracking) Load-Associated Fatigue Cracking Anti-Stripping Moisture susceptibility of the asphalt- -aggregate bond Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Technologies/Compaction Aids.Antioxidants Extenders/Softeners (e.g, Re-refined Engine Oil Bottoms (REOB), Re-refined Engine Tower Asphalt Extenders (VTAE), Vacuum Gas Oils (VGO) Recycling (not included). Recycling is omitted from this standard practice. It is felt that consideration of the various characteristics of the material from the pavement to be recycled and formulation of the recycle mix are so involved as to make inclusion of recycling in this standard practice cumbersome and impractical The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: TS-2b R 15-1 AASHTO Page 48 of 113

49 ATTACHMENT E Asphalt Binders: M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder M 332 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Binder Using a Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) R 29, Grading or Verifying the Performance Grade (PG) of an Asphalt Binder R 66, Sampling Asphalt Materials T 44, Solubility of Bituminous Materials T 48, Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup T 228, Specific Gravity of Semi-Solid Asphalt Materials T 240, Effect of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt Binder (Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test) T 313, Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) T 314, Determining the Fracture Properties of Asphalt Binder in Direct Tension (DT) T 315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) T 316, Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using Rotational ViscometerT350, Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) Formatted: Normal TP 92, Determining the Cracking Temperature of Asphalt Binder Using the Asphalt Binder Cracking Device (ABCD) TP 101, Estimating Fatigue Resistance of Asphalt Binders Using the Linear Amplitude Sweep TP 113, Determination of Asphalt Binder Resistance to Ductile Fracture Using Double-Edge Notch Tension (DENT) Test TP 122, Determination of Performance Grade of Physically Aged Asphalt Binder Using Extended Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) Method. PP 78, Evaluating Embrittlement Using the Critical Low-Temperature Difference Aggregates: T 37, Sieve Analysis of Mineral Filler for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) T 84, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate T 85, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate T 133, Density of Hydraulic Cement Mixtures: M 323, Superpave Volumetric Mix Design PP 60, Preparation of Cylindrical Performance Test Specimens Using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor Formatted: Normal R 84, Developing Dynamic Modulus Master Curves for Asphalt Mixtures Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) R 30, Mixture Conditioning of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) R 35, Superpave Volumetric Design for Asphalt Mixtures T 166, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)Mixtures Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens TS-2b R 15-2 AASHTO Page 49 of 113

50 ATTACHMENT E T 209, Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm) and Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) T 269, Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Asphalt Mixtures T 275, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)Mixtures Using Paraffin-Coated Specimens T 283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage T 312, Preparing and Determining the Density of Asphalt Mixture Specimens by Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor T 320, Determining the Permanent Shear Strain and Stiffness of Asphalt Mixtures Using the Superpave Shear Tester (SST) (Note to keep this) Formatted: Normal T 321, Determining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending T 324, Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) T 331, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) and Density of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method. T 340, Determining Rutting Susceptibility of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) T 342, Determining Dynamic Modulus of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) TP 79 or T378, Determining the Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number for Asphalt Mixtures using the Asphalt Mix Performance Tester (AMPT) TP 105, Determining the Fracture Energy of Asphalt Mixtures Using the Semicircular Bend Geometry (SCB) TP 107, Determining the Damage Characteristic Curve of Asphalt Mixtures from Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Tests TP 108, Abrasion Loss of Asphalt Mixture Specimens TP 124, Determining the Fracture Potential of Asphalt Mixtures Using the Semicircular Bend Geometry (SCB) at Intermediate Temperature. TP 31, Determining the Resilient Modulus of Bituminous Mixtures by Indirect Tension ASTM Standard: Binders: D95, Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation 2.3. Other Methods: NCHRP Report 274, Use of Anti-Stripping Additives in Asphaltic Concrete Mixtures Laboratory Phase, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, December 1984 FHWA/RD-87/001, Investigation of Asphalt Additives, FHWA, McLean, VA, June 1987 TS-2b R 15-3 AASHTO Page 50 of 113

51 ATTACHMENT E FHWA/TX-85/347/1, Asphalt-Rubber Binder Laboratory Performance, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin, TX, August 1985 NCHRP Report 268, Influence of Asphalt Temperature Susceptibility on Pavement Construction and Performance, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, December SUMMARY OF METHOD 3.1. The testing is divided into two phases. Phase I tests the modified binder (with tests of appropriate unmodified controls), while Phase II tests the modified hot mix asphalt mixture. The purpose of dividing the testing into two phases is to use the faster and easier tests of Phase I as a screening method. If an asphalt additive or modifier shows no promise in Phase I, there may be no need to continue to Phase II. This, of course, would not apply if the additive/modifier interacts specifically with the aggregate, e.g., in the case of anti-stripping agents. 4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 4.1. This standard practice details the tests and procedure for evaluating asphalt modifiers to be used for paving. The modified asphalt binder is compared, as is appropriate, either with the same asphalt binder unmodified or with asphalt binder from the same base crude refined to a specification grade mimicking the specification-defining properties of the modified asphalt binder as closely as possible. In most respects the evaluation procedures are those desirable for an unmodified asphalt binder. Both modified asphalt binder and hot mix asphalt mixture using modified asphalt binders are evaluated. Performance-based testing is emphasized. The procedures go beyond those that would be desirable for unmodified asphalt binder in that unmodified control asphalt binders are used and tested specifically for those properties to be enhanced by the modifier. If testing (at appropriate additive levels) indicates that the functional purpose of the additive is not fulfilled, testing of the additive may be terminated. If any of the other important performance properties of the modified asphalt binder are either unsatisfactory or significantly degraded, and cannot be remedied by, e.g., further modification, evaluation of the modifier may likewise be terminated. If the results of evaluation according to this standard practice are positive, small-scale field trials and economic cost-benefit analysis may be warranted. If the additive/modifier is being promoted by a supplier to a customer or evaluating laboratory, e.g., a governmental agency, a suggested list of information to be provided by the supplier to such a customer/evaluator is provided in Appendix X1. 5. CHOICE OF CONTROL SAMPLES 5.1. Control samples may be chosen for three purposes. Type A control samples are used for the most general evaluation of additive/modifiers. Type B is used when the supplier believes that the his additive/modifier is useful under rather specific circumstances. Type C is used in evaluating an additive/modifier for a specific paving project. A minimum of three samples, i.e., three hot mix asphalt mixtures and their corresponding neat asphalt binders, which are commonly used as paving materials, must be chosen Type A Hot mix asphalt and their corresponding neat unmodified asphalt binders spanning the range of those typically used throughout the United States may be chosen. It is recommended that the additive manufacturer obtain representative hot mix asphalt designs and constituent materials currently being produced for and approved by three state highway administrations. Depending on TS-2b R 15-4 AASHTO Page 51 of 113

52 ATTACHMENT E the purpose of the additive, the manufacturer should obtain the hot mix asphalt mixture and materials from states having experienced that type of asphalt pavement problem Type B Hot mix aasphalt mixtures and the corresponding neat unmodified asphalt binders recommended by the additive/modifier supplier as particularly appropriate to demonstrate the additive s enhancement properties may be chosen, or Type C Specific hot mix asphalt mixtures and their corresponding neat unmodified asphalt binders considered for use in a particular modified asphalt project or in particular states or regions may be chosen. 6. EVALUATION TESTING Note 1 It is suggested that the testing be done by a laboratory inspected accredited for the appropriate tests by the AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) Accreditation Program and enrolled in the appropriate reference sample program by the AMRL AASHTO re:source Proficiency Sample Program Relationship of Modified Asphalt Testing to Tests in Standard AASHTO Asphalt Specification: A modified asphalt binder, in the first instance, is compared to, and, in general, has to meet the applicable specifications for unmodified asphalt binders. These tests are found in either M 320 or M Order of Performing Tests: The testing order should be based on what the asphalt additive is designed to accomplish. The most crucial tests ( go or no-go tests) should be performed first. For example, if the proposed additive is purported to alleviate stripping as its only benefit, it is most appropriate to run Section 6.4.5, Moisture Damage Test, first. Should this test show that the additive provides no anti-stripping properties, there would likely be no reason to run any further tests. If the neat unmodified asphalt binder/asphalt binder- aggregate mixture responds favorably to this initial test (or tests), the remaining tests should be performed in order to make sure that the modifier does not have an unfavorable impact on any of the properties of the material. It should also be noted that not all the tests listed are necessary, and the agency should determine which test it needs to perform Phase I Testing Asphalt Binders: Sampling - R 66; Rolling Thin-Film Oven - T 240; Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) R 28; Grading or Verifying the Performance Grade of an Asphalt Binder R 29; Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) Test T 313; Direct Tension Test (DTT) T 314; Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) Test T 315; Viscosity Using Rotational Viscometer T 316; Multiple Stress Creep Recovery - T 350; TS-2b R 15-5 AASHTO Page 52 of 113

53 ATTACHMENT E Sampling R 66; Solubility T 44; Flash Point by Cleveland Open Cup T 48; Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials ASTM D95; Specific Gravity of Semi-Solid Asphalt Materials T 228; Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test T 240; Note 2 The following tests need at least verification and often basic development. Hence, the references given are often indicative rather than definitive Resistance to Ductile Failure - TP Extended Bending Beam Rheometer - TP Critical Low Temperature (ΔTc) Determining the Cracking Temperature of Asphalt Binder Using the Asphalt Binder Cracking Device (ABCD) - TP Estimating Fatigue Resistance of Asphalt Binders Using the Linear Amplitude Sweep - TP Limiting Stiffness Method for Predicting Cracking Temperature FHWA/RD-87/001; Critical Stress Method for Predicting Temperature FHWA/RD-87/001; Force-Ductility FHWA/TX85/347/1; Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) Including Aging Index FHWA/RD-87/001; Time- -Temperature Degradation Profile of Additive/Modifier FHWA/RD-87/001; Aging as Measured by Infrared Spectroscopy (IR) FHWA/RD-87/001; and Homogeneity Test (Compatibility Between Modifier and Asphalt) FHWA/RD-87/ Phase II Hot Mix Asphalt Mixture: Short- and Long-Term Aging of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) R 30; Superpave Volumetric Design for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) R 35 and M 323; Preparing and Determining Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Mixture Specimens by Means of the SHRP Superpave Gyratory Compactor T 312; Volumetric Analysis (air voids and voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA)): Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity T 209; Bulk Specific Gravity T 166, or T 275 or T 331; Percent Air Voids Calculation T 269; TS-2b R 15-6 AASHTO Page 53 of 113

54 ATTACHMENT E Specific Gravityies and Absorption of Aggregate T 84, T 85, and T 133; Note 32 The bulk specific gravity of the aggregate is needed to calculate VMA Moisture Damage Test Susceptibility T 283 and T 324or NCHRP-274; Note 43 When testing anti-stripping additives, it is recommended that the retainedtensile strenght ratio from these tests T 283 for the untreated mixture be less than 0.70 percent Rutting - T 324, T340 and T 378, Procedure B; Note 4 - It is recommended that the test temperature, failure rut depth, number of passes at maximum impression and stripping inflection point criteria should be determined based on local or regional specifications Permanent Deformation and Fatigue Cracking Characteristics of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Simple Shear Test (SST) Device T 320; and (Keep?) Moisture Susceptibility - T Permanent Deformation Preparation of Cylindrical Performance Test Specimens Using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) - R 83 Formatted: Normal Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number - T Dynamic Modulus Master Curves for Asphalt Mixtures Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) - R Formatted: Normal Fatigue Cracking Characteristics Determining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending - T 321 Formatted: Normal Fracture Potential Using Semicircular Bend Geometry - TP 105 or TP Determining the Damage Characteristic Curve of Asphalt Mixtures from Direct Tension Cyclic Fatigue Tests - TP Abrasion Loss of Asphalt Mixture Specimens - TP 108. Resilient Modulus by Indirect Tension (IDT) TP REPORT 7.1. Description of asphalt binders; 7.2. Description of aggregates; 7.3. Mix design properties; and 7.4. Results of tests performed. 8. KEYWORDS 8.1. Asphalt additives; asphalt binder; asphalt modifiers; asphalt mixture. TS-2b R 15-7 AASHTO Page 54 of 113

55 ATTACHMENT E APPENDIX (Nonmandatory Information) X1. INFORMATION FROM ADDITIVE/MODIFIER SUPPLIER X1.1. What is the material (trade name, generic name, formula designation, and specific chemical identity)? X1.2. Who is the manufacturer (company name, street address, mailing address, zip ZIP code, telephone number, fax number, contact person)? Who supplied it for testing (company name, street address, mailing address, zip code, telephone number, fax number, contact person)? X1.3. Physical properties? X1.4. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Is the material a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) hazardous waste? X1.5. What properties does the Additive/Modifier improve? X In asphalt binder. X What tests demonstrate this? Give details or references. X In hot mix asphalt mixture. X What tests demonstrate this? Give details or references. X1.6. Instructions for Use. X Percent. X Method of addition. X Restrictions on use. X1.7. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Additive/Modifier. X Liquid or Semi-Liquid Modifiers Product Formulation Reference ParametersNeat in accordance with ASTM E1252, D1475 or ASTM E70. X In asphalt binder. X In hot mix asphalt mixture. X1.8. What asphalt binder, aggregate, and mix design should be used with the additive/modifier? Answer with reference to Section X1.5. X1.9. Marketing Data. X Product data sheet. TS-2b R 15-8 AASHTO Page 55 of 113

56 ATTACHMENT E X Product buck shipment and package shipping information including bulk shipment Bill of Lading (BOL) description, lot/batch identification, and schematic diagram with key identifying information including on package product labels. X1.9.1.X Availability. X1.9.2.X Approximate cost. X1.9.3.X Sample availability (optional). X1.9.4.X Which public agencies have used this material? 1 Minor editorial revisions have been made at the discretion of the authors responsible for standards on asphalts (technical section 2b). 2 TP 31 was last published in the May 2002 Edition of the AASHTO Provisional Standards. 3 TP 31 was last published in the May 2002 Edition of the AASHTO Provisional Standards. TS-2b R 15-9 AASHTO Page 56 of 113

57 ATTACHMENT F Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test AASHTO Designation: M ,2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C Page 57 of 113

58 ATTACHMENT F Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test AASHTO Designation: M ,2 1. SCOPE 1.1. This specification covers asphalt binders graded by performance using the multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR) test. Grading designations are related to the average seven-day maximum pavement design temperature, minimum pavement design temperature, and traffic loading This specification incorporates T 350 for determining non-recoverable creep compliance, Jnr. S, H, V, or E designations must be specified for standard, high, very high, or extremely high traffic loading, respectively. Note 1 For asphalt cements graded by viscosity at 60 C, see M 226. Note 2 For performance-graded asphalt binder, see M To ensure that the asphalt binder exhibits elastic response, the specifying agency may require compliance with Appendix X1 R-XX REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 226, Viscosity-Graded Asphalt Cement M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder M 323, Superpave Volumetric Mix Design R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Binder Using a Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) R 35, Superpave Volumetric Design for Asphalt Mixtures R-XX, Evaluating the Elastic Performance of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test R 66, Sampling Asphalt Materials T 44, Solubility of Bituminous Materials T 48, Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup T 240, Effect of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt Binder (Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test) T 313, Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) T 314, Determining the Fracture Properties of Asphalt Binder in Direct Tension (DT) T 315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) T 316, Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using Rotational Viscometer T 350, Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) TS-2b M Formatted: Normal AASHTO Page 58 of 113

59 ATTACHMENT F TS-2b M AASHTO Page 59 of 113

60 ATTACHMENT F 2.2. ASTM Standards: D8, Standard Terminology Relating to Materials for Roads and Pavements D5546, Standard Test Method for Solubility of Asphalt Binders in Toluene by Centrifuge 3. TERMINOLOGY 3.1. Definitions: Definitions for many terms common to asphalt binder are found in ASTM D asphalt binder an asphalt-based cement that is produced from petroleum residue either with or without the addition of nonparticulate organic modifiers. 4. ORDERING INFORMATION 4.1. When ordering under this specification, include in the purchase order the performance grade (PG) of asphalt binder required including the designation for traffic loading (e.g., M 332, PG 64V-22) If required to comply with the elastic response requirements in Appendix X1 in R-XX, include reference to Appendix X1 R-XX in the purchase order (e.g., M 332, PG 64V-22, R-XX, Percent Recovery of XAppendix X1) The required environmental asphalt binder grades may be selected by following the procedures described in M 323 and R 35, except do not use the grade bumping procedure in M 323. Select the environmentally appropriate high- and low-temperature grades and the appropriate S, H, V, or E grade for the expected traffic level and traffic load rate Standard Designation S in most typical situations will be for traffic levels fewer than 10 million Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) and more than the standard traffic speed (>70 km/h) High Designation H in most situations will be for traffic levels of 10 to 30 million ESALs or slow-moving traffic (20 to 70 km/h) Very High Designation V in most situations will be for traffic levels of greater than 30 million ESALs or standing traffic (< 20 km/h) Extremely High Designation E in most situations will be for traffic levels of greater than 30 million ESALs and standing traffic (< 20 km/h) such as toll plazas or port facilities. Note 3 Grade bumping is accomplished by using H, V, or E designations and not by increasing the PG high-temperature grade as recommended in M MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURE 5.1. Asphalt binder shall be prepared by the refining of crude petroleum by suitable methods, with or without the addition of modifiers Modifiers may be any organic material of suitable manufacture that is used in virgin or recycled condition and that is dissolved, dispersed, or reacted in asphalt binder to enhance its performance The asphalt binder shall be homogeneous, free from water and deleterious materials, and shall not foam when heated to 175 C. TS-2b M AASHTO Page 60 of 113

61 ATTACHMENT F 5.4. The asphalt binder shall be at least 99.0 percent soluble as determined by T 44 or ASTM D This specification is not applicable for asphalt binders in which fibers or other discrete particles are larger than 250 μm in size The grades of asphalt binder shall conform to the requirements given in Table If required to exhibit an elastic response, the asphalt binder shall conform to the requirements of R XXAppendix X1. 6. SAMPLING 6.1. The material shall be sampled in accordance with R TEST METHODS 7.1. The properties outlined in Sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6 shall be determined in accordance with R 28, T 44, or ASTM D5546, T 48, T 240, T 313, T 314, T 315, T316, and T INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION 8.1. Inspection and certification of the material shall be agreed on between the purchaser and the seller. Specific requirements shall be part of the purchase contract. The seller shall provide material handling and storage procedures to the purchaser for each asphalt binder grade certified. 9. REJECTION AND RETESTING 9.1. If the results of any test do not conform to the requirements of this specification, retesting to determine conformity is performed as indicated in the purchase order or as otherwise agreed on between the purchaser and the seller. 10. KEYWORDS Asphalt binder; asphalt cement; direct tension; flash point; modifier; multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR); performance specifications; pressure aging; rheology. TS-2b M AASHTO Page 61 of 113

62 ATTACHMENT F Table 1 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Specificationa Performance Grade PG Average 7-day max pavement design temp, Cb Min pavement design temp, Cb 40 PG <46 > 34 > PG <52 > 46 > 10 > 16 > 22 > > 34 > 40 <58 > 34 > 40 > 46 > 16 > 22 > 28 Original Binder Flash point temp, T 48, min C 230 Viscosity, T 316:c max 3 Pa s, test temp, C 135 Dynamic shear, T 315:d G*/sinδ, min 1.00 kpa e test 10 rad/s, C Rolling Thin-Film Oven Residue (T 240) Mass change, max, percent f 1.00 MSCR, T 350: Standard Traffic S Jnr3.2, max 4.5 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Heavy Traffic H Jnr3.2, max 2.0 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Very Heavy Traffic V Jnr3.2, max 1.0 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Extremely Heavy Traffic E Jnr3.2, max 0.5 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C Pressurized Aging Vessel Residue (R 28) PAV aging temp, C g Dynamic shear, T 315: S G* sinδ, max 5000 kpae test 10 rad/s, C Dynamic shear, T 315: H, V, E G* sinδ, max 6000 kpae test 10 rad/s, C a b c d e f g h Creep stiffness, T 313:h S, max 300 MPa m-value, min test 60 s, C Direct tension, T 314:h Failure strain, min 1.0% test 1.0 mm/min, C MSCR testing on RTFO residue should be performed at the PG grade based on the environmental high pavement temperature. Grade bumping is accomplished by requiring a lower Jnr value while testing at the environmental temperature. Pavement temperatures are estimated from air temperatures using an algorithm contained in the LTPP Bind program, may be provided by the specifying agency, or by following the procedures as outlined in M 323 and R 35, excluding the provisions for grade bumping. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the specifying agency if the supplier warrants that the asphalt binder can be adequately pumped and mixed at temperatures that meet all applicable safety standards. For quality control of unmodified asphalt binder production, measurement of the viscosity of the original asphalt binder may be used to supplement dynamic shear measurements of G*/sinδ at test temperatures where the asphalt is a Newtonian fluid. G*/sinδ = high temperature stiffness and G* sinδ = intermediate temperature stiffness. The mass change shall be less than 1.00 percent for either a positive (mass gain) or a negative (mass loss) change. The PAV aging temperature is based on simulated climatic conditions and is one of three temperatures, 90 C, 100 C, or 110 C. Normally the PAV aging temperature is 100 C for PG 58-xx and above. However, in desert climates, the PAV aging temperature for PG 70-xx and above may be specified as 110 C. If the creep stiffness is below 300 MPa, the direct tension test is not required. If the creep stiffness is between 300 and 600 MPa, the direct tension failure strain requirement can be used in lieu of the creep stiffness requirement. The m-value requirement must be satisfied in both cases. Continued on next page. TS-2b M AASHTO Page 62 of 113

63 ATTACHMENT F Table 1 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Specificationa (Continued) Performance Grade PG Average 7-day max pavement design temp, Cb Min pavement design temp, Cb PG > 10 > 16 > > 28 > 34 > 40 <70 <64 > 28 > 34 > 40 > 10 > 16 > 22 Original Binder Flash point temp, T 48, min C Viscosity, T 316:c max 3 Pa s, test temp, C Dynamic shear, T 315:d G*/sinδ, min 1.00 kpae test 10 rad/s, C Rolling Thin-Film Oven Residue (T 240) Mass change, max, percent f 1.00 MSCR, T 350: Standard Traffic S Jnr3.2, max 4.5 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Heavy Traffic H Jnr3.2, max 2.0 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Very Heavy Traffic V Jnr3.2, max 1.0 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Extremely Heavy Traffic E Jnr3.2, max 0.5 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C PAV aging temp, Cg 100 Pressurized Aging Vessel Residue (R 28) a b c d e f g h 100 (110) Dynamic shear, T 315: S G* sinδ, max 5000 kpae test 10 rad/s, C Dynamic shear, T 315: H, V, E G* sinδ, max 6000 kpae test 10 rad/s, C Creep stiffness, T 313:h S, max 300 MPa m-value, min test 60 s, C Direct tension, T 314:h Failure strain, min 1.0% test 1.0 mm/min, C MSCR test on RTFO residue should be performed at the PG grade based on the environmental high pavement temperature. Grade bumping is accomplished by requiring a lower Jnr value while testing at the environmental temperature. Pavement temperatures are estimated from air temperatures using an algorithm contained in the LTPP Bind program, may be provided by the specifying agency, or by following the procedures as outlined in M 323 and R 35, excluding the provisions for grade bumping. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the specifying agency if the supplier warrants that the asphalt binder can be adequately pumped and mixed at temperatures that meet all applicable safety standards. For quality control of unmodified asphalt binder production, measurement of the viscosity of the original asphalt binder may be used to supplement dynamic shear measurements of G*/sinδ at test temperatures where the asphalt is a Newtonian fluid. G*/sinδ = high temperature stiffness and G* sinδ = intermediate temperature stiffness. The mass change shall be less than 1.00 percent for either a positive (mass gain) or a negative (mass loss) change. The PAV aging temperature is based on simulated climatic conditions and is one of three temperatures, 90 C, 100 C, or 110 C. Normally the PAV aging temperature is 100 C for PG 58-xx and above. However, in desert climates, the PAV aging temperature for PG 70-xx and above may be specified as 110 C. If the creep stiffness is below 300 MPa, the direct tension test is not required. If the creep stiffness is between 300 and 600 MPa, the direct tension failure strain requirement can be used in lieu of the creep stiffness requirement. The m-value requirement must be satisfied in both cases. Continued on next page. TS-2b M AASHTO Page 63 of 113

64 ATTACHMENT F Table 1 Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Specificationa (Continued) Performance Grade PG Average 7-day max pavement design temp, Cb Min pavement design temp, Cb 22 PG <76 > 10 > 16 > > 28 > 34 <82 > 28 > 34 > 10 > 16 > 22 Original Binder 230 Flash point temp, T 48, min C Viscosity, T 316:c max 3 Pa s, test temp, C 135 Dynamic shear, T 315:d G*/sin δ, min 1.00 kpae test 10 rad/s, C Rolling Thin-Film Oven Residue (T 240) Mass change, max, percent f 1.00 MSCR, T 350: Standard Traffic S Jnr3.2, max 4.5 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Heavy Traffic H Jnr3.2, max 2.0 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Very Heavy Traffic V Jnr3.2, max 1.0 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C MSCR, T 350: Extremely Heavy Traffic E Jnr3.2, max 0.5 kpa 1 Jnrdiff, max 75% test temp, C Pressurized Aging Vessel Residue (R 28) PAV aging temp, Cg Dynamic shear, T 315: S G* sinδ, max 5000 kpae test 10 rad/s, C 100 (110) 100 (110) Dynamic shear, T 315: H, V, E G* sinδ, max 6000 kpae test 10 rad/s, C Creep stiffness, T 313:h S, max 300 MPa m-value, min test 60 s, C :h Direct tension, T Failure strain, min 1.0% test 1.0 mm/min, C a b c d e f g h MSCR test on RTFO residue should be performed at the PG grade based on the environmental high pavement temperature. Grade bumping is accomplished by requiring a lower Jnr value while testing at the environmental temperature. Pavement temperatures are estimated from air temperatures using an algorithm contained in the LTPP Bind program, may be provided by the specifying agency, or by following the procedures as outlined in M 323 and R 35, excluding the provisions for grade bumping. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the specifying agency if the supplier warrants that the asphalt binder can be adequately pumped and mixed at temperatures that meet all applicable safety standards. For quality control of unmodified asphalt binder production, measurement of the viscosity of the original asphalt binder may be used to supplement dynamic shear measurements of G*/sinδ at test temperatures where the asphalt is a Newtonian fluid. G*/sinδ = high temperature stiffness and G* sinδ = intermediate temperature stiffness. The mass change shall be less than 1.00 percent for either a positive (mass gain) or a negative (mass loss) change. The PAV aging temperature is based on simulated climatic conditions and is one of three temperatures, 90 C, 100 C, or 110 C. Normally the PAV aging temperature is 100 C for PG 58-xx and above. However, in desert climates, the PAV aging temperature for PG 70-xx and above may be specified as 110 C. If the creep stiffness is below 300 MPa, the direct tension test is not required. If the creep stiffness is between 300 and 600 MPa, the direct tension failure strain requirement can be used in lieu of the creep stiffness requirement. The m-value requirement must be satisfied in both cases. TS-2b M AASHTO Page 64 of 113

65 ATTACHMENT F APPENDIX (Nonmandatory Information) X1. INDICATIONS OF ELASTIC RESPONSE X1.1. For an asphalt binder tested according to T 350, the percent recovery is intended to provide a means for determining the presence of elastic response and stress dependence of polymer modified and unmodified asphalt binders. Figure X1.1 may be used as an indicator of the presence of an elastomeric polymer. Figure X1.1 Nonrecoverable Creep Compliance Versus Percent Recovery X1.2. On the graph in Figure X1.1, plot the average percent recovery at 3.2 kpa, R3.2, versus the average nonrecoverable creep compliance at 3.2 kpa, Jnr3.2, measured at the same temperature. X1.3. If the plotted point falls on or above the line on the graph, the indication is that the asphalt binder is modified with an acceptable elastomeric polymer. If the plotted point falls below the line on the graph, the indication is that the asphalt binder is not modified with an elastomeric polymer. 1 Formerly AASHTO Provisional Standard MP 19. First published as a full standard in Minor editorial revisions have been made at the discretion of the authors responsible for standards on asphalts (technical section 2b). 2 TS-2b M AASHTO Page 65 of 113

66 ATTACHMENT G Removal of Appendix 1 Elastic Response Curve in M 332 to a Standalone Practice (The information below was derived from s and discussions held at the Technical Section annual meeting. The information is provided by request during to meeting to hopefully help your understanding of the issues involved. I apologize if the use of your offends anyone but they provided good insight to the same discussions held.) Rational behind the move. ETG Involvement The ETG members, based on State DOT feedback, suggested having the Jnr criteria in M332 separated from the Percent Recovery criteria (as two separate standalone standards) to provide flexibility for a State to specify either one or both as needed for a given material specification. This move would also assist alleviating the confusion, where the M332 was implying that all materials needed to meet the recovery criteria in M332 Appendix 1 when M332 was cited. This confusion apparently has led to some States waiving the Appendix 1 requirements or attempting to use the requirements for some other materials, such as rubber modified asphalt binders, which the percent recovery wasn t designed. The percent recovery criteria was only developed for SBS polymers. Other Reasons Appendices are non-mandatory information. The percent recovery criteria was specified in M332 as appendix information for the reason it would not necessarily apply to all materials that M332 could cover such as rubber modified binders. When a specification requires a material to meet M332, the Appendix is not required unless stated so in the specification. To give the percent recovery criteria defensible specification reference, a separate standard practice will provide that ability. In a state s specification to correctly require the percent recovery criteria, a reference to Appendix 1 must be made. By having a standard practice that the state specification can reference the new practice. This will carry more weight since it isn t just a non-mandatory appendix attached to a specification. The procedure on %Recovery does need to be updated to reflect the truncation of the curve at 55% for E graded binders. The current curve going to levels of over 70% recovery for very low Jnr materials is resulting in good performing binders to be non-conforming. PA Negative (This negative was found to be non-persuasive at the technical section meeting by voice vote.) After review of proposed revisions, the removal of Appendix X1 seems to add more complexity than is needed for what the R XX procedure involves. The R XX procedure only involves plotting T 350 test results on a Figure (reporting results in a different format) or performing 1 additional calculation for comparison to one T 350 test result. From PennDOT s view, for those states that would want to specify the % Recovery, this would require specifying both standards (the proposed example shown in the revised M 332, Section 4.1.1) which we feel may be confusing and lead some to read and comply with M 332, but not the % Recovery standard. PennDOT believes that the % Recovery could still be maintained within M 332 or perhaps maintained within M 332 better. One suggestion for accomplishing this would be to include two Tables in M 332 (Similar to M 320 for R 49). One table without % Recovery and the other table with % Recovery criteria for those PG Binder grades that are or would be most typically formulated as a modified binder grade (spread of high and low temps 90 perhaps). It would be PennDOT s recommendation to include the equations for determining compliance with % 2b Tech Section Page 66 of 113

67 ATTACHMENT G Recovery within M 332 somehow, either as a non-mandatory Appendix like it is today or a Section triggered by one of the suggested two tables. These equations are rather simplistic and it seems a bit overkill to develop a complete new standard for them. NV Negative Establishment of Curve the Temperatures Used. (This negative was withdrawn but I have included the information here for completeness of the discussion held at the technical section meeting.) The Nevada negative was because the curve was too low, and was established during the time of grade bumping, instead of actual environmental testing. Nevada felt that the values used to establish the curve could be affected by grade bumping instead of testing at the true environmental temps, that if we tested at environmental temps, we would see higher %R values. Nevada would like to see the curve re-analyzed with current results, but that was a comment o However, the purpose of the line was not to ensure that there was enough polymer, but that polymer was present. A step function higher than the curve to keep your traditional binders from changing can readily be implemented. o AI believes that the curve was established based on testing at environmental temperatures, but it may also be somewhat conservative (or liberal depending on your point of view). Shown below is a graphic about PG asphalt binders that were in production in the time frame that were tested at 64C (the presumed environmental temperature for many of these grades). Although you wouldn t want to use the fitted curve, as many of the existing asphalt binders that passed other PG-Plus tests would fail in that case, you could make the case to shift the fitted curve down a bit, but still above the red curve. Remember that at the time one school of thought was that binders were being over-modified. Agencies mostly did not see it that way and wanted the same products they had been getting. In which case, Nevada s argument that the curve is too low has some validity. Nevertheless, the practice is a way of identifying that there is some form of significant elastic response. For that reason, the red curve is sufficient. o Agencies may want to specify greater elastic response to correspond with the types of asphalt binders that they have traditionally been getting and with which they are satisfied with the performance. Page 67 of 113

68 ATTACHMENT H Standard Practice for Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test AASHTO Designation: R xx-17 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C Page 68 of 113

69 ATTACHMENT H Standard Practice for Evaluating the Elastic Behavior of Asphalt Binders Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test AASHTO Designation: R xx SCOPE 1.1. This practice provides a means of evaluating the elastic behavior of an asphalt binder by using the results (percent recovery and non-recoverable creep compliance) from the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test. The MSCR test is conducted using the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) at a specified temperature. It is primarily intended for use with residue from T 240 (Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test (RTFOT)), but may also be run on residue from R 28 (Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV)) The elastic behavior of an asphalt binder can provide insight to the technologist indicating to what extent, if any, the binder could be modified with an elastomeric polymer This practice may be used in conjunction with M 320, Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder, or M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: T 350, Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) T 315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Binder Using Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) T 240, Effect of Heat and Air on Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test) M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Binder Using Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) T 240, Effect of Heat and Air on Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test) T 315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) T 350, Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) TS-2b AASHTO R xx-17 Commented [MA1]: I read the negative and understand that there is no reference to T350 in M320. I guess it is similar to any other PG Plus test in that there is no reference to M320 in the Elastic Recovery or Force Ductility procedures either. Having said that, it is probably best to simply delete this subsection and renumber the remaining subsections. Could this be considered editorial? Page 1 Page 69 of 113

70 ATTACHMENT H Formatted: Body Text ASTM Standard: 2.3 D 8, Standard Terminology Relating to Materials for Roads and Pavements Other references: LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, 3. TERMINOLOGY 3.1. Definitions: Formatted: Normal Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Body Text, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 3 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25", Tab stops: 0", Left Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: 0.25" Definitions of terms used in this practice may be found in ASTM D 8, determined from common English usage, or combinations of both Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard: creep and recovery a standard rheological test protocol whereby a specimen is subjected to a constant load for a fixed time period and then allowed to recover at a constant zero load for a fixed time period non-recoverable creep compliance (Jnr) the residual strain in a specimen after a creep and recovery cycle divided by the stress applied Average percent recovery (Rec) the ratio of the difference between the peak strain and the residual strain to the peak strain, expressed as a percentage. This is a measure of the elastic response of an asphalt binder at a given temperature and applied stress level. 4. SUMMARY OF PRACTICE 4.1. This practice is used to evaluate the elastic response of an asphalt binder under shear creep and recovery at a specified temperature. For most asphalt binders, this temperature will be the high temperature grade as determined only by environmental conditions (not as adjusted for traffic speed or loading) Asphalt binder is first aged using in accordance with T 240 (RTFOT). A sample of the RTFOaged asphalt is tested using in accordance with T 350 (MSCR). Unless otherwise specified, the 25-mm parallel plate geometry is used with a 1-mm gap setting. The sample is tested in creep and recovery at two stress levels. The stress levels used are 0.1 kpa and 3.2 kpa. The creep portion of the test lasts for one second which is followed by a ninesecond recovery. Ten creep and recovery conditioning cycles are first conducted at a shear stress of 0.1 kpa. The test is then executed by conducting ten creep-recovery cycles tested at each shear stress level (0.1 and 3.2 kpa). Two parameters are derived from the MSCR test the non-recoverable creep compliance (Jnr) and percent recovery (Rec) Using the Jnr and Rec values from testing conducted at 3.2 kpa shear stress (identified as Jnr-3.2 and Rec-3.2, respectively) data is compared to a curve of Rec as a function of Jnr. Values that plot on or above the curve are considered to represent an asphalt binder with a significant elastic response indicative of modification using elastomeric polymers As an alternative, the equation of the curve may be used and the Rec-3.2 value compared to the calculated minimum Rec-3.2 value determined using the measured Jnr-3.2 value. TS-2b AASHTO R xx-17 Page 2 Page 70 of 113

71 ATTACHMENT H 5. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 5.1. This practice is used to evaluate the elastic response of an asphalt binder under shear creep and recovery at a specified temperature in accordance with AASHTO T350. Like existing parameters which also attempt to evaluate elastic behavior in an asphalt binder, such as Elastic Recovery, the MSCR percent recovery, Rec-3.2, has no quantified relationship to performance. Nevertheless, some users may still want to ensure that an asphalt binder is modified using an elastomeric polymer due to a belief that polymers will increase cracking resistance and durability. In any case, the exact nature of the effect of polymer modification of an asphalt binder should more appropriately be determined through asphalt mixture testing. 6. APPARATUS 6.1. Use apparatus as specified in T 315, T 240, and T 350 and R PROCEDURE 7.1. Conditioning Unless otherwise specified, condition the asphalt binder to be tested in accordance with T 240 (RTFOT) Sample preparation The sample for the MSCR test is prepared the same as samples for T 315 using 25-mm plates. The temperature control will also follow the T 315 requirements Sample Preparation and Testing Prepare test specimens and test the specimens in accordance with Conduct testing on the asphalt binder sample at the desired temperature following the test procedure described in T 350. For most asphalt binders, the test temperature will be the high temperature grade as determined only by environmental conditions (not as adjusted for traffic speed or loading) using the LTPPBind 3.1 software or the principles behind the temperature determination in LTPPBind. In the absence of this information, use the temperature that corresponds to the high temperature grade of the standard unmodified grade of asphalt binder that would be used for the project location Analysis After determining the Jnr-3.2 and Rec-3.2 values for the asphalt binder at the specified temperature, plot the data on Figure 1. Data that is plotted on or above the curve in Figure 1 is considered to have a significant elastic response for the associated value of non-recoverable creep compliance (indicating that the asphalt binder has been modified by an elastomeric polymer) Alternatively, if the Jnr-3.2 value is between 0.10 and 2.00 kpa -1, inclusive, substitute the Jnr-3.2 value determined from testing the asphalt binder into the equation as shown below and solve for the minimum required Rec-3.2 value. Rec-3.2 min = *(Jnr-3.2) where: Rec-3.2 min = minimum required value of Rec-3.2 to indicate significant elastic behavior, % Jnr-3.2 = measured value of Jnr-3.2 from T 350 testing, kpa If the Jnr-3.2 value is less than 0.10 kpa -1 then the Rec-3.2 min value is 55.0% If the Jnr-3.2 value is greater than 2.00 kpa -1 then the Rec-3.2 min value is 0.0%. TS-2b AASHTO R xx-17 Page 3 Page 71 of 113

72 ATTACHMENT H Compare the measured value of Rec-3.2 from T 350 testing to the Rec-3.2 min value as determined in Sections to (represented by the or the curve shown in Figure 1). If the measured Rec-3.2 value equals or exceeds the Rec-3.2 min value (represented by the curve in Figure 1), then the asphalt binder sample is considered to have shown a significant elastic response for the associated value of non-recoverable creep compliance indicating that the asphalt binder has been modified. Note 1 the Rec-J nr curve shown in Figure 1 and Rec-3.2 min values described in Sections (represented by the curve shown in Figure 1), are intended to be used to evaluate the elastic response of modified asphalt binders when tested at the appropriate climatic temperature. It should not be used with asphalt binders that have Jnr-3.2 values greater than 2.00 kpa REPORT 8.1. Report the following information: Sample identification; PG grade and test temperature, nearest 0.1 C; Average percent recovery at 3.2 kpa, Rec-3.2, to nearest 0.1%; Non-recoverable creep compliance at 3.2 kpa, Jnr-3.2, to nearest 0.01 kpa -1 ; and Figure 1 with data point plotted representing the measured Jnr-3.2 and Rec-3.2 values or calculation showing the minimum required value of Rec-3.2 (Rec-3.2 min) compared to the measured Rec-3.2 value to indicate significant elastic behavior. 9. PRECISION AND BIAS 9.1. Precision The research required to develop precision estimates has not been conducted Bias The research required to establish the bias has not been conducted. 10. KEYWORDS Asphalt binders; creep and recovery; creep compliance; Dynamic Sheer Rheometer (DSR); elastomer identification; Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) Test; percent recovery; polymer modification; elastic behavior. TS-2b AASHTO R xx-17 Page 4 Page 72 of 113

73 ATTACHMENT H 100 The curve stops at Jnr-3.2 = 2.00 kpa -1 and 0.1 kpa -1. Jnr-3.2 values greater than 2.00 kpa -1 are not required to have any minimum Rec-3.2 value. Jnr-3.2 values less than 0.10 kpa -1 are required to have a minimum Rec-3.2 value of 55%. Rec-3.2, % R-3.2, % Jnr-3.2, kpa The curve stops at Jnr-3.2 = 2.00 kpa -1 and 0.1 kpa -1. Jnr-3.2 values greater than 2.00 kpa -1 are not required to have any minimum R-3.2 value. Jnr-3.2 values less than 0.10 kpa -1 are required to have a minimum R-3.2 value of 55% Jnr-3.2, kpa -1 FIGURE 1: Comparison of MSCR Jnr-3.2 and Rec-3.2 to Assess Elastic Response (Need to Edit Rec to R in Figure above ) TS-2b AASHTO R xx-17 Page 5 Page 73 of 113

74 ATTACHMENT I Standard Method of Test for Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents (ARAs) AASHTO Designation: TP Release: Group 3 (August 2016) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C Page 74 of 113

75 ATTACHMENT I Standard Method of Test for Evaluation of Asphalt Release Agents (ARAs) AASHTO Designation: TP Release: Group 3 (August 2016) 1. SCOPE 1.1. This method covers the laboratory performance evaluation of asphalt release agents (ARAs). These ARAs are used for coating metal on truck beds, pavers, rollers, slat elevators, and hand tools to prevent asphalt binder or hot mix asphalt (HMA) from adhering. The ARAs should perform this function without causing degradation (stripping) of the HMA This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. It does not purport to address all safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 231, Weighing Devices Used in the Testing of Materials M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder M 323, Superpave Volumetric Mix Design M 332, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Using Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) Test T 85, Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate T 312, Preparing and Determining the Density of Asphalt Mixture Specimens by Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor 2.2. ASTM Standards: D92, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester D93, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester D1193, Standard Specification for Reagent Water D1475, Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products D2369, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings D3625, Standard Practice for Effect of Water on Bituminous-Coated Aggregate Using Boiling Water E70, Standard Test Method for ph of Aqueous Solutions with the Glass Electrode E502, Standard Test Method for Selection and Use of ASTM Standards for the Determination of Flash Point of Chemicals by Closed Cup Methods E1252, Standard Practice for General Techniques for Obtaining Infrared Spectra for Qualitative Analysis 2.3. Other Standards: TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 75 of 113

76 ATTACHMENT I Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 261, Subpart D, List of Hazardous Waste CFR Title 29, Hazard Communication 3. SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD 3.1. The test method uses three key performance measures: In the Asphalt Stripping Test, a sample of HMA is soaked in the ARA for seven days, alongside a control sample of ARA with no HMA. The samples are evaluated at the end of the soak period to determine the degree of stripping that occurred. Gravimetric weights are also taken and calculated to determine weight loss In the Mixture Slide Test, a sample of HMA is applied to a steel plate that has been treated with the ARA. The plate is tilted to allow the HMA to slide free. The amount of retained hot mix is recorded for each application cycle. This process is repeated two more times. The degree of adhesion to the metal plate is determined by gain in weight In the Asphalt Performance Test, hot asphalt binder is poured onto the same treated metal plate used in Section 3.1.2, allowed to cool, and then pulled away. The amount of retained binder is recorded for each application cycle. This process is repeated until a minimum of 10 percent of the asphalt binder has adhered to the metal plate. The degree of adhesion to the metal plate is determined by gain in weight The flash point, infrared spectrum (FTIR), percent solids, specific gravity, and ph of the ARA are measured and recorded. 4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE 4.1. The Asphalt Stripping Test measures the tendency for the ARA to alter the asphalt binder or remove asphalt binder from the HMA. The agent is evaluated in both its concentrated, non-diluted strength form and at the dilution ratio recommended for use by the manufacturer The Mixture Slide Test simulates a metal truck bed to determine the tendency of the HMA to adhere to the metal bed when the ARA is used The Asphalt Performance Test measures the tendency for asphalt binder to adhere to metal on truck beds, pavers, rollers, slat elevators, or tools when the ARA is used The HMA used for testing is made under Superpave mix design standards to provide an HMA with repeatable behavior that will not tend to exhibit stripping when exposed to water The flash point will be used to determine product safety. The infrared spectrum (FTIR), percent solids, specific gravity, and ph are intended to be used as reference parameters to verify product formulations of future samples This method is intended to determine the properties of these materials. Acceptability of a material, based upon the data generated as a result of the testing and evaluation in this practice, is the responsibility of the user Standard laboratory conditions are defined as a temperature of 25 ± 4 C (77 ± 7 F). TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 76 of 113

77 ATTACHMENT I 5. ASPHALT STRIPPING TEST 5.1. Apparatus: Containers eight (8) 0.5-L (1-pt) glass canning jars or equivalent with a lid for sealing; Oven capable of maintaining a minimum temperature of 60 ± 1 C (140 ± 2 F) and 143 ± 1 C (290 ± 2 F); Sieve 2 mm (No. 10) or similar, 8 in. diameter; Filter Papers white, approx. 10 in. diameter, strong enough to support the weight of the HMA mixture and the ARA liquid without tearing or ripping, such as a Brew-Rite Coffee Filter (Bunnstyle) Commercial or similar; and Balance 5,000-g capacity readable to 0.01 g and accurate to ± 0.02 g meeting the requirements of a Class G1 as defined in M 231, Table Materials: Either a plant- or a laboratory-mixed sample of HMA meeting the following requirements: Meets M 323, Table 3 requirements for 12.5-mm (0.5-in.) nominal maximum aggregate size Contains an asphalt binder meeting the requirements of PG as defined in M 320, Table The percent absorption of the coarse aggregates in the HMA is less than 0.5 percent when tested according to T Prepared according to the procedure outlined in T 312, Section 8 for HMA Mixture Preparation Tested and passed TxDOT Test Procedure Tex-530-C, Effect of Water on Bituminous Paving Mixtures, with zero (0) percent stripping. Provide the documentation to support the test results Reagent water, Type II according to ASTM D Procedure: Obtain 1,000 g of a representative sample of HMA as specified in Section Heat the mixture to 143 C (290 F) for 45 to 60 min Split 600 g of HMA into six equal amounts of 100 ± 1 g each. Weigh each 100-g sample to the nearest 0.01 g, and record each mass as Wi, and place each 100 g sample into six of the eight 0.5- L (1-pt) glass containers Pour 180 ml of the non-diluted ARA into one of the six glass jars containing the HMA described in Section 5.3.2, ensuring the sample is completely covered by the ARA. Repeat this step with two additional glass containers holding the HMA Pour additional non-diluted ARA into one of the two remaining empty containers to the same level as those in Section and use this material as the control sample When applicable, for testing of diluted ARA, prepare a minimum of 2,000 ml of ARA diluted with reagent water to the concentration (dilution ratio) recommended by the manufacturer. TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 77 of 113

78 ATTACHMENT I Pour 180 ml of the diluted ARA into one of the remaining 3 glass containers holding the HMA described in Section 5.3.2, ensuring the sample is completely covered by the ARA. Repeat this step with two additional glass containers holding the HMA Pour additional diluted ARA into the last empty container to the same level as those in Section and use this material as the control sample Cover the eight containers and leave them undisturbed at standard laboratory conditions for 168 ± 2 h At the end of the specified time while retaining the HMA and liquid in the jars, compare the color of each replicate of HMA and ARA samples against the control samples Weigh six filter papers each to the nearest 0.01 g and record the mass of each one Place a white filter paper into the sieve. Pour one replicate of the non-diluted strength sample onto the filter paper inside the sieve, and with room temperature tap water, lightly rinse the mixture and agent until clean, i.e., the color of the ARA has turned clear or ceases to foam during the rinsing. Using a new filter paper for each sample/replicate, repeat with the other two non-diluted strength and all three diluted strength replicate samples Place all six washed replicate samples with their filter papers into the 60 C (140 F) oven for 24 ± 1 h. Remove the replicates, allow them to cool to room temperature, weigh each replicate to the nearest 0.01 g and record. Subtract the mass of each filter paper from the combined mass and record to the nearest 0.01 g as W. f Visually observe the aggregate (coarse and fine) for retained asphalt binder coating for all six replicates. Any thin, brownish, translucent areas are to be considered fully coated. Examination of the sample under a light and low magnification may aid in the visual observation of the retained coating Rate the non-diluted and the diluted strength asphalt ARA replicates according to the following rating system: No Stripping No stripping or discoloration occurred. See Figure 1. Slight Stripping Slight Ddiscoloration of the ARA or stripping of the fine aggregate. See Figure 2. Moderate Stripping Some Ddiscoloration of the ARA and stripping of the fine aggregate. See Figures 3 and 4. Severe Stripping Significant Ddiscoloration of the ARA and stripping of the coarse and fine aggregate. See Figures 5 and 6. TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 78 of 113

79 ATTACHMENT I Figure 1 No Stripping. Figure 2 Slight Stripping Discoloration of the ARA. Figure 3 Moderate Stripping Discoloration of the ARA. TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 79 of 113

80 ATTACHMENT I Figure 4 Moderate Stripping Stripping of the Fine Aggregate. Figure 5 Severe Stripping Discoloration of the ARA. TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 80 of 113

81 ATTACHMENT I Figure 6 Severe Stripping Stripping of the Coarse and Fine Aggregate Calculate the percent loss or gain of the initial sample mass as follows: = W Wi W f Wi 100 where: ΔW = change in the HMA sample mass in percent Wi = initial mass of the HMA sample to the nearest 0.01 g (from Section 5.3.2) W f = final mass of the HMA sample after dry back to the nearest 0.01 g (from Section ) 6. MIXTURE SLIDE TEST 6.1. Apparatus: Oven capable of maintaining a minimum temperature of 143 ± 1 C (290 ± 2 F); Unit Weight Bucket a cm3 (0.1-ft3) unit weight bucket filled with sand to a mass of 4.5 kg (10 lb); TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 81 of 113

82 ATTACHMENT I Unit Weight Bucket a cm 3 (0.1-ft 3 ) unit weight bucket filled with sand to a total combined mass of 6.8 kg (15 lb) ± 0.23 kg (0.5 lb). If using more than one Unit Weight Bucket to run the triplicate samples, each Unit Weight Bucket shall be within 0.45 kg (1 lb) of each other Plate one 16-gauge steel or aluminum plate, 305 by 305 mm (12 by 12 in.) to 457 by 457 mm (18 by 18 in.), with a textured surface that simulates the inside of a typical truck bed used for hauling HMA; Balance 5,000 g capacity readable to 0.01 g and accurate to ± 0.02 g meeting the requirements of a Class G1 as defined in M 231, Table 2; Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 10 pt Formatted: Normal Waxed paper standard waxed paper; Spray bottle used to apply the ARA. A pressure sprayer with a variable nozzle may be required for ARAs that are too viscous to be sprayed from a spray bottle; and Miscellaneous equipment a 1-L metal container, a large sample pan, a scoop, and a spatula. These are used to work with the HMA Materials: Either a plant- or a laboratory-mixed sample of HMA meeting the following requirements: Meets M 323, Table 3 requirements for 12.5-mm (0.5-in.) nominal maximum aggregate size Uses an asphalt binder modified with SBR, SBS, or similar polymer and meeting the requirements of PG as defined in M 320, Table 1 or PG 64E-22 as defined in M The percent absorption of the coarse aggregates in the HMA is less than 0.5 percent when tested according to T Prepared according to the procedure outlined in T 312, Section 8 for HMA Mixture Preparation Procedure: Obtain 2,000 g of a representative sample of HMA. Heat the HMA to 143 C (290 F) for 45 to 60 min Place the unit weight bucket filled with sand in an oven and heat it to 143 C (290 F) for 45 to 60 min Spray the top surface of the metal plate, placed in the horizontal direction (flat), with the ARA at the recommended dilution rate so that the surface is evenly coated Allow the metal plate to stand undisturbed for 5 min Weigh the metal plate to the nearest 0.01 g and record Place 500 ± 10 g of the HMA on the metal plate Place a sheet of waxed paper on top of the HMA Place the sand-filled unit weight bucket on top of the waxed paper and HMA. TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 82 of 113

83 ATTACHMENT I Allow the HMA and the sand-filled unit weight bucket to stand for 1 h ± 5 min Remove the unit weight bucket and waxed paper from the top of the HMA Tilt the metal plate to approximately a 45-degree angle and tap the bottom edge of the plate three times on the table to help loosen the HMA from the plate. Hold the plate at the tile tilt angle and allow the mixture to fall freely to the table. Discard this HMA. Do not remove any HMA remaining on the plate. Weigh the metal plate to the nearest 0.01 g and record Repeat steps in Sections through two additional times, without respraying or removing retained HMA on the metal plate Weigh the metal plate after each application to the nearest 0.01 g and record Calculate the amount of HMA that remains adhered to the plate to the nearest 0.01 g. Use the following formula: Amount of HMA = final mass of metal plate initial mass of metal plate 7. ASPHALT PERFORMANCE TEST 7.1. Apparatus: Oven capable of maintaining a minimum temperature of 60 ± 1 C (140 ± 2 F) and 143 ± 1 C (290 ± 2 F); Plate one 16-gauge steel or aluminum plate, 305 by 305 mm (12 by 12 in.) to 457 by 457 mm (18 by 18 in.), with a textured surface that simulates the inside of a typical truck bed used for hauling HMA; Balance 5,000 g capacity readable to 0.01 g and accurate to ± 0.02 g meeting the requirements of a Class G1 as defined in M 231, Table 2; Spray bottle used to apply the ARA. A pressure sprayer with a variable nozzle may be required for ARAs that are too viscous to be sprayed from a spray bottle; and Miscellaneous equipment a 1-L metal container and a small metal spatula. These are used with the asphalt binder Materials: PG (modified with SBR, SBS, or similar polymer) asphalt binder meeting the requirements of M 320, Table 1 or PG 64E-22 (modified with SBR, SBS, or similar polymer) meeting the requirements of M Procedure: If the binder is stored in a container larger than 1 L, heat the larger container to a temperature that will allow the binder to be poured into a 1-L container. Place the 1-L container into a 143 C (290 F) oven for 45 ± 5 min Spray the top surface of the metal plate, placed in the horizontal direction (flat), with the ARA at the recommended dilution rate so that the surface is evenly coated. TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 83 of 113

84 ATTACHMENT I Allow the metal plate to stand undisturbed for 5 min Weigh the metal plate to the nearest 0.01 g and record Remove the asphalt binder from the oven and stir gently for 30 ± 5 s Pour 20 ± 2 g of asphalt binder onto the metal plate allowing it to spread out on its own. Return the 1-L container to the oven. Weigh the poured binder to the nearest 0.01 g and record. When repeated for additional replicates, pour the new asphalt binder onto the same approximate area on the metal plate as the previous sample Allow the binder to cool to touch (normally 5 min) Using the small spatula, lift up one edge of the binder a sufficient amount to be grasped firmly with fingers, and attempt to remove the binder in one continuous pull. Do not attempt to remove additional binder that remains on the metal plate Weigh the metal plate with the retained asphalt binder to the nearest 0.01 g and record. Also, record the pour number Calculate the binder that remains adhered to the plate to the nearest 0.1 percent. Use the following formula: %binder = plate weight (g) with retained binder initial plate weight (g) 100 poured binder weight (g) Repeat the steps in Sections through until the percent of retained binder is at least 10.0 percent. 8. PRODUCT FORMULATION REFERENCE PARAMETERS 8.1. Measure the flash point of a representative sample of the non-diluted ARA in accordance with ASTM D92, ASTM D93, and or ASTM E502; 8.2. Obtain a reference infrared spectrum (FTIR) from a representative ARA sample in accordance with ASTM E1252, with a resolution of at least 4 cm 1 and a range of 4000 cm 1 to 600 cm 1. Samples shall be dried back to a constant weight according to ASTM D2369 prior to being run Measure the percent solids of a representative ARA sample in accordance with ASTM D Measure the specific gravity of a representative ARA sample in accordance with ASTM D Measure the ph of a representative ARA sample in accordance with ASTM E REPORT 9.1. Report the following for each sample: The degree of stripping observed for each replicate and ΔW and percent change in weight for each replicate of the Asphalt Stripping Test; The mass of HMA retained on the metal plate after three cycles in the Mixture Slide Test; TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 84 of 113

85 ATTACHMENT I The percent of asphalt binder retained on the metal plate for each cycle of the Asphalt Performance Test; The flash point of the ARA sample, and the test method used to measure the flash point;; A graph of tthe infrared spectrum (FTIR) of the ARA sample with laboratory contact information for obtaining the original data The percent solids of the ARA sample; The specific gravity of the ARA sample; and The ph of the ARA Sample. Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 1" Formatted: Normal 10. THE PH OF THE ARA SAMPLE.PRECISION AND BIAS Precision statements for this method are not available at this time. 11. KEYWORDS ARA; asphalt release agent; truck bed release agent. 1 This provisional standard was first published in TS-2b TP AASHTO Page 85 of 113

86 ATTACHMENT J Provisional Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments AASHTO Designation: MP XXX-YY American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C Page 86 of 113

87 ATTACHMENT J Provisional Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder for Surface Treatments AASHTO Designation: MP XXX-YY 1. SCOPE 1.1. This specification covers asphalt binders for surface treatment applications graded by performance. Grading designations are related to the average seven-day maximum pavement surface design temperature and the minimum pavement surface design temperature. Surface treatment applications include seal coats and chip seals. Note 1 For performance-graded asphalt binders used in hot mix applications, see M REFERENCED DOCUMENTS 2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder R 28, Accelerated Aging of Asphalt Binder Using a Pressurized Aging Vessel (PAV) T 40, Sampling Bituminous Materials T 44, Solubility of Bituminous Materials T 48, Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup T 55, Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation T 313, Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) T 315, Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) T 316, Viscosity Determination Asphalt Binder Using Rotational Viscometer 2.2. ASTM Standards: D 8, Terminology Relating to Materials for Roads and Pavements D 5546, Standard Test Method for Solubility of Asphalt Binders in Toluene by Centrifuge D 7553, Standard Test Method for Solubility of Asphalt Materials in N-Propyl Bromide 2.3. Other References: LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.1, Formatted: Normal 3. TERMINOLOGY 3.1. Definitions: ASTM D 8 defines many terms common to asphalt cement. TS-2b M XXX-1 AASHTO Page 87 of 113

88 ATTACHMENT J asphalt binder an asphalt-based cement that is produced from petroleum residue either with or without the addition of non-particulate, non-fibrous organic modifiers. 4. ORDERING INFORMATION 4.1. When ordering under this specification, include in the purchase order the surface performance grade (SPG) of asphalt binder required from Table 1 (e.g., SPG or SPG 73-25). 5. MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURE 5.1. Asphalt binder must be prepared by the refining of crude petroleum by suitable methods, with or without the addition of modifiers Modifiers may be any organic material of suitable manufacture that is used in virgin or recycled condition and that is dissolved, dispersed, or reacted in asphalt cement binder to enhance its performance The asphalt binder must be homogeneous, free from water and deleterious materials, and must not foam when heated to 175 C The asphalt binder must be at least 99.0 percent soluble, when determined in accordance with T 44, or ASTM D 5546, or ASTM D This specification is not applicable to asphalt binders in which fibers or other discrete particles are larger than 250 µm in size The grades of asphalt binder must conform to the requirements given in Table SAMPLING 6.1. Sampling will be in accordance with T TEST METHODS 7.1. The properties outlined in Sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6 must be determined in accordance with R28, T44 or ASTM D 5546, T 48, T 55, T 313, T 315, and T INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION 8.1. Inspection and certification of the material will be as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. Specific requirements must be made part of the purchase contract. The seller will provide material handling and storage procedures for each asphalt binder grade certified. 9. REJECTION AND REHEARINGRETESTING 9.1. If the results of any test do not conform to the requirements of this specification, retesting to determine conformity is performed as indicated in the purchase order or as otherwise agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. TS-2b M XXX-2 AASHTO Page 88 of 113

89 ATTACHMENT J 10. KEYWORDS Asphalt binder; asphalt cement; chip seal; flash point; modifier; performance specifications; pressure aging; rheology; seal coat; surface treatment. TS-2b M XXX-3 AASHTO Page 89 of 113

90 ATTACHMENT J Table 1 Surface Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder Specification Surface Performance Grade Average 7-day Max pavement surface design temperature1, C Min pavement surface design temperature1, C SPG SPG <49-31 SPG 67 SPG < <61 >-25 >-31 >-37 >-43 >-19 >-25 >-31 >-37 >-43 >-19 > SPG <67 >-31 >-37 >-13 > SPG <73 >-25 >-31 >-13 > >-25 > <79 >-25 >-31 >-13 >-19 Original Binder Flash point temp, T 48, Min, C Viscosity, T 3162: Max 0.15 Pa*s, test temp., C Original Performance Properties Dynamic Shear, T 315: G*/sinδ, Min 0.65 kpa, Test 10 rad/s, C Phase angle3 (δ), temp. where G*/sinδ = 0.65 kpa Pressure Aging Vessel (PAV) Residue (R 28)4 PAV aging temperature, C Creep stiffness, T 313: S, Max 500 MPa, Test 8 sec., C 1. Temperatures are at the surface of the pavement structure. These may be determined from experience or may be estimated using equations developed by SHRP or in LTPPBind 3.1, but modified to represent surface temperatures. Surface-grade high temperatures are generally 3 C to 4 C greater than those determined for Superpave PG binders. 2. The referee method will be AASHTO T 316 using a #21 spindle at 50 r/min., however alternate methods may be used for routine testing and quality assurance. 3. Phase angle is determined at the temperature where G*/sin δ =0.65 kpa. For routine testing and quality assurance, the phase angle can be interpolated from testing at two temperatures, one above and one below where G*/sin δ=0.65 kpa. 4. Perform PAV aging according to AASHTO R 28 on the original binder. SPG binders are not subjected to AASHTO T 240. Page 90 of 113

91 ATTACHMENT K RNS I. PROBLEM NUMBER To be assigned by NCHRP staff. II. PROBLEM TITLE Thermal cracking resistance of asphalt binders III. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT The Performance Grading (PG) system assigns an operational temperature range to a given asphalt binder within which the binder demonstrates adequate resistance to rutting, fatigue cracking, and thermal cracking. The PG system, or some variation thereof is commonly used in the United States to: (i) select the grade of the asphalt binder appropriate for use in different climatic and project conditions, (ii) serve as a purchase specification, and (iii) evaluate the potential impact of changes in binder properties and composition on mixture performance. Over the past few years, there have been several new trends in binder and mixture production technologies, which ultimately influence binder properties, such as (i) increased emphasis on the use of recycled asphalt, (ii) increased use of industrial by products as an asphalt binder extender / modifier, (iii) introduction of a variety of new chemical additives to promote recycling, (iv) additives used to facilitate mixture production and placement, and (v) chemical and polymer modifiers to alter the properties of the straight-run binder to meet current specifications. All of these factors have a significant influence on the inherent distress resistance of asphalt binders, which is not accurately captured by the current tests and parameters in the PG framework. Significant work has been done or is in progress to address this gap with regards to rutting, intermediate temperature fatigue cracking, and aging. For example, the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test and concomitant parameters were introduced to better predict the inherent resistance of asphalt binders to rutting. Ongoing NCHRP Projects 9-59, 9-60, and 9-61 are focused on evaluating the fatigue cracking resistance of asphalt binders using the fatigue performance of asphalt mixtures as a benchmark, addressing the issue of variations in the chemical composition of the binder that may result in poor performance of asphalt mixtures but are not captured by the existing test methods, and addressing the issue of appropriate short- and long-term aging methods that are to be used for binder evaluation. However, there is still a need to better understand and improve the current tests, parameters and specification limits to evaluate the inherent resistance of asphalt binders to lowtemperature cracking or more broadly thermal cracking. IV. LITERATURE SEARCH SUMMARY The current AASHTO M320 asphalt specification is primarily based on the use of the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR). The BBR is an excellent tool to measure the low temperature stiffness (S) and rate of relaxation (m-value) of the asphalt binder. In rare cases when the stiffness value fails to meet the Page 91 of 113

92 ATTACHMENT K requirements, the specification allows for a strength test (DT or direct tension test). Higher stiffness or lower m-value are indicators of higher thermal stresses. However, failure only occurs when the thermal stresses in combination with external load related stresses, exceed the tensile strength of the material. The BBR does not provide a measure for the strength of the material and unfortunately despite substantial development work during SHRP, the DT test has not gained widespread usage. Several studies have tried to overcome the limitations of the BBR and develop a simple and easy to use method for testing low temperature cracking resistance of asphalt binders. These tests focus on the fracture resistance of the binder. For example, the Asphalt Binder Cracking Device (ABCD) (Kim et al. 2006, AASHTO TP92), the Double Edge Notched Test (DENT) (Hesp 2004, Andriescu et al. 2004), Single Edge Notched Beam (SENB) (Hesp 2004, Velasquez et al. 2012), and BBR-Pro are all methods that can be used to evaluate the fracture resistance of the binder. While most of the aforementioned methods require the use of additional accessories or capital equipment, studies have also shown that the performance of the binder can be more accurately predicted by using different parameters from the current BBR test method. For example, difference in continuous grade based on stiffness and m-value can serve not only as an indicator of performance for low temperature cracking, but also as an indicator for fatigue cracking resistance at intermediate temperatures (Rowe 2014). In addition to the actual test method itself, there are constraints and gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Thermal cracking is a predominant form of distress that is strongly tied to the aging of asphalt binders and concomitant changes in ductility. As such, a better understanding of the differences between oxidation and physical understanding is needed to develop appropriate methods and interpret results accurately. Also, since this distress is of particular concern with the use of recycled asphalt, certain test methods that require large binder samples are not ideal on account of the recovery process from the recycled material. V. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE The research study is intended to investigate the material properties and mechanisms that dictate the thermal cracking resistance of asphalt binders with emphasis on low temperature cracking, and to use this information to improve the test methods, parameters, and specifications (as needed) in the current PG framework. Specifically, this study must consider, but not be limited to, the following aspects: 1. Review the literature to better understand the mechanisms of thermal cracking including emphasis on the role of aging, the role of physical hardening, the material properties that dictate the thermal cracking resistance of the binder in the field, and the methods that can be used to assess such properties. 2. Review the work being done in ongoing NCHRP Projects 9-59, 60, and 61 to ensure synergy between the proposed work and other ongoing projects. 3. Use the above information to design and execute a work plan to identify the most suitable test method(s) and parameter(s) that can be used to identify the inherent thermal cracking resistance of asphalt binders. Selection of test method(s) should be based on considerations Page 92 of 113

93 ATTACHMENT K that include but are not limited to: accuracy in predicting performance, repeatability of the method, and requirements for sample size and preparation. Accuracy of the method must be validated using a variety of different materials with laboratory and/or field performance of asphalt mixtures. 4. Recommend an implementation plan for the use of the proposed method and parameters so that it can be (i) phased into the existing framework of binder specifications and (ii) used as an independent method to evaluate the thermal cracking resistance of asphalt binders. VI. ESTIMATE OF PROBLEM FUNDING AND RESEARCH PERIOD The recommended funding is $500,000 for a duration of three years. VII. URGENCY, PAYOFF POTENTIAL AND IMPLEMENTATION Thermal cracking of asphalt binders is a critical form of distress in asphalt mixtures. The current PG framework for low-temperature cracking is based on either the stiffness or rate of relaxation of the binder. This approach, while it has served well for unmodified binders, does not adequately screen for premature failures, particularly in light of an increased use of a variety of different additives, modifiers and extenders during the asphalt binder and mixture production processes. A more accurate method to screen binders for their low temperature and thermal cracking resistance is required to prevent such false positives and associated expensive failures. Such a method should be capable of being incorporated into the current PG framework as well for use as a binder performance evaluation tool. VIII. PERSON(S) DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM IX. PROBLEM MONITOR X. DATE AND SUBMITTED BY REFERENCES 1. Kim, S. S., Wysong, Z., & Kovach, J. (2006). Low-temperature thermal cracking of asphalt binder by asphalt binder cracking device. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1962), Hesp, S. (2004). Development of a fracture mechanics-based asphalt binder test method for low temperature performance prediction. 3. Andriescu, A., Hesp, S., & Youtcheff, J. (2004). Essential and plastic works of ductile fracture in asphalt binders. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1875), Velasquez, R., Tabatabaee, H., & Bahia, H. (2011). Low temperature cracking characterization of asphalt binders by means of the single-edge notch bending (SENB) test. Asphalt Paving Technology-Proceedings Association of Asphalt Technologists, 80, 583. Page 93 of 113

94 ATTACHMENT L From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: John Malusky Blackburn, Lyndi Brian Johnson; Evan Rothblatt (ERothblatt@aashto.org); Barry Paye; Maria Knake RE: Precision and Bias Technical Section 2b Liquid Asphalts Monday, June 5, :56:23 PM image003.png image012.png image013.png image014.png Lyndi, Good afternoon! I think we have plenty of data that can be used to revise the precision estimates within the standards and create an estimate for the MSCR. My predecessor was heavily involved with the creation of the Precision estimates that came out of NCHRP 9-26 Phase 3. I ll reach out to him for guidance and we can go from there. What kind of turn-around time would you need on this information? Regards, John J. Malusky Program Manager, Proficiency Sample Program jmalusky@aashtoresource.org Direct: Main: Website: AASHTO re:source (formerly AMRL) 4441 Buckeystown Pike Suite A Frederick, MD From: Blackburn, Lyndi [mailto:blackburnl@dot.state.al.us] Sent: Monday, June 5, :49 AM To: John Malusky <jmalusky@aashtoresource.org> Cc: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@aashtoresource.org>; Evan Rothblatt (ERothblatt@aashto.org) <ERothblatt@aashto.org>; Barry Paye <Barry.Paye@dot.wi.gov>; Maria Knake <mknake@aashtoresource.org> Subject: Precision and Bias Technical Section 2b Liquid Asphalts John; At the last ETG meeting in May, I was asked to contact AASHTO Resource to inquire about possibly updating the precision and bias statements. The following standards were specifically Page 94 of 113

95 ATTACHMENT L mentioned: T 313, BBR T 315, DSR T 316, Rotational Viscosity T 350, MSCR needs P&B It was mentioned that T 315 was looked at using the proficiency sample test results from to establish P&B. It was also mentioned that these test results greatly improved in 2006 and I may have some of these dates and stuff wrong but it was suggested that the proficiency data with a statistical study with outliers removed might could be used. Please let me know what you think is the best way to approach this issue. Can AASHTO Resource handle this task or do we need to write a 20-7 statement to look at it? Apparently ASTM has recently updated some of their statements. Lyndi Davis Blackburn, P.E. Asst. State Materials & Tests Engineer: Alabama DOT : Mobile Page 95 of 113

96 ATTACHMENT M From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Blackburn, Lyndi "Rothblatt Evan"; Paye Barry C "Richard.Williammee@txdot.gov"; "rfragapane@aashto.org"; Jim Trepanier (james.trepanier@illinois.gov) RE: Meyer Laboratory Questions Monday, July 31, :53:00 AM Barry; I did some minor research and determined that the PG64E-22 was likely added after receiving a comment on a TS ballot from a state: and recommend deleting grade as long as requires "modified" binder; if include grade, should also include/allow MSCR equivalent grades such as PG64E-22. This state obviously considered the PG64E-22 as equivalent with PG I believe the objective on the MSCR specification was to make equivalent grades but I have never understood why everything had to be renamed. Anyway, the PG64E-22 was included in the TP 102 changes that went to SOM ballot in There were not comments received on the SOM ballot regarding the liquid grade requirements. No negatives were received so it was published. All; I will include this for discussion under s, etc. at the meeting coming up next week. Lyndi Davis Blackburn, P.E. Asst. State Materials & Tests Engineer: Alabama DOT : Mobile From: Rothblatt Evan [mailto:erothblatt@aashto.org] Sent: Thursday, July 27, :36 AM To: Paye Barry C <Barry.Paye@dot.wi.gov>; Blackburn, Lyndi <blackburnl@dot.state.al.us> Subject: RE: Meyer Laboratory Questions Barry, Hopefully it was covered in the minutes or ballot? Was the change made last year? I could see whether pubs can track this down, but they ve been tracking down quite a bit of late, so would like to exhaust other options before going to them. Evan Rothblatt, EIT Program Manager for Engineering Phone: erothblatt@aashto.org From: Paye, Barry - DOT [mailto:barry.paye@dot.wi.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 27, :30 AM To: Blackburn Lyndi D <blackburnl@dot.state.al.us>; Rothblatt Evan <ERothblatt@aashto.org> Subject: FW: Meyer Laboratory Questions Page 96 of 113

97 ATTACHMENT M Lyndi and Evan, Do we have any idea of who made the change to add 64E-22 to the spec. I am guessing this was done to include the MSCR grades in the spec. The main lab in Texas doesn t agree, but I might ask them to run their in the MSCR protocol to see what it scores out as Uses an asphalt binder modified with SBR, SBS, or similar polymer and meeting the requirements of PG as defined in M 320, Table 1 or PG 64E-22 as defined in M 332. Please note, this is coming from NTPEP, but also is due to the way the specification is written. Thoughts? I ll follow up with TX DOT on running the MSCR, but wanted to keep you all in the loop. Barry Barry Paye, P.E. Chief Materials Engineer - Bureau of Technical Services Wisconsin Department of Transportation 3502 Kinsman Blvd, Madison, WI (Office) (Cell) barry.paye@dot.wi.gov From: Richard Williammee Jr [mailto:richard.williammee@txdot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, :27 PM To: Paye, Barry - DOT <Barry.Paye@dot.wi.gov> Cc: Fragapane Ryan <rfragapane@aashto.org>; Trepanier, James S <James.Trepanier@illinois.gov> Subject: RE: Meyer Laboratory Questions As far as I know, mainly for here in the South, the PG76-22 binders are all SBS modified. From: Trepanier, James S [mailto:james.trepanier@illinois.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, :56 PM To: Paye, Barry - DOT Cc: Richard Williammee Jr; Fragapane Ryan Subject: RE: Meyer Laboratory Questions It was intended to be SBS PG76-22 so as to be a worst case scenario (or close to) for sticking. From: Paye, Barry - DOT [mailto:barry.paye@dot.wi.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, :59 AM To: 'Richard Williammee Jr' <Richard.Williammee@txdot.gov>; Fragapane Ryan <rfragapane@aashto.org> Cc: Trepanier, James S <James.Trepanier@illinois.gov> Subject: [External] RE: Meyer Laboratory Questions Page 97 of 113

98 ATTACHMENT M Thanks for letting me know. I don t recall how this change was made. Just to help figure this out, is the being used polymer modified? Thanks, Barry From: Richard Williammee Jr [mailto:richard.williammee@txdot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, :30 AM To: Fragapane Ryan <rfragapane@aashto.org> Cc: Trepanier Jim <james.trepanier@illinois.gov>; Paye, Barry - DOT <Barry.Paye@dot.wi.gov> Subject: RE: Meyer Laboratory Questions Well, the PG64E-22 is a new one on me. I looked at the definition and now understand what it represents. I do not know how or who added it but do not agree with that decision. I will discuss with Jim and Barry to see what we want to do. To answer Gary s question, we used a PG76-22 and have been on all submitted products from the beginning of this program. We will continue to do so until we determine another direction as discussed with the Committee. Let him know that he can contact asphalt suppliers in his area or even contact hot mix producers to see if he can get the PG This testing is supposed to work for all similar asphalts. Richard From: Fragapane Ryan [mailto:rfragapane@aashto.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, :27 AM To: Richard Williammee Jr Cc: Trepanier Jim Subject: Meyer Laboratory Questions Good Morning Richard, I just got off the phone with Gary Brandt from Meyer Laboratory. He had some questions and I was hoping you would be able to answer them. He stated that in TP102 it states that for the asphalt performance test the asphalt used should be or 64E-22. He wanted to know what asphalt was used when his product, ARA , was tested. They are trying to test their products in house according to TP102 and he was only able to acquire asphalt binder. I let him not it was a modified binder but I was not sure what effect it would have on the test. He wanted to know if you thought it would be more difficult to get more pulls with a more modified binder. Also he wanted to know if that was the case could he get binder from TXDOT. Thanks, Ryan Fragapane Associate Program Manager, NTPEP Page 98 of 113

99 ATTACHMENT M Phone: rfragapane@aashto.org AASHTO 444 North Capitol Street NW Suite 249 Washington, DC State of Illinois - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product, may constitute inside information or internal deliberative staff communication, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Receipt by an unintended recipient does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or any other exemption from disclosure. Page 99 of 113

100 ATTACHMENT N From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: White, Leslie Blackburn, Lyndi Suzor Hoy, Tyrel FW: Request for clarification or change to T-228 Monday, June 26, :40:17 AM image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png Hello Lyndi I am wondering what your thoughts are on T-228. Our lead technician for this procedure seems to have a very good point about how to discern if there are bubbles in the pycnometer or not per this chain with Brian. If there is a method for determining if there are bubbles by other than removing the beaker from the bath, or if there are reasons the beaker should not be removed from the bath (but ASTM seems to suggest otherwise) then we would like to hear about them otherwise we may want to consider allowing the removal of the beaker from the bath for the time period in which the pycnometer is filled and viewing of the pycnometer for bubbles. I am copying our technician who has mastered this procedure and has started this discussion. Leslie White From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohnson@aashtoresource.org] Sent: Monday, June 26, :33 AM To: White, Leslie <lwhite@mt.gov> Cc: Suzor Hoy, Tyrel <thoy@mt.gov> Subject: RE: Request for clarification or change to T-228 I d bring it up if I were you. It s good to get these kinds of changes made to the AASHTO methods based on the experience of the SOM members like you. If you re not up for making the change yourself, you can the Chair of that Tech Section., Lyndi Blackburn (blackburnl@dot.state.al.us) or the Vice-Chair, Barry Paye (barry.paye@dot.wi.gov). Maybe someone else at the meeting will want to champion the change. I ll get back to you later on your PAV issue. I m going to need to eat before I read that one again. Brian From: White, Leslie [mailto:lwhite@mt.gov] Sent: Monday, June 26, :42 AM Page 100 of 113

101 ATTACHMENT N To: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@aashtoresource.org> Cc: Suzor Hoy, Tyrel <thoy@mt.gov> Subject: RE: Request for clarification or change to T-228 Hi Brian I am not sure that we want to initiate a change to the procedure our technician that does this procedure most often, simply realizes the importance of making sure there are not bubbles in the pycnometer and in following the ASTM procedure it seems to allow the technician to remove the beaker and examine the pycnometer for bubbles but AASHTO must not think this method of looking for bubbles is warranted. I do have to agree with our technician that we certainly have a better view of the pycnometer when the beaker is removed from the bath. I m glad I checked with you on this though because we thought it acceptable to remove the beaker (because of the ASTM procedure) from the bath so your clarification will stop us from doing that. Thanks! Leslie White From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohnson@aashtoresource.org] Sent: Monday, June 26, :47 AM To: White, Leslie <lwhite@mt.gov> Cc: info@aashtoresource.org; Suzor Hoy, Tyrel <thoy@mt.gov>; Amanda Moser <amoser@aashtoresource.org> Subject: RE: Request for clarification or change to T-228 Hello Leslie, Since T228 sought to replace 11.2 with mostly just taking that sentence out, it seems like the implication is that you need to leave the beaker in the bath when running T228. However, I m not sure what the background was on that change - so if you want to see it revised, you can try to ballot a change through the SOM if you get support at the meeting in August from the subcommittee. Are you working on making a full AASHTO version of T228? Regards, Brian Brian J. Johnson AASHTO Accreditation Program Manager Page 101 of 113

102 ATTACHMENT N bjohnson@aashtoresource.org Direct: Mobile: Website: AASHTO re:source (formerly AMRL) 4441 Buckeystown Pike Suite A Frederick, MD From: info@aashtoresource.org Sent: Monday, June 26, :35 AM To: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@aashtoresource.org> Subject: FW: Request for clarification or change to T-228 Good Morning Brian, Please see the below. Thanks! Sara Holsinger Administrative Coordinator Please click here to let me know how I m doing! SHolsinger@aashtoresource.org Direct: Main: Website: AASHTO re:source (formerly AMRL) 4441 Buckeystown Pike Suite A Frederick, MD From: White, Leslie [mailto:lwhite@mt.gov] Sent: Friday, June 23, :28 PM To: info@aashtoresource.org Cc: Suzor Hoy, Tyrel <thoy@mt.gov>; Amanda Moser <amoser@aashtoresource.org> Subject: Request for clarification or change to T-228 In the AASHTO standard method of test for specific gravity of semi-solid asphalt materials, T-228 section 5 says to replace section 11.2 in with 11.2 Fill the pycnometer. The ASTM D starts the paragraph with Remove the beaker from the water bath if necessary. We have found it very useful to remove the beaker from the water bath per D70, fill the pycnometer, inspect the pycnometer in the beaker out of the bath for bubbles and then replace the beaker in the water bath. I don t think T-228 prohibits this practice but it does not explicitly say this is acceptable. Is it and is it worth explicitly stating this in T-228? Page 102 of 113

103 ATTACHMENT N Thank you, Leslie White Chief Chemist Montana Department of Transportation P: Page 103 of 113

104 Asphalt Quality Control Tester Raj Dongre and Jack Youtcheff ATTACHMENT O Asphalt Binder Quality Tester ASPHALT BINDER QUALITY TEST (ABQT) JACK YOUTCHEFF FHWA RAJ DONGRE DONGRE LAB SERV. INC. (DLSI) OUTLINE SCHEMATIC OF NOZZLE WITH AIR JET & LASER BACKGROUND APPLICATIONS PREDICTION OF PG GRADES SOFTWARE AND ALGORITHM SUMMARY FUTURE STEPS WHY DEVELOP A QUALITY CONTROL TEST FOR ASPHALT BINDER? - REFRESHER Test Results for Gel and Sol Type Asphalts AAD 1 AAG DYNAMIC SHEAR RHEOMETER QUICK VERSION MELT INDEXER A SINGLE TEST METHOD THAT CAN TAKE YOU FROM MIX-DESIGN TO PRODUCTION AASHTO SOM Recovery = 29% 0.3 Deflection, mm SEVERAL METHODS HAVE BEEN TRIED WITHOUT SUCCESS! UTAH DOT Deflection, mm NEED A PORTABLE, QUICK AND EASY TEST METHOD FOR DAY-TO-DAY QA OF PRODUCTION ASPHALT BINDER DURING A PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UTAH DOT Recovery = 3.2% Time, s Time, s Page 104 of

105 Asphalt Quality Control Tester Raj Dongre and Jack Youtcheff ATTACHMENT O QUALITY CONTROL QUALITY ASSURANCE REPEATABILITY OF QC DATA Binder ID 200/300 Pen #1 PG PG PG #2 PG PG PG PG #1 PG #2 PG #3 PG Number of Binder Type Replicates 5 5 UnModified PMA 5 5 Crumb 2 Rubber 2 Modified 2 Pooled Average QCT Max. Deflection, mm QCT % Recovery Average Std. Dev COV % Average Std. Dev COV % PREDICTION OF CONTINUOUS PG GRADES AASHTO M320 CONTINUOUS PG GRADES ARE PREDICTED USING CREEP RECOVERY DATA ON UNAGED BINDER STANDARD TEST PROTOCOL A PROPRIETARY ALGORITHM WAS DEVELOPED TO PREDICT CONTINUOUS PG GRADES BASED ON MODELS THAT USE ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK LEARNING ALGORITHMS TRAINING DATABASE OF MORE THAN 500 ASPHALT BINDERS DIFFERENT CRUDE SOURCES INCLUDING EUROPE GREATER THAN 95% ACCURACY OF PREDICTION OF PG GRADES ACCURACY WILL BE BETTER AS MORE DATA GETS ADDED MODELS ARE TAILORED TO VARIATION IN PG SPECIFICATION FOR EXAMPLE: UTAH DOT MSCR GRADES ARE ALSO PREDICTED AASHTO M332 3 All Binders Low PG 16.0 Predicted Low PG, oc 22.0 ABQT VERFICATION KIT AASHTO SOM Measured Low PG, oc Page 105 of 113

106 Asphalt Quality Control Tester Raj Dongre and Jack Youtcheff ATTACHMENT O All Binders High PG (G*/sin δ = 1.0 kpa) 88.0 All Binders High PG (G*/sin δ = 1.0 kpa) Predicted High PG, oc Predicted High PG, oc VALIDATION OF MODEL 64.0 EFFECT OF DATABASE SIZE Measured High PG, oc Measured High PG, oc UDOT (1.3kPa) High PG Temp AMRL_B4_Trng WCTG_Post_rng WCTG_B4_Trng OCTG_B4_Trng OCTG_Post_Trng y = x R² = Measured High Temperature Continuous PG Measured High PG, oc UDOT (1.3kPa) Low PG Temp AMRL WCTG OCTG DurabRoads 88 y = x R² = Predicted High PG, oc Predicted Low Temperature Continuous PG AASHTO SOM AMRL_Post_Trng 82 Predicted High PG, oc Predicted High Temperature Continuous PG Measured Low Temperature Continuous PG Measured High PG, oc Page 106 of 113

107 Asphalt Quality Control Tester Raj Dongre and Jack Youtcheff AMRL WCTG OCTG ATTACHMENT O DurabRoads ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 16 Predicted Low PG, oc 22 EUGENIU MORARI JOHN NEWMAN - LTI 28 GUS SANTANGELO - LTI Measured Low PG, oc POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? QUICK SCREENING OF BINDERS IDENTIFY PRESENCE OF CONTAMINANTS MONITOR ADDITION OF ADDITIVES/ASPHALT BLENDING RELATIONSHIP TO MSCR MONITOR BINDER DURING PAVING CONTACT JACK.YOUTCHEFF@DOT.GOV UTAH DOT 2015 SEASON CHARACTERIZE CRUMB RUBBER MODIFIED BINDERS HIGH CRUMB RUBBER CONTENT GRANITE BINDERS FHWA TERMINAL BLEND BINDERS RELATIONSHIP TO MSCR SUMMARY AND FUTURE PREDICTS CONTINUOUS PG GRADE ACCURATELY (95% ACCURACY) PREDICTS MSCR GRADES ASPHALT BINDER QUALITY TEST IS READY FOR USE Polymer Curve Recovery., % 80 DEVELOPED QUICK EASY TO USE QC/QA TEST THAT MEASURES LOADING AND RECOVERY CHARACTERISTICS OF BINDERS (AND MIXES) Data from ABQT 40 y = x PG Neat 20 y = 29.37x AASHTO SOM Jnr at 3.2 kpa or Maximum Deflection, mm Page 107 of 113

108 PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG Predicted Continuous High PG Grade, oc AASHTO SOM QUALITY ASSURANCE PG PG PG PG PG 70 28???????? PG PG 70 28???????? PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG UDOT 2015 Season PG QUALITY CONTROL PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG UTAH DOT 2015 SEASON PG Max. Deflction, mm 1.2 Recovery, % % Recovery MONITOR BINDER DURING PAVING PG Max. Deflection, mm Asphalt Quality Control Tester Raj Dongre and Jack Youtcheff ATTACHMENT O 80 QUALITY CONTROL UDOT 2015 Season QUALITY ASSURANCE 76 UDOT 2015 Season Example Page 108 of 113

109 PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG Predicted Continuous Low PG Grade, oc Asphalt Quality Control Tester Raj Dongre and Jack Youtcheff AASHTO SOM ATTACHMENT O QUALITY ASSURANCE 22 UDOT 2015 Season Example QUALITY ASSURANCE THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS? Page 109 of 113