Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home   |   Pavements Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-RD-02-016
Date: June 1999

Methodology for Determining Compaction Temperatures for Modified Asphalt Binders

Q. References

  1. Stuart, K. D., W. S. Mogawer, and P. Romero, Validation of Asphalt Binder and Mixture Tests That Measure Rutting Susceptibility Using the Accelerated Loading Facility, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-204, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, November 1999, 348 pp.

  2. NCHRP Project 09-19, "Superpave Support and Performance Models Management," National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

  3. NCHRP Project 09-17, "Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Asphalt Pavement Analyzer," National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

  4. Road and Bridge Specifications, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA, January 1991.

  5. AASHTO TP4-97, AASHTO Provisional Standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., June 1998.

  6. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing--Part II - Methods of Sampling and Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1998.

  7. ASTM D 4402, 1999 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 - Volume 04.04, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA, April 1994.

  8. Shenoy, A., "Determination of the Temperature for Mixing Aggregates with Polymer-modified Asphalts," The International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 33-47, 2001.

  9. NCHRP Project 09-10, Recommendations for Mixing and Compaction Temperatures of Modified Binders, Draft Topical Report (Task 9), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May 2000.

Table 16. Effect of compaction temperature on the mixture with
PG 58-28, diabase aggregate, and 1.25-percent hydrated lime.

Temperature, °C
(Current Practice)
Measured
Air Voids,
Percent 
Measured Effective
Asphalt Binder
Content,
Percent by Volume 
Additional Asphalt Binder Content Needed To Obtain 4-Percent Air Voidsa  Amount of
Smoke Produced
(Blank = No Smoke) 
Mixing
(145)
Compaction
(137)
Percent by Volume  Percent by Mixture Mass  During
Mixing 
During
STOA 
145 157 3.7 9.1 -0.3 -0.1   Medium
145 137 3.8 9.1 -0.2 -0.1    
145 117 4.6 9.0 0.6 0.3    
145 107 4.0 9.1 0.0 0.0    
After the Outliers Are Removed 
145 157 3.4 9.2 -0.6 -0.3   Medium
145 137 4.3 9.1 0.3 0.1    
145 117 4.1 9.1 0.1 0.0    
145 107 4.0 9.1 0.0 0.0    

aAssumes that the additional asphalt binder will not change the amount of asphalt binder absorption or workability during compaction. A negative sign indicates that asphalt binder would have to be removed to obtain a 4.0-percent air-void level.

Table 17. Air voids for the mixtures with diabase
aggregate and 1.25-percent hydrated lime.

Temperature, °C  Air Voids, Percent 
Mixing  Compaction  Rep 1  Rep 2  Rep 3  Rep 4  Average 
PG 58-28 
145 157 4.7 *  3.5 3.5 3.2 3.4
145 137 4.9 2.6 *  4.2 3.8 4.3
145 117 5.0 6.0 *   3.7 3.7 4.1
145 107 3.9 4.1 4.4 3.5 4.0
Novophalt (PG 76-22) 
166 179 4.3 4.3 4.1 3.7 4.1
166 159 4.6 *  4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0
166 139 4.6 4.5 3.9 3.6 4.2
166 119 4.7 5.3 4.5 5.0 4.9
Styrelf (PG 82-22) 
163 177 3.1 3.4 4.3 4.0 3.7
163 157 3.9 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.7
163 137 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6
163 117 5.2 5.3 4.6 5.0 5.0

* Outlier

Table 18. Effect of compaction temperature on the mixture with
Novophalt (PG 76-22), diabase aggregate, and 1.25-percent hydrated lime.

Temperature, °C
(Current Practice)
Measured Air Voids,
Percent 
Measured Effective Asphalt Binder
Content,
Percent by Volume 
Additional Asphalt Binder
Content Needed To Obtain
4-Percent Air Voidsa
 
Amount of
Smoke Produced

(Blank = No Smoke) 
Mixing
(166)
Compaction
(159)
Percent by
Volume
 
Percent by
Mixture Mass
 
During Mixing  During
STOA 
166 179 4.1 9.1 0.2 0.1   High
166 159 4.0 9.1 0.0 0.0    
166 139 4.2 9.2 0.2 0.1    
166 119 4.9 9.1 0.9 0.4    

aAssumes that the additional asphalt binder will not change the amount of asphalt binder absorption or workability
during compaction.

Table 19. Effect of compaction temperature on the mixture with
Styrelf (PG 82-22), diabase aggregate, and 1.25-percent hydrated lime.

Temperature, °C
(Current Practice)
Measured
Air Voids,
Percent 
Measured Effective
Asphalt Binder
Content,
Percent by Volume 
Additional Asphalt Binder Content Needed To Obtain 4-Percent Air Voidsa  Amount of
Smoke Produced
(Blank = No Smoke) 
Mixing
(163)
Compaction
(157)
Percent by Volume  Percent by Mixture Mass  During
Mixing 
During
STOA 
163 177 3.7 9.0 -0.3 -0.1   Low
163 157 3.7 9.0 -0.3 -0.1    
163 137 4.6 9.1 0.6 0.3    
163 117 5.0 9.1 1.0 0.5    

aAssumes that the additional asphalt binder will not change the amount of asphalt binder absorption or workability
during compaction.

Table 20. Effect of compaction temperature on the mixture
with PG 58-28 and limestone aggregate.

Temperature, °C
(Current Practice)
Measured
Air Voids,
Percent 
Measured Effective
Asphalt Binder
Content,
Percent by Volume 
Additional Asphalt Binder Content Needed To Obtain 4-Percent Air Voidsa  Amount of
Smoke Produced
(Blank = No Smoke) 
Mixing
(145)
Compaction
(137)
Percent by Volume  Percent by Mixture Mass  During
Mixing 
During
STOA 
145 157 3.5 10.5 -0.5 -0.2   Medium
145 137 4.1 10.5 0.1 0.0    
145 117 4.2 10.5 0.2 0.1    
145 107 4.2 10.5 0.2 0.1    

aAssumes that the additional asphalt binder will not change the amount of asphalt binder absorption or workability during compaction. A negative sign indicates that asphalt binder would have to be removed to obtain a 4.0-percent air-void level.

Table 21. Air voids for the mixtures with limestone aggregate.

Temperature, °C  Air Voids, Percent 
Mixing  Compaction  Rep 1  Rep 2  Rep 3  Rep 4  Average 
PG 58-28 
145 157 4.6 *  3.3 3.6 3.5 3.5
145 137 4.2 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.1
145 117 4.6 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.2
145 107 4.4 4.1 3.8 4.3 4.2
Novophalt (PG 76-22) 
166 179 3.5 *  2.6 3.0 2.7 2.8
166 159 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.5
166 139 3.9 3.9 3.3 *  4.1 4.0
166 119 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.4
Styrelf (PG 82-22) 
163 177 3.4 *  2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9
163 157 4.1 *  3.8 3.6 3.5 3.6
163 137 4.1 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.8
163 117 4.7 *  4.3 4.2 4.1 4.2

* Outlier

Table 22. Effect of compaction temperature on the mixture
with Novophalt (PG 76-22) and limestone aggregate.

Temperature, °C
(Current Practice)
Measured
Air Voids,
Percent 
Measured Effective
Asphalt Binder
Content,
Percent by Volume 
Additional Asphalt Binder Content Needed To Obtain 4-Percent Air Voidsa  Amount of
Smoke Produced
(Blank = No Smoke) 
Mixing
(145)
Compaction
(137)
Percent by Volume  Percent by Mixture Mass  During
Mixing 
During
STOA 
145 179 2.8 10.5 -1.2 -0.6   Medium
145 159 3.5 10.4 -0.5 0.2    
145 139 4.0 10.4 0.0 0.0    
145 119 4.4 10.6 0.4 0.2    

aAssumes that the additional asphalt binder will not change the amount of asphalt binder absorption or workability during compaction. A negative sign indicates that asphalt binder would have to be removed to obtain a 4.0-percent air-void level.

Table 23. Effect of compaction temperature on the mixture
with Styrelf (PG 82-22) and limestone aggregate.

Temperature, °C
(Current Practice)
Measured
Air Voids,
Percent 
Measured Effective
Asphalt Binder
Content,
Percent by Volume 
Additional Asphalt Binder Content Needed To Obtain 4-Percent Air Voidsa  Amount of
Smoke Produced
(Blank = No Smoke) 
Mixing
(145)
Compaction
(137)
Percent by Volume  Percent by Mixture Mass  During
Mixing 
During
STOA 
145 177 2.9 10.6 -1.1 -0.5   Medium
145 157 3.6 10.6 -0.4 -0.2    
145 137 3.8 10.5 -0.2 -0.1    
145 117 4.2 10.8 0.2 0.1    

aAssumes that the additional asphalt binder will not change the amount of asphalt binder absorption or workability during compaction. A negative sign indicates that asphalt binder would have to be removed to obtain a 4.0-percent air-void level.

Table 24. Allowable compaction temperature range
from the Superpave gyratory compactor.

Aggregate Blend  Allowable Compaction Temperature Range
Rounded to the Nearest 5°C 
PG 58-28
(AC-10) 
PG 76-22
(Novophalt) 
PG 82-22
(Styrelf) 
Diabase
No Lime
125 - 145
(135 ±10)
120 - 160
(140 ±20)
145 - 165
(155 ±10)
Diabase
1.25% Lime
105 - 145
(125 ±20)
140 - 160
(150 ±10)
145 - 165
(155 ±10)

Limestone
105 - 145
(125 ±20)
120 - 160
(140 ±20)
115 - 165
(140 ±25)

Table 25. Average compaction temperature.

Aggregate
Blend 
Method  Average Compaction Temperature
Rounded to the Nearest 5°C 
PG 58-28
(AC-10) 
PG 76-22
(Novophalt) 
PG 82-22
(Styrelf) 
Diabase
No Lime
Gyratory
135 140 155
Capillary Viscosity 140 175 170
Brookfield Viscosity 140 190 185
Mastic 135 175 165
Diabase
1.25% Lime
Gyratory
125 150 155
Capillary Viscosity 140 175 170
Brookfield Viscosity 140 190 185

Limestone
Gyratory 125 140 140
Capillary Viscosity 140 175 170

Brookfield Viscosity

140

190

185

Table 26. Allowable compaction temperature range from
the Superpave gyratory compactor and the asphalt binders
at viscosities of 250 and 310
mm2/s (280 ±30 mm2/s).

Aggregate  Method  Allowable Temperature Range, °C 
PG 58-28
(AC-10) 
PG 76-22
(Novophalt) 
PG 82-22
(Styrelf) 
Diabase
No Lime
Gyratory 125 - 145 120 - 160 145 - 165
Diabase
1.25% Lime
Gyratory 105 - 145 140 - 160 145 - 165
Limestone Gyratory 105 - 145 120 - 160 115 - 165
All Blends Gyratory 125 - 145 140 - 160 145 - 165
Capillary Viscosity 135 - 140 170 - 175 170 - 175
Brookfield Viscosity 135 - 140 185 - 190 185 - 190

Table 27. Viscosity range corresponding to the compaction
temperature range from the Superpave gyratory compactor.

Aggregate  Method  Asphalt Binder 
PG 58-28
(AC-10) 
PG 76-22
(Novophalt) 
PG 82-22
(Styrelf) 
Diabase
No Lime
Gyratory, °C 125 - 145 120 - 160 145 - 165
Capillary Viscosity, mm2/s 550 - 200 5500 - 650 1350 - 450
Brookfield Viscosity, mm2/s 550 - 200 8100 - 900 1250 - 500
Diabase
1.25%
Lime
Gyratory, °C
105 - 145
140 - 160 145 - 165
Capillary Viscosity, mm2/s 1900 - 200 1700 - 650 1350 - 450
Brookfield Viscosity, mm2/s 950 - 200 3500 - 900 1250 - 500

Limestone
Gyratory, °C
105 - 145
120 - 160
115 - 165
Capillary Viscosity, mm2/s 1900 - 200 5500 - 650 11000 - 450
Brookfield Viscosity, mm2/s 950 - 200 8100 - 900 4600 - 500
All Blends Brookfield Viscosity
Range Applicable to All
Aggregate Blends, mm2/s
550 - 200
(950 - 200)
3500 - 900 1250 - 500

Previous | Table of Contents

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration