Viennese Ageing Procedure (VAPro): adaptions and further development to address low-temperature performance of aged asphalt mixtures

Figures & data

Figure 1. Picture of the test field constructed in 2012.

Table 1. Binder characteristics.

Binder	PG grade	Penetration	Softening	Fraaß breaking
		in 1/10 mm	point in °C	point in °C
A	76–22	67	70.4	−20
B	58–22	91	46.7	−15

Figure 2. A schematic diagram (left) and Photo (right) of the initial setup.

Figure 3. VAPro^cyl triaxial cell with three specimens (cut-out to show the inside).

Figure 4. Inner part of the new heating device: photo (a) and CAD drawing (b).

Figure 5. CIT-CY results: AC11 (binder A) – Increase in dynamic modulus |E*|.

Figure 6. CIT-CY results: AC11 (binder A) – Decrease in phase angle φ.

Table 2. CIT-CY tabular results: Mean values per frequency and corresponding standard deviation.

	Frequency	Increase in |E*| in %		Decrease in ϕ in °
	in Hz	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Single-specimen ageing	1	28.0	5.4	−7.2	1.4
	5	21.9	4.4	−4.2	1.2
	10	19.6	4.5	−3.1	1.1
Three-specimen ageing	1	27.8	2.7	−7.6	1. 5
	5	24.4	1.2	−4.6	0.3
	10	20.9	1.5	−3.4	0.5

Figure 7. First CAD drawing of the new cell (a) and the final CAD version (b).

Figure 8. Photo of the new VAPro^pri prototype (a) and a photo without top cover (b).

Figure 9. DSR results: SMA11 (binder A) – Comparison of dynamic shear modulus |G*| of the recovered and reference binders.

Figure 10. DSR results: SMA11 (binder A) – Comparison of phase angle δ of the recovered and reference binders.

Figure 11. TSRST results: SMA11 (binder A) VAPro^pri.

Figure 12. TSRST results: AC11 (binder A) test field A.

Figure 13. TSRST results: AC11 (binder B) test field B.

Table 3. Results of the TSRST analysis.

	Tcrack	σcrack	k5	Tt	Llin
Sample	in °C	in MPa	–	in °C	–
LAB MIX (STA)	−34.7	3.64	−0.00335	−32.6	2.16
VAPro^pri (LTA)	−33.5	3.90	−0.01241	−29.6	4.09
Field A (0 Mo)	−32.8	4.84	−0.00559	−30.9	2.00
Field A (60 Mo)	−30.4	4.46	−0.01410	−27.2	3.35
Field B (0 Mo)	−25.7	3,23	−0.00729	−23.8	2.04
Field B (60 Mo)	−24.6	3.46	−0.01558	−20.0	4.73

Figure 14. Relation between cracking temperature T_crack and transition temperature T_t.