Rutting and moisture damage is the most common distresses type appear in the pavement in Taiwan; therefore, agencies have adopted performance tests such as Hamburg wheel tracking test (HWTT) to specify and screen the asphalt concrete performance. The standard test method of HWTT specified in AASHTO suggests four performance parameters of max rut depth (RD), number pass at max rut depth (N), creep slop (CS), strip slope (SS), and stripping inflection point (SIP). Many studies have shown that these parameters can be used to characterize and rank the performance of asphalt mixes. However, some of these performance parameters are determined subjectively by operator or engineer such as creep slop, strip slope, and stripping inflection point. Determination of these parameters in many cases relies on operator/ engineer judgment to interpret the test data that may result in ambiguous value, which prevents many agencies from adopting those parameters in their specification. Thus, in the past few years, new analysis methods and performance parameters were proposed by various researchers in an attempt to provide a more systematic approach to analyze the test results of HWTT. Wen et al. using a single rutting resistance index (RRI) to quantify the rutting resistance of the HWTT specimen. Yi et al. based on the viscoplastic model to fit the HWTT experimental data and derive parameters such as the number of load cycles at which stripping occurs (LCSN) and stripping life (LCST) from the fitted model. Also, Al-Khateeb et al. proposed a rutting model developed with a third-order model that can describe the three different phases of HMA and derive stripping inflection point (Nx, Ny). On the other hand, Walubita et al. suggested new parameters such as the rutting area (ΔA), the normalized rutting area (RutΔ), and the shape factor (SF) that can characterize HWTT rutting response and path-history. It seems that the analysis methods have different strengths; however, it is not clear whether the analysis method or the performance parameters exist certain limitations while applied to various HWTT results. Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of different HWTT analysis methods and the correlation among the performance parameters. Eight asphalt mixes commonly used in Taiwan were used to perform HWTT. The dense grade asphalt mixes use three types of asphalt (AC10, AC20, and polymer-modified type III) and three types of aggregate (RAP, steel slag, crushed river gravel). There is a total of 61 HWTT results were obtained that were analyzed by five different data analysis approaches to calculating performance parameters discussed in the standard and studies. The result of this study showed that the current analysis methods and parameters exist certain limitations in analyzing HWTT results. Therefore, a novel performance parameter, namely Hamburg performance index (HPI), was introduced, which incorporates the number of passes, max. Rut depth, and rut path history into one single parameter. It was found that the HPI can resolve the limitation encountered by other analysis approaches and greatly improve the accuracy of predicting a mix’s rutting and moisture resistance.

AASHTO T245. (2015). AASHTO T 245. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 8.
AASHTO T320. (2007). AASHTO T 320. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
AASHTO T324-17. (2017). Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Asphalt mixture. 1–8.
AASHTO TP 62-07. (2009). Standard method of test for: Determining Dynamic Modulus of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). 1–18.
AASHTO TP 79. (2015). AASHTO TP 79. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 21.
Al-Khateeb, G., & Basheer, I. (2009). A three-stage rutting model utilising rutting performance data from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device (WTD). Road and Transport Research, 18(3), 12–25.
Aschenbrener, T. (1992). Comparison of results obtained from the French rutting tester with pavements of known field performance. Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-92-11.
Aschenbrener, T., & Currier, G. (1993). Influence of Testing Variables on the Results from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device. Report, CDOT-DTD-R-93-22. Colorado Department of Transportation., pp. 1–117.
Aschenbrener, T., Terrel, R., & Zamora, R. (1994). Comparison Of The Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device And The Environmental Conditioning System To Pavements Of Known Stripping Performance. Final Report.
Bodin, D., Grenfell, J. R., & Collop, A. C. (2009). Comparison of Small and Large Scale Wheel Tracking Devices. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 10(SI), 295–325. https://doi.org/10.3166/rmpd.10hs.295-325
Chaturabong, P., & Bahia, H. U. (2017). The evaluation of relative effect of moisture in Hamburg wheel tracking test. Construction and Building Materials, 153, 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.133
Ghanbari, A., Underwood, B. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2020). Development of a rutting index parameter based on the stress sweep rutting test and permanent deformation shift model. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1748190
Kim, D., & Kim, Y. R. (2017). Development of Stress Sweep Rutting (SSR) test for permanent deformation characterization of asphalt mixture. Construction and Building Materials, 154, 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.172
Miller, J. S., & Bellinger, W. Y. (2014). FHWA, Distress Identification manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. Report FHWA-HRT-13-092. (May), 142.
Mohammad, L. N., Abadie, C., Gokmen, R., & Puppala, A. J. (2000). Mechanistic evaluation of hydrated lime in hot-mix asphalt mixtures. Transportation Research Record, pp. 26–36. https://doi.org/10.3141/1723-04
Mohammad, Louay N., Elseifi, M. A., Raghavendra, A., & Ye, M. (2015). NCHRP Web-Only Document 219 Hamburg Wheel-Track Test Equipment Requirements and Improvements to AASHTO T 324.
Nevelt, G., & H, T. (1998). Evaluation of the resistance to deformation of different road structures and asphalt mixtures determined in the pavement-rutting tester. Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 57, 320–345.
Prithvi S. Kandhal and L. Allen Cooley, J. (2003). Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. Transportation Research Board.
Roberts, F. L., Kandahal, P. S., Brown, R. E., Lee, D.-Y., & Kennedy, T. W. (1996). Hot mix asphalt materials, mixture design, and construction.
Schram, S. (2013). Evaluation of Bias in the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device. Iowa Department of Transportation.
Schram, S., Williams, R. C., & Buss, A. (2014). Reporting results from the Hamburg wheel tracking device. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2446, pp. 89–98. https://doi.org/10.3141/2446-10
Solaimanian, M., Harvey, J., Tahmoressi, M., & Tandon, V. (2003). Test methods to predict moisture sensitivity of hot-mix asphalt pavements. Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt Pavements-A National SeminarCalifornia Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration; National Asphalt Pavement Association; California Asphalt Pavement Alliance; and Transportation Research Board.
Tseng, K.-H., & Lytton, R. (2008). Prediction of Permanent Deformation in Flexible Pavement Materials. In H. G. Schreuders & C. R. Marek (Eds.), Implication of Aggregates in the Design, Construction, and Performance of Flexible Pavements (pp. 154-154–19). https://doi.org/10.1520/stp24562s
Walubita, L. F., Faruk, A. N. M., Zhang, J., Hu, X., & Lee, S. I. (2016). The Hamburg rutting test - Effects of HMA sample sitting time and test temperature variation. Construction and Building Materials, 108, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.031
Walubita, L. F., Faruk, A. N. M., Zhang, J., Komba, J. J., Alrashydah, E. I., & Simate, G. S. (2019). The Hamburg Rutting Test (HWTT) alternative data analysis methods and HMA screening criteria. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 12(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-019-0014-3
Wen, H., Wu, S., Mohammad, L. N., Zhang, W., Shen, S., & Faheem, A. (2016). Long-term field rutting and moisture susceptibility performance of warm-mix asphalt pavement. Transportation Research Record, 2575, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.3141/2575-11
Yin, F., Arambula, E., Lytton, R., Martin, A. E., & Cucalon, L. G. (2014). Novel method for moisture susceptibility and rutting evaluation using Hamburg wheel tracking test. Transportation Research Record, 2446, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3141/2446-01