Canadian Asphalt Binder Specifications — 2025 Review

Why specifications vary

Canada's climate spans an extraordinary range — from the temperate coast of British Columbia to the deep freeze of the prairies and the wet-freeze cycles of the Atlantic. It follows that asphalt binder specifications would reflect this diversity. What's perhaps more striking is how much the specifications vary beyond climate alone: in base standard, test methodology, aging protocol, and the additional performance indicators each province chooses to require.

The ten provincial specifications reviewed here (2025) offer a rare opportunity to compare approaches side by side. This page organizes those comparisons across five dimensions: grading system, PAV conditioning, MSCR and rutting requirements, low-temperature cracking resistance, and additional tests beyond the base AASHTO standard.

Individual province specification sheets are available for download from the Asphalt Institute.

Interactive specification comparison

Use the tabs below to explore each dimension of the specifications. Hover over table rows for emphasis.

PG only (M320/MTQ)

AB, NL, ON, QC

PG only (M332 / MSCR)

NB, NS, PEI

Provinces using pen only

Saskatchewan

Provinces with both

BC and Manitoba

Specification family at a glance

Province	Base standard	PG classification	Additional requirements	PAV
AB Alberta	M320	PG	MSCR R_3.2, direct tension	PAV20
BC British Columbia	M320	PG + pen	Solubility, MSCR R_3.2	PAV20
MB Manitoba	M320	PG + pen	Direct tension, MSCR R_3.2 (PMA), pen legacy	PAV20
NB New Brunswick	M332	PG (M332)	MSCR J_nr tiers, phase angle δ	PAV20
NL Newfoundland & Labrador	M320	PG	Phase angle δ	PAV20
NS Nova Scotia	M332	PG (M332)	MSCR J_nr tiers, phase angle δ	PAV20
ON Ontario	M320	PG	CTOD, LTLG, grade loss, ash content, PPA limits, PAV40 (info)	PAV20 + PAV40
PEI Prince Edward Island	M332	PG (M332)	MSCR J_nr tiers, phase angle δ	PAV20
QC Québec	MTQ 4101	PG (MSCR)	Storage stability, solubility, ash content, MSCR R_3.2, critical T_b, PAV40 ΔT_c, n=U grade	PAV20 + PAV40
SK Saskatchewan	Own standard	Pen only	Viscosity-penetration chart (Figure 1)	TFO only

A tale of two frameworks. Most provinces have converged on M320 or M332 as their base standard — but Québec operates under its own MTQ 4101 (closely aligned with M332), and Saskatchewan remains on a penetration-grade system with no PAV conditioning whatsoever.

Saskatchewan is the only province still using penetration grading exclusively. BC and Manitoba maintain parallel pen-grade tables alongside their PG specifications — an interesting transitional position that reflects both legacy infrastructure and practical supplier realities.

Performance grade classes by province

Province	Lowest high grade	Highest high grade	Coldest low grade	Notable grades
AB	PG 46	PG 76	-40	46-34, 58-37/40, 64-37, 76-28
BC	PG 52	PG 76	-40	64-22, 76-28; pen 80–100A to 200–300A
MB	PG 58	PG 58	-40	58-34P / 37P / 40P (PMA suffix)
NB	PG 52	PG 70	flexible (-YY)	52n-YY, 58n-YY grades
NL	PG 52	PG 70	-40	52-40, 70-34
NS	PG 52	PG 70	flexible (-YY)	52n-YY, 58n-YY grades
ON	PG 52	PG 70	-40	52-40, 70-34; PPA limits by grade
PEI	PG 52	PG 70	-28	Narrower range; no cold grades below -28
QC	PG 52	PG 64	-40	52-34/40, 64-34; n=U grade unique to QC
SK	N/A (pen)	N/A (pen)	N/A	150–200A through 400–500A; 200–300B / 300–400B

Key grading distinctions

Flexible low-temperature grade (n-YY)NB, NS, PEI

n=U ultra-stiff MSCR grade (J_nr ≤ 0.15)QC only

PMA suffix grades (P)MB only

PG 76 availableAB, BC

PG 46 availableAB only

Supplier prequalification requiredSK, MB

Parallel pen-grade tables maintainedBC, MB

The Atlantic provinces (NB, NS, PEI) use an "n-YY" notation for grades where the low temperature is not prescribed upfront, allowing flexibility depending on local climate data or project requirements.

Nearly all PG provinces use a standard 20-hour PAV at either 90°C or 100°C. Ontario and Québec both go further with 40-hour PAV aging — though currently for informational purposes rather than pass/fail requirements. Saskatchewan uses only Thin Film Oven (TFO) aging, with no PAV.

PAV conditioning summary

Province	PAV20	PAV20 temperature	PAV40	Notes
AB	Yes	90°C (PG 46/52), 100°C others	No	Lower temp reflects softer grades in cold regions
BC	Yes	100°C	No	G*sinδ max 5000 kPa (most provinces: 6000)
MB	Yes	100°C	No	G*sinδ max 5000 kPa
NB	Yes	100°C	No	G*sinδ max 6000 kPa; phase angle required
NL	Yes	90°C (PG 52), 100°C others	No	G*sinδ max 6000 kPa; phase angle required
NS	Yes	100°C	No	G*sinδ max 6000 kPa; phase angle required
ON	Yes	90°C (PG 52), 100°C others	Informational	Uses Ontario LS-228 method; CTOD and ΔT_c on PAV40
PEI	Yes	100°C	No	G*sinδ max 6000 kPa; phase angle required
QC	Yes	90°C (soft grades), 100°C others	Informational	PAV40 achieved via 2×20h cycles; ΔT_c reported
SK	No	—	No	TFO residue only; penetration-grade system

PAV G*sinδ stiffness limit (kPa, max)

6000 kPa 5000 kPa N/A

NB, NS, PEI

6000 kPa

5000 kPa

N/A

The difference between 5000 and 6000 kPa as the G*sinδ ceiling reflects a more nuanced conversation about intermediate-temperature cracking — provinces with the 5000 kPa limit are, in effect, setting a stricter upper bound on binder stiffness after aging.

MSCR (Multiple Stress Creep Recovery) testing is now broadly adopted for evaluating rutting resistance in modified binders, but there is meaningful variation in how provinces apply it — some specify J_nr compliance limits, others require R_3.2 percent recovery, and some use both together.

MSCR approach by province

Province	J_nr limit	R_3.2 % recovery	J_nr,diff limit	Notes
AB	No	Yes	No	25–55% by grade; tested at 58°C
BC	No	Yes	No	25–55% for modified grades; unmodified grades exempt
MB	No	PMA only	No	25% (58-34P), 40% (58-37P / 58-40P)
NB	Yes	No	75% max	M332 traffic tiers: S / H / V / E
NL	No	No	No	M320 base; no MSCR requirement specified
NS	Yes	No	75% max	M332 traffic tiers: S / H / V / E
ON	Yes (<4.50)	Formula	Info only	R_3.2 ≥ lesser of 55% or [(29.371)(J_nr)^-0.263]; zone-based test temp
PEI	Yes	No	75% max	M332 traffic tiers: S / H / V / E
QC	Yes	Formula	75% max	n=U (≤0.15) unique to QC; R_3.2 formula; J_nr,diff exempt for n=E/U
SK	N/A	N/A	N/A	Penetration grading; no MSCR testing

M332 traffic loading tiers (NB, NS, PEI, and QC)

n = S StandardJ_nr3.2 ≤ 4.50 kPa^-1Low / standard traffic loading

n = H HeavyJ_nr3.2 ≤ 2.00 kPa^-1Heavy truck routes

n = V Very heavyJ_nr3.2 ≤ 1.00 kPa^-1Very heavy / slow traffic

n = E ExtremeJ_nr3.2 ≤ 0.50 kPa^-1Extreme (standing loads)

n = U Ultra (QC)J_nr3.2 ≤ 0.15 kPa^-1QC-exclusive ultra-stiff tier

Ontario's formula-based R_3.2 requirement — and Québec's parallel adoption of the same approach — represents an evolution beyond simple threshold compliance toward a more continuous performance relationship between creep and recovery.

Low-temperature cracking resistance is universally important in Canada, yet the test methods used to evaluate it vary considerably. BBR creep stiffness (AASHTO T313) is the common baseline. Ontario goes further with fracture toughness (CTOD) and a Low Temperature Limiting Grade requirement — representing the most comprehensive cold-climate testing framework of any province.

Low temperature test requirements by province

Province	BBR (T313)	Direct tension (T314)	CTOD (LS-299)	LTLG (LS-308)	Critical T_b	ΔT_c
AB	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
BC	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
MB	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
NB	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
NL	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
NS	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
ON	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Info only
PEI	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
QC	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Reported
SK	No	No	No	No	No	No

Ontario CTOD requirements (LS-299, at 15°C)

Grade	CTOD min (mm)	LTLG max (°C)
52-34	≥ 14.0	≤ -34.0
52-40	≥ 18.0	≤ -37.0
58-28	≥ 6.0	≤ -24.0
58-34	≥ 14.0	≤ -34.0
58-40	≥ 18.0	≤ -37.0
64-28	≥ 10.0	≤ -28.0
64-34	≥ 14.0	≤ -34.0
70-28	≥ 10.0	≤ -28.0
70-34	≥ 14.0	≤ -34.0

Grade loss must not exceed 6°C for all Ontario grades. The LTLG reflects the actual low-temperature critical cracking temperature, rather than the nominal low-temp grade designation.

Québec's critical low temperature (T_b) requirement similarly ensures the binder actually performs at or below the grade's nominal low temperature — a verification step not explicitly required in most other provinces.

Québec and Ontario stand out for the breadth of their additional requirements — each pursuing performance assurance through different testing philosophies. Both are worth examining carefully for researchers interested in the direction Canadian specifications may evolve.

Additional requirements beyond base AASHTO standard

Test / Requirement	Provinces	Standard	Limit / note
Ash content	QC, ON	ASTM D8078	0.50% max (QC); 0.40–0.60% max by grade (ON)
Storage stability	QC	LC 25-003	2°C max
Solubility	BC, QC	D2042 / T44	≤99.0% (QC upper); 99.0% min (BC); 99.5% min (SK/MB pen)
Residual agg. coverage (HRD)	QC	LC 25-009	95% min — HRD anti-strip grades only
Critical low temp T_b	QC	T313 derived	Must meet or exceed nominal low grade temperature
CTOD fracture toughness	ON	LS-299	6–18 mm at 15°C depending on grade
Low Temp Limiting Grade (LTLG)	ON	LS-308	Grade loss ≤ 6°C
Cross-over temperature Tδ45	ON	LS-319	Informational only
ΔT_c (low temp critical spread)	ON, QC	LS-320 / R28	Informational (ON); Reported on PAV40 (QC)
Direct tension % strain	AB, MB	T314	1.0% min at low-grade test temperature
Specific gravity	ON	T228	Report only
Phase angle δ (PAV residue)	NB, NS, PEI, NL, AB	T315	42° min (when G*sinδ ≥ 5000 kPa)
PPA limits	ON	—	0.5% max (70/64-34); 1.0% max others; no orthophosphoric acid
Silicone oil limit	ON	—	< 5 ppm across all grades
Warm mix / anti-strip testing	QC	MTQ 4101	Tested with additives present; HRD suffix appended
RTFO G*/sinδ (post-RTFO)	AB, BC, MB, ON, NL	T315	2.20 min — M320-based provinces
Viscosity-penetration chart	SK	Figure 1	Must fall within defined polygon; no PAV required

Ontario's use of province-specific LS-series test methods, and Québec's MTQ LC-series methods, mean that some requirements have no direct analogue in the national or AASHTO framework — an important consideration when comparing data across jurisdictions.

Points for further discussion

A few themes emerge from this comparative review that may be worth exploring further in research contexts.

The continued role of penetration grading. Saskatchewan's exclusive use of penetration grading is a reminder that the transition to performance-based specifications is not uniform — and that legacy systems can persist for practical, logistical, and economic reasons. Whether this creates measurable differences in long-term pavement performance compared to neighbouring provinces is an open empirical question.

Extended aging and its implications. Both Québec and Ontario have incorporated 40-hour PAV conditioning, currently for informational purposes. The collection of this data suggests both agencies are laying the groundwork for future pass/fail requirements. The ΔT_c metric in particular — which captures the separation between BBR-derived critical temperatures — has attracted growing research attention as an indicator of binder aging susceptibility.

Convergence and divergence in MSCR practice. While MSCR testing is now broadly adopted, the industry does not yet apply it uniformly. Some provinces require J_nr limits, others require R_3.2 recovery percentages, and Québec and Ontario both use a formula-based recovery requirement. Aligning these approaches — or understanding whether the differences are intentional — would benefit cross-provincial research.

Atlantic consistency as a model. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island have arrived at nearly identical specifications under AASHTO M332. This kind of regional harmonization reduces friction for suppliers and creates natural opportunities for shared research programs and data pooling — an approach other regions might consider.

We welcome comments, corrections, and contributions from researchers and practitioners across the country. Specification details evolve, and maintaining an accurate picture is a collective effort.