Comparison of fatigue analysis approaches for hot-mix asphalt to ensure a state of good repair.

Details

• Creators:
  Martin, Amy Epps ; Arambula, Edith ; Kutay, M. Emin ; Lawrence, James ; Luo, Xue ; Lytton, Robert
• Corporate Creators:
  Texas A&M Transportation Institute
• Corporate Contributors:
  United States. Dept. of Transportation. Research and Innovative Technology Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  Asphalt Mixtures Fatigue Cracking Field Tests Hot Mix Paving Mixtures Laboratory Tests Pavement Performance Stiffness Tension Tests
• Publication/ Report Number:
  SWUTC/13/600451-00012-1
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  Texas
• Corporate Publisher:
  Southwest Region University Transportation Center (U.S.)
• Abstract:
  Fatigue cracking is a primary form of distress in hot-mix asphalt. The long-term nature of fatigue due to repeated
  
  loading and aging and its required tie to pavement structure present challenges in terms of evaluating mixture
  
  resistance. This project focused on comparing stiffness and fatigue life output from two recently developed
  
  approaches that use repeated direct tension tests: the Modified Calibrated Mechanistic with Surface Energy
  
  (CMSE*) approach and the Push-Pull Viscoelastic Continuum Damage (PP-VECD) approach.
  
  The CMSE* and the PP-VECD approaches were applied to both laboratory and field specimens for two mixtures,
  
  one from SH 24 in the Paris (PAR) District and one from US 277 in the Laredo (LRD) District of the Texas
  
  Department of Transportation, and the results were compared. Both approaches can be used to characterize mixture
  
  fatigue resistance with relatively low variability. Based on stiffness, both approaches predict better resistance (lower
  
  stiffness) for the PAR mixture based on laboratory results but that the mixtures would have equivalent resistance
  
  based on field results for the CMSE* approach. There was also good agreement between laboratory and field
  
  specimens for the LRD mixture.
  
  The two approaches define fatigue failure in different ways, and thus the rankings of mixture resistance may be
  
  different. For the CMSE* approach, the stiffer LRD mixture based on laboratory specimens results in a longer
  
  fatigue life, while for the PP-VECD approach, this mixture results in a shorter fatigue life. In addition, the PP-VECD
  
  approach outputs significantly lower fatigue lives than the CMSE* approach does due to differences in the analysis
  
  including critical strain values and accumulation of damage.
  
  The CMSE* approach only requires a single test sequence, and thus fewer resources in terms of specimens and time
  
  are needed. However, the PP-VECD approach is more user friendly in terms of the analysis, and some of the
  
  required inputs (E*) can be used to evaluate mixture resistance to other distresses. Field specimens can be tested and
  
  analyzed using both approaches. Ultimately, the laboratory approach used should tie to field performance.
  
  
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  DTRT12-G-UTC06
• Collection(s):
  University Transportation Centers US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:db2164860c30e56c7d89e580e1b10e7fd0c1d9f232db025a73a346a9d8adf3aa
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/27380/dot_27380_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 582.12 KB ]