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:
  • Hot mix paving mixtures
  • Asphalt mixtures
  • Fatigue cracking
  • Tension tests
  • Pavement performance
  • Laboratory tests
  • Field tests
  • Stiffness
• 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.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  DTRT12-G-UTC06
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/27380/dot_27380_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 582.12 KB]
• Collection(s):
  University Transportation Centers ; US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:db2164860c30e56c7d89e580e1b10e7fd0c1d9f232db025a73a346a9d8adf3aa