This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

**Construction and Building Materials
**

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Evaluating and comparing different methods and models for generating relaxation modulus master-curves for asphalt mixes

Lubinda F. Walubita a, Allex E. Alvarez b,⇑, Geoffrey S. Simate c

a

TTI-Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX 77843, USA Department of Civil Engineering, University of Magdalena, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia c Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Based on a master-curve, mixture properties can be predicted or interpolated at different temperatures and loading times of interest from a limited set of laboratory test data. This paper presents a comparative assessment of three methods used for generating the relaxation modulus (E(t)) master-curves of hot-mix asphalt (HMA). These methods were the Arrhenius, the Williams–Landel–Ferry (WLF), and an optimization technique with the sum of square error (SSE) method. Experimental data (E(t) values) for different HMA mixtures were gathered by performing uniaxial loading (strain-controlled) relaxation modulus tests (RMT). The process for evaluating the three methods was based on using the same RMT laboratory data to generate E(t) master-curves and then comparing the best ﬁt functions. Corresponding results suggested that the SSE method generated the best ﬁt functions relative to the measured E(t) data. Unlike the Arrhenius and WLF models, the SSE is independent of external empirical material constants in its application and is universally applicable to any given material or HMA mix type. However, this study also demonstrated that both the Arrhenius and WLF methods can produce satisfactory (and in fact equivalent results) if appropriate constants, that are material or mix type speciﬁc, are used. Conclusively, the ﬁndings of this paper suggested that satisfactory application of the Arrhenius and WLF methods should be with caution, in particular with respect to the material constants. Otherwise, the SSE method proved to be more accurate and would be preferred. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Article history: Received 30 September 2010 Received in revised form 30 November 2010 Accepted 7 December 2010 Available online 30 December 2010 Keywords: Relaxation modulus Master-curve Material properties Uniaxial-direct loading Strained-controlled loading

1. Introduction A master-curve of a hot-mix asphalt (HMA) mixture property at any reference temperature (Tref) is deﬁned as the relationship between that property and the reduced loading time, frequency, or strain rate. A master-curve is used primarily to model HMA material properties (e.g., stiffness or modulus) at any temperature of interest based on the time–temperature superposition principle and measurements at multiple test temperatures as a function of either loading time, frequency, or strain rate. With a master-curve, mixture properties and/or behavior can be predicted or interpolated at different temperatures and loading times of interest from a limited set of laboratory test data [1]. In generating these mastercurves, the time–temperature superposition principle (for thermorheologically simple materials) is often used with the assumption that similar material properties can be obtained at different temperatures and loading times for HMA mixtures that exhibit linear visco-elastic behavior [2]. Chehab et al. [3] showed that the

time–temperature superposition principle may still hold even when the material linear visco-elastic condition is violated. To construct a master-curve, laboratory test data measured at different temperatures must be shifted relative to the loading time (or frequency or strain rate) so that the various curves representing the response at different test temperatures can be aligned to form a single curve called the master-curve. The master-curve is often constructed using a selected reference temperature of interest to which all data must be shifted using shift factors. With the aforementioned background, the objective of the work contained in this paper was to evaluate the various methods and models that can be satisfactorily used for generating the relaxation modulus (E(t)) master-curves, as a function of time and at a reference temperature of 20 °C. Three methods were evaluated in this paper and these are: (1) The Arrhenius method [4–6]. (2) The Williams–Landel–Ferry (WLF) method [7]. (3) The sum of square error (SSE) method with an optimization technique and the solver function in the Excel spreadsheet. The methodology for evaluating these three methods was based on using the same laboratory test data to generate E(t)

**⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +57 5 4301292; fax: +57 5 4303621.
**

E-mail addresses: lfwalubita@hotmail.com (L.F. Walubita), allexalvarez@yahoo. com (A.E. Alvarez), simateg@yahoo.com (G.S. Simate). 0950-0618/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.010

As demonstrated by Walubita et al. 3. r is the radius of the cylindrical HMA specimen (mm). [8]. 3. deformation (mm). In the paper. The test involved applying a constant uniaxialstatic trapezoidal-shaped strain to a cylindrical HMA specimen either in tension or compression for a given time period and then releasing the strain for another given time period. 2. and the 0. This relaxation is usually reﬂected in the decrease of E(t) over time in a strain-controlled RMT. a phenomenon generally known as stress relaxation. however. a static loading time of 60 s. The major difference among these methods is basically in the computation of the temperature shift factors (aT.5 °C through a thermocouple probe attached inside a dummy HMA specimen also placed in the same environmentaltemperature chamber as the test specimens.2620 L. (1). The temperatures were monitored and controlled to a tolerance of ±0. Relaxation modulus test loading conﬁguration. 1. The RMT was conducted in an environmental-temperature controlled chamber at temperatures of 10. The RMT conducted in this study used uniaxial static-direct loading in a strain-controlled mode and was considered to be non-destructive. A summary of ﬁndings and recommendations is then presented to conclude the paper. A 9. the stress builds up because of the HMA’s elastic nature but then relaxes at constant-ﬁxed strain because of its ability to undergo viscous ﬂow. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 master-curves as a function of reduced time at a reference temperature of 20 °C and then comparing the resulting curves through the coefﬁcient of correlation (R2). HMA specimens were.F.6% of PG 64-22 asphalt-binder and limestone aggregate was used and subjected to the RMT. and the SSE method. the relaxation modulus test (RMT) protocol is discussed ﬁrst. 2.6 s ramp time was equivalent to a ramp speed of 2 mm/min [10]. the value of aT(20C) is 1. and 30 °C on a log–log scale. Load 200 Microstrain 100 Rest Period 0 0 -100 200 400 600 800 Tension 1000 1200 1400 Compression -200 -200 Load Time (s) Fig. which was 200 le in this study (both in tension and compression). and performance prediction.5% [11]. the use of the Laplace (Euler) Gamma transformation functions in combination with elastic theory allows for the determination of the HMA complex dynamic shear modulus (G⁄) and viscosity (g0 ) from the RMT data. . and 30 °C starting with the lowest temperature so as to minimize any possible micro-damage. load (kN). E1 is the E(t) value at n = 1. the WLF method.0. 2. (2) [10]. and e is the applied input loading strain. Fig. For a reference temperature of 20 °C. and temperature (°C). with a target air void (AV) content of 7 ± 0. (3)). From the RMT. EðtÞ ¼ E1 nÀm n¼ t aT ð2Þ ð3Þ In Eqs. Results are then presented followed by a comparative discussion and synthesis of the results. 20. These methods include the Arrhenius method. respectively. Various methods for generating the E(t) master-curves are discussed and evaluated in subsequent sections of this paper. E(t) is calculated as indicated in Eq. a master-curve of E(t) versus reduced time n (s) can then be generated in the form of a simple power function shown in Eq. 1. thus also characterizing the shear properties of HMA [9. n and t are reduced and actual RMT time (s). design. EðtÞ ¼ Pðt Þ 1 Â 106 PðtÞ 5 Â 103 PðtÞ ﬃ ð ¼ Þ 200pr 2 pr 2 e pr 2 ð1Þ where E(t) is the time-dependent relaxation modulus (MPa). thereby allowing the specimen to rest or relax (elastic recovery). and m is the stress relaxation rate (0 6 m < 1). 200 le was equivalent to a displacement of 0. the measurable data include time (s). Superpave gyratory compactor molded cylindrical HMA specimens were used with ﬁnal dimensions of 100 mm in diameter by 150 mm in height. 1.0 s (MPa). The time-dependent E(t) obtained in the RMT is a function of time because of the visco-elastic nature of HMA. 2 shows an example of the measured E(t) data in tension at three test temperatures of 10. Eq.6 s. The RMT loading parameters consisted of an input strain magnitude of 200 le (tension or compression). a ramp time of 0. From the measured RMT data. Based on the RMT loading conﬁguration shown in Fig. 20.02 mm. preconditioned for at least 2 h. and a rest period of 600 s [10]. From the data shown in Fig. followed by the three methods of generating the E(t) master-curves.5 mm nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) densegraded HMA mix (denoted as Texas Type C mix) with 4. The parameter aT is the temperature shift factor. Walubita et al. The RMT loading conﬁguration is shown in Fig. P(t) is the measured load (kN). Under deformation. It should be emphasized here that the aT is the main driving force in the generation of any master-curve and is deﬁned as the shift factor at a temperature of interest Ti relative to the reference temperature. Methods for generating the relaxation modulus (E(t)) mastercurves The various methods and models for generating the E(t) mastercurves are discussed and evaluated in this section.10]. The total RMT time for each test temperature was approximately 25 min. Relaxation modulus (E(t)) under uniaxial loading testing E(t) is one of the fundamental mechanical properties that can be used to model the visco-elastic behavior of HMA for various purposes including material property characterization.

As shown in Fig. The results presented and analyzed in this section include the E(t) master-curves and the associated analysis parameters for the RMT data in tension loading mode only. the log format was used for both E(t) and time values.0.. the temperature unit was degrees Celsius (°C). however. a solver spreadsheet function is iteratively used to compute the best aTi. These empirical material constants Log ðaT Þ ¼ ÀC 1 ðT i À T ref Þ ðC 2 þ T i À T ref Þ ð 5Þ where C1 and C2 are empirically-determined material constants. The plots are for both the E(t) measured and E(t) predicted values (using a ﬁt function Eq. Results and analysis RMT data were analyzed as per Eq.28 for DHa ﬃ 261.3. Relaxation modulus (E(t)) master-curves The master-curves generated based on the Arrhenius. and m. For most analysis applications however. 3 with an analysis example shown in Fig. 3. Ti is the test temperature of interest in degrees Kelvin (K = 273 + °C). herein denoted as the ‘‘traditional Arrhenius method’’ [8]. Ca = DHa/ 2.2.0E+04 where E(t) (MPa) 1. aT30C.631.0. The sum of square error (SSE) method The SSE method is basically a spreadsheet optimization technique based on minimizing the sum of square error (SSE) between the measured E(t)meas and the predicted E(t)pred estimated using a ﬁt function. 2 are shown in Figs. are the most commonly reported Ci values that provide satisfactory results in the ‘‘traditional WLF method’’ [5. the rank order of generating a good ﬁt. (8). the spreadsheet will always generate the best ﬁt as close as it can get. 5–9. The Williams–Landel–Ferry (WLF) method The WLF time–temperature superposition model for computing aT is shown in Eq. aT30C P 0. the fundamental concept is basically to generate an E(t) ﬁt function by iteratively changing the aTi. and master-curves were then comparatively generated using Eqs. and m values (Eq. model formulation and appropriate setting of the solver parameters is critical in achieving satisfactory results.0E+03 10 C 20 C " # 5 Â 103 PðtÞ Log ½Eðt Þmeas ¼ Log pr2 Log ½Eðt Þpred ¼ Log ½E1 À mLog ½n ¼ Log ½E1 À mLog t aTi ð7Þ ð8Þ 1. Like for the Arrhenius method. Based on Figs. and SSE methods using the same RMT data given in Fig. the predicted E(t)pred using ﬁt functions at each test temperature were simultaneously computed as follows: 1.000 J/mol and Rg ﬃ 8. aT 10C t ﬃ Log ½E1 À mLog ½t ð9Þ Log ½Eðt Þpred@20C ¼ Log ½E1 À mLog aT 20C t ð10Þ 3. Ti is the selected temperature of interest (°C or K). Values of 19 and 92 for C1 and C2. 2. For convenience and simplicity. 4.e.L.314 J/(mol°K) is often used.0E+01 1 10 100 Log ½Eðt Þpred@10C ¼ Log ½E1 À mLog t Time (s) Fig. (2)–(12). This is not surprising because the SSE method uses only the laboratory determined RMT data. Walubita et al. and m values using the solver function subject to the primary condition that the SSE between E(t)meas and E(t)pred using a ﬁt function should be equal to zero. and Tref is the reference temperature (°C or K).1. Traditionally. aT20C = 1. 4. in particular for the E(t) measured values as a function of reduced time. The Arrhenius method Log ½Eðt Þpred@30C ¼ Log ½E1 À mLog Eq. the solver parameters were set as follows and are further demonstrated in Fig. Note. other Ca values were also investigated in this study and resulted in generating the ‘‘modiﬁed Arrhenius method’’. various other Ci constants were also evaluated for the WLF method in this study to generate the ‘‘modiﬁed WLF method’’. 4. that in this SSE method. Consequently. WLF. (1). (5) [7]: with this SSE method. Parameters to iteratively change: aT10C. Tref = 273 + 20 = 293 K in this study).F. E1.8].0. (4) is the Arrhenius time–temperature superposition model for computing aT [4]: aT 30C ð11Þ And the SSE is then given as follows: Log ðaT Þ ¼ C a 1 1 À T i T ref ð 4Þ SSE ¼ X ðLog ½EðtÞpred À Log ½Eðt Þmeas Þ2 ﬃ 0:00 ð12Þ where Ca is the material constant that is a function of the activation energy (DHa) and ideal gas constant (Rg) (i. Example of E(t) tension data measured at 10. 5–9.1.0E+02 30 C Based on Eq. E1.. 3. 100% iterative convergence with an SSE exactly equal to zero may not always be attained. However. Constraints: aT10C P 0. 20. whereas the other two methods do introduce external empirically-determined material constants in the analyses. (2)) to generate a ﬁt function master-curve that best ﬁts the measured E(t)meas. is the SSE method followed by the Arrhenius method and last. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 2621 1. respectively. (8)) as a function of reduced time (n) on log–log scales. For this study.g. 4: Target: SSE is equal to (or close to) zero. the WLF method. what is generally shown is a log–log plot of only the E(t) measured values versus reduced time (n). As discussed subsequently. and Tref is the reference temperature (K) (e. The SSE model formulations were as follows: Log ½EðtÞpred ¼ Log ½Eðt Þmeas ð 6Þ . In this method. E1.303Rg). a default Ca value of 13. and 30 °C.

However.950 4.32910 are obviously material/mix type dependent and their universal application should be used with caution.209 -0.352 2247.494 3.010 3.00026 0.233 3.466 2926. The E1 and m values including the aTi and R2 are com- parable among the three methods once the material constants for the Arrhenius and WLF methods (modiﬁed) were adjusted (e.425 5. Otherwise.358 2278.609 0. the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF results appear to be signiﬁcantly improved and comparable to the SSE method if different material constants (Ci) are used as shown in Figs.662 4587.790 0.228 -0.00011 SSE Fig.00007 0.625 0.493 3112. as shown in Table 1 for the Type C HMA mix studied). Based on Table 1 and considering only the new material constants (Ca = 12.863 Square (Error) (Log[Fit Fun]-Log [E(t)]) 2 0. and thus different Ci values should be used for different types of HMA to generate proper E(t) master-curves. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 Fig.265 E(t) Predicted (MPa) LOG(Fit Fun) Fit Function 3.00268 0.261 3. .00023 0.934 3.858 3.010 1.766 0.403 2475.327 3.986 3.370 2344.835 5.00017 0. the SSE method. Test Time t (s) 1.490 7.057 0.346 2218. This in fact indicates that even the two methods (modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF) can be satisfactorily applied to generate E(t) master-curves provided that appropriate material constants are used.g.406 2549.250 3.246 -0.743 0.00008 0.444 2777.415 2536.341 2190.00179 0.434 2713.00000 0.624 4205.377 2350.526 3353.328 3.386 2432. C2 = 214) for the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF methods.693 3733.466 2909.00017 0. provided that the appropriate material constants are used in the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF methods.198 3. Example of E(t) analysis based on the SSE method.172 -0.540 4.593 3914.292 3.181 -0.446 2749.702 3.691 3.900 7.00000 0.375 E(t) Measured (MPa) LOG(E(t)) 4926.572 3551.245 4.034 3.543 3.524 3.389 3.643 0.134 -0.00044 0.050 -1.706 3.445 3.455 2848.00004 0. which does not involve external data or empirical material constants. Comparison of analysis parameters Table 1 is a summary of the analysis and computed E(t) parameters used/determined when generating the master-curves shown in Figs.73.00010 0.F.364 2310.496 0.546 3299.386 2381. should be used.060 -1. 5–9.429 2600. Walubita et al.567 3688.195 7.00008 0.190 -0.367 2286. indicating that the three methods are not statistically different.00015 0.116 -0.475 2. 4.606 3.100 3.237 -0.920 3.722 3.391 3.412 3.106 -0.265 3.700 0.545 3506.041 -1.940 3.663 3.078 -1.550 3515.590 1.702 3.479 3014.424 2654.162 0.180 2.937 0.00002 0.00003 0.415 2600.295 1.492 2971.2.394 2430.00069 0.00023 0.130 5.655 3.721 0.518 3231.627 3.032 -1.088 -1.872 0.505 3106. the SSE method would be preferred because it yielded the best ﬁt function (see R2 value in Table 1) and it is also independent of the empirical material constants.359 2244.256 -0. Example of the Solver function formulation.969 3. C1 = 31.00015 0. This again reinforces the fact that these material constants are material/ mix type dependent. the statistics are as shown in Table 2.218 -0.404 2530.371 2326.508 3224. 0.388 0.308 3.593 0.634 3.398 2503.852 3.680 0. All the coefﬁcient of variation (COV) values in Table 2 are lower than the commonly used 20% threshold.864 3.015 3.654 3. 4.069 -1.351 Reduced Time (s) LOG( ) -1.00026 0. 3.391 2459.162 -0.015 6.377 2380.422 3.843 0.269 3.481 3.742 3.153 -0. However.125 -0.038 3.885 2.816 0..439 2682.299 0.106 0. 6 and 8.596 3.626 3.577 0.903 0.080 8.974 0.720 6.014 0.509 3200.630.838 3.303 3.065 3.770 3.661 0.200 -0.00096 0.168 3.225 0.464 2803.097 -0.473 2921.910 3.030 3.00018 0.605 6.310 6.00001 0.00018 0.384 2418.144 -0.785 8.360 3.459 3.2622 L.448 2789.

just like the SSE method.8t -0.0E+03 1. Tension E(t) master-curve based on the traditional Arrhenius method with Ca = 13631.0E+04 E(t) (MPa) E(t) (MPa) 1.0E+02 E(t) = 1250. Tension E(t) master-curve based on the traditional WLF method with C1 = 19 and C2 = 92.0E+01 0 1 100 10000 Reduced Time (s) Reduced Time (s) (a) E(t) Predicted – Fit function (b) E(t) Measured Fig.0E+04 1. The mix-design characteristics for this Superpave mix were 5. Walubita et al.0E+01 1.3345 1.3117 R 2 = 0.0E+04 E(t) (MPa) 10C 20C 30C E(t) (MPa) 1.9895 1.0E+03 1. one additional 12.0E+02 E(t) = 1345t R2 = 0. 1. instead different material constants should be explored.0E+02 -0.9977 1.2394 R2 = 0.0E+02 1.001 0.73.3.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Reduced Time (s) Reduced Time (s) (a) E(t) Predicted – Fit function (b) E(t) Measured Fig. Thus. 1. With the exception of the aT10C shift factor results in Table 4.001 0. In summary. 5.0E+04 E(t) (MPa) 10C 20C 30C E(t) (MPa) 100 10000 1.0E+03 1. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 2623 1.0E+03 1.F.L. The results also include Type C and Superpave HMA mixes aged for 6 months at 60 °C in an environmental temperature-controlled room. The results for the analysis and computed RMT parameters in tension are listed in Tables 3–5.0E+04 1.997 1. the different material constants used for the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF methods for different mix types yielded the best ﬁt functions for generating the E(t) master-curves. 6. with appropriate material constants. albeit that the SSE method yielded the best R2 value in all cases. As evident from the R2 values.0E+02 10C 20C 30C 1.81t -0. both the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF methods can be satisfactorily used to generate an E(t) master-curve for any given HMA mix.01 0.0E+00 0. the COV values generally indicate that the results do not differ signiﬁcantly among the three methods.5 mm NMAS dense-graded Superpave HMA mix was evaluated [10].0E+03 1. Tension E(t) master-curve based on the modiﬁed Arrhenius method with Ca = 12630. . Other examples To further investigate the effects of the material constants in the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF methods.0E+04 1.1 10 1000 100000 1.0E+01 0.0E+01 0 1 1. 4.0E+02 E(t) = 938. 7.0E+01 0 1 100 10000 0 1 100 10000 Reduced Time (s) Reduced Time (s) (a) E(t) Predicted – Fit function (b) E(t) Measured Fig.28.6% PG 64–22 asphalt-binder plus gravel aggregate plus 1% hydrated lime. it is clear from these results that using the same empirical material constants in the Arrhenius or WLF model may not always give the best ﬁt E(t) master-curves for different types of HMA.

56.4512 17.000 0.37 3.9987 The SSE method Table 3 Analysis and computed RMT parameters for the Superpave HMA mix.01 1 100 10000 1. satisfactory results can be obtained with either the modiﬁed Arrhenius or the WLF method.0405 0.526 1.0E+02 E(t) = 1374t -0.9785 COV (%) 1.3491 R2 = 0.01 0.9267 1.62 1.0057 0.797 1.0E+00 0.2624 L.9981 Standard deviation 17 0. if appropriate material constants are used. the WLF method.9979 Modiﬁed 1374 0.0681 0.000 0.1522 0.08 1084 0.86 1059 0.3336 1.000 0. C2 = 92 939 0.029 0. Parameter E1 (MPa) m aT10C aT20C aT30C R2 Mean 1354 0.29 0.0E+01 0.0E+02 20C 30C 1.9970 Traditional Ca = 12.00 13.0425 0.73 1345 0.00 16. C2 = 344. As demonstrated in this paper. the results indicated that the spreadsheet optimization technique with the SSE method gave the best ﬁt function for generating the E(t) master-curves of HMA.9857 The SSE method Statistics Mean 1076 0.0E+02 30C E(t) (MPa) 1.F.038 0.361. may not be satisfactorily applicable to all materials or HMA mixes.28 E1 (MPa) m aT10C aT20C aT30C R2 Comment 1. 251 0.000 0.9979 1. Walubita et al.01 0.0E+04 1.3402 32.6692 1.0000 0.000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Reduced Time (s) Reduced Time (s) (a) E(t) Predicted – Fit function Fig.2556 1.4314 15.000 0. Therefore. Parameter The Arrhenius method Ca = 13. the Ca constant which is a function of activation energy DH and gas constant Rg suggests that the Arrhenius model was not initially developed for HMA mixes.0E+04 E(t) (MPa) 10C E(t) (MPa) 1.00 0.28 2.0489 0.0E+02 E(t)= 1343. 9. The SSE method uses only the laboratory RMT data and does not incorporate externally introduced empirical constants in its analysis.9987 1.0601 0. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 1.239 207.9895 Traditional C1 = 31. Tension E(t) master-curve based on the modiﬁed WLF method with C1 = 31 and C2 = 214.0492 0.0137 0.3117 44.0E+01 0.630.3345 33.337 33.01 1 100 10000 1.0E+04 1.0E+01 0. these methods yielded almost similar results when varying material constants . (b) E(t) Measured Table 1 List of analysis and computed RMT parameters for the type C HMA mix.93 10.45 0. 1.7641 1.0000 0.0078 1.63 E1 m aT10C aT20C aT30C R2 Table 2 Statistics of analysis and computed RMT parameters for the type C HMA mix.28 3. 8.4656 17. As shown in this paper.4565 18. C2 = 214 1343 0.000 0. Tension E(t) master-curve based on the SSE method.05 5.50 0.9752 1085 0. Parameter The modiﬁed Arrhenius method Ca = 10.2t -0.631.0000 0.0E+03 1. Additionally. Discussion and synthesis of results Among the three methods evaluated in this paper.349 31.0631 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Reduced Time (s) Reduced Time (s) (a) E(t) Predicted – Fit function (b) E(t) Measured Fig.9747 The modiﬁed WLF method C1 = 42.0E+04 1.048 1.0005 Coefﬁcient of variation (COV) (%) 1.0E+03 1.000 0.3371 R2 = 0. followed by the Arrhenius method and lastly.363 1. However. the empirically determined constants in the Arrhenius and WLF methods are material/ mix type dependent and thus. these models may not always generate the best ﬁt functions for the E(t) master-curves for HMA mixes.0E+03 10C 20C E(t) (MPa) 1.9977 Modiﬁed The WLF method C1 = 19.

000 0.0493 280.9694 2909.9396 328. .9396 328.3725 305. Summary of ﬁndings and recommendations In this paper. Nonetheless.71.9705 990.9253 362.8850 2. However.6550 3.7240 1067.1111 1.2662 12.3812 E(t) 30 C (MPa) 973.000 0.1977 3106. specimen AV uniformity and homogeneity.3345 29.0E+04 E(t) (MPa) 1.7021 2921.9694 2909. and specimen fabrication (dimensions and parallelism of end-surfaces). Fig.8764 1.L.9066 990.02 0.0493 280. 10b is evident.F.0520 982.1t -0.6292 296.5426 2803. Raw data reduction process includes truncation of the often distorted ﬁrst series of the captured data to account for possible machine overshoot and test stabilization when the RMT begins.7641 1087.84 3792 0. three methods (the Arrhenius.0E+04 Time (s) 1. caution should always be exercised with the Arrhenius and WLF methods as the existing material constants in Table 4 Analysis and computed RMT parameters for the type C HMA mix – 6 months aged at 60 °C. 10.7021 2921.2814 899.3600 3.1800 2.29 6600 0.2450 E(t) 10 C (MPa) 4926.7065 3299. C2 = 214 6140 0.9066 990.77 0.000 0.2647 3200. Parameter The modiﬁed Arrhenius method Ca = 11.7700 3.9908 The modiﬁed WLF method C1 = 22. up to ﬁve data sets was still considered reasonably acceptable.5426 2803.8299 944.8637 E(t) 20 C (MPa) 1116. frequency of data capturing/recording.0000 0. Mean 3711 0.04190 0.7240 1067.3455 385. it may also be necessary at times to truncate the very last set of the captured data as the RMT approaches termination.0502 0.3492 R2 = 0. RMT data consistency is a function of many variables including both the set-up and parameters of the RMT. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 2625 were included.9705 990.0E+02 E(t) = 1375.5488 863. C2 = 164.4750 2.2264 33.0025 1.3000 1.997 1.5488 863.4590 3515.4t -0.3031 3551.3377 26. The uniaxial-direct loading RMT was conducted in strain-controlled mode with a strain input load of 200 le E1 m aT10C aT20C aT30C R2 Time (s) 0.3365 23.88 3749 0.0650 3.9202 2971.9859 7445 0.84 8.9343 316.9500 4.8637 E(t) 20 C (MPa) 1739.0472 0.000 0. machine noises/vibrations.1111 E(t) (MPa) 1. How much data to truncate is often a subjective decision that depends on the RMT set-up.07 44.000 0.0413 0.3757 343.7973 1.01 1 100 10000 Reduced Time (s) (b) Full RMT Data Set 1.9944 The SSE method Statistics Mean 6728 0.4750 2.0E+01 0.9812 1258.04954 0.9500 4.9605 1.0520 982. WLF.0474 0.0456 1.3493 R2 = 0.9956 The SSE method Statistics these models were developed based on different materials and may not be readily applicable to HMA mixes.000 0.2858 288.3600 3.6632 3231.10 0.9343 316. For the same reasons.43 E1 m aT10C aT20C aT30C R2 Table 5 Analysis and computed RMT parameters for the Superpave HMA mix – 6 months aged at 60 °C.2814 899. Walubita et al.1279 1. 10 shows the effects of truncating and discarding the ﬁrst series of the two RMT data sets on the E(t) master-curves.7700 3.01 1 100 10000 Reduced Time (s) (a) First Two RMT Data Sets Truncated Fig.00 9.9930 COV (%) 2.585. truncating the ﬁrst two data sets in every RMT proved satisfactory [10]. Parameter The modiﬁed Arrhenius method Ca = 11.8850 2. Effects of truncating the ﬁrst two series of the RMT data set (tension loading mode).2950 1.0E+03 1.6632 3231. even in the R2 value. The improvement in Fig.9926 3591 0.5900 1.17 11. it should be emphasized here that generation of satisfactory master-curves is also largely dependent on the RMT test data consistency and the RMT raw data reduction process.0000 0.3812 E(t) 30 C (MPa) 362.9202 2971.6550 3.311.85 1.6292 296.58 0.0E+02 E(t) = 1377.0E+01 0. and the operator and/or the person analyzing the testing data.4590 3515. In this study.8299 944.7074 274.2647 3200.0028 1.2026 796.998 1.24 6.9372 1116.7074 274.0E+03 1.2026 796.0473 0.3757 343.2473 23.3421 24.9397 3733.0532 0.7641 1087.1017 268.2858 288.9892 The modiﬁed WLF method C1 = 31.5900 1.00 12.2466 23.1977 3106. and SSE) were comparatively evaluated for generating relaxation modulus (E(t)) master-curves of HMA as a function of time and at a reference temperature of 20 °C.2450 E(t) 10 C (MPa) 3551.9898 COV (%) 9. Thus.7065 3299.0650 3.1800 2.0832 1.1017 268.3725 305.

with a rest period of 600 s between the tension and compression loading cycles. and machine noises/vibrations signiﬁcantly affect the RMT data consistency and efforts should always be taken to minimize these effects. Energy and ﬁnite element methods in structural mechanics. Netherlands: Delft University of Technology. Huurman M. followed by the Arrhenius method and lastly. the major advantage of the SSE method is that it revolves around the actual RMT data without introducing any external constants in its application when generating a master-curve. Application of calibrated mechanistic fatigue analysis with aging effects. 2004. DC. nor is it intended for design. Lee Gustavus. the WLF method. In: 3rd EuroBitumen Congress. Clauwaert C. the data and results presented herein can be used as a reference benchmark for selecting the appropriate methods and models for generating E(t) master-curves for HMA mixes. [4] Francken L. Conclusively. 20.77:3701–6. Furthermore. Austria. College Station. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 2619–2626 (equivalent to 0. 2004. [9] Shames IH.2626 L. generation of satisfactory E(t) master-curves is also dependent on many other factors including the RMT data consistency and the RMT raw data reduction process. As a concluding remark. 1985. In particular. Truncation of the often distorted ﬁrst and/or last series of the RMT captured test data is one of the critical and subjective aspects of the RMT raw data reduction process. Molenaar AAA.F. the SSE method would be most preferred. J Appl Phys 1955. Florida. the laboratory assistance provided by the following people is gratefully acknowledged: Vivekram Umashankar. For this study. speciﬁcation. truncating up to the ﬁrst ﬁve series of the captured data was found to be satisfactory. In: Annual meeting of the asphalt paving technology. Roque R. Kim YR. 2007. particularly with RMTs conducted in strain-controlled loading mode. Otherwise. TX: Texas Transportation Institute-Texas A&M University. USA: AAPT. Texas A&M University. On the computation of master curves for bituminous mixes. SHRP-A-357. Use of binder rheology to predict the cracking performance of SBS modiﬁed mixtures. Time– temperature superposition for asphalt concrete mixtures with growing damage in tension state. Landel RF. such inﬂuencing factors as discussed in this paper need to be taken into account as potential sources of errors in the ﬁnal results. Report No. 2002. Birgisson B. [3] Chehab GR. This paper does not constitute a standard. Temperature dependence of relaxation mechanisms in amorphous polymers and other glass-forming liquids. Thus. contracting. construction. [7] Williams ML. Jeff Perry. [8] Walubita LF. and raw data reduction process) that inﬂuence the accuracy and satisfactory generation of E(t) mastercurves. However. Jung HS. bidding. vol. 130–44 [5] Lytton R. and 30 °C). the ﬁndings of this paper suggests that satisfactory application of the Arrhenius and WLF methods should be with caution. Witczak MW. the traditional Arrhenius and WLF methods use externally and already existing empirically determined constants that are material/mix type dependent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. The ramp speed was 2 mm/min and the static sitting-loading time was 60 s. Kim B. Ferry JD. RMT parameters and set-up. and may thus often give unsatisfactory results. Hiltmen D. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to all those who provided support (ﬁnancial or technical) in the course of this research work. Based on the RMT tension data analyzed in this paper. the analysis conducted demonstrated that both the modiﬁed Arrhenius and WLF methods can produce satisfactory and in fact. while only two mixes were used as demonstrative examples in this paper. Colorado. PhD dissertation. 1988. Nonetheless. The contents do not necessarily reﬂect the ofﬁcial views or policies of any agency. Additionally. Uzan J. Fernando EG. TxDOT – online manuals. Dym CL. this spreadsheet optimization technique with the SSE method is universally applicable to any data set and any material/HMA mix type. [11] TxDOT. equivalent results if appropriate material constants are used in the models. However. 2006. . Trade names were used solely for information and not for product endorsement. Schapery RA. References [1] Roque R. TxDOT. How much data to truncate is a subjective decision and to a large extent depends on the RMT set-up and the frequency of RMT data capturing/recording. [6] Jacobs MMJ. Cui Z. Walubita et al. Development and validation of performance prediction models and speciﬁcations for asphalt binders and paving mixtures. 1995. 2006. a similar methodological approach can be applied to other HMA mixes or materials. [10] Walubita LF. Rick Canatella. the success of the SSE method is largely dependent on the appropriateness of the model formulation process and setting of the solver parameters to achieve satisfactory results. or permit purposes. In contrast. Florida Department of Transportation. In particular. Epps Martin A. p. when generating E(t) master-curves. Guidelines for use of modiﬁers in Superpave mixtures. Between these two methods. In: 6th international conference on the structural design of asphalt pavements. Colorado Springs. Bonaquist R. Park ES. Report FHWA/TX05/0-4468-3. Comparison of fatigue analysis approaches for predicting fatigue lives of hot-mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) mixtures. TX. Variables such as the specimen AV uniformity and homogeneity. 2. Compared to the other two methods. especially with respect to the material constants. Characterization and structural assessment of bound materials for ﬂexible road structures. and Tony Barbosa. College Station. [2] Medani TO. Disclaimer The contents of this paper reﬂect the views of the authors who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. 1993. the study provides researchers and the scientiﬁc community with information on some of the key laboratory and RMT variables (such as data consistency. Crack growth in asphaltic mixes. Stoffels S. Washington. the SSE was found to be the best method for generating a ﬁt function for the E(t) master-curves. Glover CJ.02 mm vertical displacement) at three test temperatures (10. Vienna. specimen fabrication (dimensions and parallelism of end-surfaces). the modiﬁed Arrhenius would be recommended over the modiﬁed WLF on the basis that it yielded a better E(t) ﬁt function.