applied

sciences
Article
Assessment of Thermal Stresses in Asphalt Mixtures
at Low Temperatures Using the Tensile Creep Test
and the Bending Beam Creep Test
Marek Pszczola * , Mariusz Jaczewski and Cezary Szydlowski
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdansk University of Technology, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland;
marjacze@pg.edu.pl (M.J.); cezszydl@pg.edu.pl (C.S.)
* Correspondence: mpszczol@pg.edu.pl; Tel.: +48 58 347-27-82




Received: 31 January 2019; Accepted: 22 February 2019; Published: 27 February 2019


Abstract: Thermal stresses are leading factors that influence low-temperature cracking behavior of
asphalt pavements. During winter, when the temperature drops to significantly low values, tensile
thermal stresses develop as a result of pavement contraction. Creep test methods can be suitable for
the assessment of low-temperature properties of asphalt mixtures. To evaluate the influence of creep
test methods on the obtained low-temperature properties of asphalt mixtures, three point bending and
uniaxial tensile creep tests were applied and the master curves of stiffness modulus were analyzed.
On the basis of creep test results, rheological parameters describing elastic and viscous properties of
the asphalt mixtures were determined. Thermal stresses were calculated and compared to the tensile
strength of the material to obtain the failure temperature of the analyzed asphalt mixtures. It was
noted that lower strain values of creep curves were obtained for the Tensile Creep Test (TCT) than
for the Bending Beam Creep Test (BBCT), especially at lower temperatures. Results of thermal stress
calculations indicated that higher reliability was obtained for the viscoelastic Monismith method
based on the TCT results than for the simple quasi-elastic solution of Hills and Brien. The highest
agreement with the TSRST results was also obtained for the Monismith method based on the TCT
results. No clear relationships were noted between the predicted failure temperature and different
methods of thermal stress calculations.

Keywords: asphalt mixture; low-temperature cracking; Tensile Creep Test (TCT); Bending Beam
Creep Test (BBCT); tensile strength; thermal stress

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
Low-temperature cracking of asphalt pavements can be a serious problem in regions where
the temperature drops to extremely low values, such as −20 ◦ C or lower. When the pavement is
cooled to a temperature significantly lower than 0 ◦ C, tensile stresses develop in the asphalt layer as a
result of the pavement’s tendency to contract. During winter, low-temperature cracks develop at the
surface of the pavement when tensile thermal stress induced in the asphalt layer during cooling equals
and exceeds the tensile strength of the material [1–6]. Under repeated temperature cycles, the crack
can penetrate to the full depth of the asphalt layers. As a consequence, the existence of transverse
cracks caused by extremely low temperature leads to degradation of the pavement structure by water
entering through the cracks. According to the literature, the addition of additives such as sulfur [7],
bio-agents [8], rubber-bitumen granulate [9] or composition of polymer-rubber modified bitumen [10]
can improve the low-temperature performance of asphalt mixtures. Zhao et al. [11] assessed the effect
of mineral fiber addition on the bending creep test results at low temperatures. It was concluded that

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846; doi:10.3390/app9050846 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 2 of 20

adding mineral fiber increased the creep rate of asphalt mixtures, and low-temperature properties
were improved. The problem of thermal stresses is important not only in asphalt layers but also in
concrete pavements subjected to seasonal and daily changes of temperature [12,13].
Tensile thermal stresses that occur in the asphalt layers during cooling are very difficult to measure
directly in the pavement structure. Therefore, correct analytical estimation of thermal stresses is of
crucial importance for evaluation of asphalt binders and design of asphalt mixtures. Calculation
of tensile thermal stresses in asphalt pavements has been a subject of research for over 50 years.
Viscoelastic solutions for thermal stresses were developed in the early 1960s by Muki and Sternberg [14],
Lee and Rogers [15] and Humpreys and Martin [16]. This approach was dedicated to a specific class
of polymers and used the temperature-dependent viscoelastic material parameters. The viscoelastic
solution was also adopted in 1965 by Monismith et al. [17]. The basic viscoelastic equation for thermal
stress calculation is as follows: Z t
δε(ξ )
σ(t) = E(t − ξ ) dξ (1)
0 δξ
where: σ (t)–thermal stress in a viscoelastic slab at time t, E(t)–relaxation modulus of the viscoelastic
slab as a function of time t, ε – thermal strain induced in the viscoelastic slab by change of temperature
and calculated as:
ε(ξ ) = α T [ T (ξ ) − T0 ] (2)

where: α T –linear coefficient of thermal expansion, ξ–reduced time associated with time and
temperature: ξ = atT and a T –temperature shift factor, T (ξ )–pavement temperature at reduced time ξ,
T0 –pavement temperature when σ (t) = 0.
The viscoelastic solution presented in Equations (1) and (2) has been used for calculation of thermal
stresses in asphalt layers by several researchers [18–25]. This method has also been incorporated in
the new AASHTO mechanistic-empirical method of pavement design [26] as well as the AASHTO PP
42-02 [27] and ASTM D6816-11 [28] standards.
In 1966, Hills and Brien introduced a simple quasi-elastic solution for calculation of thermal
stresses [29]. Due to the fact that asphalt mixtures are viscoelastic materials with time-temperature
dependent properties, the basic disadvantage of this method is that the viscoelastic nature of
bituminous material and stress relaxation behavior is not fully considered. Nevertheless, mainly
for its simplicity, the Hills and Brien method of thermal stress calculation has been used in several
research papers [30–34]. In this method the thermal stresses are calculated from the following equation:
n
1
σ(T ) =
1−ν ∑ S(t, Ti )·α T ·∆T (3)
i =1

where: σ ( T )–thermal stress induced in an asphalt layer at temperature T, ν–Poisson’s ratio of the
asphalt layer, S(t, T )–stiffness modulus of the asphalt layer as a function of time of loading t and
temperature Ti , α T –coefficient of thermal expansion of the asphalt layer, ∆T–increment of temperature
assumed in calculations, i = 1, . . . , n–steps in calculations, Ti temperature at step i and Ti = Ti−1 + ∆T.
Thermal stresses can be also assessed in laboratory and the results of thermal stress calculations
can be then compared to the laboratory test results. In the research of Qian et al. [35], thermal
viscoelasticity theory was applied to simulate the Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Test (TSRST).
Gajewski and Langlois [36] modeled the TSRST results using the finite element method in a frame of
thermo-mechanics with a “weak coupling” between thermal and mechanical effects. As an alternative
to the TSRST method, the Asphalt Concrete Cracking Device (ACCD) was developed by Akentuna et al.
to study thermal stress development in asphalt mixtures [37]. Yavuzturk and Ksaibati [38] developed a
computer model using a transient, two-dimensional finite volume approach to mathematically describe
the thermal response of asphalt pavements to thermal environmental conditions on an hourly basis.
Creep tests are the most common tests used to assess low-temperature properties of asphalt mixtures
in laboratory conditions [39–43]. Thermal stresses can be also calculated on the basis of test results of
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 3 of 20

asphalt mixture samples cored from existing pavement structures [44]. The innovative nature of this
paper is the application of the tensile creep test procedure and its evaluation for the assessment of low
temperature properties. The nature of thermal stresses that are built up in the asphalt pavement when
the temperature decreases is tension rather than bending. Most of the research projects concerning
thermal stresses calculation are based on bending tests. A more detailed study of tensile behavior and
its comparison with previous test results based on three point bending test seems to be important.

1.2. Objectives
The main objective of the paper is to assess the influence of creep test methods on the obtained
results of low-temperature properties of asphalt mixtures, especially the thermal stresses induced
in asphalt pavement by a decrease in temperature during winter. For this purpose, three point
bending and uniaxial tensile creep tests were applied and the master curves of stiffness modulus were
analyzed. Rheological parameters describing elastic and viscous properties of the asphalt mixtures
were determined on the basis of creep test results. Burgers’ rheological model was used to calculate
the rheological parameters. Thermal stresses were calculated and compared to tensile strength of the
material to obtain the failure temperature of the analyzed asphalt mixtures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Bitumen
Three types of neat road bitumen–35/50, 50/70 and 70/100, produced according to EN 12591
standard [45] and one polymer Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene modified bitumen 45/80-55, produced
according to EN 14023 standard [46], were selected for the assessment of low-temperature creep
properties of asphalt mixtures. Standard properties of the bitumen used in this research are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Properties of bitumen.

Type of Bitumen
Property 35/50 50/70 70/100 45/80-55
◦ C,
Penetration at 25 0.1 mm, Original 45 54 81 60
acc. to PN-EN 1426 RTFOT 28 40 48 40
R&B Temperature, ◦ C, Original 53.0 50.8 47.8 68.6
acc. to PN-EN 1427 RTFOT 57.8 57.8 53.4 67.4
Performance Grade,
70-16 64-22 58-22 70-22
acc. to AASHTO M 320
Fraass Breaking Point
Original −6 −14 −16 −16
Temperature, ◦ C, acc. to
RTFOT −3 −12 −10 −15
PN-EN 12593

2.1.2. Asphalt Mixtures

Laboratory tests were conducted on three types of asphalt mixtures: two wearing course asphalt
concretes–AC 11 S for low traffic (LT) and AC 11 S for medium traffic (MT) – as well as one binder
course asphalt concrete AC 11 W for medium traffic (MT). All mixes were designed in compliance
with the EN 13108-1 standard [47] and were prepared in the laboratory [48]. The mixture type AC
11 S (MT) was designed in two variants (using the neat 50/70 bitumen and the modified 45/80-55
bitumen), therefore, a total of four different asphalt mixtures was used in the test. The compositions of
mixtures and types of bitumen used are presented in Table 2.
 S (MT) was designed in two variants (using the neat 50/70 bitumen and the modified 45/80-55
bitumen), therefore, a total of four different asphalt mixtures was used in the test. The compositions
of mixtures and types of bitumen used are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Properties of asphalt mixtures.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 4 of 20
Type of mixtures
Asphalt mixture AC 11 S AC 11 S AC 11 W
Table 2. Properties of asphalt mixtures.
Type of layer wearing course wearing course binder course
Type of traffic low traffic (LT) medium traffic
Type of (MT)
Mixtures medium traffic (MT)
Asphalt 50/70
Bitumen typeMixture 70/100AC 11 S AC 11 S AC 1135/50
W
Type of layer wearing course
45/80-55
wearing course binder course
Binder content (%traffic
Type of by low
5.8 traffic (LT) medium5.6traffic (MT) medium traffic
5.6(MT)
mass) 50/70
Bitumen type 70/100 35/50
Aggregate type crushed gravel 45/80-55
crushed gneiss crushed gneiss
Binder content (% by mass) 5.8 5.6 5.6
Filler type limestone limestone limestone
Aggregate type crushed gravel crushed gneiss crushed gneiss
Sieve sizeFiller
(mm) type limestone % Passing (by mass)
limestone limestone
16
Sieve size (mm)
100 100
% Passing (by mass)
100
11.2 97 98 98
16 100 100 100
8 11.2 83 97 77
98 98
83
5.6 8 71 83 62
77 83 65
4 5.6 60 71 52
62 65 54
2 4 40 60 52
39 54 43
2 40 39 43
0.125 11 11 12
0.125 11 11 12
0.063 0.063 8.0 8.0 7.2
7.2 7.4 7.4

2.2. Methods
2.2. Methods
2.2.1.Tensile
2.2.1. TensileCreep
CreepTest
Test(TCT)
(TCT)
Tensilecreep
Tensile creepproperties
propertiesofofasphalt
asphaltmixtures
mixturesatatlowlowtemperatures
temperatureswere
wereassessed
assessedbybymeans
meansofofthe
the
Tensile Creep Test (TCT) method according to EN 12697-46 standard [49]. In the TCT,
Tensile Creep Test (TCT) method according to EN 12697-46 standard [49]. In the TCT, the specimen is the specimen
is subjected
subjected to ato a constant
constant tensile
tensile stress
stress σ at aσ constant
at a constant temperature
temperature T. TheT.progression
The progression
of theof the strain
strain ε withε
withistime
time is recorded.
recorded. According
According to the standard,
to the standard, it is recommended
it is recommended to maintain
to maintain the constant
the constant load for load
8h
and, after unloading, record the regression for additional 2 h. The principle of the TCT is the
for 8 h and, after unloading, record the regression for additional 2 h. The principle of TCTinis
shown
shown1.in Figure 1.
Figure

Figure 1. Principle of the Tensile Creep Test (TCT); where: X–time, Y1–strain, Y2–temperature,
Figure 1. Principle of the Tensile Creep Test (TCT); where: X–time, Y1–strain, Y2–temperature, Y3–
Y3–stress, [49].
stress, [49].

In the TCT method, the specimens were loaded in order to achieve a constant tensile stress at a
In the TCT method, the specimens were loaded in order to achieve a constant tensile stress at a
constant temperature. The stress levels were determined in relation to tensile strength results from the
constant temperature. The stress levels were determined in relation to tensile strength results from
Uniaxial Tension Stress Test (UTST). In the UTST, a specimen is pulled with a constant strain rate at
the Uniaxial Tension Stress Test (UTST). In the UTST, a specimen is pulled with a constant strain rate
a constant temperature until failure. Results of the UTST are: the maximum stress (tensile strength)
at a constant temperature until failure. Results of the UTST are: the maximum stress (tensile strength)
βt (T) and the corresponding tensile failure strain εfailure (T) at the test temperature T. In this research,
βt(T) and the corresponding tensile failure strain εfailure(T) at the test temperature T. In this research,
the Tensile Stress Restrained Specimen Test (TSRST) method was used as well. The results from the
the Tensile Stress Restrained Specimen Test (TSRST) method was used as well. The results from the
TSRST were compared to thermal stresses calculated based on the results from the creep test methods.
TSRST were compared to thermal stresses calculated based on the results from the creep test methods.
The results of the TSRST procedure are: the progression of the thermal stress over the temperature
The results of the TSRST procedure are: the progression of the thermal stress over the temperature
σcry (T) and the failure stress σcry , failure (T) at the failure temperature Tfailure . The results from the UTST
and TSRST have been published and discussed in a separate paper [6]. In the TCT method, the level of
the stresses applied was determined as the percentage of the maximum stress βt (T) from the UTST at a
given test temperature. Temperatures and stresses applied in the TCT are presented in Table 3 and in
Figure 2.
σcry(T) and the failure stress σcry, failure(T) at the failure temperature Tfailure. The results from the UTST and
TSRST have been published and discussed in a separate paper [6]. In the TCT method, the level of
the stresses applied was determined as the percentage of the maximum stress βt(T) from the UTST at
a given test temperature. Temperatures and stresses applied in the TCT are presented in Table 3 and
in Figure
Appl. 2. 9, 846
Sci. 2019, 5 of 20

Table 3. Test conditions for the Tensile Creep Test (TCT), [49].
Table 3. Test conditions for the Tensile Creep Test (TCT), [49].
Percentage of the maximum stress βt(T)
Test temperature T, °C
◦ Percentage of the Maximum Stress βt (T) Obtained
Test Temperature T, C obtained from the UTST, %
from the UTST, %
+20 5
+20 5
+5 10
+5 10
−10
−10 30 30
−20
−20 50 50
−30
−30 50 50

10
Uniaxial tensile stress. MPa

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Temperature. °C
UTST results (neat bitumen)
UTST results (SBS modified bitumen)
Assumed TCT stress level (SBS modified bitumen)
Assumed TCT stress level (neat bitumen)

Stresslevels
Figure2.2.Stress
Figure levelsatattest
testtemperatures
temperaturesapplied
appliedin
inthe
theTensile
Tensile Creep
Creep Test
Test (TCT).

The specimens
The specimens were were tested
tested using
using aa “TSRST-MULTI”
“TSRST-MULTI” Multi
Multi Station
Station Thermal
Thermal Asphalt
Asphalt System
System
(PAVETEST,
(PAVETEST, Italy) device with servo hydraulic equipment. The equipment and test setup used
Appl. Sci. 2019, xItaly) device with servo hydraulic equipment. The equipment and test setup used
are
are
6 of 20
presented in Figure
presented in Figure 3. 3.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Tensile Creep Test (TCT) and Uniaxial Tension Stress Test (UTST) setup: (a) photograph of
Figure
the 3. Tensile
specimens Creep
during theTest
test,(TCT) and Uniaxial
(b) schematic view.Tension Stress Test (UTST) setup: (a) photograph of
the specimens during the test, (b) schematic view.

Three specimens were tested for each asphalt mixture and test temperature (both in the TCT or
the UTST). The specimens were sawn from slabs compacted in the laboratory according to EN 12697-
33 [50], in order to obtain the specimen shape of prismatic beam with dimensions of 40 × 40 × 160
mm. The specimens were sawn from the middle of the slab with the distance of each specimen to the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 6 of 20

Three specimens were tested for each asphalt mixture and test temperature (both in the TCT or the
UTST). The specimens were sawn from slabs compacted in the laboratory according to EN 12697-33 [50],
in order to obtain the specimen shape of prismatic beam with dimensions of 40 × 40 × 160 mm.
The specimens were sawn from the middle of the slab with the distance of each specimen to the border
being at least 20 mm. In the TCT and UTST procedures, the specimens were tested at constant test
temperatures: −20 ◦ C, −10 ◦ C, +5 ◦ C and +20 ◦ C. In the case of asphalt mixture with SBS-polymer
modified bitumen, the specimens were also tested at the temperature of −30 ◦ C. The constant strain rate
applied in the UTST was ∆ε = 0.625 ± 0.025 %/min, which corresponds to tension rate of 1 mm/min.
The TCT procedure comprises two main stages. In the first stage, the prismatic specimen is
subjected to constant load for 28,800 s (8 h). In the second stage, after the specimen is unloaded, and
its regression is recorded for 7200 s according to the EN 12697-46 standard [49].

2.2.2. Bending Beam Creep Test (BBCT)

The basic procedure of the Bending Beam Creep Test (BBCT) was developed by Judycki [51]
and later improved and described by Pszczola et al. [39]. In the test at least 5 prismatic
specimens (50 × 50 × 300 mm) are used for every test temperature. Specimens are sawn from plates
(300 × 300 × 50 mm) of the asphalt mixture, compacted using a standard laboratory roller compactor.
The degree of compaction is equal to 99% of Marshall specimen bulk density. The BBCT was conducted
at four temperatures: −20 ◦ C, −10 ◦ C, 0 ◦ C and +10 ◦ C. Before the test, each specimen was subjected
to the temperature of the test for 12 h. A specimen mounted in the test equipment and its schematic
Appl. Sci. 2019, x 7 of 20
view are presented in Figure 4.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Bending Beam Creep Test: (a) specimen mounted in the Bending Beam Creep tester;
Figure 4. Bending
(b) schematic view Beam
[39]. Creep Test: (a) specimen mounted in the Bending Beam Creep tester; (b)
schematic view [39].
Stress levels and test temperatures in the Bending Beam Creep Test are presented in Figure 5.
Stress levels and test temperatures in the Bending Beam Creep Test are presented in Figure 5.

10
Bending strength / Stress, MPa

0
-20 -10 0 10
Test temperature,°C
3 point bending with constant displacement test results (Bending strength)

Assumed value of the stress in the cross-section of the 3 point bending with constant load
(~30% of strength)
 (a) (b)

Figure 4. Bending Beam Creep Test: (a) specimen mounted in the Bending Beam Creep tester; (b)
schematic view [39].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 7 of 20
Stress levels and test temperatures in the Bending Beam Creep Test are presented in Figure 5.

10

Bending strength / Stress, MPa

8

0
-20 -10 0 10
Test temperature,°C
3 point bending with constant displacement test results (Bending strength)

Assumed value of the stress in the cross-section of the 3 point bending with constant load
(~30% of strength)

Stresslevels
Figure5.5.Stress
Figure levelsatatvarious
varioustest
testtemperatures
temperaturesapplied
appliedininthe
theBending
BendingBeam
BeamCreep
CreepTest
Test(BBCT).
(BBCT).

2.3. Method of Calculation of Rheological Properties

2.3. Method of Calculation of Rheological Properties
On the basis of TCT and BBCT results, rheological parameters describing elastic and viscous
On the basis of TCT and BBCT results, rheological parameters describing elastic and viscous
properties of the asphalt mixtures were determined. Burgers’ rheological model was used to calculate
properties of the asphalt mixtures were determined. Burgers’ rheological model was used to calculate
the rheological parameters that were later utilized for calculation of thermal stresses. Burgers’ model
the rheological parameters that were later utilized for calculation of thermal stresses. Burgers’ model
parameters are determined using the least square method. For this purpose, each of the creep curves is
parameters are determined using the least square method. For this purpose, each of the creep curves
described using Equation (4), where Burgers’ model parameters are treated as fitting parameters.
is described using Equation (4), where Burgers’ model parameters are treated as fitting parameters.
11 t𝑡 11 h
 i
( −λt )
T, t)𝑡)==σ0𝜎· ∙ ++ +
ε(𝜀(𝑇, 11 −
− 𝑒e (4)
(4)
E𝐸
1 η𝜂1 𝐸
E2

where: 𝜆λ =
where: =𝜂η2⁄/E
𝐸 , ,EE1—instantaneous
2
modulus of elasticity, MPa; E2—modulus of retarded elasticity,
1 —instantaneous modulus of elasticity, MPa; E2 —modulus of retarded elasticity,
MPa;
MPa;ηη1—coefficient of viscosity of steady flow, MPa·s; η2—coefficient of viscosity of retarded flow,
1 —coefficient of viscosity of steady flow, MPa·s; η 2 —coefficient of viscosity of retarded flow,
MPa·s;
MPa·s; t—time of loading, s,s,σσ0 —constant
t—time of loading, 0—constant stress during load phase, specific for each temperature,
stress during load phase, specific for each temperature, MPa.
MPa. Under assumption of the time-temperature superposition principle [52], on the basis of TCT
and Under
BBCT assumption of thefor
results obtained time-temperature superposition
4 different temperatures principle
(either [52],
+20 ◦ C, +5 on
◦ C,the basis
−10 ◦ C,of−TCT
20 ◦ and
C or
BBCT◦ results
◦ obtained
◦ for 4◦ different temperatures (either +20 °C, +5 °C, −10 °C, −20
+10 C, 0 C, −10 C, −20 C), the master curves of stiffness modulus were developed using Richards °C or +10 °C, 0
model [53], which is given by Equation (5):

α−δ
log| E∗ | = δ +  (1/λ) (5)
1 + λe β+γlog f

: log|E*|—stiffness modulus, psi; f —reduced frequency, Hz; α, δ, β, γ, λ—master curve fitting

parameters. Reference temperature was selected as −10 ◦ C.

3. Results and Discussion

Bending and tensile creep tests conducted in this study posed a base for determination of various
rheological properties of the tested asphalt mixtures. Afterward, selected properties were used
in calculation of thermal stresses developed in the pavement due to a decrease in temperature.
The following characteristics were determined from the conducted laboratory tests: stiffness moduli,
Burgers’ model parameters and master curve equations with appropriate shift factors. All the derived
basic properties were assessed taking into assumption linear viscoelasticity and thermo-rheological
simplicity. In the case of master curves, the Richards “branching” model modification [54] properties
were determined as well.
 rheological properties of the tested asphalt mixtures. Afterward, selected properties were used in
calculation of thermal stresses developed in the pavement due to a decrease in temperature. The
following characteristics were determined from the conducted laboratory tests: stiffness moduli,
Burgers’ model parameters and master curve equations with appropriate shift factors. All the derived
basic properties were assessed taking into assumption linear viscoelasticity and thermo-rheological
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 8 of 20
simplicity. In the case of master curves, the Richards “branching” model modification [54] properties
were determined as well.
3.1. Stiffness Modulus
3.1. Stiffness Modulus
Stiffness curves derived from the results of the two creep tests—the Bending Beam Creep Test
(BBCT) Stiffness
and thecurves derived
Tensile Creep from the results of
Test (TCT)—for allthe
thetwo
testedcreep tests—the
materials are Bending
presented Beam Creep 6–9.
in Figures Test
(BBCT)
In the caseand
of the
the Tensile
BendingCreep
BeamTest (TCT)
Creep for all
—the
Test, the tested
presented materials
results are
are the presented
mean valuesin Figures
from 6–9. In
5 different
the case of the Bending Beam Creep Test, the presented results are the mean values from
specimens (coefficient of variation for all test results is in the range from 5 to 25%; mean 10%). In the 5 different
specimens
case (coefficient
of the Tensile CreepofTest,
variation for all test
the presented results
results are is
theinmean
the range
valuesfrom
from5 to
2 to25%; mean 10%).
4 different In the
specimens
case of theofTensile
(coefficient Creep
variation Test,
for all testthe presented
results is in theresults
range are
fromthe mean
1 to 40%;values from For
mean 15%). 2 tothe
4 different
asphalt
specimens (coefficient of variation for all test results is in the range
mixture AC 11W with neat bitumen 35/50, only the Tensile Creep Test was conducted. from 1 to 40%; mean 15%). For
the asphalt mixture AC 11W with neat bitumen 35/50, only the Tensile Creep Test was conducted.
100,000 100,000

Stiffness modulus, MPa

Stiffness modulus, MPa

10,000 10,000

1000 1000

100 AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT) (-20C)

100 AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT) (-20C)
AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT) (-10C)
AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT) (-10C)
AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT) (0C)
AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT) (+10C) AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT) (+5C)
10 10
1 10 100 1000 10,000 1 10 100 1000 10,000
Time of loading, s Time of loading, s
(a) (b)
Appl. Sci. 2019, x 9 of 20
Figure6.6.Creep
Figure Creeptest
testresults—stiffness
results—stiffnesscurves
curvesfor
forAC
AC11S
11S70/100
70/100 LT
LT(a)
(a)BBCT;
BBCT;(b)
(b)TCT.
TCT.

100,000 100,000

10,000 10,000
Stiffness modulus, MPa
Stiffness modulus, MPa

1000 1000

100 100

AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) (-20C) AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT) (-20C)

10 AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) (-10C) 10 AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT) (-10C)
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) (0C) AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT) (+5C)
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) (+10C) AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT) (+20C)
1 1
1 10 100 1000 10,000 1 10 100 1000 10,000
Time of loading, s Time of loading, s
(a) (b)
Figure7.7.Creep
Figure Creeptest
testresults—stiffness
results—stiffnesscurves
curvesfor
forAC
AC11S
11S50/70
50/70MT
MT(a)
(a)BBCT;
BBCT;(b)
(b)TCT.
TCT.

100,000

10,000
Stiffness modulus, MPa

1000

100

AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) (-20C)

10 AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) (-10C)
AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) (+5C)
AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) (+20C)
1
1 10 100 1000 10,000
Time of loading, s

Figure 8. Creep test results—stiffness curves for AC 11W 35/50 MT, only for TCT.
 AC
AC11S
11S50/70
50/70MT
MT(BBCT)
(BBCT)(+10C)
(0C) AC
AC11S
11S50/70
50/70MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(+20C)
(+5C)
1 AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) (+10C) 1 AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT) (+20C)
1 1 10 100 1000 10,000 1 1 10 100 1000 10,000
1 10 Time of
100loading, s
1000 10,000 1 10Time of100
loading,1000
s 10,000
Time of loading, s Time of loading, s
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,Figure
846 7. Creep test results—stiffness curves for AC 11S 50/70 MT (a) BBCT; (b) TCT. 9 of 20
Figure 7. Creep test results—stiffness curves for AC 11S 50/70 MT (a) BBCT; (b) TCT.
100,000
100,000

10,000

MPa
10,000

MPa
modulus,
1000

modulus,
1000

100

Stiffness
100

Stiffness
AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) (-20C)
10 AC
AC11W
11W35/50
35/50MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(-10C)
(-20C)
10 AC
AC11W
11W35/50
35/50MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(+5C)
(-10C)
AC
AC11W
11W35/50
35/50MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(+20C)
(+5C)
1 AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) (+20C)
1 1 10 100 1000 10,000
1 10 Time of
100loading, s
1000 10,000
Time of loading, s
Figure 8. Creep test results—stiffness curves for AC 11W 35/50 MT, only for TCT.
Figure8.8.Creep
Figure Creeptest
testresults—stiffness curves
results—stiffness for
curves AC
for 11W
AC 35/50
11W 35/50MT,
MT,only
onlyfor
forTCT.
TCT.
100,000 100,000
100,000 100,000
MPa

10,000 10,000
MPa
MPa

10,000 10,000
MPa
modulus,

modulus,
modulus,

modulus,

1000 1000
1000 1000
Stiffness

Stiffness
Stiffness

Stiffness

100 AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT) (-20C)

100 AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) (-30C)
100 AC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(BBCT)
(BBCT)(-10C)
(-20C)
100 AC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(-20C)
(-30C)
AC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(BBCT)
(BBCT)(0C)
(-10C) AC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(-10C)
(-20C)
AC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(BBCT)
(BBCT)(+10C)
(0C) AC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(+5C)
(-10C)
10 AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT) (+10C)
10 AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) (+5C)
10 1 10 100 1000 10,000 10 1 10 100 1000 10,000
1 10 Time of loading,
100 s
1000 10,000 1 10 Time of loading,
100 1000s 10,000
Time of loading, s Time of loading, s
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure9.9.Creep
Figure Creeptest
testresults—stiffness
results—stiffnesscurves
curvesfor
forAC
AC11S
11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(a)
(a)BBCT;
BBCT;(b)
(b)TCT.
TCT.
Figure 9. Creep test results—stiffness curves for AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (a) BBCT; (b) TCT.
Stiffness
Stiffnesscurves
curvesderived
derived from
fromboth creep
both teststests
creep differ at allat
differ thealltested temperatures—both
the tested temperatures—both by shapeby
and Stiffness
by and
values. curves
For lowFor derived
temperaturesfrom both ◦ creep
(−10 C(−10 and°C tests
lower) differ at all
results resultsthe
obtained tested temperatures—both
from thefromTCTthe present higherby
shape by values. low temperatures and lower) obtained TCT present
shapeofand
values by of
values.
stiffness Formodulus.
modulus. low
Thetemperatures
situation (−10 °C
is opposite and lower) resultshigher
at temperatures obtainedthan ◦
from
0 C, the TCT
where present
higher values stiffness The situation is opposite at temperatures higher than 0 °C,results
where
results obtained from the BBCT present higher values. The difference in both cases is aroundwhere
higher
obtained values
from of
the stiffness
BBCT modulus.
present The
higher situation
values. The is opposite
difference at
in temperatures
both cases is higher
around than
50% 0
and °C,
will be
50%
results
discussed obtained
and will be from
in discussed
detail further the BBCT present
in thefurther
in detail higher
paper. in the paper. values. The difference in both cases is around 50%
andInwill be discussed
terms of shape of inthe
detail further
stiffness in thetwo
curves, paper.
main differences are visible between the two tests:
the shape of the stiffness curve at the highest temperature as well as the occurrence and shape of
deviations from the time-temperature superposition principle. As shown in Figures 6b and 7b, for
the temperature of +20 ◦ C the stiffness curve derived from the TCT bends from a straight line for
long times of loading. Such a shape is beneficial for construction of the master curve—it is easier to
develop the equation for a typical sigmoidal shape, where “Max” and “δ” master curve parameters
could have physical meaning of maximum and minimum stiffness modulus. In the case of BBCT
test trials at +20 ◦ C for the lowest possible stress, the results suggested destruction of the specimen
for times of loading longer than 200 s (stiffness moduli reached value of ~1 MPa). Therefore, in the
case of BBCT, it is much harder to derive the “δ” master curve parameter, which corresponds to the
lowest value. As for the appearance of deviations—previous studies [40,54] showed that in the case
of BBCT test, deviations appeared after around 500 s of loading. Their shape suggested that the
curve was approaching a horizontal asymptote. Such results were confirmed in other studies [10,39].
In the case of the TCT test, deviations from the time-temperature superposition principle were also
observed for most cases (except for the AC 11S 45/80-55 MT mixture) at temperatures of −10 ◦ C
and lower. However, first analyses showed that they occur earlier (around 200-300 s) and the shape
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 10 of 20

is different—after the “asymptotical” phase, which lasts around 1000-3000 s, the modulus starts to
decrease again. As further tests will be conducted on other mixtures, deviations will be analyzed in
detail in future studies.

3.2. Burgers’ Model Parameters

Burgers’ model parameters were derived using the procedure presented in Section 2.3.
The procedure was the same for creep curves determined in both tests. Results for the TCT are
presented in Table 4 and results for the BBCT are presented in Table 5.

Table 4. Burgers’ model parameters for the Tensile Creep Test (TCT)

Mixture Test Burgers Model Parameters

Designation Temperature T,
◦C E1 , MPa E2 , MPa η1 , MPa·s η2 , MPa·s
−20 24,601 60,649 620,381,505 83,584,308
AC 11S 70/100 −10 12,516 6790 38,457,749 14,471,875
LT 5 2791 254 991,934 767,794
20 * * * *
−20 24,656 115,183 827,458,047 90,290,579
AC 11S 50/70 −10 13,737 7758 69,265,928 21,096,067
MT 5 4070 459 4,086,935 1,888,343
20 629 14 353,051 62,056
−30 29,941 98,166 2,381,475,542 91,889,789
AC 11S −20 19,307 19,490 195,406,816 28,798,508
45/80-55 MT −10 12,257 4123 21,890,814 10,897,801
5 2762 239 3,205,784 1,009,562
−20 21,772 28,228 600,059,352 75,959,661
AC 11W 35/50 −10 13,004 8210 87,034,368 23,417,485
MT 5 4031 601 5,187,255 2,240,592
20 749 16 453,536 85,500
*–specimen failure during the test.

Table 5. Burgers’ model parameters for the Bending Beam Creep Test (BBCT).

Mixture Test Burgers’ Model Parameters

Designation Temperature T,
◦C E1 , MPa E2 , MPa η1 , MPa·s η2 , MPa·s
−20 38,503 4,517 588,962,264 2,007,996
AC 11S 70/100 −10 34,090 2,948 60,779,274 624,963
LT 0 18,572 801 3,152,349 271,364
10 6,168 151 397,640 41,598
−20 46,106 5,024 595,720,702 470,341
AC 11S 50/70 −10 34,208 3,350 79,945,328 490,828
MT 0 18,582 1,153 5,340,236 303,322
10 5,129 175 467,638 49,697
−20 45,953 4,676 487,685,841 588,195
AC 11S −10 30,444 3,149 53,177,748 437,444
45/80-55 MT 0 17,695 876 3,849,752 319,700
10 5,134 167 478,026 47,128

Burgers’ model parameters differ in all cases, apart from the η 1 coefficient of viscosity steady
flow, in whose case values are comparable. Secondary parameters E2 and η 2 present higher values
for the TCT and show better consistency with the results determined from dynamic tests [55]. In the
case of the E1 modulus the situation is more complicated. While the values obtained from the TCT
are almost two times lower than those derived from the BBCT and seem more realistic, a reduction in
values obtained from the TCT could have been caused to some extent by the less accurate record of the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 11 of 20

creep curve in the unloading part. The first record is made after 25 s. Nevertheless, the results of the
E1 Burgers’ model parameter derived from the TCT show more consistency with the stiffness curves
presented in Section 3.1. The highest values of stiffness modulus for the temperatures of −10 ◦ C and
−20 ◦ C are similar for both tests.

3.3. Master Curve Parameters

On the basis of previous studies and literature review [10,39,40,52,53,56], Richards model was
selected as the basic equation of master curves. “Branching” model modification [54] was also applied
for all the tested mixtures, to take into account the deviations from the time-temperature superposition
principle. Parameters for asphalt mixtures derived from the TCT are presented in Table 6. Parameters
for asphalt mixtures derived from the BBCT are presented in Table 7. Shift factors used in the study
are presented in Figure 10.
Basic parameters of the master curve described by the Richards model in which deviations are
completely omitted are presented in the first row of results for each mixture (for T > −20 ◦ C or T > −10 ◦ C,
depending on the mixture and test procedure). It is visible that in the case of higher temperatures for
the TCT, the “δ” parameter shows consistency between all the tested mixtures, and it is always higher
than 0. Determination of the same parameter for the BBCT sometimes requires setting of the minimum
value of “δ” as 0, as the SOLVER unit of EXCEL used in the analysis sometimes suggests values lower
than 0 [40], which is in contradiction to the physical meaning of the parameter. Additional “branches”,
deviating from the master curves due to shifting of stiffness curves obtained at lower test temperatures,
are presented in further rows of the tables, according to their corresponding temperature ranges. Since
the shape of the deviations in the TCT is different than in the BBCT, the values of the “δ” parameter for
the TCT are equal across all temperatures. The “asymptotical” phase is not correctly described, which
suggests that for the TCT a new model needs to be developed. Results presented in this study for the
BBCT show full consistency with the “branching” modification of Richards model [54], and deviations
are correctly described.

Table 6. Master curve parameters for the Tensile Creep Test (TCT).

Mixture Richards Model Parameters (“Branching” Modification)

Test Temperature T, ◦ C
Designation Max β γ δ λ
AC 11S > −20 4.712 −10.075 −0.462 0.367 0.000615
70/100 LT < −20 4.712 −17.217 −0.279 0.367 0.0000005
AC 11S >−20 4.789 −9.735 −0.451 0.441 0.000898
50/70 MT < −20 4.789 −16.478 −0.196 0.441 0.000001
>−20 4.823 −9.584 −0.421 1.175 0.000566
AC 11S
−20 ÷ −30 4.823 −10.698 −0.366 0.823 0.000226
45/80-55 MT
< −30 4.823 −10.424 −0.212 3.786 0.000066
> −10 4.935 −9.703 −0.369 0.284 0.00055
AC 11W
−10 ÷ −20 4.935 −6.737 −0.302 0.284 0.01074
35/50 MT
< −20 4.935 −11.818 −0.213 0.284 0.00006

Two models of shift factors commonly used for binders and asphalt mixtures were used in the
study—WLF and Arrhenius [52]. Arrhenius model parameters are similar for both tests, but results
obtained from the BBCT presented higher homogeneity. In both cases the results were similar, both
in shape and in values, to the WLF function determined for the TCT (Figure 10b). The WLF function
proved more reliable when applied to the TCT results than to the BBCT results. For the BBCT test,
in the case of higher temperatures, the WLF function (Figure 10a) presents a significantly different
shape. While in the case of temperatures of up to 0 ◦ C, the course of the line is similar to the TCT test,
in the case of +10 ◦ C the values decrease strongly, probably due to limitation of the BBCT test. It was
impossible to obtain reliable results at temperatures higher than +15 ◦ C.
 −10 ÷ −20 4.766 −9.560 −0.498 3.246 0.000206
LT
<−20 4.766 −10.471 −0.848 3.713 0.000066
>−10 5.118 −11.162 −0.295 0.146 0.000090
AC 11S 50/70
−10 ÷ −20 5.118 −11.835 −0.368 3.234 0.000014
MT
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 <−20 5.118 −12.737 −0.703 3.815 0.000004
12 of 20
>−10 4.764 −10.941 −0.429 1.358 0.000132
AC 11S 45/80-
−10 ÷ −20 4.764 −11.643 −0.482 3.209 0.000026
55 MT Master curve parameters
Table 7. <−20 for the Bending Beam Creep Test (BBCT).
4.764 −11.381 −0.852 3.741 0.000025

Mixture Richards Model Parameters (“Branching” Modification)

Two models of shift
Test T, ◦ C
factors commonly
Temperature used for binders and asphalt mixtures were used in the
Designation Max β γ δ λ
study—WLF and Arrhenius [52]. Arrhenius model parameters are similar for both tests, but results
obtained >−10 4.766 −9.066 −0.428 1.327 0.000864
ACfrom
11S the BBCT presented higher homogeneity. In both cases the results were similar, both
−10 ÷ −20 4.766 −9.560 −0.498 3.246 0.000206
in shape andLT
70/100 in values, to the WLF function determined for the TCT
−10.471
(Figure 10b).
−0.848
The WLF function
<−20 4.766 3.713 0.000066
proved more reliable when applied to the TCT results than to the BBCT results. For the BBCT test, in
>−10 5.118 −11.162 −0.295 0.146 0.000090
the case
ACof11S
higher temperatures,
−10 ÷ −20
the WLF function
5.118
(Figure
−11.835
10a)−presents
0.368
a3.234
significantly different
0.000014
shape.50/70 MT
While in the case of <
temperatures
−20 of up to
5.1180 °C, the course
−12.737 of the
−0.703line is similar
3.815 to0.000004 test,
the TCT
in the case of +10 °C the values
>−10
decrease strongly,
4.764
probably due to−limitation
−10.941 0.429
of the BBCT
1.358
test. It was
0.000132
AC 11S
impossible to obtain reliable results at temperatures higher than +15 °C.
−10 ÷ −20 4.764 −11.643 −0.482 3.209 0.000026
45/80-55 MT
<−20 4.764 −11.381 −0.852 3.741 0.000025

4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
log αT

0.0 log αT 0.0

-1.0 -1.0
-2.0 -2.0
-3.0 -3.0
-4.0 -4.0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Temperature, °C Temperature, °C
AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT) - laboratory results AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT) - laboratory results
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) - laboratory results AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT) - laboratory results
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) - laboratory results
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT) - laboratory results
AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT) - laboratory results
AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT) AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT)
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT)
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT)
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT)
AC 11W 35/50 MT (TCT)

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Shift factor—WLF function: (a) BBCT; (b) TCT.

Analysis of the master curve and shift factor models suggests that more reliable results should
be obtained for the TCT, regardless of the model used. Some difficulties occurred for the “branching”
modification of the Richards model, but further work should eliminate this problem. In the case of the
BBCT, reliable results should be obtained using only Arrhenius shift factor model. The WLF model
can influence analyses conducted at higher temperatures.

3.4. Comparison of the TCT and BBCT Results

Relationships between different test modes are commonly used in analyses of solid materials such
as cement concrete. While Young’s modulus should have the same value regardless of the test mode,
the relationship between strength determined in simple tension and flexural test is approximately
1:2. While asphalt mixture strength relationships between different test modes were the subject of
other studies [6,57], in this study, the authors focused on relationships between stiffness moduli.
In Figures 11–14, the results obtained from both tests are compared in various forms: stiffness curves
for chosen temperatures, shifted stiffness curves as well as master curves.
 such as cement concrete. While Young’s modulus should have the same value regardless of the test
approximately 1:2. While asphalt
mode, the relationship between mixture strength
strength relationships
determined between
in simple different
tension andtest modestest
flexural wereis
the subject of other
approximately 1:2.studies
While [6,57],
asphaltinmixture
this study, the authors
strength focusedbetween
relationships on relationships
differentbetween stiffness
test modes were
moduli. In Figures 11 through 14, the results obtained from both tests are compared in various
the subject of other studies [6,57], in this study, the authors focused on relationships between stiffness forms:
stiffness
moduli.curves for chosen
In Figures temperatures,
11 through shifted
14, the results stiffness
obtained fromcurves
both as well
tests areascompared
master curves.
in various forms:
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 13 of 20
stiffness curves for chosen temperatures, shifted stiffness curves as well as master curves.
100,000 100,000

Stiffness modulus, MPa

Stiffness modulus, MPa
100,000 100,000

Stiffness modulus, MPa

Stiffness modulus, MPa
10,000 10,000

10,000 10,000

1,000 1,000
1 100 10,000 1 100 10,000
1,000 1,000
Time of loading, s Time of loading, s
1 100 MT (BBCT) 10,000 1 AC 11S 45/80-55
100 MT (BBCT)10,000
(-20)
AC 11S 50/70 (-20)
Time of loading, s (-20) Time of loading, s
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) (-20)
AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT)
AC11S
AC 11S50/70
50/70MT
MT(BBCT)
(BBCT)(-10)
(-20) AC11S
AC 11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(BBCT)
(BBCT)(-10)
(-20)
AC11S
AC 11S50/70
50/70MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(-10)
(-20) AC11S
AC 11S45/80-55
45/80-55MT
MT(TCT)
(TCT)(-10)
(-20)
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT) (-10) AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT) (-10)
(a)50/70 MT (TCT) (-10)
AC 11S (b)
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) (-10)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Comparison of stiffness curves at temperatures of −10 °C and −20 °C.
Figure 11. Comparison of stiffness curves at temperatures of −10 ◦ C and −20 ◦ C.
Figure 11. Comparison of stiffness curves at temperatures of −10 °C and −20 °C.
100,000
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT)
Stiffness modulus, MPa

100,000
10,000 AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT)
AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT)
Stiffness modulus, MPa

10,000
1000 AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT)

1000
100

100
10

110
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08 1.0E+09
1
Reduced time, s
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08 1.0E+09
Appl. Sci. 2019, x ◦ 14 of 20
Figure
Figure12.12.Comparison
Comparisonofofshifted
shiftedstiffness
stiffnesscurves for
forAC
Reduced
curves AC11S
11S50/70
time, s50/70MT,
MT,reference
referencetemperature: −10
temperature: −10 C.
°C.
100,00012. Comparison of shifted stiffness curves for AC 11S 50/70 MT, reference temperature: −10 °C.
Figure
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT)
Stiffness modulus, MPa

10,000 AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT)

1000

100

10

1
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Reduced time, s

Figure 13.Comparison
Figure13. Comparisonofof
shifted stiffness
shifted curves
stiffness for for
curves ACAC11S 11S
45/80-55 MT,MT,
45/80-55 reference temperature:
reference −10 ◦−10
temperature: C.
°C.

50,000 60,000
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT)
Stiffness modulus, MPa

Stiffness modulus, MPa

40,000 50,000 AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT)

AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT)
40,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
10,000 10,000

0 0
1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07 1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07
Reduced time, s Reduced time, s

50,000
AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT)
modulus, MPa

40,000 AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT)

30,000

20,000
 Stiff
1
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Reduced time, s

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846

Figure 13. Comparison of shifted stiffness curves for AC 11S 45/80-55 MT, reference temperature:14
−10
of 20
°C.

50,000 60,000
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (TCT) AC 11S 50/70 MT (TCT)
Stiffness modulus, MPa

Stiffness modulus, MPa

40,000 50,000 AC 11S 50/70 MT (BBCT)
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (BBCT)
40,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
10,000 10,000

0 0
1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07 1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07
Reduced time, s Reduced time, s

50,000
AC 11S 70/100 LT (TCT)
Stiffness modulus, MPa

40,000 AC 11S 70/100 LT (BBCT)

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07
Reduced time, s

2.0 14.
Comparison of master curves for for
all tested mixtures, ◦ C.
−10−10
Figure 14.
Figure Comparison of master curves all tested 4.0 reference
mixtures, temperature
reference temperature °C.
3.5
(Laboratory test results)

3.0
AsAsshown in in
Figure 11,11,
forforthethefirst 100100s the results obtained from both tests areare
similar, with
(Master Curves)

1.5
Stiffness ratio

shown Figure first s the results obtained

2.5 from both tests similar, with
Stiffness ratio

higher values of stiffness modulus obtained from the TCT. For longer
2.0 times
higher values of stiffness modulus obtained from the TCT. For longer times of loading the results of loading the results differ
strongly, both in 1.5 ratio between the TCT and the BBCT
1.0values
differ strongly, both inand the shape
values and the of shape
the curve.
of theThe stiffness
curve. The
1.0 stiffness ratio between the TCT and the
forBBCT
the first
for100
thes isfirst
around
100 1.5s is(Figure
around 15b).
1.5 In the case
(Figure of longer
15b). thetimes
In 0.5 caseofofloading,
longer the timesrelationship
of loading, is inthe
AC 11S 50/70 MT 0.0
therelationship
range from0.5 1.1intothe
is 4.0,range
with from
no visibletotendencies forvisible
specifictendencies
types of bitumen. Comparison of the
AC 11S 70/1001.1LT 4.0, with no 1.0E+00
for specific
1.0E+01
types of1.0E+03
bitumen.
shifted stiffness curves (Figures 12 and 13) shows that for lower temperatures (<0 ◦1.0E+02
C) higher stiffness 1.0
Comparison of the shifted stiffness
AC 11S curves (Figures 12 and 13) shows that forTime
45/80-55 MT lower temperatures
of loading, s (<0
values 0.0
are obtained forvalues
the TCT. (-10) than 0 ◦ C, for
areThe relationship
for the changes
TCT. Theatrelationship
temperatures higher which
AC 11S 50/70 MT AC 11S 50/70 MT (-20
°C) higher stiffness obtained changes
AC 11S 70/100 LT (-10) at temperatures AC 11S higher
70/100 LT (-20
thethan
values 1.0E-02
of stiffness 1.0E+01
modulus 1.0E+04
obtained 1.0E+07
in the modulus
BBCT are obtained
higher. The
0 °C, for which the values
Reduced time, s
of stiffness ACin11Ssame
the
45/80-55isMTvisible
BBCT in the developed
are higher.
(-10) The same
AC 11S 45/80-55is
MT (
mean (-10) mean (-20)
master curves (Figure 14), where the master curve derived from the BBCT
visible in the developed master curves (Figure 14), where the master curve derived from the BBCT has a “flatter” shape than
thehas
oneafrom the TCT. Thethan (a)
stiffness in(b)
“flatter” shape the ratio
one frombetween the master
TCT. The curves is presented
stiffness ratio between Figure master
15a. While curvesthe is
range of variability is lower (between 0.5 and 2.0), no direct relationships
presented in Figure 15a. While the range of variability is lower (between 0.5 and 2.0), no direct are visible in this case, as
opposed to the case of stiffness curves for shorter times of loading. For the
relationships are visible in this case, as opposed to the case of stiffness curves for shorter times of majority of the reduced
time, higherFor
loading. values are obtained
the majority of thefor the TCT.
reduced time, higher values are obtained for the TCT.

Figure 15. Stiffness ratio (TCT versus BBCT): (a) master curves (b) stiffness curves at temperatures of
−10 ◦ C and −20 ◦ C.
 AC 11S 70/100 LT (-10) AC 11S 70/100 LT (-20)
1.0E-02 1.0E+01 1.0E+04 1.0E+07
AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (-10) AC 11S 45/80-55 MT (-20)
Reduced time, s mean (-10) mean (-20)

(a) (b)

Appl. Figure
Sci. 2019,
15.9, Stiffness
846 ratio (TCT versus BBCT): (a) master curves (b) stiffness curves at temperatures of15 of 20
−10 °C and −20 °C.

4.4.Thermal
ThermalStress
StressAnalysis
Analysis
Thermal stresses
Thermal stresses that
that developed
developed duedue toto aa decrease
decrease inin temperature
temperature were
were calculated
calculated using
using
procedures presented in Section 1.1. For comparison with the TSRST [49], the gradient
procedures presented in Section 1.1. For comparison with the TSRST [49], the gradient of temperature of temperature
was assumed
assumed as as 10 ◦ C/h. For the Hills and Brien method, values of stiffness moduli were derived
10 °C/h.
was For the Hills and Brien method, values of stiffness moduli were derived
fromstiffness
from stiffnesscurves
curvesasasdescribed
describedinin[5].
[5].For
Forthe
theMonismith
Monismithmethod,
method,“branching”
“branching”modification
modificationof ofthe
the
Richards model was used (shift factor – according to the Arrhenius model). In the
Richards model was used (shift factor – according to the Arrhenius model). In the case of AC 11W case of AC 11W
35/50MT,
35/50 MT,only
onlyresults
results from
from the
the TCT
TCT were
were used.
used. Calculated
Calculatedvalues
valuesofofthermal
thermalstresses
stressesare
arepresented
presentedin
Figure 16. The predicted failure temperatures determined from Figure 16 are presented
in Figure 16. The predicted failure temperatures determined from Figure 16 are presented in Table 8. in Table 8.

8.0 TSRST (Laboratory test) 8.0 TSRST (Laboratory test)

Monismith method (BBCT)
Monismith method (TCT) Monismith method (TCT)
7.0 7.0 Hills and Brian method (BBCT)
Hills and Brian method (TCT)
Hills and Brian method (TCT)

Thermal Stresses, MPa

6.0 Tensile Strength from UTST 6.0 Tensile Strength from UTST
Thermal Stresses, MPa

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Temperature,°C Temperature,°C
Appl. Sci. 2019, x 16 of 20
(a) (b)
TSRST (Laboratory test) TSRST (Laboratory test)
8.0 8.0
Monismith method (BBCT) Monismith method (BBCT)
Monismith method (TCT) Monismith method (TCT)
7.0 7.0 Hills and Brian method (BBCT)
Hills and Brian method (BBCT)
Hills and Brian method (TCT) Hills and Brian method (TCT)
Thermal stresses, MPa

6.0 Tensile Strength from UTST 6.0 Tensile Strength from UTST
Thermal Stresses, MPa

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Temperature,°C Temperature,°C
(c) (d)
Figure 16. Results of calculation of thermal stresses for all the tested mixtures in comparison to the
Figure
TSRST16.
andResults
UTST of calculation
results, of thermal
temperature stresses
gradient ◦ C/h:
of 10for all the
(a)tested
AC 11Wmixtures
35/50 in
MT comparison
(b) AC 11Sto the
50/70
TSRST
MT (c)and
AC UTST results,
11S 70/100 LTtemperature gradient of
(d) AC 11S 45/80-55 MT.10 °C/h: (a) AC 11W 35/50 MT (b) AC 11S 50/70 MT
(c) AC 11S 70/100 LT (d) AC 11S 45/80-55 MT.
As shown in Figure 16, the highest agreement with the TSRST results was obtained for the
Monismith method based
Table on the TCTof
8. Comparison results. In most
predicted failurecases, the TSRST
temperatures results
(mean (black line) are almost
values).
the same. Lower values were often obtained for both thermal stress calculation methods (Hills & Brien
Thermal Stress Calculation Method (Data Source)
as well as Monismith) when the BBCT results
Mixture were used. In the case of the Hills & Brien method based
onDesignation TSRSTin all cases,
the TCT results, almost Hills the
& Brien
values ofHills & Brien
stress Monismith
were higher Monismith
than those obtained from the
(BBCT)
TSRST, which could result from the fact (TCT) is not fully
that stress relaxation (BBCT)
considered in this(TCT)
method.
AC 11S 70/100
−26.4 −29.0 −21.0 −29.5 −25.0
LT
AC 11S 50/70
−25.7 −26.5 −19.5 −27.5 −23.5
MT
AC 11S 45/80-
−29.5 <−30.0 −28.5 <−30.0 −29.5
55 MT
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 16 of 20

Table 8. Comparison of predicted failure temperatures (mean values).

Thermal Stress Calculation Method (Data Source)

Mixture
Designation TSRST Hills & Brien Hills & Brien Monismith Monismith
(BBCT) (TCT) (BBCT) (TCT)
AC 11S 70/100
−26.4 −29.0 −21.0 −29.5 −25.0
LT
AC 11S 50/70
−25.7 −26.5 −19.5 −27.5 −23.5
MT
AC 11S
−29.5 <−30.0 −28.5 <−30.0 −29.5
45/80-55 MT
AC 11W 35/50
−22.3 - −20.5 - −25.5
MT

In the course of assessment of failure temperatures presented in Table 8, no clear relationships

were noted. The highest agreement was obtained for the Monismith method calculated based on
the TCT results, for which 2 of 4 cases were the determined values of failure temperature in good
agreement with the TSRST results.
The conducted analysis suggests that the highest reliability in calculations of thermal stresses was
obtained for the Monismith method based on the TCT results. For the results of calculations based
on the BBCT, a “method constant” should be determined in order to shift the results calculated from
the BBCT into those calculated from the TCT, similar to the BBR methodology [27]. In this standard,
to obtain values of thermal stresses for asphalt mixtures, one should multiply the thermal stresses
calculated according to the AASHTO PP42-02 standard by a factor of 18. The presented study showed
that such a factor for the BBCT results is in the range from 1.5 to 1.7, but it should be verified in more
detailed studies encompassing other types of mixtures and bitumen.

5. Summary and Conclusions

This paper presents the study of low-temperature creep properties of asphalt mixtures and the
methods of thermal stress assessment. Three point bending and uniaxial tensile creep tests were
applied to calculate thermal stresses at low temperatures. Based on the test results and analysis, the
following conclusions can be drawn:

1. According to different creep test methods applied in the study, lower strain values of creep curves
were obtained for the Tensile Creep Test (TCT) than for the Bending Beam Creep Test (BBCT),
especially at lower temperatures.
2. Stiffness curves derived from both creep tests (BBCT and TCT) differ at all the tested temperatures –
both in terms of shape and values. For low temperatures (−10 ◦ C and lower) results obtained from
the TCT presented higher values of stiffness modulus. The situation is opposite at temperatures
higher than 0 ◦ C, where the results obtained from the BBCT present higher values.
3. Master curves determined on the basis of the TCT results showed higher values of stiffness
modulus for temperatures <0 ◦ C and lower for temperatures >0◦ C in comparison to those
determined from the BBCT.
4. “Branching” modification of the Richards model correctly described the master curves determined
from the BBCT results. In the case of the TCT results, master curves presented some discrepancies
and a new model should be determined.
5. The Arrhenius shift factor function presented reliable results for both tests (BBCT and TCT).
In the case of the WLF shift factor function, the BBCT results showed significantly decreased
values at temperatures higher than 0 ◦ C.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 17 of 20

6. Results of thermal stress calculations indicated that higher reliability was obtained for the
viscoelastic Monismith method based on the TCT results. The highest agreement with the TSRST
results was also obtained for the Monismith method based on the TCT results.
7. No clear relationships were obtained between the failure temperatures predicted from different
methods of thermal stress calculation. The highest agreement was obtained for the viscoelastic
Monismith method calculated based on the TCT results, for which 2 of 4 cases were the
determined values of failure temperature in good agreement with the TSRST results.
8. The main limitation of the study was related to the methodology of the TCT method. The test
method was applied and conducted according to the European standard EN 12697-46. In the TCT,
the time of loading is long (8 h) and an additional measurement period of 2 h is also recommended
after unloading. The authors have come to the opinion that the time of loading can be shortened,
but this issue requires further research.

Author Contributions: M.P. conceived and designed the experiments; C.S. and M.P. coordinated the experiments;
M.P. and M.J. analyzed the TCT and BBCT data; M.P., M.J. and C.S. wrote the paper; M.P. coordinated and edited
the paper.
Acknowledgments: The research was partly supported by the project RID-1B, financed by the National Center for
Research and Development and the General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways under the program
“Development of Road Innovations”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.

References
1. Jung, D.; Vinson, T.S. Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Test to Evaluate Low-Temperature Cracking of
Asphalt-Aggregate Mixtures; Transportation Research Record No. 1417; Transportation Research Board;
National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 12–20.
2. Judycki, J. A new viscoelastic method of calculation of low-temperature thermal stresses in asphalt layers of
pavements. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2016, 19, 24–36. [CrossRef]
3. Vinson, T.S.; Janoo, V.C.; Haas, R.C.G. Low Temperature and Thermal Fatigue Cracking; Summary Report No
SR-OSU-A-003A-89-1; Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council: Washington, DC,
USA, 1989.
4. Pucci, T.; Dumont, A.-G.; Di Benedetto, H. Thermomechanical and Mechanical Behaviour of Asphalt
Mixtures at Cold Temperature: Road and Laboratory Investigations. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2004, 5,
45–72. [CrossRef]
5. Pszczola, M.; Judycki, J. Comparison of calculated and measured thermal stresses in asphalt concrete. Balt. J.
Road Bridge Eng. 2015, 10, 39–45. [CrossRef]
6. Pszczola, M.; Szydlowski, C. Influence of Bitumen Type and Asphalt Mixture Composition on
Low-Temperature Strength Properties According to Various Test Methods. Materials 2018, 11, 2118.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Bai, M. Investigation of low-temperature properties of recycling of SBS modified asphalt binder.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 150, 766–773. [CrossRef]
8. Kowalski, K.J.; Król, J.B.; Bańkowski, W.; Radziszewski, P.; Sarnowski, M. Thermal and Fatigue Evaluation
of Asphalt Mixtures Containing RAP Treated with a Bio-Agent. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 216. [CrossRef]
9. Sybilski, D.; Bańkowski, W.; Mirski, K.; Hododecka, R.; Wróbel, A. Rubber-bitumen granulate for asphalt
pavements—Laboratory comparative analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Bituminous Mixtures and Pavements, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1–3 June 2011; pp. 1413–1421.
10. Pszczoła, M.; Jaczewski, M.; Szydłowski, C.; Judycki, J.; Dołżycki, B. Evaluation of low temperature properties
of rubberized asphalt mixtures. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 897–904. [CrossRef]
11. Zhao, L.; Xu, G.; Zhang, M. Low-temperature creep properties for fibre-asphalt mixtures. In Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2017; Volume 170, pp. 152–157.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 18 of 20

12. Mackiewicz, P. Thermal stress analysis of joined plane in concrete pavements. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 73,
1169–1176. [CrossRef]
13. Chaubane, B.; Tia, M. Analysis and verification of thermal-gradient effects on concrete pavement.
J. Transp. Eng. 1995, 121, 75–81. [CrossRef]
14. Muki, R.; Sternberg, E. On transient thermal stresses in viscoelastic materials with temperature-dependent
properties. J. Appl. Mech. 1961, 28, 193–207. [CrossRef]
15. Lee, E.H.; Rogers, T.G. Solution of viscoelastic stress analysis problems using measured creep or relaxation
functions. J. Appl. Mech. 1963, 30, 127–133. [CrossRef]
16. Humpreys, J.S.; Martin, C.J. Determination of transient thermal stresses in a slab with temperature-dependent
viscoelastic properties. Trans. Soc. Rheol. 1963, 7, 155–169. [CrossRef]
17. Monismith, C.L.; Secor, G.A.; Secor, K.E. Temperature Induced Stresses and Deformations in Asphalt
Concrete. J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 1965, 34, 248–285.
18. Wittmann, F.H.; Knappe, O.W.; Schuhbauer, A. Temperature induced stresses in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res.
1978, 8, 703–710. [CrossRef]
19. Wittmann, F.H.; Schwanke, H. Influence of composition on temperature induced stresses in asphalt concrete
mixtures. Cem. Concr. Res. 1979, 9, 497–500. [CrossRef]
20. Marasteanu, M.; Zofka, A.; Turos, M.; Li, X.; Velasquez, R.; Xue, L.; Buttlar, W.G.; Paulino, G.; Braham, A.;
Dave, E.; et al. Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements. A Transportation Pooled Fund
Study; Report No MN/RC 2007-43; University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2007.
21. Apeagyei, A.K.; Dave, E.V.; Buttler, W.G. Effect of cooling rate of thermal cracking of asphalt concrete
pavements. J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 2008, 77, 709–738.
22. Marasteanu, M.; Buttlar, W.; Bahia, H.; Williams, C. Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt
Pavements, National Pooled Fund Study—Phase II; Report No MN/RC 2012-23; University of Minnesota:
Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2012.
23. Tabatabaee, H.; Velasquez, R.; Bahia, H.U. Modeling thermal stress in asphalt mixtures undergoing glass
transition and physical hardening. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2012, 2296, 106–114. [CrossRef]
24. Hajj, E.Y.; Souliman, M.; Alavi, M.Z.; Salazar, L.L. Influence of hydrogreen bioasphalt on viscoelastic
properties of reclaimed asphalt mixtures. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2013, 2371, 13–22. [CrossRef]
25. Farrar, M.J.; Hajj, E.Y.; Planche, J.-P.; Alavi, M.Z. A method to estimate the thermal stress build-up in
an asphalt mixture from a single-cooling event. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2013, 14 (Suppl. 1), 201–211.
[CrossRef]
26. AASHTO. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures MEPDG; Final
Report; RA, Inc.: Champaign, IL, USA, 2004.
27. AASHTO PP 42-02. Standard Practice for Determination of Low-Temperature Performance Grade (PG) of Asphalt
Binders; AASHTO Provisional Standards; American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
28. ASTM D6816-11. Standard Practice for Determining Low-Temperature Performance Grade of Asphalt Binders;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2011.
29. Hills, J.F.; Brien, D. The fracture of bitumen and asphalt mixes by temperature induced stresses. J. Assoc.
Asphalt Paving Technol. 1966, 35, 294–309.
30. Burgers, B.A.; Kopvillem, O.; Young, F.D.; Ste. Anne Test-relationships between predicted fracture
temperatures and low temperature field performance. J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 1971, 40, 148–193.
31. Christianson, J.T.; Murray, D.W.; Anderson, K.O. Stress prediction and low temperature fracture susceptibility
of asphalt concrete pavements. J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 1972, 41, 494–523.
32. Haas, R.C.G. A Method for Designing Asphalt Pavements to Minimize Low-Temperature Shrinkage Cracking;
Asphalt Institute Research Report 73-1; The Asphalt Institute: College Park, MD, USA, 1973.
33. Janoo, V.; Bayer, J.; Walsh, M. Thermal Stress Measurements in Asphalt Concrete; CRREL Report 93-10; US Army
Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory: Hanover, NH, USA, 1993.
34. Kliewer, J.E.; Zeng, H.; Vinson, T.S. Aging and low-temperature cracking of asphalt concrete mixture. J. Cold
Reg. Eng. 1996, 10, 134–148. [CrossRef]
35. Qian, G.; Zheng, J.; Wang, Q. Calculating Thermal Stresses of Asphalt Pavement in Environmental Conditions.
Prceedings of the Symposium on Pavement Mechanics and Materials, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 3–6 June 2007;
pp. 78–87. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 19 of 20

36. Gajewski, M.; Langlois, P.-A. Prediction of Asphalt Concrete Low-Temperature Cracking Resistance on the
Basis of Different Constitutive Models. Procedia Eng. 2014, 91, 81–86. [CrossRef]
37. Akentuna, M.; Kim, S.S.; Nazzal, M.; Abbas, A.R.; Arefin, M.S. Study of the thermal stress development
of asphalt mixtures using the Asphalt Concrete Cracking Device (ACCD). Constr. Build Mater. 2016, 114,
416–422. [CrossRef]
38. Yavuzturk, C.; Ksaibati, K. Assessment of Thermal Stresses in Asphalt Pavements Due to Environmental Conditions;
University of Wyoming: Laramie, WY, USA, 2006.
39. Pszczola, M.; Jaczewski, M.; Rys, D.; Jaskula, P.; Szydlowski, C. Evaluation of Asphalt Mixture
Low-Temperature Performance in Bending Beam Creep Test. Materials 2018, 11, 100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Jaczewski, M.; Judycki, J.; Jaskula, P. Asphalt concrete subjected to long-time loading at low
temperatures-Deviations from the time-temperature superposition principle. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 202,
426–439. [CrossRef]
41. Pszczoła, M.; Judycki, J. Testing of low temperature behaviour of asphalt mixtures in bending creep test.
In Proceedings of the 7th International RILEM Symposium on Advanced Testing and Characterization of
Bituminous Materials: Advanced Testing and Characterization of Bituminous Materials, Rhodes, Greece,
11 May 2009; pp. 303–312.
42. Zofka, A.; Marasteanu, M.O.; Turos, M. Determination of asphalt mixture creep compliance at low
temperatures using thin beam specimens. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2008, 2057, 134–139.
[CrossRef]
43. Zofka, A.; Marasteanu, M.O.; Turos, M. Investigation of asphalt mixture creep compliance at low
temperatures. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2011, 9, 269–285. [CrossRef]
44. Judycki, J.; Jaskula, P.; Dolzycki, B.; Pszczola, M.; Jaczewski, M.; Rys, D.; Stienss, M. Investigation of
low-temperature cracking in newly constructed high-modulus asphalt concrete base course of a motorway
pavement. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2015, 16, 362–388. [CrossRef]
45. CEN–EN 12591. Bitumen and Bituminous Binders—Specifications for Paving Grade Bitumens; European
Committee for Standardization CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
46. CEN–EN 14023. Bitumen and Bituminous Binders—Specifications Framework for Polymer Modified Bitumens;
European Committee for Standardization CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
47. CEN–EN 13108-1. Bituminous Mixtures—Material Specifications—Part 1: Asphalt Concrete; European
Committee for Standardization CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
48. Szymanski, D. Assessment of the Low-Temperature Properties of Asphalt Mixtures Based on the TSRST,
UTST and TCT Test Results. Master’s Thesis, Gdansk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland, 2018.
(In Polish)
49. CEN–EN 12697-46. Bituminous Mixtures—Test Methods for Hot Mix Asphalt—Part: 46: Low Temperature
Cracking and Properties by Uniaxial Tension Tests; European Committee for Standardization CEN: Brussels,
Belgium, 2012.
50. CEN–EN 12697-33. Bituminous Mixtures—Test Methods for Hot Mix Asphalt—Part 33: Specimen Prepared by
Roller Compactor; European Committee for Standardization CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
51. Judycki, J. Bending Test of Asphaltic Mixtures under Statical Loading. In Design and Quality Control
of Bituminous Mixes, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on the Role of Mechanical Tests for the
Characterization, Budapest, Hungary, 23–25 October 1990; Book Series: RILEM Proceedings; Taylor & Francis:
Oxfordshire, UK, 1990; Volume 8, pp. 207–227.
52. Ferry, J.D. Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
53. Rowe, G.M.; Sharrock, M.J. Alternate shift factor relationship for describing the temperature dependency of
the visco-elastic behaviour of asphalt materials. Transp. Res. Rec. 2011, 2207, 125–135. [CrossRef]
54. Jaczewski, M.; Judycki, J.; Jaskuła, P. Modelling of Asphalt Mixes under Long Time Creep at Low
Temperatures. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 3527–3535. [CrossRef]
55. Mejłun, Ł.; Judycki, J.; Dołżycki, B. Comparison of Elastic and Viscoelastic Analysis of Asphalt Pavement at
High Temperature. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 746–753. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 846 20 of 20

56. Cholewińska, M.; Iwański, M.; Mazurek, G. The impact of ageing on the bitumen stiffness modulus using
the cam model. Balt. J. Road Bridge Eng. 2018, 13, 34–39. [CrossRef]
57. Judycki, J. Non-linear viscoelastic behaviour of conventional and modified asphaltic concrete under creep.
Mater. Struct. 1992, 25, 95–101. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 © 2019. This work is licensed under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.