Dynamic Modulus Testing

of Iowa Asphalt
p Mixtures
Presented by

Xinjun Li
R. Christopher Williams
March 5, 2008

D
Department
t t off Civil,
Ci il Construction
C t ti and d Environmental
E i t l Engineering
E i i
Iowa State University
 Introduction
¾ Superpave
p p mix design
g procedure
p
- Product of SHRP

¾ Different design levels based on traffic levels

- Volumetric mix design ( <106 ESALs)
- Intermediate
te ed ate aanalysis
a ys s (up to 10
07 ESALs)
S s)
- Complete analysis ( >107 ESALs)

2
 Introduction (
(Cont’d)
)

¾ Superpave volumetric mix design

- No
N mechanical
h i l test
t t to
t check
h k performance
f
- Marshall method includes mechanical test
¾ In the past years, comprehensive research
efforts to develop
- Simple performance test (SPT)
- To characterize material for the Mechanistic –
Empirical
p pavement
p design
g guide
g (AASHTO
( 2002))
¾ Recent research efforts (NCHRP 9-19, 1-37A)
- Complex dynamic modulus is a strong candidate for both pavement
design and SPT
- Recommended as a design parameter for rutting and fatigue cracking
- Not a good indicator for thermal cracking

3
 Complex Dynamic Modulus
¾ Not a new concept
p
- Papazian, 1962
¾ Different research projects over decades
- Various combinations of frequencies and
temperatures
- Compression, tension-compression, tension
- Laboratory compacted and field cored specimens
¾ Most comprehensive in the past few years
- Professor Witzack and his research team (Arizona State Univ.)
- Compression
- Uniaxial loading and triaxial loading test

4
 Background
g of Dynamic
y Modulus
(based on linear viscoelasticity concepts)

¾ Controlled sinusoidal load applied to cylindrical specimen

¾ Deformation measured at multiple locations on the sample
¾ Two fundamental pparameters determined
- Dynamic modulus, lE*l
- Phase angle, δ
¾ Time
Time-temperature
temperature superposition principle is assumed valid
¾ Master curve can be constructed using the factors from the
dynamic modulus tests – explains the behavior of mixtures
over a range of temperatures and rate of loading (fast vs
vs.
slow)

5
 Background of E* (cont’d)

¾ Determination of dynamic modulus

δ σosin(ωt)
stress=σ
stress
σ = σ 0 + σ 1 cos(2 * pi * f * t + φ1 )
σo
εo
ε = ε 0 + +ε 1t + ε 2 cos(2 * pi * f * t + φ 2 )
time

σ
E *
= 1

ε 2

strain=εεosin(ωt
strain δ)
sin(ωt-δ)
φ = φ 2 − φ1
0.1 Hz @ 24.3°C

2.5 0.145

0.140 σ, ε: stress and strain respectively,

Extensometer Displacement, mm

2.0 0 135
0.135
t f: time and frequency respectively,
t, respectively
0.130
1.5 σ0,σ1,ε0,ε1,ε2,Φ1, Φ2: regression constants
Force, kN

0.125

1.0
0.120 ε1: slope of the drift curve of the displacement
|E*|, Φ: dynamic modulus and phase angle
0.115

0.5 0.110
E

0.105

0.0 0.100
100.2 105.2 110.2 115.2 120.2 125.2 130.2 135.2 140.2 145.2 150.2 155.2
Time, sec
6
 Background of E* (cont’d)

¾ Master curve and shift factors

(Williams-Landel-Ferry model)
C 1 (T − T S ) T: temperature
log α T = Ts: reference temperature
C 2 + T − TS C1,C2: constants

¾ Pellinen model
α
log E * = δ +
1 + e β − γ log( fr )

δ: minimum modulus value

Fr: reduced frequency
α: span of modulus values
β, γ: shape parameters
7
 Objectives
¾ Established test protocol through shake
down evaluation
- The effect of temperature
- The effect of frequency
- The effect of strain level
- Damage assessment
¾ Performed dynamic modulus testing on
typical Iowa mixtures
- 21 Iowa asphalt mixtures
- Construct master curves for the MEPDG

8
 Sample
p Preparation
p
¾ Sample preparation under comprehensive
investigation (NCHRP 9
9-29)
29)
¾ Typical gyratory sample not homogenous
- Density gradation
- Across diameter (surface vs. interior)
- Top and bottom vs. interior
¾ Coring procedure recommended
- Prepare tall 6’’ gyratory specimen
- Obtain 4’’ by 6’’ tall specimen

9
 Sample
p Preparation
p ((Cont’d))

¾ Coring procedure
- Difficult to perform
¾ Possible solution
- Using slender 4’’ mold

10
 Test Setup
p

Dynamic modulus test

(NCHRP Report 547)

11
 Shake Down Test
¾ Five temperatures (from low to high)
- 4.4, 15, 21, 26 and 37°C
¾ Eleven frequencies (from high to low)
- 25, 15, 10, 7, 5, 2, 1, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, and 0.1Hz
¾ Five replicates
¾ Two strain levels
- 80 and 120 micro-strains
¾ One mixture
- Jewell

12
 Shake Down Test (cont
(cont’d)
d)

¾ Using various frequency combinations to

check
h k possible
ibl damage
d during
d i testing
t ti

Samples 25 15 10 7 5 2 1 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1

5 X X X X X X X X X X X
5 X X X X X X X X
5 X X X X X
5 X X X

¾ Conditioned in the temperature chamber

¾ Capture the last seven cycles

13
 Shake Down Test Results
¾ Replicates
- Consistent, no significant difference (t – test)
¾ Damage assessment
- No significant damage found

14
20 80-1-0.1hz
First 5 Hz 80-2-0 1hz
80-2-0.1
18
Seco nd 5Hz 12 80-3-0.1hz
16 80-4-0.1hz
10
14

12 8

10
6
8

6 4

4
2
2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Five Replicates Damage assessment 14

 Shake Down Test Results (cont
(cont’d)
d)

¾ Strain level effect

- No significant difference (t – test)
¾ Temperature and frequency effect
14 25
80 120
12
20
+4°C
10 15°C
15 C
21°C

E* (G Pa)
15 26°C
8 37°C

6
10

5
2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Frequency (Hz)
Two strain levels: 80 and 120με
15
 Shake Down Test Results (Cont
(Cont’d)
d)

¾ Master curves

1.0.E+08 1.0.E+08

1.0.E+07 1.0.E+07

|E*|, K Pa
Pa
|E*|, KP

4 15
1.0.E+06 21 26 1.0.E+06 4 21
37 Fit
37 Fit

1.0.E+05 1.0.E+05
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07

Frequency, Hz
Frequency, Hz

Five temperatures Th
Three temperatures
t t
16
 Five vs. Three Temperatures
p

1.0.E+08
1.0.E+08

11.0.E+07
1.0.E+07
1 00 E+07
E+07
KPa
|E*|, KPa

1.0.E+08
|E*|,

4 15
1.0.E+06
1.0.E+06
214 2621
1.0.E+07
37 Fit
37 Fit
|E*|, KPa

1 0 E+06
1.0.E+06 4 21

37 Fit
1.0.E+05
1.0.E+05
1.E-05
1.E-05 1.E-03
1.E-03 1.E-01
1.E-01 1.E+01
1.E+01 1.E+03
1.E+03 1.E+05
1.E+05 1.E+07
1.E+07
Frequency, Hz
1.0.E+05
1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07
Frequency, Hz
Frequency,
Frequency Hz

17
 Shift Factors

3 3

2 2

1
Sh ift F acto r

Sh ift F acto r
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
-1 -1
y = -0.1446x + 3.0995 y = -0.1414x + 3.05
-2 -2
R2 = 0.9976 R2 = 0.9991

-3 -3

Temperature (°C) p
Temperature (°C)
( )

Five temperatures Three temperatures

18
 Dynamic Modulus for Iowa Mixtures
¾ Selected temperatures
p
- 4.4, 21 and 37°C
¾ Selected frequencies
q
- 25, 15, 10, 5, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.1
¾ 21 p
projects
j based on traffic level and binder PG
- 1M, 3M, 10M, 30M and 100M ESALs
- PG58-28, 64-28, 64-22, 70-22 and 76-28

19
 Test Results for Iowa Mixtures
1.0.E+08

1 0 E+07
1.0.E+07
|E*|, KPa

Jewell
I80S
1.0.E+06 I235S
Dedham
NW
330B
218T
HW4
330S
1.0.E+05
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02
235B 1.E+04
1.E+03 1.E+05
Frequency, Hz

20
 Summary
¾ Dynamic modulus shake down test
- Five
Fi temperatures
t t andd eleven
l frequencies
f i
- Two different strain levels
¾ No statistical difference found
- strain level, replicates

¾ No accumulated damage found

¾ Master curve build
¾ E* test protocol built for Iowa mixtures
- Three temperatures & Nine frequencies
¾ Mix performance appears to coincide with
g levels
volumetric design
21
 Acknowledgements

¾ Iowa DOT
– John Hinrichsen
– YoonJoo Kim
– Kevin Jones
¾ Mike Heitzman
¾ Members of APAI

22
Thank you!

Q
Questions?
ti ?

23