See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280564793

additional compression tests

Technical Report · March 2000

CITATIONS READS

0 377

2 authors:

Sandra Erkens M. R. Poot

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
88 PUBLICATIONS 916 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Healing of bitumen and mortar View project

Epoxy-modified Asphalt Concrete (EpoxAC) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra Erkens on 30 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Equation Section 1

Report 7-00-117-5 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION TESTS

ISSN 0169-9288 Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe)

March 2000 ir. S.M.J.G. Erkens and ing. M.R. Poot

-15.0
fc [N/mm2] no friction reduction
ACRe friction reduction
-13.0
fc(h/D=2)
95% reliability interval
-11.0

-9.0

-7.0

-5.0

-3.0

-1.0

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

h/D
Report 7-00-117-5 ADDITIONAL COMPRESSION TESTS
ISSN 0169-9288 Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe)

March 2000 ir. S.M.J.G. Erkens and ing. M.R. Poot

This project was carried out as an assignment for

the Technology Foundation STW, Applied Science
Division of NWO and the Technology Programme of
the Ministry of Economic Affairs as part of the NWO
Priority Programme for Materials Research.

Assignment number: DCT 4090-2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank all my colleagues from the Road and Railroad Research Laboratory for their advice
and support. Special thanks are due to G. Galjé, who took care of the complete specimen production
process and to J.A.M. Kalf and J.W. Bientjes, who were a great help in the preparation of the
temperature-development tests.

From this place I also want to thank our sponsors, being the Shell Research and Technology Centre
in Amsterdam and the Technology Foundation STW, Applied Science Division of NWO and the
Technology Programme of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

The financial support from the Shell Technology Centre and the Road and Hydraulic Engineering
Division of the Ministry of Transportation in the preliminary phase of these tests is also gratefully
acknowledged.

Sandra Erkens

TU Delft ACRe 3
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 3

CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

SAMENVATTING ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1............................................................................................................................................. 9

2. TEST PREPARATION, PROCEDURES AND SET-UP 2 ............................................................................... 11

2.1 MIX COMPOSITION, SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................. 11
2.2 TEST SET-UP ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
2.3 TEST PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................................................. 19
3. TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS 3 0 ......................................................................................................... 21
3.1 TEST CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 TEST RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Test results and their accuracy ................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.2 Data analysis: a general relation for the compressive strength ............................................................... 26
3.2.2.1 Developing a general relation for fc ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.2.2.2 Sensitivity of the expression for fc with respect to the regression constants .......................................................... 31
4. INFLUENCE OF THE SET-UP ON THE TEST RESULTS ........................................................................... 37
4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 37
4.2 FRICTION IN THE CONTACT SURFACES ................................................................................................................. 38
4.2.1 Possible solutions ..................................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.1 Local deformation registration............................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.2 Friction reduction................................................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.3 Height to diameter ratio ......................................................................................................................................... 40
4.2.2 Tests to assess the influence of h/D and friction reduction ...................................................................... 40
4.3 THE HEATING-UP AND COOLING-DOWN OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SPECIMENS ....................................................... 45
4.3.1 Theoretical observations about the temperature development ................................................................. 46
4.3.2 Temperature registration in specimens .................................................................................................... 47
5. CONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 52
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 52
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 53
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix 1: Filler composition............................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix 2: Sieve curve crushed sand 0/5 and filler .............................................................................................. 56
Appendix 3: Bitumen characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix 4: Calibration data loadcell ................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix 5: Calibration data long range LVDT's .................................................................................................. 60
Appendix 6: Calibration data small range LVDT's ................................................................................................ 63
Appendix 7: Calibration data extensometer ........................................................................................................... 66
Appendix 8:Error function ...................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix 9:Error analyses ..................................................................................................................................... 69

Lab W&S ACRe 4

SUMMARY

In 1997 the Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe) project commenced at the Delft University of
Technology. This project is a combined effort of the Structural Mechanics and Road and Railway
Engineering groups of the Department of Civil Engineering and Geo Sciences. The objective is to
develop a 3D, non-linear material model as well as the test programme necessary to determine the
model parameters.

An extensive test programme is underway at the Road & Railway Research Laboratory, aimed at
developing the test procedures and determining the material characteristics of a reference mix.
These parameters will be used to evaluate the material model. One such test in the programme is
the uniaxial compression test. A series of these compression tests were carried out in 1998, at
different temperatures (0, 15 and 30oC) and deformation rates (0.1, 1 and 10 mm/s). Details of the
test set-up, procedures and results were published by Erkens et al. 1998. During the data-analysis it
became clear that the interval between 1 mm/s and 10 mm/s was rather large, so an additional series
of tests was run at 5 mm/s. On the basis of these and the previous results, a general expression for
the compressive strength as a function of temperature and strain rate, based on physical
considerations, was developed.

After publishing the report on the first series of tests, it was realised that the successful introduction
of a friction reduction system led to questions about the effect of friction on the test results. These
questions covered several related topics, such as the effect of the friction reduction system, the
quantitative effect of friction on the compressive strength and allowable height-to-diameter (h/D)
ratio’s. This phenomenon is of particular importance to road engineers, since many specimens are
taken from actual road constructions, which limits their height. Typical specimen dimensions are 50
mm in height and 100 or 150 mm in diameter. The question whether or not specimens with a h/D
ratio of ½ and 1/3, respectively, could be used to obtain reliable results, particularly in uniaxial and
triaxial compression tests, needs to be addressed. Although this question is not directly related to
the main topic of the ACRe project, it touches upon an important aspect of the project, i.e. careful
testing. For this reason, it was decided to perform a series of tests to investigate this aspect.
Specimens with different h/D ratios were tested both with and without friction reduction and the
compressive strengths as well as the stress-strain curves were compared. It has been concluded that,
to obtain reliable strength values, the use of friction reduction is necessary for low (<1) and
advisable for intermediate (1  h/D  2) h/D ratios. If friction reduction is utilised, the strength
values are reliable until well below h/D=1, it would appear that even h/D=0.25 gives an acceptable
value. The shape of the stress-strain curve, however, is influenced by the h/D ratio and will change
despite the friction reduction. If friction reduction is omitted, the observed strength starts to
increase for h/D ratio’s below 2 and for h/D < 1 the strength is over-estimated by a factor of about
2.

Another point of frequent concern after the first series of tests, involved the temperature of storage.
The specimens were stored at the test temperature for twenty-four hours or more before testing and
left in the set-up for an hour after instrumentation in order to re-establish a uniform temperature. A
dummy specimen fitted with a temperature sensor was stored in a number of different conditions to
determine the validity of these conditioning times. The tests focussed on the time that elapsed
before a specimen in temperature controlled storage first reached a uniform temperature distribution
TU Delft ACRe 5
as well as the rate with which the temperature changed once a specimen is removed from
temperature controlled storage. The results of these tests indicate that a specimen does not have to
be stored at the test temperature for twenty-four hours. Storage in water for two hours is sufficient,
while air storage leads to a uniform temperature after approximately five hours (from the dummy
specimen that was results).

Lab W&S ACRe 6

SAMENVATTING

In 1997 is het Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe) project van start gegaan aan de Technische
Universiteit Delft. Dit is een samenwerkingsproject van de secties Toegepaste Mechanica en
Wegbouwkunde van de faculteit der Civiele Techniek en Technische Geowetenschappen. Het
project is erop gericht een 3D, niet-lineair materiaalmodel te ontwikkelen, alsmede het
proevenprogramma dat nodig is om de materiaalparameters te bepalen.

In het Laboratorium voor Wegen & Spoorwegen wordt een uitgebreid proevenprogramma
uitgevoerd met als doel het ontwikkelen van proeven en proefprocedures en het bepalen van de
materiaalparameters van een referentie mengsel. Deze materiaalparameters worden weer gebruikt
om het model te evalueren. Een van de proeven uit het proevenprogramma is de uniaxiale
drukproef. In 1998 is een serie drukproeven bij verschillende temperaturen (0, 15 en 30oC) en
snelheden (0.1, 1 en 10 mm/s) uitgevoerd. Informatie over de testopstelling, -procedures en –
resultaten is the vinden Erkens et al. 1998. Gedurende de data-analyse bleek dat het gat tussen de
resultaten bij 1 en 10 mm/s aan de grote kant was en om die reden is er besloten een aanvullende
proevenserie met een snelheid van 5 mm/s uit te voeren. Op basis van deze resultaten en die van de
eerdere proeven is een, op fysische overwegingen gebaseerde, niet-lineaire functie ontwikkeld die
de druksterkte beschrijft als functie van de reksnelheid en de temperatuur.

Nadat het rapport over de eerste serie proeven gepubliceerd was, bleek dat de succesvolle
introductie van het wrijvingsreductiesysteem een aantal vragen opriep. Deze vragen hadden
betrekking op de invloed van wrijving op de gemeten druksterkte, het effect van het
reductiesysteem en de toelaatbare hoogte-diameter (h/D) verhoudingen. Dit is een belangrijke vraag
voor wegenbouwers, aangezien veel van de op dit gebied gebruikte proefstukken uit
wegconstructies worden gehaald, waardoor de proefstukhoogte beperkt is. Veel proefstukken zijn
50 mm hoog bij een diameter van 100 of 150 mm en het is altijd een punt van discussie geweest of
proefstukken met derelijke lage h/D-verhoudingen (½ en 1/3) wel btrouwbare resultaten geven,
zeker in uniaxiale en triaxiale drukproeven. Hoewel deze vraag niet direct tot de doelstelling van
het ACRe project behoort, raakt ze wel aan een heel belangrijk onderdeel van het project, namelijk
het zorgvuldig proeven doen. Daarom is een serie proeven gedaan om dit te onderzoeken. Hiertoe
zijn proefstukken met verschillende h/D-verhoudingen beproefd, zowel met als zonder
wrijvingsreductie, en de druksterktes en spanning-rek diagrammen zijn vergeleken. Het blijkt dat,
om een betrouwbare indicatie van de druksterkte te krijgen, het toepassen van wrijvingsreductie
essentieel is bij kleine (<1) h/D verhoudingen en aan te raden is voor 1  h/D  2. Als
wrijvingsreductie wordt toegepast, is de gevonden sterkte ook voor h/D < 1 betrouwbaar en het lijkt
er op dat zelfs voor h/D=0.25 nog een goede indicatie van de sterkte wordt gevonden. De vorm van
het spanning-rek diagram na de piek verandert wel bij lagere h/D waarden, ondanks het gebruik van
wrijvingsreductie. Als er geen wrijvingsreductie wordt gebruikt, worden te hoge sterktes gevonden
voor h/D<2 en voor h/D<1 kan deze overschatting van de sterkte oplopen tot 100%.

Een ander onderwerp dat veelvuldig aan de orde kwam naar aanleiding van het eerste rapport was
temperatuur controle. Voordat de proeven werden uitgevoerd, werden de proefstukken
vierentwintig uur of langer opgeslagen bij de testtemperatuur. Nadat een proefstuk in de opstelling
was geplaatst en geïnstrumenteerd was, werd er een uur gewacht met het doen van de proef om het
proefstuk weer op temperatuur te laten komen. Een met een temperatuurssensor uitgerust
testproefstuk is opgeslagen bij verschillende temperaturen en in verschillende media om te
TU Delft ACRe 7
onderzoeken of deze opslagtijden werkelijk nodig zijn. Uit de proevenserie kwam naar voren dat
het niet nodig is om een proefstuk vierentwintig uur te laten acclimatiseren. Voor opslag in water
volstond een opslagtijd van twee uur, terwijl een proefstuk na ongeveer vijf uur in een
luchtgestuurde opslagruimte uniform van temperatuur was.

Lab W&S ACRe 8

1. I NTRODUCTION 1 1

In the Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe) project, a three dimensional, non-linear material model
for asphalt concrete (A.C.) is being developed. Such a model describes the material response, from
virgin till failed, to any three dimensional state of stress. The ACRe model is based on Desai’s flow
surface, combined with relations that govern the different types of response (elasticity, cracking,
plastic deformation) exhibited by asphalt concrete. These types of response and the flow surface are
expressed in mathematical expressions. These are generally applicable, since they characterise a
type of behaviour, the exact characteristics (strength, stiffness, rate of degradation) are controlled
by parameters in these expressions. These parameters are material-specific and have to be
determined through a series of tests. The parameters are determined from the response of the
material to a given state of stress, it does not really matter what state of stress this is, as long as it is
the same state of stress throughout the specimen. Tests that result in such a uniform state of stress
usually require sophisticated set-ups and test procedures. In the ACRe projects a series of such test
will be developed to facilitate the parameter determination for the model development. This
requires an extensive test programme, in which the uniaxial monotonic compression test is the first
type of test.

In the first part of the project, compression tests were carried out at three temperatures (0, 15 and 30
o
C) and three deformation (strain) rates: 0.1 (0.001), 1 (0.01) and 10 mm/s (0.1 s-1). These tests are
described in Erkens et al., 1998. During data analysis it became apparent that the gap between 1
mm/s and 10 mm/s was rather large and that additional information in this range would be
welcome. As a result, additional tests at 5 mm/s were carried out and the results will be presented in
this report.

In the report about the first series of tests the potential influence of the test set-up on the test results
was discussed in detail. Among the possible disturbances were: friction between specimen and
loading plates and a non-uniform temperature distribution in the specimen. In both cases the test
conditions differ from the intended situation and, if this is not realised, the registered response will
be linked to the intended instead of to the applied test conditions. These problems, their effects and
the solutions developed within the ACRe project were discussed in the report. However, many
people asked for more elaborate information about the effects of both friction and temperature. For
example, “What height to diameter (h/D) ratio do you need to do tests without a friction reduction
system?” or “What ratio is the smallest acceptable if you use friction reduction?”. Also, the time it
takes to achieve a uniform temperature distribution in a specimen turned out to be a subject of
interest. Although these questions are not part of the main body of research carried out in the ACRe
project, they are definitely related to it. Therefore, some additional tests were carried out to get
some information on these effects. The results of these tests are presented in this report about
additional tests.

In the second Chapter of this report some information on the mix, specimens and test-set ups is
presented. This Chapter is a compilation of the information presented in Chapters 2 through 4 of
Erkens et al. 1998.

TU Delft ACRe 9
In Chapter 3 the test results, both from the original series and the additional tests for v = 5 mm/s (or
.
 = 0.05 s-1) are presented. The remainder of this Chapter deals with the data analysis and the
derivation of a physically relevant expression for the compressive strength of the mix.

The influence from friction and the height to diameter ratio is discussed in the first part of Chapter
4. In this section the results from tests on specimens with different h/D ratios and tests with and
without friction reduction are presented. The second part of this Chapter is about the temperature
distribution in a specimen. A specimen was fitted with an internal temperature sensor in order to
register how long it took to establish a uniform temperature under a series of conditions.

In Chapter 5 the conclusions and recommendations that resulted from this research are presented.

Lab W&S ACRe 10

2. T EST PREPARATION, PROCEDURES AND SET-UP 2
Equation Section (Next)

2.1 MIX COMPOSITION, SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND CHARACTERISTICS

The asphalt mix used in the experiments was a rather coarse grained, bitumen rich, downscaled
dense asphalt concrete. It was downscaled to allow a high minimum specimen dimension versus
maximum aggregate size, leading to a maximum aggregate size of 5 mm. The mix consists of 3
components:

1. Filler: The filler was a weak filler of 100 % calcium powder with a density of 2780 kg/m3 for
the first batch and 2770 kg/m3 for the second and third batch (Appendix 1).
2. Aggregate: The aggregate used in the mix was crushed rock with a maximum grain size of 5
mm and a density of 2675 kg/m3. The sieve curve of the sand and that of the aggregate is shown
in Appendix 2.
3. Bitumen: The bitumen was 45/60 bitumen with a density of 1020 kg/m3. From the binder two
batches were used, the first had a penetration of 47 x 0.1 mm and TRK= 51 C ( PI = -1.10) and
the second had a penetration of 47x0.1 mm and TR&K = 52 C ( PI = -0.83; see Appendix 3). The
samples were obtained directly from stock.

The specific densities of the components are summarised in table 2.1.

In general the uncertainties are explained in Erkens et al. (1998).

Component Density [kg/m3]

Sand 2675 ± 15
Filler 2780 resp. 2770 ± 10
Bitumen 1025 ± 5
Table 2.1: Density of the mix components

For the production of gyratory cylinders a 3.5 kg mix was used consisting of:
 2.7 kg crushed sand 0/5
 0.5 kg Wigro filler (weak)
 0.3 kg bitumen 45/60

Then the mass percentages are:

 77.1 % crushed sand (ms = 77.1 %)
 14.3 % filler (mf = 14.3 %)
 8.6 % bitumen (mb = 8.6 %)

The density of the mix is, according to Test 67: Specimen Density (CROW, 1995):

m s  m f  mb
 mix  (2.1)
ms m f mb
 
s f b

Where:

TU Delft ACRe 11
mj = mass percentage of component j [%]
j = density of component j [kg/m3]
index s = crushed sand
index f = filler
index b = bitumen

This yields a mix density of mix = (2360  10) kg/m3.

The specimen density (sp) and void percentage (Va) was determined in order to allow a relation
between specimen response and composition to be established. With the weight of the specimen
under water and in dry and wet conditions the specimen density (sp) can be determined as
described in test 67: Density of the asphalt sample (CROW, 1995 ).

mdry . w
 sp  (2.2)
mwet  munder

where:
mdry = dry mass specimen [kg]
mwet = wet mass specimen [kg]
munder = mass specimen under water [kg]
w = density of water [kg/m3]

With the specimen density and the mix density mix (Equation 2.) the percentage of air voids (Va) in
the specimens can be computed, according to Test 69: Percentage of air voids (CROW, 1995):

 mix   sp
Va   100 (2.3)
 mix
where:

Va = percentage voids [%]

mix = density of the mix [kg/m3]
sp = density of the specimen [kg/m3]

The specimen geometry was also determined. The diameter (d) and height (h) had been measured at
three positions around the specimen circumference. From these three values the average was taken.
The measurements were performed with sliding callipers, which allowed them to be determined
with an accuracy of 0.05 mm.
The resulting specimen density (sp), the percentage voids (Va) as well as the geometry are shown
in table 2.2. The calculation of the uncertainties in these values is described in detail in Appendix 5
in Erkens et al., 1998.

With the densities of the components from table 2.1 and the specimen density (sp) from Table 2.2
the volume percentage of each component for each specimen can be calculated.

mj  sp
Vj    100 (2.4)
m f  ms  mb j

Where:

Vj = volume percentage of component j [%]

Lab W&S ACRe 12

mj = mass percentage of component j [%]
sp = specimen density [kg/m3]
j = density of component j [kg/m3]
index s = crushed sand
index f = filler
index b = bitumen

Substitution in Equation 2.4 of the densities from Table 2.1, the mass percentages and the average
specimen density (sp = 2299 kg/m3) from Table 2.2 gives the following volume percentages:

Vs = (66.3  0.4) %
Vf = (11.8  0.05) %
Vb = (19.3  0.1) %

The specimen production started with the production of 150 mm gyratory cylinders of
approximately 85 mm height, for which 3.5 kg asphalt mix was needed. Before these gyrator
cylinders were made, the filler and sand were stored in a 180 C oven for at least 24 hours. The
mixing started with heating the bitumen (160 C). When the bitumen had the right temperature, it
was pored in a preheated aluminium bowl. After that the sand and filler were added. While the
components were being mixed, the bowl was placed in a mantle heater, which ensured that the
asphalt mix maintained the right temperature for compaction (160 C). The gyratory mould and its
top and bottom plate (already in place) were also preheated to 180 C. While the asphalt was being
mixed, a preheated steel wearing disc and a paper disc were placed in the bottom of the mould. To
ease the release of the specimen from the mould its inner surface was treated with a mixture of
glycerine and talc powder (mass ratio 3:1). After putting the asphalt mix in the mould the surface of
the mix was levelled. A paper disc and a steel-wearing disc were placed on top of the mix followed
by the preheated top plate.

It is important that after mixing, compaction starts as soon as possible to avoid cooling of the
asphalt mix and, thus, a decrease in specimen density. During compaction the mix is no longer
heated, except for the influence of the steel mould which had an initial temperature of 180oC. After
compaction the mould is taken from the gyrator and left to cool down for several hours. After this
cooling period, the 150 mm cylinders were pushed out of the mould with a hydraulic press. For
more details about this procedure, the reader is referred to Erkens et al., 1998.

Cores of 50 mm diameter were drilled horizontally from the middle part of the  150 mm gyratory
cores. Since gyrator specimens vary in composition over their height (2.3 % voids at the top, 2.7 %
at the bottom and 3 % in middle part), a horizontally drilled core has a more uniform composition
than a vertically drilled core. Of course, if an anisotropic mix (a mix with large aggregates, which
are oriented in a specific way due to compaction) is used, the direction of drilling can not always be
chosen in this way. In that case, a less homogeneous composition must be accepted. The drilling
procedure resulted in cores of a maximum length of 150 mm, with rounded top and bottom side.
These rounded parts were cut of using a saw, while the middle part of the specimen was fixed in a
Perspex sawing mould. This mould was used to ensure parallel top and bottom surfaces. To
minimise the surface roughness and provide plan parallel surfaces, both the top and bottom side of
the specimen were polished. During polishing the specimen again was placed in a mould. This
process resulted in cylindrical specimens of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height (approximately).

TU Delft ACRe 13
filename code T [ o C] v [mm/s] D± 0.05 [mm] h ± 0.1 [mm]  sp 3
± 3 [kg/m ] Va ± 0.5 [%]
com01_1 D66 30 0.1 49.7 100 2291 2.2
com01_2 D209 30 0.1 49.7 100.4 2294 2.1
com01_3 D344 30 0.1 49.9 100.5 2300 1.9
com01_4 D211 30 0.1 49.7 100.25 2298 1.9
com01_5 D345 30 0.1 49.9 100.45 2308 1.5
49.8 100.3 2298 1.9
com01_6 D206 15 0.1 49.7 100.1 2271 3.1
com01_7 D210 15 0.1 49.7 100.3 2319 1.0
com01_8 D221 15 0.1 49.8 100.1 2318 1.1
com01_9 D207 15 0.1 49.7 100.4 2301 1.8
com01_10 D215 15 0.1 49.7 100.2 2318 1.1
49.7 100.2 2305 1.6
com01_11 D63 0 0.1 49.7 99.95 2292 2.2
com01_12 D111 0 0.1 49.76 99.87 2319 1.0
com01_13 D120 0 0.1 49.7 99.6 2327 0.7
com01_14 D117 0 0.1 49.72 100.43 2294 2.1
com01_15 D122 0 0.1 49.67 99.37 2263 3.4
49.7 99.8 2299 1.9
com1_1 D202 30 1 49.7 99.8 2324 0.8
com1_2 D362 30 1 49.8 99.95 2268 3.2
com1_3 D67 30 1 49.75 99.95 2301 1.8
com1_4 D363 30 1 49.7 100.15 2293 2.2
com1_5 D62 30 1 49.75 100.25 2300 1.8
49.7 100.0 2297 2.0
com1_6 D219 15 1 49.7 100.1 2311 1.4
com1_7 D113 15 1 49.65 99.57 2275 2.9
com1_8 D203 15 1 49.7 99.9 2274 3.0
com1_9 D48 15 1 49.5 100.4 2316 1.1
com1_10 D204 15 1 49.7 99.8 2288 2.4
49.7 100.0 2293 2.2
com1_11 D133 0 1 49.72 100.05 2303 1.7
com1_12 D118 0 1 49.68 99.75 2317 1.1
com1_13 D131 0 1 49.7 100.07 2320 1.0
com1_14 D127 0 1 49.75 99.35 2238 4.5
com1_15 D201 0 1 49.7 99.5 2311 1.4
49.7 99.7 2298 1.9
com5_1 D364 30 5 49.8 100.2 2302 1.7
com5_2 D353 30 5 49.85 100.3 2314 1.2
com5_3 D346 30 5 49.8 100.45 2315 1.2
com5_4 D365 30 5 49.9 100.25 2282 2.6
com5_5 D342 30 5 49.8 100.45 2311 1.4
49.8 100.3 2305 1.6
com5_6 D368 15 5 49.8 100.05 2299 1.9
com5_7 D360 15 5 49.8 100.25 2310 1.4
com5_8 D359 15 5 49.8 100.2 2303 1.7
com5_9 D356 15 5 49.85 100.2 2305 1.6
com5_10 D354 15 5 49.8 100.25 2278 2.8
49.8 100.2 2299 1.9
com5_11 D366 0 5 49.8 100 2310 1.4
com5_12 D352 0 5 49.8 95.8 2308 1.5
com5_13 D349 0 5 49.9 100.5 2309 1.4
com5_14 D351 0 5 49.9 100.5 2297 1.9
com5_15 D369 0 5 49.8 100 2301 1.8
49.8 99.4 2305 1.6
com10_1 D50 30 10 49.55 99.75 2316 1.2
com10_2 D125 30 10 49.65 100.17 2311 1.4
com10_3 D140 30 10 49.75 100.45 2325 0.8
com10_4 D212 30 10 49.75 100.2 2282 2.6
com10_5 D138 30 10 49.7 100.22 2312 1.3
49.7 100.2 2309 1.5
com10_6 D137 15 10 49.73 99.8 2303 1.7
com10_7 D130 15 10 49.75 100 2296 2.0
com10_8 D65 15 10 49.75 100.2 2305 1.6
com10_9 D132 15 10 49.65 99.68 2301 1.8
com10_10 D135 15 10 49.75 100.3 2302 1.8
49.7 100.0 2301 1.8
com10_11 D116 0 10 49.85 100.0 2308 1.5
com10_12 D123 0 10 49.68 99.7 2304 1.6
com10_13 D61 0 10 49.75 99.2 2307 1.5
com10_14 D114 0 10 49.65 100.07 2293 2.1
com10_15 D218 0 10 49.7 100.3 2251 3.9
49.7 99.9 2293 2.1

Table 2.2: Overview of the specimen geometry (h,D), density(sp) and voids (Va)

Lab W&S ACRe 14

The test and preparation possibilities dictated the specimen dimensions. Based on the expected
strength and the actuator capacity the diameter had to be smaller than or equal to 50 mm. Based on
the gyratory moulds the specimen height was limited to 100 mm (with flat surfaces). To minimise
the influence of friction at the top and bottom during the test the specimen must be at least twice its
diameter in height.

After the analysis of their composition, the specimens were left to dry. Plastic hooks were glued at
120o intervals, 50 mm above the bottom plate of the set-up (e.g. 50 mm above the bottom side of
the specimen). Since all specimens were approximately 100 mm high, this position corresponded
with half the specimen height. This was done to fix a string that was wrapped around the specimen
at the beginning of the test in order to measure the radial deformation. Also before starting the test,
the top and bottom contact surfaces were covered with a BASF Luflexen plastic sheet of 50 m
thickness which at both sides was being greased with a soft soap with glycerine (‘zachte zeep’).
This reduces the friction between the compressive plates and the specimen.

2.2 TEST SET-UP

The compression test set-up consists of a 3D space frame in which an MTS 150 kN hydraulic
actuator is mounted. The actuator is connected rigidly to the upper loading plate. The frame itself is
placed on an elastically supported concrete block. On the lower part of the frame a pedestal is
constructed to which the bottom plate is connected. The bottom and top plate are kept parallel by
means of three massive ( 16 mm) Fortal bars which are connected to the bottom plate and pass
through linear bearings in the top plate. An insulated cabinet is placed within the frame, which
allows the tests to be performed at specific temperatures. Inside the temperature cabinet are the
transducers, which register the radial and axial deformations of the specimen, as well as the applied
force. The axial deformation is registered by means of two sets of three displacement transducers
(LVDT’s). The radial deformation is measured by means of two circumferential measurement
systems and the force is measured by means of a loadcell, which is positioned between top plate
and actuator.
The measurement systems are connected to a PC-based data acquisition system, which produces a
single ASCII output file for each test. These files are the basis for the data-analysis procedures
discussed in Chapter 4.

The force applied with the 150 kN MTS actuator is measured with a 200 kN Lebow loadcell (model
3174-114) which can be used in four ranges (20, 50, 100, 150 kN). The calibration data from the
loadcell is shown in Appendix 4. The actuator is controlled by an MTS testcontroller (model
448.82) which allows the selection of the appropriate force range for the test conditions. The test is
displacement-controlled and a programmable function generator (MTS microprofiler model 418.91)
generates its rate. Since some of the tests were performed at rather high deformation rates and low
temperatures, which resulted in high stiffness’, the system was fitted with a 19 l/min high response
valve (Moog, model D760-232A), which allowed the actuator to apply the required forces at a high
speed.

The specimen is put in a temperature-controlled cabinet with dimensions 0.6x0.5x0.6 m. It is a

sandwich construction of wood and roofmate. The inside of the cabinet is clothed with
aluminium/plastic insulation foil. To minimise temperature loss through the 3D-space frame, a 1
cm. thick PVC plate is placed between the part of the frame inside and that outside the temperature
cabinet. Three PT 100 elements are put in the temperature cabinet. Two of them are connected to
the bottom and top plate respectively and the third registers the air temperature. The first two PT
100’s are connected to a temperature control unit which maintains the temperature with an accuracy
of  0.5 C. Either one of these sensors can be used to control this unit. The unit circulates air in

TU Delft ACRe 15
the temperature cabinet between two input channels and one output channel. One input channel is
close to the upper compression plate and the other is close to the lower compression plate. With
simple valves the ratio in airflow through the two input channels can be varied. The unit is capable
to maintain the temperature in a range of -5 C till 35C.

The axial deformation of the specimen was measured by six LVDT’s. Three of them had a range of
 1 inch =  25.4 mm and were able to cover the total axial deformation of 20 to 30 mm. These
LVDT’s were used to control the specimen deformation. This on-specimen control system ensured
that the applied deformation was the actual deformation of the specimen instead of a combination
of specimen and frame deformations. The specifications of these Trans Tek LVDT’s are given in
Appendix 5. Since inductive transducers with a large range are usually less accurate, three other
LVDT’s were used to cover the first 1-2 mm of the axial deformation with high accuracy. The
specifications of these Solartron LVDT’s are given in Appendix 6. All six LVDT’s were connected
to the top plate and rested on the bottom plate. For the 1 mm transducers this is achieved by means
of extenders which give them the correct length. Once the test starts, the top plate, which is
connected to the actuator, is pushed down. The decrease in distance between top and bottom plate
that results from this movement is registered by the LVDT’s. To prevent crushing of the small
range transducers, the connection to the top plate consists of bolts with springs (Figure 2.2). Once
the accurate LVDT’s get out of range (i.e. their springs are completely compressed), they act as
rigid bars. Because the connection to the top plate allows some freedom, due to the presence of the
springs, the LVDT’s start sliding through the top plate. If they could not slide through the top plate,
they would be crushed due to the imposed constant deformation rate. In order to be effective, the
bolt-spring connection must be tight enough to stabilise the coarse LVDT’s and loose enough to
allow sliding of the accurate LVDT’s (Figure 3.2). In the data analysis procedure the signals from
both sets of LVDT’s are combined to give one overall deformation signal.

(B)
(A)
Figure 2.1: The complete compression set-up (A) and a close up of the inside of the
temperature cabinet (B)

Lab W&S ACRe 16

Figure 2.2: Overview of the connection of the LVDT’s to the top plate
The total radial deformation of a specimen that fails in uniaxial compression is rather large. At the
onset of the test, when the specimen is not yet damaged, the radial deformations are small. In the
linear elastic stage of response, the radial strain is related to the axial strain via Poisson’s constant.
Once internal cracks start growing, the radial deformations increase. This is due to dilation, which
is volumetric expansion due to the opening of internal cracks. The increase in specimen diameter at
the end of a test can be up to sixty percent. In order to measure the total change in diameter as well
as the onset of radial deformations, a combination of measurement systems was used here as well.
The first part of the radial deformation is accurately measured with an MTS circumferential kit
(Figure 2.3) which consist of a roller chain connected to a full bridge of straingages. This bridge,
called an extensometer, measures the change in distance between the end rollers of the chain. In
combination with the chain length and the specimen diameter at the start of the test, the chain
opening data can be used to determine the radial deformation. The chain was positioned below the
string, which was positioned at the middle of the specimen (Figure 2.4). The extensometer has a
range of ± 3.75 mm, which in this case corresponded to a change in specimen radius of
approximately 1.5 mm (6 % increase in diameter).

TU Delft ACRe 17
Figure 2.3: An extensometer was used for the first part of the radial deformation
The total radial deformation was measured by a Kevlar string, which was wrapped around the
middle of the specimen and two 10-turn potentiometers (P1 en P2), at both ends (Figure 2.4). Two
small weights provide the friction that is required for this system. The string is kept at its place at
the middle of the specimen by means of three small hooks. This system can cover very large
deformations, but it starts registering only when the forces caused by the radial deformations are
large enough to annihilate the friction between specimen and string.

L1 2
i Li
P1 P2

2 Ri

Figure 2.4: A schematic representation of the radial measurement system with a string
In the data analysis procedure, the extensometer and string data are used to determine the radial
deformation of the specimen. Since both systems register these deformations indirectly, a method
was developed to determine the radial deformations from the respective signals. Finally, the radial
deformations from both systems were combined to provide data on the overall radial deformations.

All measuring devices are connected to a control panel that generates the supply voltage and
delivers the output voltage of the transducers. These output voltages are sent to an input/output
board, which consists of a BNC connection panel. This panel is connected to the data acquisition
board, a DAS-1602 board from Keithley metrabyte, which is placed in a 486 PC (100 MHz). For

Lab W&S ACRe 18

the compression test 10 single ended connections are used (force, 6 LVDT’s, extensometer,
string/potentiometers and temperature). The data acquisition board was controlled through the DOS
based data aquisition program ViewDac (Version 2.1). Through this program the number of scans
per channel and the scan rate are defined. The latter was varied with the test speed, in order to get
2000 scans per channel, independent of the test rate. The data acquisition was triggered by the
microprofiler shortly before the test started. During a test, the output of the measurement systems
was registered in voltages and saved as columns in an ASCII file. These files were then further
analysed by means of Microsoft Excel. Figure 2.5 shows the block-diagram of the compression test
set-up.
OSCILLOSCOPE

I/O DEVICE COMPUTER

TRANSFER PANEL

TEMP. UNIT TRANSDUCER PANEL

MICROPROFILER

COMPR. RIG TEST CONTROLLER

MASTER CONTROL PUMP

Figure 2.5: Block diagram of the compression test set-up

2.3 TEST PROCEDURES

Since the tests were performed under temperature control, it was important to ensure a uniform
temperature distribution throughout the specimen and the set-up. When opening the temperature
cabinet to put the specimen in the set-up, the top plate changed more in temperature than the bottom
plate, due to its smaller heat capacity. Therefore no contact was allowed between the top plate and
the specimen until both plates had once again reached the test temperature. This took 10–30 min,
depending on the difference between test and room temperature. Once the plates had the right
temperature, the top plate was brought in contact with the specimen without pre-loading it. The set-
up was then left for another 30-50 min, until the total time between closing the cabinet and the
beginning of the test was 1 hour. This time period was based on a test with a dummy specimen,
which was fitted with a temperature sensor. At the largest temperature difference between the set-
up and the room (test at 0oC) the dummy temperature was again constant at 50 minutes after closing
the temperature cabinet.

The test could begin one hour after the specimen was placed in the set-up. First, a pre-load was put
on the specimen to prevent the dynamic effects that can occur if the actuator hits the specimen with
some velocity. This pre-load, imposed in displacement control, also ensured that the specimen
would not start sliding at the beginning of the test, due to the squeezing out of the layers of soap.
This latter problem is a side effect caused by the friction reduction system. Off course, this pre-load
must not damage the specimen. For most test conditions it was therefore limited to the dead weight
of the top plate and the loading rod (0.3 kN). It had been known from the preliminary tests that this
load did not damage the specimens, because this weight was also placed on them when the accurate
LVDT’s were positioned and it was observed that the radial deformation due to this load
disappeared as soon as the load was removed. For the tests at 10 mm/s (strain rate = 0.1 s-1) and T =
TU Delft ACRe 19
0 oC this pre-load was increased to 5 kN, due to its rather explosive nature. Once the pre-load had
been applied, the test was started immediately, since this load relaxed quickly, probably due to the
friction reducing inter-layers. That pre-loading did not damage the specimens was also apparent
from the test results, since these exhibited a clear load introduction phase

Lab W&S ACRe 20

3. T EST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS 3 0
Equation Section (Next)

3.1 TEST CONDITIONS

The tests were performed in the displacement control mode, with a continuous axial deformation
rate. Since asphalt concrete response is strain rate and temperature dependent, these parameters
were varied within the test programme. It must be mentioned that the strain rate was not controlled
directly. This is always difficult to realise in a test and especially in destructive tests where
localisation occurs and the strains become highly non-uniform at the end. The control parameter
was the deformation rate and the strain rate is computed as the deformation rate divided by the
height. The test conditions can therefore be specified by the test temperature and deformation rate.
In the original test programme three different values were used for each parameter, which led to a
total of nine different test conditions. In order to take into account the expected variations in test
results, five tests were performed under each condition, which led to a total of forty-five tests. For
this report one additional deformation rate was tested (5 mm/s), which yields fifteen more test
conditions and a total of 60 tests (Table 3.1).

Temperature [oC] Loading rate [mm/s] Strain rate [s-1] Number of specimens
30 0.1 0.001 5
15 0.1 0.001 5
0 0.1 0.001 5
30 1 0.01 5
15 1 0.01 5
0 1 0.01 5
30 5 0.05 5
15 5 0.05 5
0 5 0.05 5
30 10 0.1 5
15 10 0.1 5
0 10 0.1 5
Total 60
Table 3.1: Overview of the test conditions, with the original conditions printed regular and those
of the additional tests printed bold

3.2 TEST RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

3.2.1 TEST RESULTS AND THEIR ACCURACY
During each test the axial and radial deformations and the forces were recorded. The accuracy of
these signals was known from the calibration data of the displacement transducers, radial
measurement systems and loadcell, respectively. Using the specimens geometry, these signals were
transformed into strains and stresses, from which the apparent compressive strength (fc), the axial
strain at peak stress (ax,max) and the radial strain at peak stress (rad,max) could be determined. The
variability in these computed quantities was obtained through a standard error analysis procedure
(Applied Physics, 1986 and Anderson, 1986). The variability of any computed quantity can be
TU Delft ACRe 21
obtained by partial differentiation of its expression with respect to the input parameters and using
the variability of each of these parameters, to find the composite variability. For example, the strain
() at any given moment is determined from the deformation (u) at that time and the original
specimen height (h) via Equation (3.1).

u
 (3.1)
h

If the variability in the deformation (u) and the specimen height (h) are known, the partial
derivation of Equation (3.1) to its input parameters can be used to obtain the accuracy in the strain
(Equation (3.2)).

2
     
    u 2    h 2 (3.2)
 u   h 

Using this approach, the inaccuracies in the strength and strain values for each test were
determined. A more elaborate description of the error analysis procedure is presented in Appendix
9.

The elasticity parameters, Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s ratio () were also determined for
each individual test. Poisson’s ratio () was calculated from the axial and radial strain at the
beginning of the test using linear regression. The Young’s modulus was found in the same way,
using the stress and the axial strain. For both these parameters the standard error from the
regression analysis turned out to be larger than the variability based on the above described error
analysis procedure. For that reason, the standard errors from the regression analysis are used to
express the variability in Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus.

On the basis of the five tests that were performed for each test condition, average values were
determined for all the test results. The variability in these averages was also determined. For this
the variation in the five tests at each condition was used. On the basis of the standard deviation in
these five values a 95% reliability interval was constructed for the predicted value. For a standard
normal distribution, such an interval is obtained by multiplying the standard deviation by 1.96.
However, this requires an infinite number of samples. In case of a limited number of samples, the
95% reliability is found from:


 x  t0.025  n  1 (3.3)
n
with: x = half the length of the 95% reliability interval for x
t0.025(n-1) = the right hand critical value of the Student t-distribution with (n-1) degrees
of freedom and a 2.5% chance of over-estimation
  standard deviation in the sample
n = number of observations in the sample

The value of t0.025(n-1) for a number of n’s is shown in Table 3.2. In this case, n is five, which
yields the following relation between the 95% reliability interval and the standard deviation in the
test results:

2.78
x  (3.4)
5

Lab W&S ACRe 22

 n t0.025(n-1)
2 12.7
3 4.30
4 3.18
5 2.78
6 2.57
7 2.45
8 2.37
9 2.31
10 2.26
15 2.15
20 2.09
∞ 1.96
Table 3.2: Right hand critical values of the Student t-distribution with a 2.5% chance of over-
estimation as a function of the number of degrees of freedom
Equation (3.4) is used to compute the 95% reliability interval for the results per test condition. In
Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 the individual test results and their accuracy are shown as well as the
average results per test condition and the corresponding reliability intervals. Graphical
representations of the average results per condition are shown as stress versus axial and radial strain
curves in Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3.
o
filename code T [ C] v [mm/s] fc [N/mm2] axpeak [10-3 m/m] radpeak [10-3m/m]  E [N/mm2]
com01_1 D66 30 0.1 -2.0 ± 0.3 -37.7 ± 0.5 27.5 ± 0.03 0.41 ± 0.012 170 ± 5
com01_2 D209 30 0.1 -1.9 ± 0.3 -40.7 ± 0.5 29.3 ± 0.03 0.43 ± 0.051 150 ± 25
com01_3 D344 30 0.1 -1.8 ± 0.3 -27.5 ± 0.5 20.8 ± 0.03 0.37 ± 0.020 150 ± 10
com01_4 D211 30 0.1 -1.8 ± 0.3 -33.5 ± 0.5 23.9 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.025 170 ± 35
com01_5 D345 30 0.1 -1.9 ± 0.3 -25.5 ± 0.5 16.5 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.038 185 ± 10
-1.9 ± 0.1 -33 ± 9 24 ± 7 0.37 ± 0.10 165 ± 20
com01_6 D206 15 0.1 -6.1 ± 0.3 -36.1 ± 0.5 21.2 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.002 430 ± 5
com01_7 D210 15 0.1 -5.8 ± 0.3 -36.4 ± 0.5 21.7 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.002 405 ± 5
com01_8 D221 15 0.1 -5.4 ± 0.3 -34.5 ± 0.5 20.5 ± 0.03 0.29 ± 0.002 350 ± 10
com01_9 D207 15 0.1 -5.7 ± 0.3 -34.7 ± 0.5 20.4 ± 0.03 0.32 ± 0.002 360 ± 5
com01_10 D215 15 0.1 -5.3 ± 0.3 -33.3 ± 0.5 19.3 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.001 400 ± 5
-5.7 ± 0.5 -35 ± 2 21 ± 2 0.27 ± 0.05 390 ± 45
com01_11 D63 0 0.1 -21.5 ± 0.3 -11.7 ± 0.5 5.1 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.002 3650 ± 10
com01_12 D111 0 0.1 -22.2 ± 0.3 -12.8 ± 0.5 6.0 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.002 4035 ± 15
com01_13 D120 0 0.1 -21.1 ± 0.3 -12.4 ± 0.5 5.3 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.009 3640 ± 15
com01_14 D117 0 0.1 -21.9 ± 0.3 -11.5 ± 0.5 5.6 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.008 4325 ± 20
com01_15 D122 0 0.1 -21.5 ± 0.3 -9.5 ± 0.5 5.4 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.004 3980 ± 20
-21.6 ± 1.0 -12 ± 2 5.5 ± 0.4 0.25 ± 0.05 3925 ± 360
com1_1 D202 30 1 -3.5 ± 0.3 -34.1 ± 0.5 23.6 ± 0.03 0.30 ± 0.046 540 ± 20
com1_2 D362 30 1 -3.2 ± 0.3 -24.9 ± 0.5 17.7 ± 0.03 0.33 ± 0.042 465 ± 35
com1_3 D67 30 1 -3.4 ± 0.3 -35.6 ± 0.5 24.8 ± 0.03 0.47 ± 0.045 495 ± 80
com1_4 D363 30 1 -3.0 ± 0.3 -26.0 ± 0.5 16.6 ± 0.02 0.39 ± 0.038 455 ± 60
com1_5 D62 30 1 -3.8 ± 0.3 -27.0 ± 0.5 16.4 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.023 610 ± 60
-3.4 ± 0.5 -30 ± 7 20 ± 6 0.36 ± 0.10 515 ± 80
com1_6 D219 15 1 -11.2 ± 0.3 -25.1 ± 0.5 15.8 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.019 2335 ± 100
com1_7 D113 15 1 -11.3 ± 0.3 -26.3 ± 0.5 13.6 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.005 1130 ± 10
com1_8 D203 15 1 -10.9 ± 0.3 -22.9 ± 0.5 12.3 ± 0.02 0.20 ± 0.004 1030 ± 15
com1_9 D48 15 1 -12.7 ± 0.3 -24.6 ± 0.5 13.3 ± 0.02 0.21 ± 0.005 1575 ± 10
com1_10 D204 15 1 -11.6 ± 0.3 -23.3 ± 0.5 12.1 ± 0.02 0.15 ± 0.004 1020 ± 20
-11.5 ± 1.0 -24 ± 2 13 ± 2 0.20 ± 0.05 1185 ± 330
com1_11 D133 0 1 -37.6 ± 0.3 -9.0 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.004 6980 ± 25
com1_12 D118 0 1 -37.6 ± 0.3 -7.9 ± 0.5 3.3 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.003 8165 ± 40
com1_13 D131 0 1 -38.4 ± 0.3 -9.1 ± 0.5 3.9 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.003 7560 ± 45
com1_14 D127 0 1 -37.9 ± 0.3 -9.1 ± 0.5 3.8 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.005 7520 ± 35
com1_15 D201 0 1 -37.7 ± 0.3 -8.2 ± 0.5 3.4 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.003 8215 ± 40
-37.8 ± 0.5 -8.7 ± 1 3.6 ± 0.5 0.29 ± 0.05 7690 ± 640

Table 3.3: Overview of the test results for 0.1 and 1 mm/s

TU Delft ACRe 23
 o -3 -3 2
filename code T [ C] v [mm/s] fc [N/mm2] axpeak [10 m/m] radpeak [10 m/m]  E [N/mm ]
com5_1 D364 30 5 -5.1 ± 0.3 -22.9 ± 0.5 14.6 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.017 1140 ± 50
com5_2 D353 30 5 -5.3 ± 0.3 -31.2 ± 0.5 22.0 ± 0.03 0.43 ± 0.024 1305 ± 50
com5_3 D346 30 5 -5.8 ± 0.3 -27.7 ± 0.5 19.2 ± 0.03 0.36 ± 0.017 1280 ± 40
com5_4 D365 30 5 -5.2 ± 0.3 -26.8 ± 0.5 15.8 ± 0.02 0.44 ± 0.036 1235 ± 40
com5_5 D342 30 5 -4.5 ± 0.3 -37.5 ± 0.5 26.4 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.062 1260 ± 55
-5.2 ± 0.6 -29 ± 7 20 ± 6 0.39 ± 0.10 1245 ± 80
com5_6 D368 15 5 -17.1 ± 0.3 -26.5 ± 0.5 14.2 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.018 2135 ± 125
com5_7 D360 15 5 -16.3 ± 0.3 -24.0 ± 0.5 13.1 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.002 1820 ± 25
com5_8 D359 15 5 -16.9 ± 0.3 -20.9 ± 0.5 10.5 ± 0.02 0.32 ± 0.002 1980 ± 15
com5_9 D356 15 5 -16.7 ± 0.3 -18.4 ± 0.5 8.6 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.003 1700 ± 15
com5_10 D354 15 5 -17.3 ± 0.3 -22.4 ± 0.5 11.5 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.001 1815 ± 10
-16.8 ± 0.5 -22 ± 4 12 ± 3 0.27 ± 0.10 1890 ± 215
com5_11 D366 0 5 -52.0 ± 0.3 -8.5 ± 0.5 3.9 ± 0.02 0.40 ± 0.003 9755 ± 55
com5_12 D352 0 5 -50.8 ± 0.3 -8.9 ± 0.5 3.5 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.004 9175 ± 70
com5_13 D349 0 5 -50.9 ± 0.3 -8.1 ± 0.5 2.9 ± 0.02 0.23 ± 0.003 10240 ± 125
com5_14 D351 0 5 -44.0 ± 0.3 -8.2 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.02 0.20 ± 0.003 8235 ± 80
com5_15 D369 0 5 -49.4 ± 0.3 -6.4 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.005 11095 ± 125
-49.4 ± 4.0 -8.0 ± 2 3.2 ± 1.0 0.28 ± 0.15 9700 ± 1345
com10_1 D50 30 10 -8.6 ± 0.3 -27.3 ± 0.5 16.1 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.010 930 ± 10
com10_2 D125 30 10 -6.8 ± 0.3 -29.2 ± 0.5 19.4 ± 0.03 0.46 ± 0.006 1065 ± 15
com10_3 D140 30 10 -8.0 ± 0.3 -22.1 ± 0.5 13.0 ± 0.02 0.43 ± 0.004 1425 ± 15
com10_4 D212 30 10 -6.5 ± 0.3 -28.2 ± 0.5 18.3 ± 0.03 0.43 ± 0.007 1140 ± 10
com10_5 D138 30 10 -7.5 ± 0.3 -21.5 ± 0.5 12.9 ± 0.02 0.48 ± 0.010 1310 ± 20
-7.5 ± 1.5 -26 ± 5 16 ± 4 0.41 ± 0.15 1175 ± 245
com10_6 D137 15 10 -23.0 ± 0.3 -10.5 ± 0.5 5.8 ± 0.02 0.47 ± 0.004 3545 ± 25
com10_7 D130 15 10 -21.6 ± 0.3 -12.0 ± 0.5 5.9 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.005 3805 ± 15
com10_8 D65 15 10 -23.0 ± 0.3 -14.6 ± 0.5 8.0 ± 0.02 0.47 ± 0.009 4655 ± 45
com10_9 D132 15 10 -22.0 ± 0.3 -14.8 ± 0.5 7.5 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.004 3265 ± 15
com10_10 D135 15 10 -21.9 ± 0.3 -12.0 ± 0.5 5.9 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.003 3900 ± 15
-22.3 ± 1.0 -13 ± 3 6.6 ± 1.5 0.39 ± 0.10 3835 ± 650
com10_11 D116 0 10 -54.6 ± 0.3 -8.9 ± 0.5 4.3 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.011 10165 ± 120
com10_12 D123 0 10 -57.0 ± 0.3 -9.0 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.009 11180 ± 180
com10_13 D61 0 10 -58.4 ± 0.3 -8.2 ± 0.5 4.0 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.021 10735 ± 125
com10_14 D114 0 10 -57.1 ± 0.3 -8.2 ± 0.5 4.0 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.014 10930 ± 105
com10_15 D218 0 10 -56.6 ± 0.3 -8.6 ± 0.5 4.2 ± 0.02 0.42 ± 0.021 11175 ± 105
-56.7 ± 2.0 -8.6 ± 1 4.3 ± 0.5 0.33 ± 0.10 10835 ± 525

Table 3.4: Overview of the test results for 5 and 10 mm/s

A summary of the average results for each test condition is provided in Table 3.5, where the
reliability intervals have been rounded off. This rounding, which in many cases also leads to a
rounding off of the average values, creates differences between the values in Table 3.5 and the
original values given in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4. For example, rounding the reliability interval of
the strength value at 30oC and 5 mm/s up to the nearest multitude of 0.5 N/mm2 (in this case: 1
N/mm2 ) alters the result from –5.2  0.6 N/mm2 to fc=-5  1 N/mm2. The implication of this
adjustment in reliability interval is that he range into which 95% of the strength values will fall,
increases from –4.6  fc  –5.8 to -4  fc  –6, where the new interval contains the original one. This
approach has been utilised for the rounding of all applicable results. In cases such as, for example,
the fc at 15oC and 10 mm/s, rounding up of the reliability interval values to the nearest multitude of
0.5 N/mm2 was not sufficient to also round the average value (0.9 would have to become 1.5 to
allow –22.3 to become –22.5). In these cases the original average value was used, to prevent an
impression of high variability in that particular value.
o -3 -3 2 2
T [ C] v [mm/s]
2
fc [N/mm ] axpeak [10 m/m] radpeak [10 m/m]  E [10 N/mm ]
30 0.1 -1.9 ± 0.1 -33 ±9 24 ± 7 0.35 ± 0.1 1.65 ± 0.2
15 0.1 -5.7 ± 0.5 -35 ±2 21 ± 2 0.27 ± 0.05 3.9 ± 0.5
0 0.1 -21.5 ± 1 -12 ±2 5.5 ± 0.5 0.25 ± 0.05 39.5 ± 4
30 1 -3.5 ± 0.5 -30 ±7 20 ± 6 0.35 ± 0.1 5 ± 1
15 1 -11.5 ± 1 -24 ±2 13 ± 2 0.2 ± 0.05 12 ± 3.5
0 1 -38 ± 1 -8.5 ±1 3.5 ± 0.5 0.3 ± 0.05 77 ± 6.5
30 5 -5 ± 1 -29 ±7 20 ± 6 0.39 ± 0.1 12.5 ± 1
15 5 -17 ± 1 -22 ±4 12 ± 3 0.25 ± 0.1 19 ± 2.5
0 5 -49.5 ± 4.5 -8 ±2 3.2 ± 1.0 0.3 ± 0.15 97 ± 13.5
30 10 -7.5 ± 1.5 -26 ±5 16 ± 4 0.4 ± 0.15 11.8 ± 2.5
15 10 -22.3 ± 1 -13 ±3 6.5 ± 1.5 0.39 ± 0.1 38.5 ± 7
0 10 -56.5 ± 2 -8.5 ±1 4.3 ± 0.5 0.33 ± 0.1 108.5 ± 5.5

Table 3.5: The average results for each test condition

Lab W&S ACRe 24

 10 mm/s & 0'C
 [N/mm2] -60
5 mm/s & 0'C
1mm/s & 0'C -50
0.1mm/s & 0'C
-40

-30

-20

-10 axial [m/m]

radial [m/m]
0
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

Figure 3.1: Average test results for 0oC

[N/mm2] -25

10 mm/s
-20
5 mm/s
1 mm/s
-15
0.1mm/s

-10

-5

0
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3
radial [m/m] axial [m/m]
Figure 3.2: average test results for 15oC

TU Delft ACRe 25
 10 mm/s  [N/mm2] -8
5 mm/s -7
1 mm/s
-6
0.1mm/s
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3
 radial [m/m]  axial [m/m]
Figure 3.3: Average test results for 30oC

3.2.2 DATA ANALYSIS: A GENERAL RELATION FOR THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

3.2.2.1 Developing a general relation for fc
Eventually, the model will be used to analyse laboratory tests and road constructions. For these
applications, it is necessary to have general expressions for the strength and the model parameters.
In this way, the required input is limited to the type of mix, or maybe the mix composition, the
temperature profile and the loading rate. From this input the finite element program CAPA-3D will
determine the temperature and loading rate at each integration point in the structure under analysis
and with that information the model parameters can be determined. This means that the
compressive strength as well as the model parameters must be expressed as functions of loading
rate and temperature and, eventually, mix composition. Since the model parameters can not be
determined on the basis of compression tests only, at this stage only a general expression for the
compressive strength will be determined.

The aim was to develop a relation between the apparent compressive strength (fc [N/mm2]),
temperature (T [oC]) and deformation rate (v [mm/s]), based on the test data shown in Table 3.3 and
Table 3.4. It was hoped that this relation would be a physical relation rather than a fit function.
Unfortunately, linear regression analyses is almost solely useful for data fitting, while nearly all
physical relations (e.g. growth laws, reaction processes) are non-linear (i.e: one or more of the
regression parameters are not linear with respect to the dependent variable). Obviously, the relation
between fc and v and T is also non-linear. However, non-linear regression requires the choice of a
relation prior to the regression analysis, which is then used to determine the constants in that
relation. Since it was not clear what type of relation was needed, a step-by-step approach was used.
At first the basic shape that the relation would have was determined on the basis of the information
that is available. Basically, the relation must be able to describe the physical trends, in this case the
authors assumed these trends to be:

 v=0: this corresponds to not loading the specimen, which means that the specimen is not
loaded, fc=0
 v: the strength will not increase indefinitely, but reach a limit value which might
vary with temperature: fc=C(T) ,based on the diminishing difference with increasing

Lab W&S ACRe 26

 loading rates that was observed during preliminary tests. On the other hand, the fact
that bitumen reaches a glass modulus for all temperatures may mean that this limit
value is temperature independent.
 T-: for extremely low temperatures, asphalt will exhibit glass-like, linear-elastic behaviour
until sudden, brittle fracture occurs. This ultimate compressive strength will be
independent of the loading rate: fc=C*, in contrast with the apparent compressive
strength which is the part of the ultimate strength that can be realised for a specific
combination of temperature and loading rate.
 T : for extremely high temperatures (approximately 160oC) the bitumen will become a
fluid, which has no uniaxial compressive strength: fc=0
This resulted in the expectation that an S-shaped (or transition) relation would be the most realistic
description. Using the TableCurve 2D program, an SPSS related data analysis program, a large
number of non-linear relations was fitted to the test data and judged on the basis of both the
goodness of fit and the agreement with the above mentioned criteria. This approach, which was
discussed in detail in Erkens et al. (1998), was necessary since it was not known beforehand what
kind of relation was needed. The only disadvantage was that the program could handle only one
explanatory variable. Therefore, the compressive strength was fitted as a function of temperature
and loading rate, separately. One type of S-curve was able to describe fc in both cases, using
different regression parameters (Table 3.6). Since the variant with the strength as a function of the
loading rate turned out to provide the most natural fit (three of the four parameters were more or
less constant, leaving only one parameter to be fitted as a function of temperature), this was used as
the basic expression. The remaining variable was then fitted as a function of loading rate.
b 1 (3.1)
fc  a  d
,x  v  x 
x T
1  
c

b b
fc  a  d
fc  a  d
; T in Kelvin
v  1 
1   1  
c  Tc 
0oC o
15 C 30oC 0.1 mm/s 1 mm/s 10 mm/s
a -94.863 -90.919 -87.626 a -22.673 -38.760 -60.029
b 94.867 90.871 87.406 b 20.854 35.492 53.031
c 3.221 259.362 7463.118 c 0.00354 0.00352 0.00352
d 0.351 0.347 0.364 d 82.331 88.9785 69.713
v=0 a+b0 a+b0 a+b0 T a+b2 a+b3 a+b7
v a a a T- a-b a-b a-b
Table 3.6: Overview of the parameters and trend of the relation that fitted fc as function of both
the deformation rate and the temperature
From Table 3.6 it is clear that three out of four regression parameters for the relation between fc and
the rate are more or less constant, against only one constant parameter for the strength as a function
of the temperature. Since the non-constant parameters have to be fitted as a function of the second
parameter, it was decided to use the fc(v) relation as the basis and to fit the third parameter (c) as a
function of T. This led to Equation 3.2 for c:

 1795  2 
 44.42 -   
  T   (3.2)

c  exp

TU Delft ACRe 27
Substitution of Equation 3.2 in 3.1 yielded:

 
 
 
 1 
f c  951  (3.3)
0.35 
    1795  2  
 1   v exp    44.42   
   T   
    

However, while the original relation between strength and rate was based on physically relevant
expectations about the changes in strength, the expression between fc and temperature is a simple
data fit. At the time this seemed a logical solution, since it was unclear what physical quantity c
represented. Once relation 3.3 was found, it was used for a true non-linear regression analysis. This
means that Equation 3.3, with parameters a through d instead of its constants, was fitted. It was
hoped that the regression constants found would be similar to those obtained through the two-step
approach described above. However, it turned out that the program used for the analysis (SPSS)
could not handle the size of the argument in the exponent.

When the additional results at 5 mm/s became available, they combined very well with the relation
described in Equation 3.3, so it was expected that it would be easy to obtain a new and improved fit.
Indeed, the fit for the strength as a function of the rate was easy, but the values for the regression
parameter c had changed dramatically. As a result, c could no longer be described by means of a
relation like Equation 2.2. Of course, another relation could be fitted to describe c, but this did not
fulfil the wish to obtain a physically relevant relation for fc. It was therefore decided to try to
determine the shape of the relation beforehand, based on the expected behaviour in combination
with the knowledge obtained from the previous phase of the project. This meant an extension of the
above-described method, where the general shape of the model was chosen. Now the aim was to
find an indication of the type of relation that could be expected between fc and v and T.

It was clear that Equation 3.1 could describe the behaviour of asphalt concrete and that the
parameter x could combine the influence of rate and temperature. From the previous fit, it was
obvious that x was proportional with the deformation rate. For the temperature a reciprocal relation
was assumed, an assumption that was now re-evaluated. This was done via a simple thought-
experiment: asphalt concrete is often considered to behave as a series of springs and dashpots. In
this representation the springs represent the elastic characteristics, parallel combinations of springs
and dashpots the visco-elastic and single dash pots the viscous behaviour. If the behaviour of the
springs is considered to be independent of the rate and temperature, the changes in response are due
to the viscous components. The viscosity of a material is expressed by , which gives the relation
between the shear stress and the gradient of the shear rate (Equation 3.4).


 (3.4)

t
With :η  coefficient of viscosity
  shear stress
  shear angle  deformation parallel to τ / deformation perpendicular to τ
t  time
The relation between stress and strain for the spring is the well-known Hooke’s law (Equation 3.5).

Lab W&S ACRe 28

  E ; E  Young' s modulus (3.5)

For ideal, linearly viscous behaviour the relation between the coefficient of viscosity and the shear
modulus is given in Equation 3.6.

 S G  the time and temperature

SG  ; (3.6)
t dependent shear modulus

The relation between the shear modulus and the time and temperature dependent stiffness modulus
(SE) is shown in Equation 3.7.

2 (1   )
S E  2S G (1   )  ;   Poisson' s constant (3.7)
t

As stated above, in the thought-experiment the springs are considered ideally elastic, so the rate and
temperature influences are represented solely by the viscous components. The expression for the
stress in a dashpot is:

2 (1   ) 2(1   )
  SE   v (3.8)
t h

From Equation 3.8 it can be seen that the stress in a viscous material is proportional to the rate and
the viscosity. This influence of the viscosity represents the temperature effect, but what is the
relation between temperature and viscosity? Heukelom found a linear relation between the
logarithm of the viscosity and the temperature for S-type bitumens (PI= -2 to +1) (Lubbers, 1985).
This means that there also exists a linear relation between the viscosity and the exponent of 1/T. It
seems reasonable to expect a relation between the strength on the one hand and the rate and
exp(1/T) on the other. In the relation that was originally found, v*exp(1/T2) was used (Equations
3.2 and 3.3). Since this provided a very good fit, the similarity is promising.

Another aspect of Equation 3.8 is that it shows clearly that the strength is related to the strain rate
rather than the deformation rate (the deformation rate is introduced into the relation via /t = u/ht =
v/h). While the force and the deformation (rate) are the control parameters in laboratory tests, the
material response is determined by the stress and strain (rate). Unlike the former, the latter
quantities are geometry independent. This means that the test conditions may differ from a
laboratory perspective, while from a material perspective they are the same. This is, for example,
the case when a specimen of 100 mm in height that is tested with a deformation rate of 1 mm/s is
.
compared to a specimen with h=200 mm and v=2 mm/s (   v / h  0.01 [ s 1 ] ). Since we are trying
to describe the material response, the relation should be geometry independent. Therefore, in the
relation for the compressive strength the strain rate should be used instead of the deformation rate.
Based on these considerations the following non-linear equation was fitted to the data:
 
 
 
 1 
fc  a 1  (3.9)
 d 
 1  . * e  b  T   
 c

   


TU Delft ACRe 29
The term within round brackets ensures the S-shape: it approaches the limit strength, a, for high
values of ddt and/or low values of T and for low strain rates and high T’s it goes to zero. In the
original discussion of the physical trends that were expected for fc (page 26), it was mentioned that
the strength would go to a limit value for high strain rates and that this value might be a function of
the temperature. The idea of a temperature dependent limit was based on the pattern in the data
(Figure 3.4). On the other hand, the glass modulus for bitumen is the same for all temperatures, so
the limit for fc might also be temperature independent. During the data analysis procedures, it
proved impossible to fit a relation with variable limit strength to the data. Later on, when theoretical
observations led to the above expression, it turned out that it fitted the test results very well and that
the trend in the data could indeed be described accurately with a single ultimate strength value. The
term between the square bracket controls the transition between the limit strength and zero, thereby
representing the influence of strain rate and temperature on the strength. The regression constants a
through d might dependent on mix and/or bitumen characteristics, this will become clear once more
mixes are tested. For now, they are regression constants only.

 
 
 1 
f c  108 1  0.32
 (3.10)
 . 
 86.3 
24260 
  
 1   *e T 
 
   


T [oC] v [mm/s] d/dt fc,average [N/mm2] fc,predicted [N/mm2] fc,predicted [N/mm2]

[s-1] NEW (Eq. 3.10) OLD (Eq. 3.3)
30 0.1 0.001 -1.9 -1.6 -1.6
30 1 0.01 -3.5 -3.3 -3.5
30 5 0.05 -5.2 -5.4 -6.0
30 10 0.1 -7.5 -6.6 -7.5
15 0.1 0.001 -5.7 -5.8 -5.7
15 1 0.01 -11.5 -11.4 -11.8
15 5 0.05 -17.0 -17.9 -19.0
15 10 0.1 -22.5 -21.4 -22.9
0 0.1 0.001 -21.5 -21.6 -21.6
0 1 0.01 -38.0 -37.0 -37.8
0 5 0.05 -49.5 -50.3 -51.0
0 10 0.1 -56.5 -56.3 -56.6
Sum of Squares: 3767 4.1 9.0
Table 3.7: Numerical comparison between the predicted compressive strength and the average
test results
The regression analysis was performed in statistics package SPSS, using the following starting
values for the regression constants: a=-1, b=0,c=1 and d=1. It turned out that this relation could be
fitted with SPSS and even provided a better fit that the previous relation had. Furthermore, the same
relation was fitted to the preliminary test data (Scarpas et al. 1997) and those could also be
described with it. The predicted values are compared to the test results in Table 3.7 (numerically)
and Figure 3.4 (graphically).

Lab W&S ACRe 30

 strain rate [s-1]
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0

-10

-20
fc [N/mm ]

-30
2

fc [MPa]
-40 273K
288K
-50
303K
-60

-70

Figure 3.4: Predicted apparent compressive strength from Equation 3.10 compared with the test
data
The trend in the predicted compressive strength with respect to temperature for a larger range is
shown Figure 3.5. From this figure and Figure 3.4 it can be seen that the relation for fc fulfils the
boundary conditions mentioned earlier in this section.
[oC]
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
233 253 273 293 313 333 353 373 T [K] 393

-20

-40
.
fc [N/mm2]

-60

-80

-100

-120

Figure 3.5: Trend in predicted compressive strength (Equation 3.10) as a function of

temperature, for several strain rates [s-1]
3.2.2.2 Sensitivity of the expression for fc with respect to the regression constants
Although the relation for fc has an obvious physical background, the regression constants are fitted
on the basis of data in a very limited area. As a result, they might be incorrect. For example, the
ultimate strength, a, seems to be rather high (a=-108 N/mm2). On the other hand, the strength
values that were recorded at 0oC and high strain rates (-49.5 and –56.5 N/mm2) were also higher
than expected. As a result, it is hard to establish whether or not the regression values found are
TU Delft ACRe 31
realistic. In this Section, the influence of each parameter on the relation is investigated, to get at
least an indication of their impact. In Figure 3.6 to Figure 3.9 the effect of each of the regression
parameters on the relation is shown.

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

0
-10
-20
fc [N/mm2]

fc [MPa]
-30
273K*
-40 288K*
303K*
-50
273K
-60 288K
303K
-70
-1
strain rate [s ]

T [K]
213 233 253 273 293 313 333 353 373 393
0
fc [N/mm2]

-20

-40

.

-60

-80

-100

-120

Figure 3.6: The regression constant a (here –80 instead of –108) controls the limit strength,
changing it changes the asymptote. Because the transition interval remains the same, the curve is
shifted downwards for each temperature (for smaller a-values)

Lab W&S ACRe 32

 strain rate [s-1]
0
-10 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

-20
fc [N/mm2]

-30
-40
fc [MPa]
-50 273K*
288K*
-60
303K*
-70 273K
-80 288K
303K

213 233 253 273 293 313 333 353 373 393
0
fc [N/mm2]

-20

-40

.

-60

-80

-100

-120
T [K]

Figure 3.7: Changes in regression parameter b (-85 instead of –86.3) change the temperatures at
which the asymptotes are reached (flow and glass point), for smaller b’s the curves shift to the
right, for larger b’s to the left

TU Delft ACRe 33
 strain rate [s-1]
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
-10

-20
fc [N/mm2]

-30

-40 fc [MPa]
273K*
-50 288K*
303K*
-60
273K
-70 288K
303K

T [K]
213 233 253 273 293 313 333 353 373 393
0
fc [N/mm2]

-20

-40

.

-60

-80

-100

-120

Figure 3.8: Regression parameter c (here 24000 instead of 24260) controls the begin and end
point of the transition (flow and glass point), just like parameter b

Lab W&S ACRe 34

 strain rate [s-1]
0
-10 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

-20
fc [N/mm2]

-30
-40
fc [MPa]
-50 273K*
288K*
-60
303K*
-70 273K
-80 288K
303K

T [K]
213 233 253 273 293 313 333 353 373 393
0
fc [N/mm2]

-20

-40

.

-60

-80

-100

-120

Figure 3.9: Regression parameter d controls the rate of transition between zero and ultimate
strength. For larger d’s the interval of transition (difference between flow and glass point) gets
smaller. This parameter can therefore be considered as an indicator of temperature sensitivity.
From these graphs it can be seen that the ultimate strength is equal to a, the position of the
transition zone from zero to ultimate strength is controlled by b and c and the width of this interval
depends on d. All these characteristics will vary with the mix composition and bitumen
characteristics.

Although the relation itself is based on theoretical and physics considerations, the values found for
the regression constants are still based on data fitting. Naturally, if the constants of a relation that
covers such a wide range of response are fitted on the basis of data in a limited area only, as is the
case here, there is no guarantee that the relation also correctly describes the extreme responses. If
additional data is available, for example with respect to the glass and flow points or the ultimate
TU Delft ACRe 35
strength of the material, this could be incorporated in the analysis. At the moment, however, this is
not the case. To illustrate that it is possible to get a good description of the test results with other
parameters as well, a new analysis with a fixed value for the ultimate strength was carried out. If
somehow it were established that the ultimate strength of the material was about –80 N/mm2, the
relation could be fitted with three regression constants only, substituting –80 or a. The results from
such a non-linear regression analysis are shown in Figure 3.10.
-1
strain rate [s ]
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
-10

-20
fc [N/mm2]

-30
fc [MPa]
-40
273K*
-50 288K*
303K*
-60 273K
288K
-70
303K

T [K]
213 233 253 273 293 313 333 353 373 393
0
fc [N/mm2]

-20

-40

.

-60

-80

-100

-120

Figure 3.10: The relation for fc that was found for a=-80, the other parameters became: b=-81,
c=23302 and d=0.39, respectively
However, on the basis of the available information, the original fit (Equation 3.10 and Figure 3.4
and Figure 3.5) is the best one. Although the actual ultimate values (especially the ultimate
strength) may seem strange, it must be noted that the compressive strengths of –49.5 and –56.5
N/mm2, which were registered during the tests at 0oC and 0.05 and 0.1 s-1, respectively, are also
high. The tests are performed at conditions that were not used before, so it is dangerous to project
experiences from other conditions on these results.

Lab W&S ACRe 36

4. I NFLUENCE OF THE SET-UP ON THE TEST RESULTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The combination of its material characteristics and the state of stress to which it is subjected
determine the response of a specimen during a test. If the imposed state of stress is known,
information on the material characteristics can be obtained from the observed response. If, however,
the actual state of stress differs from the intended state of stress, the derived material characteristics
are incorrect.
When performing an experiment, influences like alignment and boundary conditions are not always
considered in detail. Usually, the state of stress in a compression test is considered to be equal to
the applied load divided by the specimen cross-section. However, the true state of stress can be
completely different. Examples of how the set-up can disturb the state of stress include: skewed
specimens, alignment problems, boundary friction and temperature gradients. Some examples and
their effects are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Examples of the influence of alignment (A), deformation of the frame (B), boundary
friction (C) and temperature effects (D) on the actual state of stress
The effects that influenced the preliminary tests and the way they were eliminated are discussed in
the detail in the report about the compression tests (Erkens et al., 1998). Two of these influences,
the temperature distribution in the specimen and the friction at the contact surfaces turned out to be
especially important. Naturally, these also raised most questions since people would like to see
quantitative rather than qualitative indications of their effects. This initiated two series of additional
tests, which were meant to shed some more light on the effect of friction and temperature. These
tests and their results are discussed in this chapter.

TU Delft ACRe 37
4.2 FRICTION IN THE CONTACT SURFACES
During the first series of compression tests it became clear that, even with a height to diameter ratio
of two, the influence of friction in the contact surfaces was too large. This could be seen from the
extreme barrelling of the specimens, in combination with the fact that the contact surfaces did not
deform at all. At that time, the standard road engineering friction reduction system of a mixture of
glycerine with talc with graphite powder on top was used, but this did not prevent the above
mentioned situation and, at higher temperatures, even caused the specimens to stick to the loading
plates. Because it was expected that a friction that could prevent all radial deformation in the
contact surfaces would provide a substantial confinement, which would lead to an over-estimation
of the strength, a search for an effective friction reduction system was initiated. Eventually, such a
system was developed (Section 4.2.1.2). The strengths that were found using this system were
lower than those found without it. This indicates that the friction in the contact surfaces, indeed acts
as a confinement stress and it is well known that confinement leads to an increase of the strength of
asphalt concrete. Since the influence of friction increases with decreasing h/D ratios, a common
question was: ”which h/D ratios can you use in combination with friction reduction?”. To answer
that question, the test programme described in Section 4.2.2 was carried out. Before going into the
tests and their results, the potential solutions to the friction problem are discussed in some detail.
4.2.1 POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
That the influence of bulging of specimens loaded in compression diminishes with increasing h/D
ratios is widely known. But, because the impact of this phenomenon on the test results remains
unsure, low h/D ratios as well as the use of a range of ratios within a single test programme remains
common practice. This is undoubtedly one of the causes of the problems encountered in finding
general trends in the results of uniaxial as well as triaxial (compression) tests. In literature, mainly
from related fields such as concrete and soil mechanics (Head, 1982 van Mier, 1997), three
solutions to this problem are mentioned: registering the deformation over the non-bulging part of
the specimen, larger h/D ratios and friction reduction. In the next three sections each of these
solutions will be discussed.
4.2.1.1 Local deformation registration
Registering the deformation over the non-bulging part of the specimen is not really a solution of the
problem, it is, rather, meant to prevent the phenomenon from influencing the test results. The idea
behind it is that there is a zone in the centre of the specimen where there exists a truly uniform state
of stress. This can be seen from the deformation of the specimen, which is rather uniform in this
zone. If the registration of the response is limited to this part of the specimen, the friction in the
contact surfaces will not influence the data. Although this is certainly true, there are two major
drawbacks to this approach. First of all, it requires a central zone in the specimen where the
deformation is uniform. This is usually considered to be the case for h/D ratios of 2 and larger,
where the middle third of the specimen is loaded uniformly. In road engineering, such high h/D
ratios are not often used. Most specimens are rather squatted, having a ratio of 1 or less. In that
case, there is not really a zone of uniform behaviour and this approach cannot be used. Second of
all, the registration over the uniform zone concerns the deformation only. This objection is more
general and applies also to situations in which a sufficiently high h/D ratio is used. Although the
state of stress and thus the response in the central zone are uniform, only the deformation is
registered in that zone. The strength is determined on the basis of the force applied to the total
specimen, including the non-uniform top and bottom of the specimen. Because the friction confines
these parts, their response will be stronger and the strength of the specimen might still be over-
estimated.
4.2.1.2 Friction reduction
Friction reduction addresses the problem directly, by reducing the friction at the contact surfaces.
Many systems are used to achieve this effect, but not all of them are effective for asphalt concrete.
For example, rubber interlayers (which are often used in geomechanics) cause tensile failure in

Lab W&S ACRe 38

asphalt contact surfaces and the combination of teflon foil and grease, a friction reduction system
developed for concrete, is still too restraining for asphalt concrete. The often-used combination of a
glycerine and talc mix with graphite powder does not provide the required reduction either and the
same is valid for the layers of grease. The latter are squeezed-out at the beginning of the test. From
the evaluation of a series of friction reduction systems, described in Erkens et al., 1998, it became
clear that an interlayer with a low yield strength and a high ultimate strain and a high resistance to
rupture was needed to obtain the required friction reduction. A material with the required
characteristics is a foil of Luflexen from Basf (Table 4.1).

Density 0.903 g/cm3 ISO 1183

Fuse index (190oC, 2.16kg) 1.4 g/10min ISO 1133
G 50 MPa ISO 6721-2
E 75 MPa ISO 527
Yield stress 7 MPa ISO 527
Rupture resistance 32 MPa ISO 527
Ultimate strain 650 % ISO 527
Table 4.1: Material characteristics of Luflexen
It was used in combination with a thin layer of soap, both between plate and foil and between foil
and specimen. The Luflexen foil that was used is 50 m thick. As a result of this layer, the
specimen deformation is more uniform. Using this Luflexen-soap system the contact surfaces could
deform freely until well after peak stress, allowing the specimen to remain cylindrical in shape.
That the specimen deformed uniform until well after the peak is important because all friction
reduction systems, except, possibly, those where a pressurised fluid is used, use the strength of the
material to be activated. The specimen itself bends, stretches or otherwise deforms the friction
reduction system. As a result, these systems become inactive somewhere during the post-peak
response of the specimen, when the remaining strength is no longer sufficient to drive the reduction
(Figure 4.2). A successful system remains active until the specimen is well into its post-peak
regime, thus ensuring a reliable indication of the strength. When the reduction system is no longer
working, the surfaces are again restrained and the specimen starts bulging, this can therefore be
used as an indication of the failure of the friction reduction system. It is therefore important to
ensure that the specimen deformation is uniform at least up to the peak in the stress-strain diagram.

Figure 4.2: A friction reduction system that is driven by the specimen itself, will stop somewhere
in the post-peak response

TU Delft ACRe 39
4.2.1.3 Height to diameter ratio
The third possible approach to preventing, or at least minimising, the influence of friction on the
test results is increasing the h/D ratio. This was the approach that was originally adopted in the
ACRe test programme, where a ratio of 2 was used. From test on concrete it was known that this
ratio was sufficient to obtain a reliable indication of the strength (Figure 4.3). Unfortunately, it
turned out that the strains in asphalt concrete are much larger than in ordinary concrete and as a
result an h/D ratio of 2 still leads to considerable bulging. Naturally, for h/D’s of less than two, this
restraint effect is even larger. In road engineering research, specimens are often obtained from road
constructions. These cores have a diameter of 100 or 150 mm, while their height is limited by the
layer thickness and usually does not exceed 50 mm. The reliability of results obtained from such
specimens has often been challenged. To circumvent this problem, specimens drilled horizontally
from the road cores as well as stacked cores have been used, but these solutions introduce new
uncertainties and (potential) problems. It would therefore be of great significance for road
engineering research if specimens with h/D ratio’s of ½ to 1/3 could be used directly. To investigate
this a series of tests on specimens with different h/D ratio’s was carried out. These tests and the
results are discussed in the next Section.

Figure 4.3: The influence of friction and h/D ratio on the strength of concrete, a ratio of 2 gives
a reliable strength even without friction reduction

4.2.2 TESTS TO ASSESS THE INFLUENCE OF H/D AND FRICTION REDUCTION

To establish the effect of the h/D ratio on the strength, a series of tests on specimens with different
h/D ratios was carried out. From the previous sections it is clear that friction reduction can reduce
the required ratios. Therefore, the tests were performed both with and without friction reduction in
order to see the effect of the reduction system on the strength, the overall stress-strain relation and
the deformation of the specimens. The specimens used in the compression test were 100 mm high
and had a diameter of 50 mm (h/D=2). In Chapter 2 it was explained that a height of about 100 mm
was the maximum that could be obtained with the gyrator that was used. With the experience from
the previous series of tests it became clear that, with very careful cutting, it was possible to get
higher specimens. Most of the specimen sizes that were used are shown in Figure 4.4 (the exception
is h=37.5 mm), the heights vary, but the diameter is 50 mm for all of them.

Lab W&S ACRe 40

 Standard, h=100 mm
D=50 mm

h=25 mm h=50 mm h=75 mm h=125 mm

Figure 4.4: Different h/D ratios tested to establish the influence on the test results

This test programme was an interesting spin-off of the ACRe project that was necessary because
there was no information available on this topic. Therefore it was decided to use a large number of
h/D ratios, but only one combination of temperature and loading rate. Since information on the
effect of both h/D ratio and friction reduction on the response of concrete was available (Figure 4.3
and van Mier, 1997), it was decided to focus on conditions for which the response of asphalt
concrete differs from that of ordinary concrete. Because the tests are performed within the ACRe
project, the conditions are selected from those that are used in that project. Since 30oC is the highest
temperature used (See Chapter 3 and/or Erkens et al., 1998), this temperature was selected. The
displacement rates used were 0.1, 1, 5 and 10 mm/s. Since the response is controlled by the strain
rate rather than the deformation rate, these deformation rates have to be adapted for the different
heights. It was decided to use a strain rate of 0.05 s-1 (=5 mm/s for the h=100 mm specimens),
because that would lead to deformation rates within the extremes of the standard programme (0.1
and 10 mm/s), thus minimising the chance of encountering unexpected problems. The test
conditions are shown in Table 4.2.

T  D [mm] h [mm] h/D v [mm/s] Friction # specimens

o  s-1 
[ C] reduction?
30 0.05 50 125 2½ 6.25 Y 3
30 0.05 50 100 2 5 Y 3
30 0.05 50 75 1½ 3.75 Y 3
30 0.05 50 50 1 2.5 Y 3
30 0.05 50 37.5 ¾ 1.9 Y 3
30 0.05 50 25 ½ 1.25 Y 3
30 0.05 50 125 2½ 6.25 N 3
30 0.05 50 100 2 5 N 5
30 0.05 50 75 1½ 3.75 N 3
30 0.05 50 50 1 2.5 N 3
30 0.05 50 37.5 ¾ 1.9 N 3
30 0.05 50 25 ½ 1.25 N 3
Total number of tests: 38
Table 4.2: Overview of the heights that were used, as well as the other test conditions

TU Delft ACRe 41
 [N/mm2]
-12
h/D=2.5
-11 h/D=2
h/D=1.5
-10
h/D=0.75
-9 h/D=1
h/D=0.5
-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0
0 -0.05 -0.1 m/m -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3

Figure 4.5: The effect of the h/D ratio on the overall stress-strain relation for tests with friction
reduction
[N/mm2]
-12

-11

-10

-9
h/D=2.5
-8
h/D=2
-7 h/D=1.5
h/D=1
-6 h/D=0.75
h/D=0.5
-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0
0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15  [m/m] -0.2 -0.25 -0.3

Figure 4.6: The effect of the h/D ratio on the overall stress-strain relation for tests without
friction reduction
If the overall stress-strain curves for the tests with (Figure 4.5) and without friction reduction
(Figure 4.6) are compared, it can be seen that the changes are much more pronounced if no friction
reduction is used. If the friction reduction system is utilised, the effect of the h/D ratio is limited to
the softening branch of the diagram, while without friction reduction the observed strength
increases rapidly with decreasing h/D ratios. Unlike the increase in the observed strength the effect
Lab W&S ACRe 42
on the softening branch is, although size related, not caused by friction. From the graphs, it seems
that the slope of the descending branches is less steep for smaller h/D ratios. This phenomenon has
also been observed in concrete and rock mechanics and there it is explained by the fact that after the
peak localisation of damage occurs, which means that the post-peak deformations take place in a
small part of the specimen (van Mier, 1997). As a result, it is doubtful whether these deformations
can still be expressed as overall strains. In other words, once larger cracks appear in the specimen,
the assumption of a continuous material is violated and as a result the definition for the overall
strain is no longer valid. In concrete mechanics, plots of the normalised stress versus the post-peak
deformations are used to show that the different softening branches are the result of damage
localisation (van Mier, 1997). In these plots the descending branches are more or less the same,
indicating that post-peak deformation leads to a similar reduction in strength for different specimen
sizes. However, the total reduction found for the different sizes still differs. A similar pattern is seen
if the post-peak results from Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 are converted to normalised stress versus
post-peak deformation diagrams (Figure 4.7). Plotted in this way, the initial slope of the descending
branch is more or less the same for all specimen sizes and independent of the friction during the
test. The level to which the stress decreases depends on the specimen size, which is again similar to
the response observed for concrete. In a compression test, the strength never reduces to zero,
because at the end the remains from the specimen will be loaded again. The larger the specimen, the
longer it takes for the plates to get close enough to re-load the crushed material. As a result, a larger
specimen will unload to a lower stress level than a short one.
normalised stress
[/ft]
1
h/D=2.5 (Y)
0.9 h/D=2 (Y)
h/D=1.5 (Y)
0.8
h/D=1 (Y)
0.7 h/D=0.75 (Y)
h/D=0.5 (Y)
0.6 h/D=2.5
h/D=2
0.5
h/D=1.5
0.4 h/D=1
h/D=0.75
0.3 h/D=0.5

0.2

0.1

0
0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30
post-peak deformation [mm]

Figure 4.7: If the softening behaviour is plotted as normalised stress versus post-peak
deformation the differences it appears that the stress reduction is a function of the deformation
rather than the strain
In Figure 4.8 the peak stress for both the tests with and without friction reduction is plotted as a
function of the h/D ratio. From this graph it can be seen that the strength increases with decreasing
h/D ratio’s if no friction reduction is utilised. For ratios smaller than one, the strength values rapidly
increase, but even for h/D=1 and 1½ the obtained strengths are barely within the 95% reliability
interval (that is used to give an indication of the significance of the deviations). If, on the other
hand, an effective friction reduction system is used, the strength values remain reliable, even for

TU Delft ACRe 43
very small h/D ratio’s. The stress-strain relations and the strain at peak strength change with the h/D
ratio for both situations (with and without friction reduction), but again the effect is less when the
friction is reduced.

-15.0
no friction reduction
ACRe friction reduction
-13.0 fc(h/D=2)
95% reliability interval

-11.0

-9.0
fc [N/mm ]
2

-7.0

-5.0

-3.0

-1.0

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 h/D 2.00 2.50 3.00

Figure 4.8: The effect of the h/D ratio on the apparent compressive strength (peak stress) for
tests with and without friction reduction (T=30oC and strain rate = 0.05 s-1)
Because the tests were performed for a single combination of temperature and strain rate, it is not
certain if the effect of the h/D ratio varies with these parameters. However, the test temperature was
chosen such (relatively high) that the materials viscous properties would influence the response, as
a result the behaviour differs from that at lower temperatures. Since the response at lower
temperatures is similar to that of concrete (Erkens et al., 1998 and Chapter 3), the test results were
compared to the information about the influence of the h/D ratio on the response of concrete. Since
the strength in both cases differs considerably (nearly a factor ten), they were normalised with
respect to the “true strength”, defined as the value found for h/D=2. For asphalt concrete this is fc=-
5.2 N/mm2, the value found from the original test programme discussed in Chapter 3. The values
for concrete were read from the graph that was shown in the previous Section (Figure 4.3), which
yielded a true strength of –41.3 N/mm2. The normalised values are shown in Figure 4.9.

Lab W&S ACRe 44

 3.0
asphalt no reduction
asphalt friction reduction
2.5
concrete no reduction
concrete friction reduction
2.0
fc,norm=fc/fc(h/D=2)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
h/D

Figure 4.9: The normalised compressive strengths as a function of the h/d ratio for asphalt
concrete compared to those for ordinary concrete (van Mier, 1997), both with and without
friction reduction
Figure 4.9 illustrates that the effect of the h/D ratio is similar for concrete and asphalt concrete,
which leads to the expectation that this trend will be consistent over a wide range over temperatures
and strain rates for A.C.. Furthermore, the effect appears to be proportional to the “true” strength,
leading to similar trends in the normalised strengths.

Incidentally, the results from these h/D tests also shows that the material response is indeed
controlled by strain rate and not by deformation rate. If the latter had been the case, the strengths
should have decreased with decreasing deformation rate (=decreasing height), but that is not the
case.

4.3 THE HEATING-UP AND COOLING-DOWN OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SPECIMENS

During the first series of compression tests it became clear that it was important that the
temperature within a specimen is uniform throughout the test. This means that they should be stored
at the test temperature for a sufficient period (and that the storage temperature should be equal to
the test temperature). Also enough time should be allowed to stabilise the temperature not just in
the set-up, but also in the specimen itself, after the specimen is placed in the set-up and
instrumented. For the compression tests, a specimen was fitted with a PT100 temperature sensor
and from this it turned out that a total time of 1 hour after placement and instrumentation was
needed to get a stable and uniform temperature. This criterion was based on tests with a specimen
fitted with a temperature sensor, it turned out that at the extreme condition (0oC) the specimen core
temperature was equal to the test temperature after approximately 45 minutes. Based on experience,
the storage time at the test temperature before testing was 24 hours. It remained a question whether
this was really necessary and, basically, how long a specimen should be kept at the test temperature
before testing.

TU Delft ACRe 45
Another aspect of this question is how fast the temperature changes once a specimen is taken from
storage and placed in the lab. This not only determines how long it takes to regain a uniform
temperature distribution in the specimen afterwards, but also if, and under what circumstances, it is
possible to run tests on set-ups without temperature control. In this Section, this question is
approached on the basis of both theoretical and experimental data.
4.3.1 THEORETICAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE DEVELOPMENT
Heat transport can occur through three processes: conduction, convection and radiation.
Evaporation and condensation can further influence it. Radiation, the transmission of heat without a
medium (e.g. electromagnetic waves), is not important for the problem considered here.
Convection, heat transmission by means of a flowing medium (e.g. water or air), does play a roll in
the temperature storage. For example if the water in a water bath is heated locally by a heating
element, the mass density of the heated water changes, which leads to a current in the water bath. In
air controlled temperature cabinets a van is used to prevent the development of temperature
gradients, this van creates an airflow, which is also a form of convection. These currents do not
directly touch the specimen, in air controlled cabinets special care is taken to prevent the air stream
from blowing directly onto the specimen. Therefore, these convection phenomena are mainly
concerned with establishing and maintaining the temperature in the cabinet and not with the transfer
of this heat to or from the specimen. The changes in the temperature of a specimen, which (with
temperature T0) is placed in a cabinet filled with a medium (either water or air) with a different
temperature T1, is mainly due to conduction. The exact description of these phenomena is rather
difficult, but with some simplifications an approximation can be obtained. In this case, the heat
conduction equation from Fourier (Equation 3.11), with a temperature jump at the surface was used.
For simplicity, the specimen was modelled as a half-infinite medium. In reality, since the complete
specimen circumference, as well as the top and bottom side, is subjected to the temperature jump,
the process will be faster. The results of Equation 3.11 can therefore be used as a “worst case
scenario”.
x
2   2 at   2
T  x, t   A  Bx  C  0 e d (3.11)


Where the integral expression is the error function, which has been determined for all values of
Appendix 8 The conditions for a temperature jump at the surface are:

 t  0 and x  0 :
T  x,0  T0 
  A  Bx  C  T0  x
x 2  

 2
  e d  1   B  0, A  C  T0
2 a0  0


 x  0 and t  0 :
T 0, t   T1 

0 2 0   A  T1  C  T0  T1

2
 0 e   d  0 
2 a t  0


x
2 
T  x, t   T1  (T0  T1 ) 
2
2 at e   d (3.12)
  0

The a in the upper limit of the integral expression in Equations 3.11 and 3.12 is the coefficient for
temperature equivalence:

Lab W&S ACRe 46

  m2 
a ;  (3.13)
c  s 
 W 
  thermal conductivity   , for asphalt concrete: 0.6 (Verkerk et al., 1986)
m K 
 kg 
Where:   mass density  3  , 2300 (Erkens et al. 1998 or Chapter 2)
m 
 J 
c  specific heat   ,for asphalt concrete: 920 (Verkerk et al., 1986)
 kg K 
The thermal conductivity for asphalt concrete is low compared to other materials (e.g. concrete), as
a result it takes some time to change the temperature. Using the values presented above, a for
asphalt is approximately: 3.8x10-8 m2/s. With this value, the propagation of a temperature change
through a specimen on the basis of Equation 3.12 would take place as illustrated in Figure 4.10.
As can be seen in Figure 4.10, the relation predicts that the specimen temperature is not yet uniform
after 30 hours (the fluctuations in some of the lines in Figure 4.9 are due to limitations in the
resolution of the programme used to plot the lines). This would mean that overnight storage (24
hours) would not suffice. However, the relation deals with a “worst case scenario” as was stated
before. Convection is not considered and, more important, the specimen geometry is also left out.
This might conceivably lead to an over-conservative prediction. In order to establish if this is the
case, some experiments were carried out.

t=0 t=1 s t=1 min t=10 min t=15 min t=30 min
t=1 hr t=5 hr t=10 hr t=20 hr t=30 hr
60

55

50
temperature [oC]

45

40

35

30

25

20
0 5 10 15 20 25
distance from edge [mm]

Figure 4.10: The temperature profile at different times according to Equation 3.12 for T0=22oC
(specimen temperature at t=0) and T1=60oC (storage temperature)

4.3.2 TEMPERATURE REGISTRATION IN SPECIMENS

A standard ACRe compression-specimen (h=100 mm, D=50 mm, composition: (see Chapter 2) was
fitted with a PT100 temperature sensor at its centre. The drill hole was filled with an insulating

TU Delft ACRe 47
material, to ensure that the sensor would register the temperature of the centre of the asphalt
concrete specimen rather than the ambient temperature. For further insulation the top of the
specimen was covered with an insulating cap and the wire of the temperature sensor was also
insulated. A picture and schematic drawing of the specimen with the temperature sensor is shown in
Figure 4.11.

In the tests the sensor registers the core temperature and it is assumed that a temperature gradient
exists over the specimen radius from the moment the specimen is placed in an environment of
different temperature until the core temperature is equal to this temperature. Naturally, by the time
the temperature sensor starts to register temperature changes in the centre of the specimen, the
circumference temperature has already changed more.

Figure 4.11: A standard compression test specimen from the ACRe test programme was fitted
with a PT100 temperature sensor
Basically, two types of temperature controlled storage are used in road engineering research. The
most common is storage in a water bath and the alternative is an air controlled temperature cabinet.
The time it takes for a specimen to reach a different temperature depends on the difference with its
original temperature, the medium that is used to heat or cool it and the specimen itself (material and
dimensions). As a material, asphalt concrete has a rather low thermal conductivity coefficient. In
this analysis of the heating up and cooling down of asphalt concrete specimens it is assumed that
this characteristic is approximately the same for all types road engineering asphalt. In the test, the
influence of geometry is not included, since only a single specimen was fitted with a temperature
sensor. However, some general observations on the influence of the geometry are listed here:
 The relation between specimen circumference and volume is an important variable, if the
volume over circumference ratio (V/A) is larger it will take longer to reach an equilibrium
temperature.
 Disturbances in results are not due to a change in core temperature, but rather to changes in the
overall temperature profile. Especially temperature gradients can cause problems
 The temperature of a specimen from an open graded mix will change faster than that of one
from a dense mix

Lab W&S ACRe 48

 Water conducts heat better than air, a specimen stored in water will therefor reach the storage
temperature faster than one stored in air. On the other hand, the temperature of a specimen that
is taken out of storage and placed in the lab will also change faster when the specimen is wet
and the storage temperature is higher than the lab temperature.

medium Storage temperature [oC]

Water 60
Water 30
Air 30
Air 15
Table 4.3: Overview of the test conditions used in the temperature development tests
65

60

55

50 water, 60'C
water, 30'C
45 air, 15'C
air, 30'C
40
T [ C]
o

35

30

25

20

15

10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
tijd [uren]

Figure 4.12: Core temperature of the specimen as a function of time for different storage media
and temperatures
In the tests the specimen was stored in a temperature-controlled environment for 24 hours, while the
core temperature was registered every minute (Figure 4.12). The temperature distribution in the
specimen was considered to be uniform again when the sensor indicated that the core of the
specimen had reached the intended temperature. Both a water bath and air controlled temperature
storage were used and a series of four “test temperatures” was tested. After 24 hours the specimen
was taken from the temperature storage and left at room temperature for about half an hour. During
that time the change in core temperature was again registered every minute (Figure 4.13). The test
conditions are presented in Table 4.3.

From Figure 4.12 it can be seen that under all circumstances the core temperature is equal to the
storage temperature long before the twenty-four hours have past. As expected, a specimen stored in
water is sooner at the storage temperature then one stored in air. Basically, a specimen stored in
water is nearly uniform after one hour, but for safety a storage period of two hours should be used.
For storage in air a period of 5 to 6 hours is needed. In the Marshall test specifications (storage in
water) only half an hour is used, although the volume/circumference ratio of a Marshall (V/A=13.9

TU Delft ACRe 49
mm3/mm2) specimen is larger than that of the ACRe specimen (V/A=10 mm3/mm2), meaning that it
takes longer to change in temperature. A storage time of half an hour for Marshall specimens might,
therefore, be somewhat short. It is recommended to check this by fitting a Marshall specimen with a
temperature sensor and repeating the test. If there is no guarantee that the storage time is sufficient,
more time should be used in order to minimise the induced variety.

In Figure 4.13 the change in core temperature as a function of time during the first half-hour after
removing the specimen from temperature controlled storage is shown. This illustrates, as expected,
that if a specimen was stored in water its temperature changed faster than when it was dry (the
specimen was not wiped dry after taking them out of the water bath). Table 4.4 shows the change in
temperature at certain points in time. In considering these temperature changes, it must be taken
into account that this refers to the core temperature. Any significant change in core temperature
implies an even larger temperature change over the specimen radius and, thus, a temperature
gradient. So, if the core temperature of a specimen that was stored in water of 60oC is reduced by
1.2oC after only one minute, the temperature at the circumference will have changed even more. In
the uniaxial compression tests (Erkens et al., 1998) it was found that a temperature difference of 1
to 2 oC was sufficient to trigger non-uniform failure patterns. Therefore, the difference between the
lab and the test temperature as well as the time required for placement, instrumentation and testing
should be considered before deciding to run a test without temperature control. If at all possible, a
test should be run in a temperature-controlled environment because then it is certain that all
specimens were tested under the same (temperature) conditions. This way, a potential source of
variation in the results can be eliminated.

Storage conditions Air 30oC Air 15oC Water 30oC Water 60oC
Time
1 minute 0 0.1 0.5 1.2
2 minutes 0 0.2 1.0 2.7
5 minutes 0.3 0.6 2.6 6.1
10 minutes 0.9 1.1 4.6 10.3
15 minutes 1.4 1.8 6.1 13.9
Table 4.4: Temperature changes at the core of the specimen at specific time intervals after taking
the specimen from storage and placing it in the lab at approximately 22 oC

Lab W&S ACRe 50

 65

60 water, 60'C
water, 30'C
55 air, 15'C
air, 30'C
50

45

40
T [ C]
o

35

30

25

20

15

10
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 25 26 27 28 29 30
tijd [minuten]

Figure 4.13: Changes in the core temperature in the 30 minutes after a specimen is taken from
temperature controlled storage and placed in the laboratory (at approximately 22oC). The legend
refers to the storage conditions from which the specimen was taken. Both during storage and in
the lab the specimen was placed on a PVC plate (5 mm thick), so the temperature changes were
mainly the result of heat transfer via the side of the specimen.

TU Delft ACRe 51
5. C ONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The tests at 5 mm/s (or 0.05 s-1) are in agreement with the other results. On the basis of the total
series of tests a new general relation between fc and temperature and strain rate is determined. The
difference with the previous relation is that, first of all, the strain rate is used instead of the
deformation rate. This is because material response is related to parameters that do not depend on
the geometry (stresses and strains). Second of all, the relation is now completely based on
physically relevant relations. In the previous version this was the case for the influence of the strain
rate, but the relation with temperature was based on a data-fit. The additional advantage of this new
shape is that the relation can now be fitted directly by means of non-linear regression, which makes
it much more robust and reproducible.

The influence of friction on the strength is illustrated by the results of tests with different h/D ratios.
If no friction reduction is used, low h/D ratio’s (<=1) lead to an overestimation of the strength. With
the ACRe friction-reduction method small ratios still give reliable strengths, which is important in
road engineering where small h/D are common. Basically, a ratio of 2 should be used for tests
without friction reduction while ratios down to ½ in combination with the reduction system still
give a reliable indication of the compressive strength. This means that specimens obtained from
actual constructions, with a diameter of 100 or 150 mm and a height of 50 mm or less, can be used
in compression tests as long as friction reduction is utilised.

The shape of the stress-strain diagram in the post-peak regime, however, is influenced even if
friction reduction is applied. If these descending branches are plotted as a function of post-peak
deformation rather than strain, they are more or less similar. This may indicate that damage
localisation occurs at the peak and that the overall strain can not be used for this part of the
response.

A comparison between the h/D effect for concrete (which is comparable to asphalt concrete tested
at low temperatures) and that for asphalt concrete at 30oC shows a striking similarity. This indicates
that the effect of the h/D ratio is more or less similar over a wide range of temperatures.

In the first conclusion it was already mentioned that material characteristics should depend on
geometry independent parameters, such as stress and strain, rather than on force and deformation
(rate). This meant that the specimens with their varying heights had to be subjected to the same
strain rate instead of the same deformation rate. The trend in the strengths that was found
corroborated the strain rate dependency. The strengths remained at the same level for tests with
friction reduction and they increased with decreasing height if no friction reduction was used. Since
the strain rate was the same, smaller specimens were subjected to lower deformation rates, so if the
strength had been deformation rate dependent, the values would be expected to decrease.

Registration of the core temperature of a specimen fitted with a temperature sensor showed that it is
not necessary to store specimens at the test temperature overnight. For specimens stored in water
one to two hours is sufficient, while storage in an air filled temperature control unit should take
place at least 4 to 5 hours prior to testing.

Lab W&S ACRe 52

The temperature registration was done for only one specimen, so there is no data available about the
influence of changes in diameter, height and mix composition on the temperature development.
However, changes in temperature first effect the specimen circumference and propagate to the core
from there. It seems reasonable to assume that the ratio over the volume over the circumference
(V/A) influences the speed of the change in core temperature. If the volume is large compared to
the circumference, it will take longer to change the specimen temperature. The specimen used for
the tests had a V/A ratio of 10 mm3/mm2, for a Marshall specimen this ratio is about 14 mm3/mm2.
So a Marshall specimen of the same material would take longer to change in temperature than the
test specimen. This indicates that the time prescribed for storing the specimen in a water bath before
the Marshall test (½ hour) might be rather short. If this is the case, it induces additional variability
in the test results.

Registration of the core temperature after the specimen was taken out of temperature controlled
storage and placed in the lab, showed that under those circumstances the temperature changes
rapidly, especially for wet specimens that were stored at a temperature higher than the lab
temperature. Under nearly all conditions a change in core (!) temperature could be observed after
only one minute. Naturally, the skin temperature changed long before, which indicates a
temperature gradient in the specimen. This means that testing asphalt concrete with out temperature
control induces unknown variations in the test conditions and, thus, results.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is important that the influence of friction is taken into account when uniaxial compression tests or
triaxial tests are carried out. To prevent friction from influencing the strength, h/D ratios of at least
2 should be used or, at lower ratios, the friction should be reduced by an effective method. The
commonly applied mixture of glycerine and talc with a layer of graphite powder on top does not
reduce the friction in these experiments (Poot et al., 1995 and Erkens et al., 1998). For specimens
with h/D=1, the system developed within the ACRe project (Erkens et al., 1998) provides sufficient
friction reduction.

The tests with varies h/D values should be repeated for other temperatures, strain rates and mixes to
obtain a more general indication of the effect on the test results.

In testing specimens with different heights and diameters it should be realised that the material
responds to stresses and strains, rather than to forces and displacements. In order to get similar test
conditions, the forces and displacements should be adapted to ensure the same stresses, strains and
strain rates. Otherwise, the results will not be comparable.

It would be a good idea to repeat the temperature development tests with a Marshall specimen in
order to see if the specimen temperature is uniform after half an hour in the water bath. The tests
performed in this project indicate that it is not, in which case a longer storage time cold conceivably
eliminate some of the variation in the test results.

If at all possible, even simple and fast tests on asphalt concrete should be performed in a
temperature-controlled environment, since the temperature changes rapidly if this is not the case.
These uncontrolled, and unknown, temperature gradients and variations will influence the test
results.

TU Delft ACRe 53
REFERENCES

Applied Physics, ”Handleiding Natuurkundig Practicum, deel 4 foutenanalyse”, Department of

Applied Physics, Delft University of Technology, 1986 (in Dutch)

Anderson, H.P., “Statistische Technieken en hun Toepassingen”, Nijgh & van Ditmar educatief, ‘s
Gravenhage, 1e druk 1969, ISBN 90 236 0186 6, 6e druk, 1986 (in Dutch)

CROW, “Standaard RAW Bepalingen, 1995”,ISBN 90-6628-198-7, 1995 (in Dutch)

Erkens, S.M.J.G. and Poot, M.R., The Uniaxial Compression Test – Asphalt Concrete Response
(ACRe)”, Delft University of Technology report 7-98-117-4, September 1998

Head, K., 'Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, Vol. 2: Permeability, Shear Strength and
Compressibility Tests', Pentech Press Limited, Estover Road, Plymouth, Devon, 0-7273-1305-3,
1982

IPC, Gyropac Materials Compaction Machine, Operating and maintenance manual, Australia,
september 1993

Mier, J.G.M. van, 'Fracture Processes of Concrete', CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, New York,
London and Tokyo, 0-8493-9123-7, 1997

Poot, M.R., Kalf, J.A.M. and Houben, L.J.M., ‘Dynamisch triaxiaalonderzoek op asfalt`,
Onderzoek 2e fase op mengsels met standaard bitumen, Delft University of Technology report 7-95-
114-2, May 1995 (in Dutch)

Verkerk, G., Broens, J.B., Kranendonk, W., Puijl, F.J. van der, Sikkema, J.L. and Stam, C.W.,
“BINAS, informatie boek vwo-havo voor het onderwijs in de natuurwetenschappen”, Wolters-
Noordhoffbv. Groningen, ISBN 90 01 89351 1, the Netherlands, 1986 (in Dutch)

Lab W&S ACRe 54

TU Delft ACRe 55
APPENDIX 1: FILLER COMPOSITION 00

RL210-01
Steengroeve Laboratory Analysis-report

Sample-name Wigro Sample no. 95-134(I);96-

134(II);97153(III)
Sample-type Filler Date of arrival 1/09/95(I);22/01/97(II);
11/12/97(III)
Sample-code 73300 Document no.
Source WSK Principal GD
Destination TU-Delft Contact person Verhoeven
Transport by G&L Installation
Relation Analyse date 01/09/95(I);22/01/97(II);
11/12/97(III)
Copy rapport RBL281/TU-Delft
Remarks Laboratory stock for external laboratories

WI ANALYSES SI Value of batch no. Warranty

FILLERANALYSES I II III Min. Max.

231 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

ALPINE
+ 63 m %(m/m) 19 15 14 5 25
+ 90 m %(m/m) 11 9 9 0 15
+ 2 mm %(m/m) 0 0 0 0
232 BITUMEN NUMBER ml/100g 47 44 46 42 48
235 MASS LOSS 150 C %(m/m) 0.34 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.5

ANALYSES AFTER DRYING AT 110 C

222 DRYING AT 110 C %(m/m) X X X

236 DENSITY kg/m3 2780 2770 2770 2675 2875
237 VOIDS %(v/v) 38 38 37 36 42
238 SOLVABILITY H2O %(m/m) 2.0 2.2 0.8 0 10
239 SOLVABILITY HCL %(m/m) 63.3 65.5 67.7 55 75

Lab W&S ACRe 56

APPENDIX 2: SIEVE CURVE CRUSHED SAND 0/5 AND FILLER 00
100
percentage passing

sand
80
aggregate
60
[%]

40

20
Sieve size [mm]
0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Dry sieving Crushed sand 0/5 Aggregate (sand + filler)

Sieve [mm] Percentage passing Percentage passing
[% m/m] [% m/m]
4 97.5 96.8
2.8 94.9 94.4
2 90.6 90.8
1 60.4 65.3
0.5 34.5 43.4
0.355 26.4 36.6
0.25 18.1 29.6
0.18 11.3 25.2
0.125 5.9 20.6
0.063 1.8 14.6

From the previous Appendix it is known that the filler was sieved on the 63 m, 90 m and 2 mm
sieves. It is assumed that the material that remained on the 90 m sieve and passed through the 2
mm sieve would have passed the 125 m sieve used to analyse the sand.

The combined sieve data is found by computing the mass percentage on each sieve (difference
between two adjacent values) and expressing that as a percentage of the combined mass (m%*=m%
* Ms/(Ms+Mf). Where necessary, the percentages for the filler and sand are combined.

For example:
Sieve 63 m: 1.8% x 2.7/3.2+ 84% x0.5/3.2=14.6% (2.7 kg sand+ 0.5 kg filler=3.2 kg aggregate)
Sieve 125 m: (5.9%-1.8%)x2.7/3.2+16%x0.5/3.2+14.6%=20.6%
Sieve 180 m: (11.3%-5.9%)x2.7/3.2+20.6%=25.2%, etc.

TU Delft ACRe 57
APPENDIX 3: BITUMEN CHARACTERISTICS 00

1. Penetration test

Pen.45/60 (batch I) Pen.45/60 (batch II)

1e 2e 3e average 1e 2e 3e average
47 46 48 47 47 48 47 47.3

2. Ring & Ball

R&B (batch I) R&B (batch II)

Level Level Starting Result Level Level Starting Result
thermostat boiling ring temperature thermostat boiling ring temperature
45 9 8.6 51/51 45 9 7.2 52/52.1

20T ( R & B)  500 log( pen)  1952

PI  (A3.1)
T ( R & B )  50 log( pen)  120

Result batch I: PI = -1.10

Result batch II: PI = -0.83

Density bitumen: b= (1020  5) kg/m3

Lab W&S ACRe 58

APPENDIX 4: CALIBRATION DATA LOADCELL 00

Calibration form for loadcells

Customer’s name: M. Poot/ W&S

Loadcell no. Lebow ser. 1191
Date: 02-06-97
By: A.J. de Jager
Section: M&I/Tel. 0152784421/Fax. 0152786993
Testmachine: Losenhausen
Machine range: 200 kN
Force: 200 kN
Mode: Compression
Strain amp: Kompensator Mk ser.no. 5169 (Hottinger)
Connections: Chan. 2 1=blue, 2=black, 3=red/br, 4=yellow/gr
Remarks: Special cable delivered by customer/user

Connection a/ compression
kN    Av- Val- Dev-%
0 25970 1178
100 30679
200 35387

0 25965 25964 25964 25964 0 0

25 27152 27150 27151 27151 1187 0.76
50 28317 28324 28322 28320 1169 0.38
75 29492 29500 29499 29497 1177 0.02
100 30674 30688 30683 30681 1184 0.13
125 31872 31879 31870 31873 1192 0.24
150 33055 33065 33050 33056 1183 0.07
175 34216 34225 34213 34218 1162 0.19
200 35383 35400 35383 35388 1170 0.08

9424
Connection A=9424 /compression

The strain calibrator c112-350 is used for calibrating the MTS controller, simulating the strain in
the loadcell.
For each force range the corresponding full range strain is set equal to  10 V, using the slope of
the calibration line (1178  / 25 kN= 47.12 /kN) to obtain the appropriate strain.

range [kN] simulated strain []

20 20*47.12 (10V)
50 50*4712 (10V)
100 100*47.12 (10V)
150 150*47.12 (10V)
The calibration data are used to obtain a calibration sheet for the loadcell, which is shown below.

TU Delft ACRe 59
 comload
TU Delft

kN  delta supply volt quotient cal.line error a0 a1 y

0 25965 1187 1 25965 -0.04429 0.044287 value -550.562 0.021202 a0+a1*x
25 27152 1165 1 27152 25.12286 -0.12286 SE(value) 0.401752 1.3E-05 0.206118
50 28317 1175 1 28317 49.82355 0.176449 R^2 0.999991 * *
75 29492 1182 1 29492 74.73627 0.263733 F-value 2647991 * *
100 30674 1198 1 30674 99.7974 0.2026 dFreedom 25 * *
125 31872 1183 1 31872 125.1978 -0.19777 SSreg 112498.9 * *
150 33055 1161 1 33055 150.2801 -0.28011 SSres 1.062116 * *
175 34216 1167 1 34216 174.896 0.10401
200 35383 1 35383 199.6391 0.360912 37000
comload
0 25964 1186 1 25964 -0.06549 0.06549

]
35000
25 27150 1174 1 27150 25.08045 -0.08045

measured strain [
50 28324 1176 1 28324 49.97197 0.028033 33000
75 29500 1188 1 29500 74.90589 0.094114
100 30688 1191 1 30688 100.0942 -0.09423 31000 quotient
125 31879 1186 1 31879 125.3462 -0.34619 quotient
ACRe

150 33065 1160 1 33065 150.4921 -0.49213 29000

175 34225 1175 1 34225 175.0868 -0.08681
27000
200 35400 1 35400 199.9995 0.000473
0 25964 1187 1 25964 -0.06549 0.06549 25000
25 27151 1171 1 27151 25.10165 -0.10165 0 50 100 150 200 250
50 28322 1177 1 28322 49.92956 0.070438 force [kN]
75 29499 1184 1 29499 74.88468 0.115317
100 30683 1187 1 30683 99.98822 0.011779
125 31870 1180 1 31870 125.1554 -0.15537 NB: calibrated for 200kN, so non-linearity is: 0.492128 kN
150 33050 1163 1 33050 150.1741 -0.17409 For all ranges in which the loadcell is used:
175 34213 1170 1 34213 174.8324 0.167617 range [kN] absolute non-lin. [kN] relative non-lin. [% full range]
200 35383 1 35383 199.6391 0.360912 20 0.49 2.46
non-lin: 0.246064 %full range 50 0.49 0.98
100 0.49 0.49
150 0.49 0.33
60
 Calibration data first long range LVDT (LVDT 6):
Lab. W&S

input signal step supply voltage quotient cal.line delta a0 a1 y

APPENDIX 5: CALIBRATION DATA LONG RANGE LVDT’S

-15 6.064453 1 6.064453 -15.0652816 -0.06528 value 0.034631 -2.48991 a0+a1*x
-12 4.848633 -1.21582 1 4.848633 -12.0380052 -0.03801 SE(value) 0.007582 0.00199 0.043557
-9 3.62793 -1.2207 1 3.62793 -8.99857054 0.001429 R^2 0.99998 * *
-6 2.421875 -1.20606 1 2.421875 -5.99560807 0.004392 F-value 1565406 * *
-3 1.210938 -1.21094 1 1.210938 -2.98048988 0.01951 dFreedom 31 * *
0 -0.01465 -1.22559 1 -0.01465 0.07110792 0.071108 SSreg 2969.941 * *
3 -1.21094 -1.19629 1 -1.21094 3.04975647 0.049756 SSres 0.058814 * *
6 -2.41211 -1.20117 1 -2.41211 6.04055576 0.040556

deformation [mm]
9 -3.60352 -1.19141 1 -3.60352 9.00705358 0.007054 15 LVDT6
12 -4.7998 -1.19628 1 -4.7998 11.9856772 -0.01432
15 -5.97656 -1.17676 1 -5.97656 14.9156979 -0.0843
-15 6.05957 1 6.05957 -15.0531233 -0.05312 10
-12 4.848633 -1.21094 1 4.848633 -12.0380052 -0.03801
-9 3.618164 -1.23047 1 3.618164 -8.97425413 0.025746 quotient

-6 2.416992 -1.20117 1 2.416992 -5.98344986 0.01655 cal.line

5
-3 1.206055 -1.21094 1 1.206055 -2.96833167 0.031668
0 0.004883 -1.20117 1 0.004883 0.0224726 0.022473
3 -1.21094 -1.21582 1 -1.21094 3.04975647 0.049756
0
ACRe

6 -2.41211 -1.20117 1 -2.41211 6.04055576 0.040556

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
9 -3.59863 -1.18652 1 -3.59863 8.99487794 -0.00512
voltage/supply voltage
12 -4.79492 -1.19629 1 -4.79492 11.9735265 -0.02647
-5
15 -5.98633 -1.19141 1 -5.98633 14.9400243 -0.05998
-15 6.05957 1 6.05957 -15.0531233 -0.05312
-12 4.84375 -1.21582 1 4.84375 -12.0258469 -0.02585
-10
-9 3.62793 -1.21582 1 3.62793 -8.99857054 0.001429
-6 2.416992 -1.21094 1 2.416992 -5.98344986 0.01655
-3 1.201172 -1.21582 1 1.201172 -2.95617346 0.043827
0 0 -1.20117 1 0 0.03463081 0.034631 -15
3 -1.21582 -1.21582 1 -1.21582 3.06190721 0.061907
6 -2.41211 -1.19629 1 -2.41211 6.04055576 0.040556
9 -3.60352 -1.19141 1 -3.60352 9.00705358 0.007054
12 -4.79004 -1.18652 1 -4.79004 11.9613758 -0.03862
15 -5.97656 -1.18652 1 -5.97656 14.9156979 -0.0843
max= 0.084302
non-linearity: 0.28 % of full range
61
 Calibration data second long range LVDT (LVDT 7)
TU Delft

input signal step supply volt quotient cal.line delta a0 a1 y

-15 6.044922 1 6.044922 -15.003436 -0.00344 value 0.010199 -2.48368 a0+a1*x
-12 4.853516 -1.19141 1 4.853516 -12.044368 -0.04437 SE(value) 0.006703 0.001755 0.038506
-9 3.637695 -1.21582 1 3.637695 -9.0246611 -0.02466 R^2 0.999985 * *
-6 2.402344 -1.23535 1 2.402344 -5.956448 0.043552 F-value 2003044 * *
-3 1.210938 -1.19141 1 1.210938 -2.9973802 0.00262 dFreedom 31 * *
0 0.024414 -1.18652 1 0.024414 -0.0504376 -0.05044 SSreg 2969.954 * *
3 -1.22559 -1.25 1 -1.22559 3.05416872 0.054169 SSres 0.045964 * *
6 -2.42676 -1.20117 1 -2.42676 6.0374872 0.037487
9 -3.62793 -1.20117 1 -3.62793 9.02080567 0.020806 LVDT7_2

deformation [mm]
12 -4.83398 -1.20605 1 -4.83398 12.0162445 0.016244 15
15 -6.01074 -1.17676 1 -6.01074 14.9389364 -0.06106
-15 6.042481 1 6.042481 -14.997372 0.002628 10
-12 4.848633 -1.19385 1 4.848633 -12.03224 -0.03224 quotient
-9 3.632813 -1.21582 1 3.632813 -9.0125358 -0.01254 cal.line
5
-6 2.431641 -1.20117 1 2.431641 -6.0292123 -0.02921
-3 1.206055 -1.22559 1 1.206055 -2.9852524 0.014748
0 -0.01465 -1.22071 1 -0.01465 0.04658471 0.046585 0
3 -1.21094 -1.19629 1 -1.21094 3.01778285 0.017783 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
ACRe

6 -2.43652 -1.22558 1 -2.43652 6.06172788 0.061728 voltage/supply voltage -5

9 -3.64258 -1.20606 1 -3.64258 9.05719154 0.057192
12 -4.80469 -1.16211 1 -4.80469 11.9434976 -0.0565 -10
15 -6.01563 -1.21094 1 -6.01563 14.9510816 -0.04892
-15 6.040039 1 6.040039 -14.991308 0.008692
-15
-12 4.845 -1.19504 1 4.845 -12.023217 -0.02322
-9 3.632813 -1.21219 1 3.632813 -9.0125358 -0.01254
-20
-6 2.426758 -1.20606 1 2.426758 -6.0170845 -0.01708
-3 1.210938 -1.21582 1 1.210938 -2.9973802 0.00262
0 -0.01465 -1.22559 1 -0.01465 0.04658471 0.046585
3 -1.21094 -1.19629 1 -1.21094 3.01778285 0.017783
6 -2.42676 -1.21582 1 -2.42676 6.0374872 0.037487
9 -3.62793 -1.20117 1 -3.62793 9.02080567 0.020806
12 -4.82422 -1.19629 1 -4.82422 11.9920038 -0.008
15 -6.00098 -1.17676 1 -6.00098 14.9146957 -0.0853
max: 0.085304
non-linearity 0.284348 % of full range
62
 Calibration data third long range LVDT (LVDT 8):
Lab W&S

LVDT8_2
input signal step supply voltage quotient cal.line delta a0 a1 y
-15 6.103516 1 6.103516 -15.0203807 0.020381 value 0.058853 -2.47058 a0+a1*x
-12 4.897461 -1.20606 1 4.897461 -12.0407235 0.040723 SE(value) 0.007256 0.00189 0.041681
-9 3.671875 -1.22559 1 3.671875 -9.01281332 0.012813 R^2 0.999982 * *
-6 2.456055 -1.21582 1 2.456055 -6.00903087 0.009031 F-value 1709484 * *
-3 1.230469 -1.22559 1 1.230469 -2.98112071 0.018879 dFreedom 31 * *
0 0.004883 -1.22559 1 0.004883 0.04678945 0.046789 SSreg 2969.946 * *
3 -1.21582 -1.2207 1 -1.21582 3.06263575 0.062636 SSres 0.053857 * *
6 -2.42188 -1.20606 1 -2.42188 6.04230533 0.042305

deformation [mm]
9 -3.61816 -1.19628 1 -3.61816 8.99781263 0.002187 LVDT8 15
12 -4.82422 -1.20606 1 -4.82422 11.9774822 0.022518
15 -6.01563 -1.19141 1 -6.01563 14.9209578 0.079042
-15 6.103516 1 6.103516 -15.0203807 0.020381 10
-12 4.897461 -1.20606 1 4.897461 -12.0407235 0.040723
-9 3.671875 -1.22559 1 3.671875 -9.01281332 0.012813 quotient
5 cal.line
-6 2.451172 -1.2207 1 2.451172 -5.99696702 0.003033
-3 1.225586 -1.22559 1 1.225586 -2.96905686 0.030943
0 0.004883 -1.2207 1 0.004883 0.04678945 0.046789 0
ACRe

3 -1.21582 -1.2207 1 -1.21582 3.06263575 0.062636 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

6 -2.42676 -1.21094 1 -2.42676 6.05436177 0.054362
9 -3.62305 -1.19629 1 -3.62305 9.00989377 0.009894 voltage/supply voltage
-5
12 -4.8291 -1.20605 1 -4.8291 11.9895386 0.010461
15 -6.01563 -1.18653 1 -6.01563 14.9209578 0.079042
-15 6.103516 1 6.103516 -15.0203807 0.020381 -10
-12 4.897461 -1.20606 1 4.897461 -12.0407235 0.040723
-9 3.676758 -1.2207 1 3.676758 -9.02487717 0.024877
-15
-6 2.456055 -1.2207 1 2.456055 -6.00903087 0.009031
-3 1.230469 -1.22559 1 1.230469 -2.98112071 0.018879
0 0.004883 -1.22559 1 0.004883 0.04678945 0.046789
3 -1.21582 -1.2207 1 -1.21582 3.06263575 0.062636
6 -2.42188 -1.20606 1 -2.42188 6.04230533 0.042305
9 -3.61816 -1.19628 1 -3.61816 8.99781263 0.002187
12 -4.82422 -1.20606 1 -4.82422 11.9774822 0.022518
15 -6.01563 -1.19141 1 -6.01563 14.9209578 0.079042
max: 0.079042
63

non-linearity: 0.263474 % of full range

 Calibration data of the first small range LVDT (LVDT3)
input signal supply voltage quotient cal.line delta a0 a1 y

APPENDIX 6: CALIBRATION DATA SMALL RANGE LVDT’S

TU Delft

0 -10 1 -10 -0.00367 -0.00367 value 0.998532 0.10022 a0+a1*x

0.2 -7.98828 1 -7.98828 0.197944 -0.00206 SE(value) 0.000423 6.71E-05 0.002431
0.4 -5.96191 1 -5.96191 0.401027 0.001027 R^2 0.999986 * *
0.6 -3.95996 1 -3.95996 0.601664 0.001664 F-value 2233269 * *
0.8 -1.96289 1 -1.96289 0.80181 0.00181 dFreedom 31 * *
1 -0.00977 1 -0.00977 0.997553 -0.00245 SSreg 13.19982 * *
1.2 1.967773 1 1.967773 1.195743 -0.00426 SSres 0.000183 * *
1.4 3.974609 1 3.974609 1.396868 -0.00313
1.6 5.991211 1 5.991211 1.598973 -0.00103 comlvdt3
1.8 7.988281 1 7.988281 1.79912 -0.00088
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 2.000246 0.000246
2.5
2.98E-08 -10 1 -10 -0.00367 -0.00367
0.2 -7.94922 1 -7.94922 0.201859 0.001859
0.4 -5.9082 1 -5.9082 0.40641 0.00641 2
0.6 -3.94043 1 -3.94043 0.603621 0.003621
0.8 -1.94336 1 -1.94336 0.803768 0.003768
1 0.03418 1 0.03418 1.001957 0.001957 1.5
1.2 2.016602 1 2.016602 1.200636 0.000636
ACRe

meetwaarde
1.4 4.013672 1 4.013672 1.400783 0.000783 input
1 cal.line
1.6 6.020508 1 6.020508 1.601909 0.001909
1.8 7.993164 1 7.993164 1.799609 -0.00039
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 2.000246 0.000246 0.5
2.98E-08 -10 1 -10 -0.00367 -0.00367
0.2 -7.97852 1 -7.97852 0.198922 -0.00108
0.4 -5.95215 1 -5.95215 0.402006 0.002006 0
0.6 -3.96484 1 -3.96484 0.601174 0.001174 -10 -5 0 5 10
0.8 -1.97754 1 -1.97754 0.800342 0.000342
1 0.019531 1 0.019531 1.000489 0.000489 -0.5

1.2 1.992188 1 1.992188 1.19819 -0.00181 voltage/voeding

1.4 3.999023 1 3.999023 1.399315 -0.00068
1.6 5.981445 1 5.981445 1.597994 -0.00201
1.8 8.00293 1 8.00293 1.800588 0.000588
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 2.000246 0.000246
max: 0.00641
64

non-linearit 0.320516 % of full scale

 Calibration data of the second small range LVDT (LVDT4)
comlvdt4
input signal supply voltage quotient cal.line delta a0 a1 y
Lab W&S

0 -10 1 -10 -0.00453023 -0.00453 value 0.99615 0.100068 a0+a1*x

0.2 -7.97363 1 -7.97363 0.19824466 -0.00176 SE(value) 0.000544 8.61E-05 0.003124
0.4 -5.94238 1 -5.94238 0.40150788 0.001508 R^2 0.999977 * *
0.6 -3.93066 1 -3.93066 0.60281677 0.002817 F-value 1352285 * *
0.8 -1.94824 1 -1.94824 0.80119367 0.001194 dFreedom 31 * *
1 0.019531 1 0.019531 0.99810467 -0.0019 SSreg 13.1997 * *
1.2 2.026367 1 2.026367 1.19892483 -0.00108 SSres 0.000303 * *
1.4 4.018555 1 4.018555 1.39827919 -0.00172
1.6 6.010742 1 6.010742 1.59763345 -0.00237 comlvdt4
1.8 8.056641 1 8.056641 1.80236257 0.002363
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 1.99634208 -0.00366
2.5
2.98E-08 -9.96582 1 -9.96582 -0.0011099 -0.00111
0.2 -7.94922 1 -7.94922 0.20068732 0.000687
0.4 -5.9375 1 -5.9375 0.40199621 0.001996 2
0.6 -3.87695 1 -3.87695 0.60819143 0.008191
0.8 -1.91406 1 -1.91406 0.804614 0.004614
1 0.039063 1 0.039063 1.0000592 5.92E-05 1.5
1.2 2.050781 1 2.050781 1.20136789 0.001368

meetwaarde
1.4 4.047852 1 4.047852 1.40121089 0.001211 input
ACRe

1
1.6 6.05957 1 6.05957 1.60251958 0.00252 cal.line
1.8 8.081055 1 8.081055 1.80480563 0.004806
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 1.99634208 -0.00366 0.5
2.98E-08 -10 1 -10 -0.00453023 -0.00453
0.2 -7.99316 1 -7.99316 0.19629033 -0.00371
0.4 -5.95703 1 -5.95703 0.40004188 4.19E-05 0
0.6 -3.94043 1 -3.94043 0.60183911 0.001839 -10 -5 0 5 10
0.8 -1.93359 1 -1.93359 0.80265967 0.00266
1 0.039063 1 0.039063 1.0000592 5.92E-05 -0.5

1.2 2.006836 1 2.006836 1.1969704 -0.00303 voltage/voeding

1.4 4.008789 1 4.008789 1.39730193 -0.0027
1.6 6.010742 1 6.010742 1.59763345 -0.00237
1.8 8.071289 1 8.071289 1.80382837 0.003828
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 1.99634208 -0.00366
max: 0.008191
non-linearity: 0.409571 % of full scale
65
 Calibration data of the third small range LVDT (LVDT5)
invoer signaal voeding quotient cal.line error a0 a1 y
TU Delft

0 -9.9707 1 -9.9707 -0.00201 -0.00201 value 0.999198 0.100415 a0+a1*x

0.2 -7.9834 1 -7.9834 0.197548 -0.00245 SE(value) 0.000754 0.00012 0.004332
0.4 -5.90332 1 -5.90332 0.406418 0.006418 R^2 0.999956 * *
0.6 -3.98438 1 -3.98438 0.599108 -0.00089 F-value 703410.5 * *
0.8 -1.94336 1 -1.94336 0.804056 0.004056 dFreedom 31 * *
1 -0.03906 1 -0.03906 0.995276 -0.00472 SSreg 13.19942 * *
1.2 1.948242 1 1.948242 1.19483 -0.00517 SSres 0.000582 * *
1.4 3.930664 1 3.930664 1.393894 -0.00611
1.6 5.932617 1 5.932617 1.594919 -0.00508 comlvdt5
1.8 8.012695 1 8.012695 1.803789 0.003789
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 2.002853 0.002853 2.5 de
2.98E-08 -9.99023 1 -9.99023 -0.00397 -0.00397 for
0.2 -7.92969 1 -7.92969 0.202941 0.002941 m
ati
0.4 -5.90332 1 -5.90332 0.406418 0.006418 2 on
0.6 -3.90137 1 -3.90137 0.607443 0.007443 [m
0.8 -1.94824 1 -1.94824 0.803566 0.003566 m]
1 0.03418 1 0.03418 1.00263 0.00263 1.5
1.2 1.972656 1 1.972656 1.197281 -0.00272
ACRe

1.4 3.964844 1 3.964844 1.397326 -0.00267 invoer

1 cal.line
1.6 5.97168 1 5.97168 1.598841 -0.00116
1.8 8.051758 1 8.051758 1.807712 0.007712
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 2.002853 0.002853 0.5
2.98E-08 -10 1 -10 -0.00495 -0.00495
0.2 -7.94434 1 -7.94434 0.20147 0.00147
0.4 -5.97168 1 -5.97168 0.399554 -0.00045 0
0.6 -3.95508 1 -3.95508 0.60205 0.00205 -10 -5 0 5 10
0.8 -1.97754 1 -1.97754 0.800624 0.000624 voltage/supply voltage
1 0.004883 1 0.004883 0.999688 -0.00031 -0.5

1.2 1.982422 1 1.982422 1.198262 -0.00174

1.4 3.90625 1 3.90625 1.391442 -0.00856
1.6 5.922852 1 5.922852 1.593938 -0.00606
1.8 7.988281 1 7.988281 1.801338 0.001338
2 9.995117 1 9.995117 2.002853 0.002853
max: 0.008558
66

non-linearity:0.427892 % of full range

Calibration data of the extensometer
mn
input signal step supply voltage
quotient cal.line delta a0 a1 y

APPENDIX 7: CALIBRATION DATA EXTENSOMETER

Lab. W&S

0
9.995117 1 9.995117 -0.00022 -0.00022 value 3.741359 -0.37434 a0+a1*x
0.75
7.998047 1.99707 1 7.998047 0.747369 -0.00263 SE(value) 0.001282 0.000202 0.001282
1.5
5.991211 2.006836 1 5.991211 1.498608 -0.00139 R^2 0.999991 * *
2.25
3.989258 2.001953 1 3.989258 2.24802 -0.00198 F-value 3423172 * *
3
1.977539 2.011719 1 1.977539 3.001087 0.001087 dFreedom 31 * *
3.75
-0.02441 2.001949 1 -0.02441 3.750497 0.000497 SSreg 185.6233 * *
4.5-2.0459 2.02149 1 -2.0459 4.507222 0.007222 SSres 0.001681 * *
5.25
-4.03809 1.99219 1 -4.03809 5.252979 0.002979
8 in
6
-6.05469 2.0166 1 -6.05469 6.007873 0.007873 extenso pu
6.75
-8.05176 1.99707 1 -8.05176 6.755457 0.005457 7 t
[m
7.5 -10 1.94824 1 -10 7.484762 -0.01524 6 m]
0
9.995117 -19.9951 1 9.995117 -0.00022 -0.00022
0.758.00293 1.992187 1 8.00293 0.745541 -0.00446 5

1.5
5.976563 2.026367 1 5.976563 1.504091 0.004091 4 cal.line
2.25
3.964844 2.011719 1 3.964844 2.257159 0.007159 quotient
3
3
1.967773 1.997071 1 1.967773 3.004743 0.004743
3.75
-0.03906 2.006833 1 -0.03906 3.755981 0.005981 2
4.5
-2.06543 2.02637 1 -2.06543 4.514533 0.014533 1
5.25-4.0625 1.99707 1 -4.0625 5.262117 0.012117
0
6-6.0498 1.9873 1 -6.0498 6.006043 0.006043 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
6.75
-8.04199 1.99219 1 -8.04199 6.7518 0.0018 -1 voltage/supply voltage
ACRe

7.5 -10 1.95801 1 -10 7.484762 -0.01524

0
9.995117 -19.9951 1 9.995117 -0.00022 -0.00022
0.75
8.017578 1.977539 1 8.017578 0.740057 -0.00994
1.5
6.010742 2.006836 1 6.010742 1.491297 -0.0087
2.25
4.003906 2.006836 1 4.003906 2.242536 -0.00746
3
1.992188 2.011718 1 1.992188 2.995603 -0.0044
3.75
-0.02441 2.016598 1 -0.02441 3.750497 0.000497
4.5
-2.02637 2.00196 1 -2.02637 4.499911 -8.9E-05
5.25
-4.04297 2.0166 1 -4.04297 5.254806 0.004806
6
-6.03516 1.99219 1 -6.03516 6.000563 0.000563
6.75
-8.03711 2.00195 1 -8.03711 6.749973 -2.7E-05
7.5 -10 1 -10 7.484762 -0.01524
max 0.015238
66

-0.37434 3.741359 non-linearity0.203178 %

0.000202 0.001282
APPENDIX 8: ERROR FUNCTION

TU Delft ACRe 67
Lab W&S ACRe 68
APPENDIX 9: ERROR ANALYSES 000

Uncertainty in the density of the components

For the sand the density was determined through test 60.1: Density of non-porous rock or rock-like
materials (CROW, 1995 ) using the average of three samples. The uncertainty based on the
variation in the data was: s = 15 kg/m3. The filler data was provided by the manufacturer
(Appendix 1). The variation in the density, based on this data, was: f = 10 kg/m3.

The data provided about the bitumen was b = (1025  2) kg/m3. Although the binder was heated in
small portions, increased ageing might have occurred due to prolonged or repetitive heating from
binder used in specimens that were produced at the end of the day. Therefore, the uncertainty was
enlarged to 5 kg/m3 in order to take the possibility of ageing into account.

Uncertainty in the mass percentages of the components

The intended mix composition in mass percentages was given in Chapter 2. For the production of
the specimens a total mass of 3.5 kg asphalt mix was used. This led to the following masses of the
mix components:
 2.7 kg crushed sand
 0.5 kg filler
 0.3 kg bitumen

These masses were measured with a Mettler P10N mass balance with an uncertainty 0.5 g. As a
result, the mass percentages can also vary. The expression for the mass percentage of a mix
component is given in Equation A9.2.

Mi Mi
mi   100   100 (A9.2)
M tot Mb  Ms  M f
Where:
mi = mass percentage of component i
Mi= mass of component i
Mtot= total mass of all the components
i = index to indicate sand (s), filler(f) or bitumen(b)

The uncertainty in mi due to uncertainties in the masses of the components can be determined
through the partial derivatives of Equation A9.2 to all its components and multiplying these with
the uncertainty in each component. Since the same balance determined the masses of the
components, their uncertainties are equal and the uncertainty of the mass balance was used. To
allow for the fact that uncertainties sometimes compensate each other, they were added
kwadratically.

The resulting uncertainties are considerably smaller than 0.05 %, but in order to account for human
errors an uncertainty of 0.05 % was used.

Component mi [%]

Sand 0.05
Filler 0.05
Bitumen 0.05
Table A9.1: Uncertainties in mass percentages of the mix components

TU Delft ACRe 69
Uncertainty in mix density (MIX)
Using the data from the two previous sections, the uncertainty in the mix density can be calculated.
This requires partial differentiation of Equation A9.3.

m s  m f  mb
 mix  (A9.3)
ms m f mb
 
s f b

   mix     mix     mix     mix     mix     mix 

2 2 2 2 2 2

  mix 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
 ms  m f   mb   s   f  b 
ms m f  mb  s  f  b

2 2
2   1   1   1   
m  1  m   1   m  1  1 
    1
 m  1  1   m  1  1     mb     
 f   f s  b
 b s    s  s  f   b  f  2   s b 
s f  
  f b   2
  
mix
2

N 2
 ms  
2

 N2
 m f

 
 N 2
 mb 

 
     
   
   
2 2
2  mf   mb 
 ms   2 m s  m f  m b  
 2 m s  m f  m b   2 m s  m f  m b 
 
 s   f  2  b  2 (A9.4)
  b
2
  s     f   2
N 2
 N 2
  N 
 
     
     

with

N   ms
s 
mf
f 
mb
b 
Substitution of the data from the previous page leads to: mix = 10 kg/m3 .

NB.: the inter-dependence of the mass percentages violates the assumption of independence of
the measured quantities (Appendix 4). This is neglected in the calculations in this Appendix.
UNCERTAINTY IN SPECIMEN DENSITY (SP)
The uncertainty in the specimen density (sp) influences the uncertainty of the percentage air voids.
Therefore, the uncertainty in sp is determined using Equation 2.2.

  
2
  sp    sp
2

2
  sp 
2 
 
 sp    mdry     w2    m wet    munder
sp

2 2 2
 m 
 dry    w   m wet   munder  

  
2
 mdry 
2
 mundermdry  w 
2
 mwet mdry  w 
2

       
 sp   w
 mdry  
2
  w  
2
mwet  
2
munder 
2
 2   2 
 mwet munder   mwet munder   mwet munder    mwet munder   

(A9.5)
Where:
w = 0.2 kg/m3
mdry = 0.1 10-3 kg , which is the reading error of the mass balance Mettler PE 6000
mwet = 0.210-3 kg , which is the estimated measuring error of a specimen in wet condition
Lab W&S ACRe 70
munder = 0.110-3 kg , which is the reading error of the mass balance Mettler PE 6000

Substitution of the above values, the density of water (w), the measured values of mdry, munder and
mwet results in an uncertainty of  sp = 3 kg/m3.
The uncertainty in the measured specimen mass in dry condition and under water, is solely a
function of the uncertainty in reading the mass balance. Since the balance is digital and shows the
mass in 0.1g accurate, the uncertainty is as shown above. The uncertainty in the mass of a wet
specimen is larger, since this is influenced by the way in which the specimen is wiped dry. The
increased uncertainty is arbitrarily set to twice that of the mass balance. Finally, the uncertainty in
the mass of the water, which was used, is based on the uncertainty in the determination of the
temperature. The thermometer which was used allowed the determination of the temperature in a
tenth of a degree (oC), which corresponds to 0.2 kg/m3 according to CROW,1995 Table 11.1.
UNCERTAINTY IN AIRVOIDS (VA)
The uncertainty in the percentage air voids follows from:

2 2
 V a   V 
Va 
2
  mix   a   sp
2
 
2

  
  mix   sp 

2 2
 100  sp  2  100  mix  2
Va     mix   
 
  sp
 (A9.6)
  mix  mix
2 2
  

In here mix =10 kg/m3, calculated with equation A9.4 and sp = 3 kg/m3, calculated with A9.5.
This resulted in Va = 0.5 %.

UNCERTAINTY IN SPECIMEN GEOMETRY

The variation in specimen height was determined with a dial gauge. The measurements were taken
along the complete specimen circumference, at approximately 7 mm from the edge and were meant
to account for any non-parallelism of the surfaces. The specimen diameter is determined by the
inner diameter of the drill, which is used when the specimen is cored from the gyrator cores. Since
this diameter is fixed the variations in diameter are due to the vibrations of the drilling process. As a
result, the variation in specimen diameter is small. The uncertainty in specimen diameter is equal to
the measurement inaccuracy of the sliding callipers, which is 0.05 mm.
UNCERTAINTY IN VOLUME PERCENTAGES
The uncertainty in the volume percentage (Vj) of each component can be derived from equation
2.4 and follows from :

2
  mj 
  
  m f  m s  mb     sp
2 2 2
 V j     j 
        (A9.7)
 V    mj     sp    
 j    j 
   
 
  fm  m s  m b  

The first term is very small, referring to equation A9.2, so equation A9.7 reduces to the last tow
terms. Using for example the data of the crushed sand, the uncertainty becomes:

TU Delft ACRe 71
 2 2 2
 Vs 
  
3   15 
     Vs  0.4
 Vs   2299   2675 

In here sp = 2299 kg/m3 is the average value of the 45 specimens.

UNCERTAINTY IN FORCE AND STRESS

The uncertainty in the measured force is the result of the uncertainty in the loadcell (Appendix 3).
This was a 200 kN Lebow loadcell (model 3174-114; serial number 1191) which can be used in
four ranges (20, 50, 100, 150 kN). Calibration of the loadcell showed a maximum non-linearity of
0.25 % of full scale. Since the loadcell was calibrated over a total range of 200 kN this non-linearity
is: 0.0025*200=± 0.5 kN =± 500 N (Appendix 3)

One of the parameters which is of interest for a material model is the peak stress or compressive
strength. The stress is a function of the force and the specimen cross section (Equation A9.1).
F 4F
fc   (A9.8)
A d2
with:
fc= stress [N/mm2]
F= force measured [N]
A= compressive area of the specimen [mm2]
d= diameter of the specimen [mm]

From Equation A9.1 it can be seen that the accuracy in the compressive strength depends on the
accuracy of both the force and the diameter. The uncertainty in the stress can be determined
through:

2 2 2
 f c   F   d 
 f      4  (A9.9)
 c   F   d 

UNCERTAINTY IN AXIAL DEFORMATION AND STRAIN

The axial deformation is determined from the axial LVDT’s. Calibration of the LVDT’s resulted in
the uncertainty data shown in Table A9.1.

number Brand range non-linearity [%] Non-linearity

[10-3 mm]
LVDT3 Solartron ± 1 mm 0.21 % 5
LVDT4 Solartron ± 1 mm 0.24 % 5
LVDT5 Solartron ± 1 mm 0.43 % 9
LVDT6 Trans-Tek ± 25.4 mm 0.28 %*  90*
LVDT7 Trans-Tek ± 25.4 mm 0.28 %*  90*
LVDT8 Trans-Tek ± 25.4 mm 0.26 %*  80*
Table A9.1:Calibration data of the LVDT’s which were used to register the axial deformation
(*valid for 15 mm)

The LVDT signals were averaged for each range:

Lab W&S ACRe 72
 5 8

 LVDT
i 3
i  LVDT
i6
i
usmall  and uoverall 
3 3

The resulting uncertainty in the two axial deformation signals is:

 u 
2
 usmall 
2
 usmall 
2

usmall   small
 LVDT3  
2
 LVDT4  
2
 LVDT52  
 LVDT3   LVDT4   LVDT5  
1 1 1 
usmall   LVDT32  LVDT42  LVDT52  (A9.10)
9 9 9 

The same approach for uoverall yields:

1 1 1 
uoverall   LVDT62  LVDT72  LVDT82  (A9.11)
9 9 9 

Since the two signals were combined to a single axial deformation signal, the uncertainty of this
signal varied. The uncertainty of the first part of the combined signal is based on the accurate
LVDT’s, while that of the last part is based on the coarse LVDT’s.

The strain is a function of the axial deformation and the original specimen height:
u
axial  h  overall (A9.12)
h0 h0
with:
h = uoverall= deformation in axial direction [m]
h0 = initial height of the specimen [m]

The uncertainty in the first part of the axial strain signal was determined through:

  2
  axial 
2

axial 
 axial    u small  
2
 h02  
u
 small   h0  
 1  2  usmall 
2
  1  2   axial 
2

2
 axial    u small    2  h0     u small   
2 2
 h02  (A9.13)
 0   h0   h0   h0 
h
 

And in the last part of the axial strain signal the accuracy is:
  
2
  axial 
2

2
 axial    axial
 u overall 
2
  h0  
 uoverall   h0  

 1  2  uoverall 
2
  1  2   axial 
2

2 2
 axial    u overall   
2
 h0      u 2
overall     h0  (A9.14)
 h0   h02    h0   h0  

TU Delft ACRe 73
 UNCERTAINTY IN RADIAL DEFORMATION AND STRAIN
The radial deformations were determined from the extensometer and string data, respectively. For
more information on the computation of the change in radius from the potentiometer and
extensometer data, respectively, the reader is referred to Erkens et al, 1998b. The expressions for
the change in specimen radius are:

extensometer:
L
R  (A9.15)
    2    i     
2 sin i   cos i  
  2  2  2 

potentiometers:
  h 
2
   h 
2


 
P   L1i
2
    R 2   L1i   L2i
 
  2
    R 2   L2i

  2     2  
R  (A9.16)
2

The uncertainty in R can once more be determined through the partial derivatives of the above
mentioned expressions to all their parameters. For the extensometer this yields:

 R 
 
2
 
2

    i   
   L  2  i  sin    (A9.17)
 1    2  2
 L 
2
  i 
     i   2  i   i    
   2
 
2
   2        
 4 2 sin i  cos i    
 2 sin   cos   
i
   
    2  2  2         2
 2  2     
    
In which i can be determined from:
 L 
 i  2 arcsin 0  
 2 R0 
 
  (A9.18)
 L20 L20 R02 
 i    
 R 2  4  L0  R 4  4  L0  
2 2

 0 R02  0
 R02  


The uncertainty in the radial deformation computed from the string data is:

 R  2  R 

2
 R 
2
 R 
2

(R)  

 P   1  Li
2 1
  2
  2  L2i  
2
   (h) 2  (A9.19)
 P   L
 i   Li    (h)  
Where:

Lab W&S ACRe 74

 R 1

P 2
L1i
1
 1  h 
2

 
 Li
2
    R 2 
R   2  

L1i 2
L2i
1
 2  h 
2

 
 Li
2
    R 2 
R   2  

L2i 2
h h
 4  4
 1  h 
2
  2  h 
2

 
 Li
2
    R 2   
 Li
2
    R 2 
R   2     2  

u 2
  2

1 / 2
 2 2  h  2  
1 / 2
 h 
 1 2
 
  Li     R 
2 
2
 
  Li     R  
2

R   
  
   2   
 R
R 2
The uncertainty in all these parameters has to be known. The uncertainty in the distances from the
crossing of the string to the potentiometers is 5 mm. The uncertainty in the change in radius, which is
needed in the computation of the uncertainty in the iterative expression for the stringsystem, is the
uncertainty in this iterative procedure, which was set at 0.001. This uncertainty combines with those
in all other parameters to give the overall uncertainty in this expression. The iterative expression was
treated as a common expression in the partial derivation, which means that when the derivation to
one parameter was performed, the others, including the iterative term R, were treated as constants.

TU Delft ACRe 75

View publication stats