Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Fractional derivative Burgers models describing dynamic viscoelastic

properties of asphalt binders
Xinzhou Li a, Aimin Sha a, b, *, Wenxiu Jiao a, b, *, Ruimeng Song a, Yangsen Cao a, Chao Li a,
Zhuangzhuang Liu a, b
a
School of Highway, Chang’an University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710064, China
b
Key Laboratory for Special Area Highway Engineering of Ministry of Education, Chang’an University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710064, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Burgers model is ineffective in the representation of dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders; the
Asphalt binder existing fractional derivative Burgers (FDB I) model has limitations in its application and construction concept.
Master curve Consequently, this study started by deriving the constitutive equations of the FDB I model and proposed a new
Dynamic viscoelastic properties
application idea of Abel dashpot to construct the second fractional derivative Burgers (FDB II) model. Then,
Abel dashpot
dynamic modulus formulas for the FDB II model were derived. On this basis, the frequency sweep tests of base
Fractional derivative constitutive model
and two polyphosphoric acid (PPA) modified asphalt binders were carried, and the dynamic viscoelastic prop­
erties of three different asphalt binders were described using three different models, and in-depth comparisons
and analysis are carried out. The results show that both fractional derivative Burgers (FDB) models can simul­
taneously express the dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders with a set of parameters. Both FDB
models perform better than traditional Burgers model in the representation of dynamic viscoelastic properties,
and fitting results of master curves no longer exhibit oscillation properties like the traditional Burgers model. The
R2 of FDB models could reach above 0.99, while R2 of traditional Burgers model was only 0.9349 at minimum.
Among them, the FDB II model performs best. Five parameters of the FDB II model have relatively clear physical
meanings. The new application concept of fractional dashpots was verified its theoretical feasibility and appli­
cation advantages, which will provide a new idea for further application and development of fractional deriv­
ative constitutive models.

1. Introduction constitutive relationships, which are widely used to describe static

With the development of technology, long-life pavement [1,2], sus­
tainable pavement [3], and intelligent pavement [4–6] are gradually
becoming new research fields in pavement engineering. However, as one
of the most fundamental researches, the study on viscoelastic properties
of asphalt binders has always been crucial [7,8]. Constructing accurate
stress–strain constitutive relationships can provide convincing infor­
mation for studying the mechanical response of pavement under traffic
loading [9] and provide accurate physical relationships for materials
performance prediction [10]. Knowledge and prediction of viscoelastic
properties of asphalt binder is of great importance to design asphalt
mixtures with good performances. Nowadays, the viscoelastic consti­
tutive relationship of asphalt binders mainly includes two categories of
integral and differential constitutive relationship [11]. Integral
viscoelastic properties, can be simply obtained from experiments and
reflect the memory effect of materials. Differential constitutive re­
lationships whose parameters generally have clear physical meanings
are more convenient in solving dynamic viscoelastic problems [12], and
the analytic formula of stress–strain-time is directly linked to the rep­
resentation of model. Differential constitutive relationships have the
advantages of image and understandable, therefore they are widely used
in viscoelasticity theory [13].
The classical viscoelastic constitutive models are constructed by
connecting the basic mechanical elements (Hooke springs, Newton
viscous pots) in series, parallel and their combinations, such as Kelvin
model [14], Maxwell model [15], Burgers model [16] and generalized
forms [17–19] of these models. Saboo [20] found that the generalized
Burger’s model with four Kelvin-elements could closely approximate

* Corresponding authors at: School of Highway, Chang’an University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710064, China.
E-mail addresses: lixinzhou@chd.edu.cn (X. Li), ams@chd.edu.cn (A. Sha), jiaowenxiu@chd.edu.cn (W. Jiao), srm19988@163.com (R. Song), yscao@chd.edu.cn
(Y. Cao), 2020021043@chd.edu.cn (C. Li), zzliu@chd.edu.cn (Z. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133552
Received 4 October 2022; Received in revised form 29 July 2023; Accepted 25 September 2023
Available online 6 October 2023
0950-0618/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Li et al.
creep and recovery response. You [21] found the Burgers model could
better express the static creep properties of the asphalt mastics under
repeated loadings. The Burgers model is considered as one of the best
models to express the static viscoelastic properties. Nevertheless, as the
research progressed, researchers find that the traditional models which
are represented by the Burgers model are not in great agreement with
experimental results in describing dynamic viscoelastic properties of
asphalt binders, which means they could not truly represent the actual
dynamic viscoelastic properties of viscoelastic materials. In order to
solve this problem, fractional derivative constitutive models gradually
caught the attention of researchers.
By adding different types of fractional derivative constitutive ele­
ments to traditional constitutive models, a series of fractional derivative
constitutive models were constructed, such as: Huet model [22], Huet-
Sayegh model [23], 2S2P1D model [24], fractional Maxwell model
[25], fractional Zener model [26], fractional Burgers model [27,28],
1S1A1D model [29], etc. C. Celauro [30] used a fractional derivative
constitutive model to describe the linear viscoelastic behaviors of
asphalt binders with a very limited number of parameters. Zhou [31]
introduced a generalized fractional derivative viscoelastic model to
describe master curves of bending creep stiffness of different asphalt
binders and carried out a study on the evaluation of the crack resistance
at low temperature of materials. Chiara Riccardi [32] explored the as­
sociation between bitumen content in mastic and characteristic time
parameters based on the 2S2P1D model. Sun [33] verified that the HN
model provides a more comprehensive characterization of the linear
viscoelastic behavior of asphalt mixtures than the traditional sigmoidal
model. Yin [34] constructed a fractional derivative Kelvin model and a
fractional three elements solid model to describe the dynamic visco­
elastic behavior of asphalt mixtures, and the fractional three elements
solid model can describe the dynamic viscoelastic properties of mixtures
more accurately compared with traditional models. Sheng [35] pro­
posed the generalized form (GFDZ) of FDZ model, which could better
express the static and dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders
and asphalt mastics than the mCAM model and 2S2P1D model. Yuan
[36] used the 1S1A1D model to describe the dynamic viscoelastic
properties of high-viscosity modified asphalt binder and verified that
increasing the number of fractional elements has no great impact on the
fitting effect of the model. M. Lagos-Varas [37,38] established a me­
chanical model by replacing Newton dashpot with Abel dashpot in
Burgers model to research the creep and recovery phenomena of binders
and asphalt mixtures.
From the review of literatures, it can be known that fractional de­
rivative elements are seen as the expression of viscoelastic properties
composited of Hooke spring element and Newton dashpot element.
Their advantages in describing viscoelastic characterization are obvious
[39]. Furthermore, dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders
could be obtained by dynamic mechanical analysis which are closer to
the real loading state in the pavement, and could evaluate the visco­
elastic properties of binders in wider range of temperature and fre­
quency. Dynamic mechanical analysis is almost essential in the
preparation of modified asphalt binders [40,41] and in the rheology
performance evaluation of base and modified asphalt binders [42,43].
Consequently, better describing the dynamic viscoelastic properties of
the base and modified asphalt binders is crucial. Based on the analysis
above, the following could be noticed: (i) although the existing frac­
tional derivative Burgers (FDB I) model has been proposed as shown in
Fig. 3, the FDB I model was only applied to the static viscoelastic be­
haviors (stress relaxation, creep and recovery phenomena, etc.) of
asphalt binders and mixtures at this stage [37,38]. For one constitutive
model, its accurate description of static viscoelastic properties may not
mean that it would perform similarly excellently in describing dynamic
viscoelastic properties. There have been almost not reported in
describing dynamic viscoelastic properties using the FDB I model.
Therefore, the application fields of the FDB I model are worth further
exploration; (ii) Nowadays, many fractional constitutive models were
2
Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552
constructed by replacing Newton dashpot with fractional derivative
element, just like fractional Maxwell model [25], fractional Zener model
[26], fractional Burgers model [27,37,38]. However, the application of
fractional derivative elements that directly replace Newton dashpot
element (e.g., the FDB I model) is very limited. The mathematical
definition of the fractional derivative elements makes it possible and
scientific to replace the spring element but not the Newton dashpot, and
the actual effective should be explored.
The aim of this study is to explore the concept of constructing the
fractional derivative Burgers (FDB) model and advantages in describing
dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders. Specifically, these
include: (i) investigating the effect of the FDB I model for dynamic
viscoelastic performance prediction of asphalt binders; (ii) investigating
the new idea of applying the basic fractional element in the constitutive
model construction; (iii) investigating the advantages of the new-
constructed model and the influences of model parameters on master
curves. To this end, this study starts with deriving dynamic viscoelastic
formulas for the FDB I model. Then, a new idea of applying the basic
fractional elements is proposed and the new fractional derivative Bur­
gers (FDB II) model is constructed. The analytical expressions of com­
plex modulus for the FDB II model are deduced. The master curves of test
data are constructed with three different asphalt binders, and parame­
ters determination method is introduced for characterizing all dynamic
viscoelastic indicators simultaneously. Finally, the actual fitting effects
of different models were compared and the influences of model pa­
rameters on the master curve were explored.
2. Constitutive model
2.1. Classical Burgers model
The Burgers model (shown in Fig. 1) consists of the Maxwell model
and Kelvin model connected in series, which can be used to describe the
instantaneous elastic deformation, delayed elastic deformation and
viscous deformation of viscoelastic materials [44]. The model was
widely used in the rheological analysis of viscoelastic materials such as
asphalt binders and asphalt mixtures because of the small number of
model parameters and their clear physical significance. For the Burgers
model, constitutive equations of storage modulus and loss modulus are
Eq. (1) and Eq. (2).
p1 q1 ω2 − q2 ω2 (1 − p2 ω2 )
E′(ω) = (1)
q1 ω2 + (1 − p2 ω2 )2
E″(ω) =
p1 q2 ω3 + q1 ω(1 − p2 ω2 )
(2)
q1 ω2 + (1 − p2 ω2 )2
where, E′(ω) represents the storage modulus which is the real part of
complex modulus; E″(ω) represents the loss modulus which is the
imaginary part of complex modulus;p1 = Eη11 + η1E+2η2 ; p2 = Eη11 ηE22 ; q1 = η1 ;
q2 = ηE1 η22 ; E1 , E2 , η1 , and η2 are parameters of the Burgers model as shown
in Fig. 1. Specifically, E1 and E2 are the elastic modulus of the spring
spots in Maxwell model and Kelvin model respectively; η1 , and η2 are the
viscosity coefficient of the Newton dashpots in Maxwell model and
Fig. 1. Representation of the Burgers model.
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Kelvin model respectively.

2.2. Fractional derivative constitutive model

2.2.1. Fractional viscoelastic element and theoretical background

At present, there are two main types of fractional derivative elements
that are widely used, the Parabolic dashpot and Abel dashpot (as shown
in Fig. 2). The differential constitutive equations for two elements are
Eq. (3) and Eq. (4). The most common applications of parabolic dashpot
Fig. 3. Representation of the FDB I model.
are Huet model, Huet-Sayegy model, 2S2P1D model, and other modified
models. Based on the Abel dashpot, researchers have developed frac­
tional Kelvin model, fractional Maxwell model, fractional three ele­ ⎧ α
⎨ σ(t) = E2 ε1 (t) + η2 ∂t ε1 (t)
⎪
ments solid model, 1S1P1D model, etc. The constitutive equations of the 1
∂ σ(t) σ (t) (9)
Abel dashpot and Parabolic dashpot show that they are similar in ⎪
⎩ ∂1t ε2 (t) = t +
principle and equivalence in mathematical [26], however, the Parabolic E1 η1
dashpot has one more time parameter than Abel dashpot in the calcu­
where, E1 , E2 , η1 , η2 and α (0 < α < 1) are parameters of the FDB I model
lation and application process. Therefore, this paper focuses on the
as shown in Fig. 3. Specifically, E1 and E2 is the elastic modulus of the
fractional derivative constitutive model established by Abel dashpot.
spring spots in Maxwell model and FDK I model respectively; η1 is the
σ(t) = ητα Dα ε(t), 0 < α < 1 (3) viscosity coefficient of the Newton dashpot in Maxwell model; η2 is the
viscosity coefficient of the Abel dashpot in FDK II model; α is fractional
σ(t) = ηDα ε(t), 0 < α < 1 (4) derivative order of the Abel dashpot.
Where, σ(t) and ε(t) are respectively shear stress and strain; η is the Eq. (9) could be translated into:
viscosity coefficient; τ is the characteristic time; and α is fractional de­ ⎧
⎪ 1 E
rivative order ranging from 0 and 1.
⎪
⎪
⎨ t
∂α+1 ε1 (t) = ∂1t σ(t) − 2 ∂1t ε1 (t)
η2 η2
The R–L definition of fractional differential with order α is expressed (10)
⎪
⎪ ∂ σ (t) ∂αt σ (t)
α+1
as [45]: ⎪
⎩ ∂tα+1 ε2 (t) = t +
E1 η1
1
Dα [f (t)] = [ ] ∗ df = Iα (t) ∗ df (5) According to ε(t) = ε1 (t) + ε2 (t), Eq. (11) and Eq. (12) could be
Γ(1 − α)tα
derived.
{
1/[Γ(1 − α)t α ], t > 0 (11)
Where, Iα (t) = ; Γ(x)=gamma function；∗ = ∂tα+1 ε(t) = ∂αt +1 ε1 (t) + ∂αt +1 ε2 (t)
0, t⩽0
convolution integral operation symbol. ∂αt +1 σ (t) ∂αt σ(t) ∂1t σ (t) E2 1
In the development of fractional calculus, numerous researches have ∂tα+1 ε(t) = + + − ∂ ε (t) (12)
E1 η1 η2 η2 t 1
been conducted on its mathematical properties and derivation methods
[46]. The Fourier transform of the fractional differential equation is In Equation (12), ∂1t ε1 (t) could be expressed as:
shown in Eq. (6). On this basis combined with Eq. (7), the complex
modulus of the Abel dashpot can be derived as Eq. (8): ∂1t ε1 (t) = ∂1t ε(t) − ∂1t ε2 (t) (13)

F[Dα ε(t)] = (iω)α F[ε(t)] (6) Combining Eq. (10), (12) and (13), Eq. (14) could be derived.
E2 1 1 1 E2 1 E
iα = cos(απ /2) + isin(απ/2) (7) (∂αt +1 + ∂1t )ε(t) = ( ∂αt +1 + ∂αt + ∂1t + ∂ + 2 )σ (t) (14)
η2 E1 η1 η2 E1 η2 t η1 η2

E∗ (iω) = η(iω)α = ηωα [cos(απ /2) + isin(απ/2)] (8) Combining Eqs. (6) and (7), the Fourier transform of Eq. (14) gives
expressions of complex modulus E∗ (iω)(as shown in Eq. (15)), the stor­
2.2.2. FDB I model age modulus E′(ω)(as shown in Eq. (16)), the loss modulus E″(ω)(as
At present, the FDB I model has been constructed by replacing the shown in Eq. (17)), and the phase angle θ(ω)(as shown in Eq. (18)).
Newton dashpot in the Kelvin model with Abel dashpot, as shown in
[A(ω)C(ω) + B(ω)D(ω)] + i[B(ω)C(ω) − A(ω)D(ω)]
Fig. 3. The FDB I model achieved quite satisfactory results in the E∗ (iω) = (15)
C2 (ω) + D2 (ω)
expression of static creep and creeping reversion of asphalt binders.
However, the FDB I model has almost not been used for the analysis of A(ω)C(ω) + B(ω)D(ω)
dynamic viscoelastic properties. Therefore, this paper first derives its E′(ω) = (16)
C2 (ω) + D2 (ω)
expressions of complex modulus using the differential operator and
related mathematical theory. The derivation process is as follows. B(ω)C(ω) − A(ω)D(ω)
The FDB I model consists of two models, the existing fractional de­ E″(ω) = (17)
C2 (ω) + D2 (ω)
rivative Kelvin (FDK I) model and traditional Maxwell model, in series.
Their differential constitutive equations are Eq. (9). E′(ω) A(ω)C(ω) + B(ω)D(ω)
tanθ(ω) = = (18)
E″(ω) B(ω)C(ω) − A(ω)D(ω)

where, the expressions of four coefficient functions (A(ω), B(ω), C(ω)

and D(ω)) are as follows:

A(ω) = − E1 η1 η2 ωα+1 sin(απ /2) (19)

B(ω) = E1 E2 η1 ω + E1 η1 η2 ωα+1 cos(απ/2) (20)

Fig. 2. Representation of fractional derivative elements.

3
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

C(ω) = E1 E2 − η1 η2 ωα+1 sin(απ /2) + E1 η2 ωα cos(απ /2) (21) the storage modulus E′(ω)(as shown in Eq. (30)), the loss modulus
E″(ω)(as shown in Eq. (31)), and the phase angle θ(ω)(as shown in Eq.
D(ω) = E2 η1 ω + η1 η2 ωα+1 cos(απ/2) + E1 η2 ωα sin(απ /2) + E1 η1 ω (22) (32)).

[A′(ω)C′(ω) + B′(ω)D′(ω)] + i[B′(ω)C′(ω) − A′(ω)D′(ω)]

2.2.3. FDB II model E∗ (iω) = (29)
C ′2 (ω) + D ′2 (ω)
The Abel dashpot is used to replace Newton dashpot, because Abel
dashpot transforms into Newton dashpot when α = 1. Similarly, Abel
A′(ω)C′(ω) + B′(ω)D′(ω)
dashpot will transform into Hooke spring element when α = 0. E′(ω) = (30)
C ′2 (ω) + D ′2 (ω)
Therefore, it is also reasonable to replace Hooke spring element with a
fractional derivative element in theory. In this paper, a new fractional
B′(ω)C′(ω) − A′(ω)D′(ω)
derivative Kelvin model (FDK II) is constructed by replacing Hooke E″(ω) = (31)
spring element with Abel dashpot, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Then, the FDK II C ′2 (ω) + D ′2 (ω)
model is series-connected with the traditional maxwell model to
E′(ω) A′(ω)C′(ω) + B′(ω)D′(ω)
construct the FDB II model. Representation of the FDB II model is shown tanθ(ω) = = (32)
in Fig. 4(b). Similar to the derivation process in Section 2.2.2, the E″(ω) B′(ω)C′(ω) − A′(ω)D′(ω)
complex modulus expressions of FDB II model have been obtained.
where, the expressions of four coefficient functions (A′(ω), B′(ω), C′(ω)
Then, the coefficient expressions for the loss modulus and storage
modulus are derived by separating the real and imaginary parts of the and D′(ω)) are as follows:
complex modulus. Derivation process is as follows. A′(ω) = − E1 η1 η3 ωα+1 sin(απ/2) − E1 η1 η2 ω2 (33)
The differential constitutive equations of the FDK II model and
traditional Maxwell model are: B′(ω) = E1 η1 η3 ωα+1 cos(απ /2) (34)
⎧ α 1
⎨ σ(t) = η3 ∂t ε1 (t) + η2 ∂t ε1 (t)
⎪
C′(ω) = E1 η3 ωα cos(απ/2) − η1 η3 ωα+1 sin(απ/2) − η1 η2 ω2 (35)
∂1t σ(t) σ (t) (23)
⎪
⎩ 1
∂ε
t 2 (t) = +
E1 η1 D′(ω) = E1 η3 ωα sin(απ /2) + E1 (η1 + η2 )ω + η1 η3 ωα+1 cos(απ /2) (36)
Where, E1 , η1 , η2 , η3 and α(0 < α < 1) are parameters of the FDB II
model as shown in Fig. 4. Specifically, E1 is the elastic modulus of the 3. Materials and research methods
spring spot; η1 and η2 are the viscosity coefficient of the Newton dash­
pots in Maxwell model and FDK II model respectively; η3 is the viscosity 3.1. Materials
coefficient of the Abel dashpot in FDK II model; α is fractional derivative
order of the Abel dashpot. There are three types of asphalt binders used in this study. Base
Eq. (23) could be translated into: asphalt binder was imported from South Korea and the penetration
⎧ grade is 60/80. Other materials were composite modified asphalt
1 η
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂α+1 ε1 (t) = ∂1t σ(t) − 2 ∂2t ε1 (t) binders developed by the team [47], and the modifiers were poly­
⎨ t η3 η3
(24) phosphoric acid (PPA) and trioctyl trimelliate (TOTM). The basic
⎪ α+1 α
⎪ ∂α+1 ε (t) = ∂t σ (t) + ∂t σ (t)
⎪ properties and physico-chemical properties of materials are listed in
⎩ t 2
E1 η1 Table 1 and Table 2. Asphalt binders used in this study are listed in
Table 3.
According to ε(t) = ε1 (t) + ε2 (t), Eq. (25) and Eq. (26) could be
derived.
3.2. Dynamic shear complex modulus test
α+1 α+1
∂t ε(t) = ∂t ε1 (t) + ∂t ε2 (t) α+1
(25)
Frequency sweep test was conducted on a DSR (TA Instrument). The
∂αt +1 σ (t) ∂α σ(t) 1 1 η loading strain was 3%, to ensure that the asphalt binders are in the linear
α+1
∂t ε(t) = + t + ∂t σ(t) − 2 ∂2t ε1 (t) (26) viscoelastic range during the loading process [47]. Referring to the
E1 η1 η3 η3
previous correlational research [48] and adding room temperature
In Equation (26), ∂2t ε1 (t) could be expressed as: conditions, the frequency sweep tests in this study were carried out at
25 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, 40 ◦ C, 50 ◦ C, 60 ◦ C and 70 ◦ C. In accordance with ASTM
∂2t ε1 (t) = ∂2t ε(t) − ∂2t ε2 (t) (27)
D7175, specimens with 8 mm diameter and 2 mm height were used
Combining Eqs. (24), (26) and (27), Eq. (28) could be derived. when test temperature was below 30 ℃, and specimens with 25 mm
diameter and 1 mm height were used at other test temperatures. The
η2 2 1 1 1 η η
(∂αt +1 + ∂ )ε(t) = ( ∂αt +1 + ∂αt + ∂1t + 2 ∂1t + 2 ∂2t )σ(t) (28) frequency of loadings ranged from 0.1 rad/s to 100 rad/s, and test data
η3 t E1 η1 η3 η1 η3 E1 η3 collected 10 points per decade. To ensure the accuracy, all tests were
Finally, combining Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), the Fourier transform of Eq. conducted thrice. Finally, the test results after taking the averaged
(28) gives expressions of complex modulus E∗ (iω)(as shown in Eq. (29)), values are shown in Fig. 5.

Table 1
Properties of base asphalt binder.
Item Test Method Value

Penetration at 25 ◦ C (0.1 mm) ASTM D1586 72

Softening Point (◦ C) ASTM D36 47.7
Ductility at 10 ◦ C (cm) ASTM D113 40
Rational viscosity at 135 ◦ C (Pa⋅s) ASTM D4402 0.52
Performance Grade ASTM D6373 64–12
Fig. 4. Representation of the FDK II model and FDB II model.

4
X. Li et al.
Table 2
Properties of PPA and TOTM.
Item Value
PPA P2O5 content (%) ≥80
SO−4 2 content (%) ≤0.005
Fe content (%) ≤0.05
TOTM Moisture content (%) 0.990
Boiling point (◦ C) 258
Viscosity at 20 ◦ C (mPa⋅s) 300
Density at 25 ◦ C (g⋅cm− 3) 0.988
Table 3
Abbreviations of asphalt binders.
Material composition Abbreviation
Base asphalt binder SK70
3% TOTM + 1% PPA modified asphalt binder TP1
3% TOTM + 2% PPA modified asphalt binder TP2
3.3. Master curve construction and parameter fitting methods
Before the master curves determination, it is essential to verify that
asphalt binders are simple thermo rheological materials in accordance
with the time–temperature superposition principle (TTSP). Based on the
studies of shift factor and TTSP [49], the G*-tanδ diagrams in semi-
logarithmic coordinate are plotted (as shown in Fig. 6). Fig. 6 clearly
presents that the G*-tanδ curves of base asphalt binder at different
temperatures drop on one curve on the semi-logarithmic coordinate. As
the amount of PPA increased, the G*-tanδ curves of modified asphalt
binders gradually exhibit slight oscillations. Fortunately, they still
basically drop on one curve. Obviously, the images of all asphalt binders
do not need to be shifted vertically. As a result, all asphalt binders in this
study are simple thermo rheological materials and conform to the TTSP,
and only horizontal shift need to be considered when the master curves
of the viscoelastic function are constructed.
According to the Kramers-Kronig relation, the dynamic viscoelastic
information of the materials can be concentrated on two parameters,
storage modulus and loss modulus (or complex modulus and phase
angle) [50,51], and other parameters can be obtained from calculating
directly or indirectly. So, test results of storage modulus and loss
modulus are selected to construct master curves and are used as the
fitted datasets. During the construction of master curves, the main
methods for determining the shift factors are numerical method,
Williams-Landel-Ferry (WLF) equation, Log-linear equation, Arrhenius
equation, etc. Although the WLF equation and Arrhenius equation are
widely used, there are certain limitations on their application [52] (e.g.,
there are clear requirements for material types, test temperatures, etc.).
In this paper, referring to the previous method [53], the calculation of
shift factor is carried out using least squares Levenberg-Marquardt (L-M)
method with 40 ◦ C as reference temperature (Tr). The calculation results
are shown in Table 4. Then, the master curves of storage modulus and
loss modulus for different asphalt binders are shown in Fig. 7, and
detailed procedure is demonstrated in Fig. 7(a).
Due to the limitations of the test setup, frequency sweep tests collect
10 points per decade at each temperature. As a result, the “frequency-
storage modulus (loss modulus)” of test data at different temperatures is
unevenly distributed on the conventional axes extremely. This will
directly lead to the phenomenon of poor overall fitting effects and huge
differences in local fitting results. Significantly, the “frequency-storage
modulus (loss modulus)” of test data at different temperatures is uni­
formly distributed on the logarithmic axis. Accordingly, logarithms of
test results are first obtained in the fitting process, as respectively shown
in Eq. (37), Eq. (38), and Eq. (39). Then, data X, Y1, and Y2 are fitted by
three models (the Burgers model, FDB I model and FDB II model). At the
same time, in order to characterize multiple viscoelastic indicators by
5
Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552
same series of parameters, the software “1stopt” and “L-M optimization
algorithm + Universal Global Optimization” is used to fit the experi­
mental results of storage modulus and loss modulus simultaneously.
X = lg(ω)⇒ω = 10X (37)
Y1 = lg[G′(ω)] = lg[G′(10X )] (38)
Y2 = lg[G″(ω)] = lg[G″(10X )] (39)
4. Model comparison and evaluation
In order to visually demonstrate advantages of the FDB models in
expression of dynamic viscoelastic properties, different models were
used to express and predict the dynamic viscoelastic properties of
different asphalt binders respectively, and characteristics of each model
were analyzed. Furthermore, the effects of model parameters on master
curve functions were explored. Finally, the rationality of new model
construction concept was verified.
4.1. Description and comparison of dynamic viscoelastic properties by
different models
4.1.1. Description by Burgers model
Firstly, the Burgers model parameters were fitted by the method in
Section 3.3. Fitting results and correlation coefficients (R2) are listed in
Table 5. Master curves constructed by test data and the Burgers model
fitting results of storage modulus and loss modulus for three different
asphalt binders are shown in Fig. 8.
As can be seen from Fig. 8, The Burgers model fits test data of loss
modulus better in the low and medium frequency range, especially for
SK70. However, they perform poorly in the high frequency range. As the
PPA increasing, the model description of loss modulus master curve
shows gradual oscillations in the medium frequency range on logarith­
mic coordinate. However, when Burgers model is fitted to test data of
storage modulus, all asphalt binders used in this study exhibit large
oscillation characteristic. Among them, TP2 is the most obvious. The
storage modulus, which reflects the elastic composition of asphalt
binders, represents the energy stored and released by the material under
the action of alternating stress; the loss modulus, which reflects the
viscous composition of asphalt binders, represents the energy lost in the
form of heat due to internal friction during deformation process. All
master curves fitting results of the Burgers model exhibit large oscilla­
tions, which means that the Burgers model cannot accurately predict the
dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders at different fre­
quencies (different temperatures) by few tests. In general, the Burgers
model performs unreliably in describing and predicting the dynamic
viscoelastic properties of base and modified asphalt binders.
It can be seen in Table 5 that R2 after taking log of test data can reach
about 0.95, on average. The traditional Burgers model exhibits some
phenomena in the fitting process such as excessive errors in some fre­
quency ranges and large oscillations. Furthermore, these are the main
problems of the Burgers model in describing dynamic viscoelastic
properties.
4.1.2. Description by FDB I model
Master curves fitting were performed through the formulas of storage
modulus (Eq. (13)) and loss modulus (Eq. (14)) derived in section 2.2.2.
The fitting results and correlation coefficients (R2) are listed in Table 6.
Test data and the FDB I model fitting results for three different asphalt
binders are shown in Fig. 9.
As can be seen from Fig. 9, fitting results by the FDB I model and test
data are close to coinciding for all asphalt binders, especially for the loss
modulus. In the low frequency range, storage modulus curves of SK70
simulated by the FDB I model have a slight deviation with experimental
results, and the fitting results of TP1 and TP2 are better. Further, in the
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Fig. 5. Test results of different asphalt binders.

frequency range from 102 rad/s to 103 rad/s, the model fitting results of
storage modulus are slightly higher than test data. More specifically, the
viscosity properties of asphalt binders predicted by the FDB I model are
almost identical to the actual. In the frequency range (about below
10− 2.5rad/s), the elastic properties predicted are lower than the actual,
and the predicted properties of SK70 show the greatest difference from
the actual compared with two modified asphalts. The elastic properties
predicted are slightly higher than the actual in the frequency range from
102 rad/s to 103 rad/s. It is obvious from Table 6 that R2 of all asphalt
binders can reach about 0.999, which proves that the FDB I model has an
excellent fitting effect overall.

6
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Fig. 6. G*-tanδ diagrams of different asphalt binders.

Parameters of the FDB II model are listed in Table 7. Test data and the
Table 4
FDB II model fitting results for three different asphalt binders are shown
Shift factors lgαT for different asphalt binders (Tr = 40℃).
in Fig. 10.
Temperature SK70 TP1 TP2 As can be seen from Fig. 10, for the loss modulus curves, the FDB II
25℃ 1.3863 1.3379 1.6814 model fitting results are in great accordance with experimental results.
30℃ 0.9067 0.9022 0.9249 In the description of storage modulus main curves, the fitting accuracy
40℃ 0 0 0 using the FDB II model for the three asphalt binders is in the following
50℃ − 0.7769 − 0.7652 − 0.8087
60℃ − 1.4345 − 1.4164 − 1.4879
order: TP1 > TP2 > SK70. The fitting accuracy of all asphalt binders is
70℃ − 1.9994 − 1.9782 − 2.0766 fine in the high frequency range, and that of TP1 is the best. The fitting
results of SK70 deviate from test data in the low frequency range (from
10− 3 rad/s–10− 1 rad/s) where test data of modified asphalt binders can
4.1.3. Description by FDB II model be better fitted. Meanwhile, it can be also proved by R2 values in Table 7.
Master curves fitting were performed through formulas of storage Overall, the FDB II model achieved great effects for fitting test data of
modulus (Eq. (24)) and loss modulus (Eq. (25)) derived in section 2.2.3.

7
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Fig. 7. Master curves of storage modulus and loss modulus.

8
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Table 5 and fitting results by different models of dynamic viscoelastic properties

The parameters of Burgers model. (storage modulus and loss modulus) are shown together in Fig. 11. The
Asphalt binder E1 /Pa E2 /Pa η1 /(Pa⋅s) η2 /(Pa⋅s) R2 R2 of three models fitting dynamic viscoelastic properties of three
asphalt binders are described in Fig. 12.
SK 70 7531.3 1918874.6 12094.4 14378.2 0.9717
TP1 15389.1 1381189.9 6649.8 8190.6 0.9634
Through Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, the following points can be clearly
TP2 58193.1 1668226.9 8339.0 9041.1 0.9349 observed. Firstly, in the logarithmic coordinate, master curves described
by the FDB I model and FDB II model no longer perform oscillation
characteristics, which is the main problem of the Burgers model in dy­
dynamic viscoelastic properties. namic viscoelastic properties describing. Secondly, R2 of fitting results
for fractional derivative models are significantly improved, and the
4.1.4. Comparison of description results largest improvement can increase from 0.9349 to 0.9992. Among them,
In order to compare three different Burgers models visually, test data R2 of the FDB II model fitting results are generally higher than those of

Fig. 8. Test data and Burgers model fitting results.

Table 6
The parameters of the FDB I model.
Asphalt binder E1 /Pa E2 /Pa η1 /(Pa⋅s) η2 /(Pa⋅s) α R2

SK 70 1918565454.8 87.0 6676.4 36000.9 0.6216 0.9989

TP1 56524511.8 806.9 12520.2 17554.3 0.6416 0.9992
TP2 196944439.8 389.8 48474.8 19820.9 0.6285 0.9989

9
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

c
Fig. 9. Test data and the FDB I model fitting results.

Table 7
Parameters of the FDB II model.
Asphalt binder E1 /Pa η1 /(Pa⋅s) η2 /(Pa⋅s) η3 /(Pa⋅s) α R2

SK 70 378892454.7 6742.9 827.2 35727.4 0.6002 0.9990

TP1 15890991.6 12928.4 1014.3 17230.8 0.5782 0.9994
TP2 83991576.5 53557.5 549.2 18988.5 0.6066 0.9992

the FDB I model. Thirdly, fitting results of FDB I model and test data
show some deviation in the high frequency band (roughly over 101.5
rad/s), which will seem larger in the Cartesian coordinate. At this band
the FDB II model has smaller errors than FDB I model. Therefore, the
FDB II model has better fitting effectiveness for the partial data, and
results of the FDB II model are closer to test data in general than those of
the FDB I model. As a whole, the fitting accuracy of three models is in the
following order: the FDB II model > the FDB I model > the Burgers
model, whether storage modulus curves or loss modulus curves.
4.2. Effect of parameters on master curves
The order of this section is to explore effect on master curves and the
physical meanings of the FDB II model parameters. According to the
fitting parameters for SK70 in Table 7, the master curve functions con­
structed by changing one parameter are drawn in two different coordi­
nate systems, as shown in Fig. 13.
In Fig. 13(a), the value of the parameter E1 significantly affects peak
value of storage modulus and loss modulus, and peak width of loss
modulus curves in the high frequency range (low temperature). As
parameter E1 increases, the peaks of storage modulus and loss modulus

10
X. Li et al.
Fig. 10. Test data and the FDB II model fitting results.
become larger, and peak widths of loss modulus become wider while the
peaks move right. In Fig. 13 (b), the value of parameter η1 mainly affects
the magnitude of master curves in the low frequency range (high tem­
perature), the position of storage modulus sudden increasing, the value
and position of loss modulus peaks. As parameter η1 increases, master
curves of storage modulus and loss modulus are shifted left and their
peaks increase in the low frequency range, but loss modulus peaks
slightly reduce. In Fig. 13(c), the value of parameter η2 significantly
affects the horizontal position where the storage modulus curves reach
their peaks, the magnitude and horizontal position of loss modulus
peaks. As parameter η2 increases, the muster curves of storage modulus
peaks early, and the peaks of loss modulus curves show increasing and
left-shifting trend. In Fig. 13(d), the value of parameter η3 affects the
magnitude of storage modulus in the low frequency range and changing
trends of all master curves in the middle frequency range. As parameter
η3 increases, the storage modulus decreases in the low frequency range,
the loss modulus peaks decrease, but all master curves grow faster in the
middle frequency range. The most complex influence on master curves
among these parameters is α, which no longer simply affects the peaks
and horizontal positions of master curves, as can be seen from Fig. 13(e).
For storage modulus, master curves exhibit different oscillatory prop­
erties in logarithmic coordinate system as parameter α varies within 0 to
1, and the oscillatory properties are minimized when α = 0.6–0.7. As
parameter α increases, storage modulus master curves reach peaks
earlier. For loss modulus, as the parameter α increases, the master curves
peaks decrease (reaching a minimum around α = 0.7) and then increase,
accompanied by a leftward shift.
In general, five parameters of the FDB II model have relatively clear
physical meanings, and influences of parameters mainly include the
following aspects: Parameter E1 affects the peaks characteristics of
11
Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552
mater curves in high frequency range (low temperature); Parameter η1
affects the magnitude of master curves peaks in low frequency range
(high temperature); Parameter η2 affects the horizontal positions of
master curves; Parameter η3 affects the growth trends of main curves in
low frequency range (high temperature); Parameter α affects the oscil­
latory characteristics of storage modulus master curves and the peak
variations of loss modulus master curves.
4.3. Analysis of fractional derivative Burgers model
In order to better analyze and evaluate the FDB models, this section
analyzes the theoretical reasonability of model construction concept and
advantages of new models. It is mainly attributed to the following
aspects.
(1) Theoretical reasonability of model construction concept
The theoretical reasonability can be verified by connections between
constitutive equations of three different Burgers models. The reason for
replacing other elements with Abel dashpot mentioned in the previous is
that these dashpots are inter-convertible when α is 0 or 1. For the FDB I
model, if parameter α = 1, it can be found that the Eq. (16) and Eq. (17)
in section 2.2.2 will transform into Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). At this point, the
FDB I model converts into Burgers model. Similarly, for the FDB II model
constructed in this paper, the Eq. (30) and Eq. (31) will become Eq. (1)
and Eq. (2), if parameter α = 0. As a result, two fractional derivate
Burgers models are the evolution forms of traditional Burgers model in
essence. This also verifies the reasonableness of the concept to replace
Hooke spring element with Abel dashpot and the derivations of formulas
in the previous works are accurate.
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Fig. 11. Comparison of different models and test results.

(2) Advantages of fractional derivate constitutive models
Firstly, due to the special mathematical properties of fractional order
calculus, the introduction of trigonometric functions and powers
increasing in constitutive equations make the fitting accuracy improved
significantly. The constitutive equations of the FDB models add
trigonometric functions with parameter α to constitutive equations of
the Burgers model, which reduces the oscillation amplitude of master
curves. And this analysis is in agreement with the influence of parameter
α on master curves in Section 4.2. Furthermore, the powers in consti­
tutive equations of the FDB II model are larger than them in constitutive
equations of the FDB I model (the power increases from 2(α + 1) to 4 as

12
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Fig. 11. (continued).

Fig. 12. R2 of different models fitting test data.

maximum), which can further enhance fitting effect of the FDB I model.
Secondly, two FDB models require only five parameters to describe
dynamic viscoelastic properties satisfactorily, which is difficult to ach­
ieve using traditional differential constitutive models. At the same time,
compared with traditional mathematical models (e.g., CAM models), the
parameters of fractional derivative models used in this paper have clear
physical meanings that have been verified in section 4.2. In addition, it
can be observed from model representations that fractional derivate
Burgers models is able to describe instantaneous elastic deformation,
delayed elastic deformation and viscous deformation of viscoelastic

13
X. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552

Fig. 13. Master curves constructed by different parameters of the FDB II model.

14
X. Li et al.
Fig. 13. (continued).
deformation, similarly to the Burgers model. About this, it can be veri­
fied by parameter η1. It is known from previous studies [40] that the
deformation resistance of three asphalt binders is in the following order:
SK70 < TP1 < TP2. In Table 6 and Table 7, the fitting parameter η1 of
two fractional derivative models have the same pattern with this.
However, this pattern has not be found in fitting results of the Burgers
model in Table 5, and the reason is considered to be the huge oscillation
and error in fitting dynamic viscoelastic properties by the Burgers
model.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this study is to explore new application concept of frac­
tional derivative dashpots, and to research the advantages of different
FDB models in describing dynamic viscoelastic properties. In this paper,
the application concept that Abel dashpot replaces Hooke spring
element was proposed. Based on that, the FDB II model was constructed,
and constitutive equations of the FDB I model and the FDB II model were
derived. At last, the master curves were fitted by three models, and
comparative of fitting results and analysis of models were carried out.
This study provides possibilities for further applications of fractional
derivate constitutive models, and the main contribution of the FDB
models in this study is to better describe and predict the dynamic
viscoelastic properties. Accordingly, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
(1) The FDB I model and FDB II model can simultaneously describe
all dynamic viscoelastic properties with one set of parameters.
The master curves constructed by them show no oscillatory
properties. Fitting effects are better than the traditional Burgers
model, and R2 of FDB models fitting results can reach above
0.999. The dynamic viscoelastic properties of asphalt binders at
different frequencies (different temperatures) could be better
predicted by the FDB models, while the prediction of the FDB II
model is optimal compared with the FDB I model and Burgers
model.
(2) The FDB II model has only five parameters, and they all have
relatively clear physical meanings. Addition of the Abel dashpot
adds trigonometric functions with parameter α to formulas, and
parameter α determines the oscillations of master curves.
(3) Both FDB models degenerate into the traditional Burgers model
by adjusting the parameter α, and the FDB models are the
extended forms of the traditional Burgers model. Formulas are
15
Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552
accurately derived, and the applied concept of fractional deriv­
ative element is feasible in theory.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xinzhou Li: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Aimin
Sha: Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Wenxiu Jiao: Writing –
review & editing, Software, Investigation. Ruimeng Song: Writing –
review & editing, Conceptualization. Yangsen Cao: Investigation. Chao
Li: Validation. Zhuangzhuang Liu: Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (52038001), National Natural Science Foundation of
China (52208418) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities, CHD (300102213302).
References
[1] H.J. Lee, J.H. Lee, H.M. Park, Performance evaluation of high modulus asphalt
mixtures for long life asphalt pavements, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (5) (2007)
1079–1087.
[2] L. Zhang, X. Zhou, X. Wang, Research progress of long-life asphalt pavement
behavior based on the RIOHTrack full-scale accelerated loading test, Chin. Sci.
Bull. 65 (30) (2020) 3247–3258.
[3] A. Sha, Z. Liu, W. Jiang, et al., Advances and development trends in eco-friendly
pavements, J. Road Eng. 1 (2021) 1–42.
[4] H. Wang, X. Liu, P. Apostolidis, et al., Review of warm mix rubberized asphalt
concrete: Towards a sustainable paving technology, J. Clean. Prod. 177 (2018)
302–314.
[5] D. Sun, G. Sun, X. Zhu, et al., A comprehensive review on self-healing of asphalt
materials: Mechanism, model, characterization and enhancement, Adv. Colloid
Interface Sci. 256 (2018) 65–93.
X. Li et al.
[6] C. Koch, K. Georgieva, V. Kasireddy, et al., A review on computer vision based
defect detection and condition assessment of concrete and asphalt civil
infrastructure, Adv. Eng. Inf. 29 (2) (2015) 196–210.
[7] D. Yuan, C. Xing, W. Jiang, et al., Viscoelastic behavior and phase structure of high-
content sbs-modified asphalt, Polymers 14 (12) (2022) 2476.
[8] W. Wang, M. Jia, W. Jiang, et al., High temperature property and modification
mechanism of asphalt containing waste engine oil bottom, Constr. Build. Mater.
261 (2020), 119977.
[9] H. Wang, I.L. Al-Qadi, Importance of nonlinear anisotropic modeling of granular
base for predicting maximum viscoelastic pavement responses under moving
vehicular loading, J. Eng. Mech. 139 (1) (2013) 29–38.
[10] M. Ameri, M. Malakouti, P. Malekzadeh, Quasi-static analysis of multilayered
domains with viscoelastic layer using incremental-layerwise finite element
method, Mech. Time-Dependent Mater. 18 (1) (2014) 275–291.
[11] Z. Qi-sen, X. Xin, Research review on constitutive model and microstructure of
asphalt and asphalt mixture, China J. Highway Transp. 29 (5) (2016) 26.
[12] L. Wen-bo, L. Sheng, Z. Yong-jun, Fractional differential constitutive model for
dynamic viscoelasticity of asphalt mixture, China J. Highway Transp. 33 (2) (2020)
34.
[13] Q. Li, X. Wang, X. Liu, et al., Review on constitutive models of road materials,
J. Road Eng. (2022).
[14] P.S. Divya, C.S. Gideon, J.M. Krishnan, Influence of the type of binder and crumb
rubber on the creep and recovery of crumb rubber modified bitumen, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 10 (1061) (2013) 438–449.
[15] J. Yi, S. Shen, B. Muhunthan, et al., Viscoelastic–plastic damage model for porous
asphalt mixtures: Application to uniaxial compression and freeze–thaw damage,
Mech. Mater. 70 (2014) 67–75.
[16] L. Yongliang, K. Xiangming, Z. Yanrong, et al., Static and dynamic mechanical
properties of cement-asphalt composites, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (10) (2013)
1489–1497.
[17] J. Hu, Z. Qian, D. Wang, et al., Influence of aggregate particles on mastic and air-
voids in asphalt concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 1–9.
[18] Y. Zhao, Y. Ni, W. Zeng, A consistent approach for characterising asphalt concrete
based on generalised Maxwell or Kelvin model, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 15 (3)
(2014) 674–690.
[19] C. Wu, L. Li, W. Wang, et al., Experimental characterization of viscoelastic
behaviors of nano-tio2/caco3 modified asphalt and asphalt mixture, Nanomaterials
11 (1) (2021) 106.
[20] N. Saboo, A. Mudgal, Modelling creep and recovery response of asphalt binders
using generalized burgers model, Pet. Sci. Technol. (2018) 1–9.
[21] Q. You, B. Wei, J. Ma, et al., Interpreting the creep behavior of asphalt mortar at
high temperature through experimental and numerical methods, Constr. Build.
Mater. 258 (sup1) (2020), 120317.
[22] M. Oeser, T. Pellinien, Computational framework for common visco-elastic models
in engineering based on the theory of rheology, Comput. Geotech. 42 (2012)
145–156.
[23] E. Bocci, A. Graziani, F. Canestrari, Mechanical 3D characterization of epoxy
asphalt concrete for pavement layers of orthotropic steel decks, Constr. Build.
Mater. 79 (2015) 145–152.
[24] N. Yusoff, D. Mounier, G. Marc-Stephane, et al., Modelling the Theological
properties of bituminous binders using the 2S2P1D Model, Constr. Build. Mater. 38
(JAN.):395–406 (2013).
[25] S.W. Katicha, A.K. Apeagyei, G.W. Flintsch, et al., Universal linear viscoelastic
approximation property of fractional viscoelastic models with application to
asphalt concrete, Mech. Time-Dependent Mater. 18 (3) (2014) 555–571.
[26] L. Gu, W. Zhang, T. Ma, et al., Numerical simulation of viscoelastic behavior of
asphalt mixture using fractional constitutive model, J. Eng. Mech. 147 (5) (2021)
04021027.
[27] M. Lagos-Varas, D. Movilla-Quesada, J.P. Arenas, et al., Study of the mechanical
behavior of asphalt mixtures using fractional rheology to model their
viscoelasticity, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 124–134.
[28] A.S. Okuka, D. Zorica, Fractional Burgers models in creep and stress relaxation
tests, App. Math. Model. 77 (2020) 1894–1935.
[29] J. Shi, J. Li, et al., Asphalt viscoelastic model and its universality under dynamic
and static loading conditions, J. China Univ. Pet. 45 (4) (2021) 168–175.
16
Construction and Building Materials 408 (2023) 133552
[30] C. Celauro, C. Fecarotti, A. Pirrotta, An extension of the fractional model for
construction of asphalt binder master curve, Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 21 (1)
(2017) 78–93.
[31] J. Zhou, X. Chen, G. Xu, et al., Evaluation of low temperature performance for SBS/
CR compound modified asphalt binders based on fractional viscoelastic model,
Constr. Build. Mater. 214 (2019) 326–336.
[32] C. Riccardi, A. Cannone Falchetto, M. Losa, et al., Rheological modeling of asphalt
binder and asphalt mortar containing recycled asphalt material, Mater. Struct. 49
(10) (2016) 4167–4183.
[33] Y. Sun, J. Chen, B. Huang, Characterization of asphalt concrete linear viscoelastic
behavior utilizing Havriliak-Negami complex modulus model, Constr. Build. Mater.
99 (2015) 226–234.
[34] H. Yin, Y. Li, N.Z. Wang, Research on fractional derivative viscoelastic constitutive
relation of asphalt mixture[C]//Advanced Materials Research, Trans Tech
Publications Ltd 446 (2012) 2560–2566.
[35] S. Liang, R. Luo, W. Luo, Fractional differential constitutive model for linear
viscoelasticity of asphalt and asphalt mastic, Constr. Build. Mater. 306 (2021),
124886.
[36] D. Yuan, W. Jiang, Y. Hou, et al., Fractional derivative viscoelastic response of
high-viscosity modified asphalt, Constr. Build. Mater. 350 (2022), 128915.
[37] M. Lagos-Varas, A.C. Raposeiras, D. Movilla-Quesada, et al., Study of the
permanent deformation of binders and asphalt mixtures using rheological models
of fractional viscoelasticity, Constr. Build. Mater. 260 (2020), 120438.
[38] M. Lagos-Varas, D. Movilla-Quesada, A.C. Raposeiras, et al., Viscoelasticity
modelling of asphalt mastics under permanent deformation through the use of
fractional calculus, Constr. Build. Mater. 329 (2022), 127102.
[39] X.u. Yanan, L. Shan, S. Tian, Fractional derivative viscoelastic response model for
asphalt binders, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (6) (2019) 04019089.
[40] K.e. Shi, F. Ma, J. Liu, et al., Development of a new rejuvenator for aged SBS
modified asphalt binder, J. Clean. Prod. 380 (2022), 134986.
[41] N.H.C. Gómez, M. Oeser, O. Fleischel, Chemical modification of bitumen with
novel isocyanate-based additive to enhance asphalt performance, Constr. Build.
Mater. 301 (2021), 124128.
[42] Z. Zhang, J. Sun, M. Jia, et al., Study on a thermosetting polyurethane modified
asphalt suitable for bridge deck pavements: Formula and properties, Constr. Build.
Mater. 241 (2020), 118122.
[43] Z. Hossain, M.S. Alam, G. Baumgardner, Evaluation of rheological performance
and moisture susceptibility of polyphosphoric acid modified asphalt binders, Road
Mater. Pavement Des. 21 (1) (2020) 237–252.
[44] Yin Y, Zhang X. Study on constitutive relation of asphalt mixtures based on
dynamic creep test[J]. Journal of Functional Materials, 45(23):23020-23024.
[45] S. Samko, Fractional integration and differentiation of variable order: an overview,
Nonlinear Dyn. 71 (4) (2013) 653–662.
[46] X.J. Yang, General fractional derivatives: theory, methods and applications[M],
Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2019.
[47] R. Song, A. Sha, K. Shi, et al., Polyphosphoric acid and plasticizer modified asphalt:
Rheological properties and modification mechanism, Constr. Build. Mater. 309
(2021), 125158.
[48] M. Jia, A. Sha, Z. Zhang, et al., Effect of organic reagents on high temperature
rheological characteristics of organic rectorite modified asphalt, Constr. Build.
Mater. 227 (2019), 116624.
[49] Y. Yin, Research on dynamic Viscoelastic Characteristics and Shear Modulus
Predicting Methods for Asphalt Mixtures Based on Dynamic Mechanical Analysis
(DMA) Means[D], South China University of Technology, 2010.
[50] N.W. Tschoegl, The phenomenological theory of linear viscoelastic behavior: an
introduction[M], Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[51] F. Zhang, Viscoelastoplastic Cotinuum Damage Constitutive Model of Asphalt
Mixtures under Compression Loading[D], Inner Mongolia University of
Technology, 2021.
[52] Y. Yin, W. Huang, J. Lv, et al., Unified construction of dynamic rheological master
curve of asphalts and asphalt mixtures, Int. J. Civil Eng. 16 (9) (2018) 1057–1067.
[53] Li J, Huang C, et al. Dynamic Shear Performances of Adhesive Layer between
UHPC and Asphalt Surface. Journal of Hunan University,202249(5):82-91.