COMPARISON OF LOW TEMPERATURE FIELD PERFORMANCE AND LABORATORY TESTING USING TEN TEST SECTIONS IN THE MIDWEST Submission

date: August 1, 2008 Word count: 3924 plus 3 tables and 10 figures

Adam Zofka (corresponding author) Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Connecticut 261 Glenbrook Road Unit 2037, Storrs, CT 06269-2037 Tel: (860) 486-2733, Fax: (860) 486-2298, Email: azofka@engr.uconn.edu Andrew Braham Graduate Research Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign B226 NCEL, MC-250, 205 N Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801 Tel: (217) 244-5526, Fax: (217) 333-1924, Email: braham2@uiuc.edu

Submitted for Presentation and Publication at the 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham ABSTRACT

When evaluating asphalt mixtures for low temperature performance, current standards are based heavily on asphalt binder properties. This approach does not take into account interaction between the binder and aggregate, both chemically and physically. This interaction has been shown to have significant influence to the cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures. This paper investigates three laboratory tests that evaluate cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures at low temperatures. The first test is the traditional tensile strength test, the Indirect Tensile Test (IDT). The two other tests are fracture tests: Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) and Disk-Shaped Compact Tension [DC(T)]. Field cores were obtained from ten pavement sections in Minnesota and Illinois for testing in the lab. Results from the three laboratory tests were compared and correlated with field performance data. Results showed that the tensile strength from the IDT did not vary significantly for the ten mixtures. The SCB and DC(T) correlated relatively well to each other depending on the test temperature. The SCB showed the best correlation and highest Spearmans rank correlation coefficient when comparing to the observed quantity of cracking in the field. It was concluded that the laboratory fracture tests, either SCB or DC(T), are better suited for qualitative cracking performance predictions at low temperatures compared to the IDT. For quantitative predictions, it is recommended to apply advanced analytical and/or numerical models that take into account material properties, environmental conditions, and loading conditions. It is also recommended that additional studies comparing laboratory fracture parameters with the field performance should be conducted.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham INTRODUCTION

Low temperature thermal cracking can cause major damage of asphalt pavements in cold climate regions. In order to minimize the damage and reduce user-delay costs, asphalt mixtures should be designed and constructed with materials that are able to sustain the stresses induced by the combination of the cold temperatures and traffic loads. When evaluating asphalt mixtures for low temperature performance, current standards are based heavily on asphalt binder properties. This approach does not take into account interaction between the binder and aggregate, both chemically and physically. The Indirect Tension Test (IDT) is the only test widely used for evaluating asphalt mixtures at low temperatures. The IDT measures bulk material properties, such as dynamic modulus and creep compliance, and also the separation of asphalt mixtures. Bulk properties measure how the material acts as a whole, while separation properties focus on the asphalts response to coming apart. Recent research demonstrated that fracture tests are able to capture low temperature properties of asphalt mixtures [1]. Low temperature properties can be categorized as separation properties, which can be captured through fracture tests. This study reviewed the results from two fracture tests, the Semi-Circular Bend Test (SCB) and the Disk-Shaped Compact Tension Test [DC(T)], and compared these tests to IDT results and field performance on ten pavement sections in Minnesota and Wisconsin. OBJECTIVES There were three objectives to this study: Compare the results from three low temperature cracking testing procedures Compare field performance of ten pavement sections with results of laboratory testing from asphalt mixtures from the ten pavement sections Identify the laboratory procedures that can be used as practical indicators of low temperature cracking performance in the field. MATERIALS AND TESTING Materials The materials used in this study were a part of a National Pooled Fund Study on low temperature cracking in asphalt pavements [1]. This study focused on materials collected from ten pavement sections. Five of the sections were MnROAD test sections: Cell 3, Cell 19 and Cells 33-35. The other five sections came from two sections of CSAH-75 in Minnesota, two sections of US-20 in Illinois, and one section of I-74 in Illinois. The details on these ten sections are presented in Figure 1.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

Cell 33

HMA PG 58-28 crushed granite base class 5

4 (1999) 12 4 (1999) 12

silty clay subgrade, constructed in 1994

Cell 34

HMA PG 58-34 crushed granite base class 5

silty clay subgrade, constructed in 1994

Cell 35

HMA PG 58-40 crushed granite base class 5

4 (1999) 12

silty clay subgrade, constructed in 1994

Cell 3

HMA 120/150 crushed base class 5

6.3 (1992) 4

silty clay subgrade, constructed in 1992

crushed subbase class 3 33

Cell 19

HMA PG AC-20 crushed base class 3

7.8 (1992) 28 2 (1996) 2 2.5 ~12 2 (1996) 2 2.5 ~12 1.5 (1986) 11.5 varies 1.5 (1992) 15.5

silty clay subgrade, constructed in 1992

CSAH 75 WB

HMA PG 58-34 HMA PG 58-34 recycled mix (32B) crushed base class 5

sand-gravel subgrade constructed in 1955

CSAH 75 EB

HMA PG 58-34 recycled mix (42B) recycled mix (32B) crushed base class 5

sand-gravel subgrade constructed in 1955

US-20, IL

AC-10, AC-20 AC-10, AC-20 (19mm) w/rock - no drains w/soil has drains

I-74, IL

AC-20 AC-20 (19mm)

lime-stabilized subgrade 12

FIGURE 1 Structure and material of ten pavement sections. Cells 33-35 were located in Low Volume Road (LVR) loop, were constructed in 1994 and rehabilitated with the top asphalt layer in 1999. These three cells from the LVR loop had identical pavement structures. During rehabilitation, the same Superpave mix design for the top

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

asphalt layer was used, with the grade of the asphalt binder as only difference. Cells 3 and 19 from MnROAD were originally constructed in 1992 as a part of the mainline MnROAD. County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 75 in Minnesota was originally constructed in 1955 and it underwent major re-construction in 1996. At that time, it was one of the first local projects in Minnesota that used Superpave mix design combined with polymer modified binder. The top asphalt layer in the westbound section was constructed with 19.0mm Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) mix while a 12.5mm NMAS mix was placed in the eastbound section. The two pavement sections on Illinois US-20 were a part of a demonstration project in 1986 that evaluated a mechanistically-based pavement design procedure. These two sections were built in series, with identical pavement structure except for the asphalt binder used. Both mixtures used a 19.0mm NMAS, one with an AC-10 binder and the other with an AC-20. The third mixture from Illinois was a section of I-74 running through Champaign-Urbana. This pavement section was constructed in 1990-1991 as a full depth asphalt pavement that replaced a poorly performing Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement. The samples were taken immediately before a 4-inch mill and overlay in 2006. Since then, the pavement structure continues to perform very well. More information on these ten test sections can be found elsewhere [2, 3, 4]. Testing After obtaining field cores from the ten pavement sections, each core was measured for density and processed in the laboratory to prepare specimens for testing. Specimens from each section were tested in three different experimental configurations: the Indirect Tensile Test (IDT, creep and strength), the Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) test, and Disk-Shaped Compact Tension [DC(T)] test. All ten asphalt mixtures from the pavement sections were tested in each experimental configuration at three different temperatures. These three test temperatures were related to the low PG grade of the binder used in each mixture. For example, the mixture from Cell 34 with PG 58-34 binder was tested at -12C (H level), -24C (I level) and -36C (L level). There were 3 replicates at each temperature level for all mixtures for a total of 90 tests in each testing configuration, and 270 tests total. The identification system used in this research, the binder grade, and the final test temperatures are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Field sections and test temperatures.
Site Designation name Original binder grade Equivalent binder grade Test temperatures (IDT, SCB) H -6 -12 -6 -12 -18 -6 I -18 -24 -18 -24 -30 -18 L -30 -36 -30 -36 -42 -30 Test temperatures (DCT) H -6 0 -6 -12 -18 -6 I -18 -12 -18 -24 -30 -18 L -30 -24 -30 -36 -42 -30

Temperature1 -> MnROAD Cell 03 MnROAD Cell 19 MnROAD Cell 33 MnROAD Cell 34 MnROAD Cell 35 MN CSAH-75, section 2 EB MnROAD 03 MnROAD 19 MnROAD 33 MnROAD 34 MnROAD 35 MN75 2 120/150 AC-20 PG 58-28 PG 58-34 PG 58-40 PG 58-28 PG 58-28 PG 64-222 PG 58-28 PG 58-34 PG 58-40 PG 58-28

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham
MN CSAH-75, section 4 WB IL US-20, section 6 IL US-20, section 7 IL I-74
1 2

MN75 4 IL US20 6 IL US20 7 IL I74

PG 58-34 AC-10 AC-20 AC-20

PG 58-34 PG 58-283 PG 64-222,3 PG 64-222,3

-12 -6 -12 -12

-24 -18 -24 -24

-36 -30 -36 -36

-12 -6 0 0

-24 -18 -12 -12

-36 -30 -24 -24

H high (PG+10)+12, I intermediate (PG+10), L low (PG+10)-12 test temperatures (for SCB and IDT) based on PG 64-34 3 IDT not performed due to thin AC layer

The IDT setup was used to perform the 1000sec creep test and the tensile strength test according to AASHTO T322-03 [5]. A schematic of the IDT test is presented in Figure 2. During the creep test, a constant load was applied to the specimen for the 1000sec while vertical and horizontal displacements were measured around the center of the specimen using transducers mounted on both faces of the specimen. The creep compliance was determined from displacements using appropriate identification procedure from AASHTO T322-03. In a separate device, the coefficients of thermal contraction for each mixture were measured using dilatometric method [6]. Next, measured creep compliance and coefficients of thermal contraction were used in thermal stresses calculations using similar approach to TCMODEL which is a part of Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide [7, 8]. After the nondestructive IDT creep tests were conducted, the destructive tensile strength was run. The tensile strength test used a 12.5mm/min loading rate until specimen failure.
FORCE

AC specimen

Transducers

FIGURE 2 IDT creep and strength experimental setup. Semi Circular Bending (SCB) test was performed to determine fracture toughness KIC and fracture energy G of the asphalt mixture [9, 10]. The computation of fracture toughness implies that the material tested does not have softening characteristics. Some researchers believe

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

that at low temperatures, asphalt mixtures do not have softening characteristics, while other researchers believe that asphalt mixtures have softening characteristics at all temperatures. For the SCB, it was assumed that these asphalt mixtures did not have softening characteristics. Therefore, KIC was measured in the SCB testing configuration. The load was applied vertically at the top of the semi-circular specimen and the load line displacement (LLD) was measured using a vertically mounted transducer, as seen in Figure 3. The samples were 150mm wide, 75mm tall, 25mm thick, with a ligament length of 60mm. The load applied during the test varied to sustain a constant rate of the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) gauge mounted at the bottom of the specimen, 0.03mm/min. The fracture toughness was calculated through Equation 1 [9] K IC = Where
P aYk DB

Equation 1

KIC = fracture toughness (MPa m0.5) P = applied force (N) D, B = specimen dimensions (diameter, thickness) (m) a = crack length (m) Yk = dimensionless stress intensity factor which is a function of the dimensionless crack length, a/D.

The fracture energy is found through Equation 2

Where

Alig 2 Gf = fracture energy (J/m ) P = load (kN) u = CMOD opening (m) Alig = area of ligament (m2).
FORCE

Gf =

Pdu

Equation 2

AC specimen

LLD Transducer CMOD Transducer

FIGURE 3 SCB experimental setup. The Disc-Shaped Compact Tension test, DC(T), was recently adopted for asphalt mixtures to determine low-temperature fracture properties of cylindrically-shaped specimens [11,

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

12, 13]. The specimen is 150mm tall, 145mm wide, 50mm thick, with a ligament length of 82.5mm. The DC(T) test was performed under tensile loading at the loading holes. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was measured with a clip-on gage at the face of the crack mouth (Figure 4). The test was controlled through a constant CMOD rate (1 mm/min) to provide a stable post-peak fracture. The fracture energy is calculated by determining the area under the load-CMOD curve normalized by initial ligament length and thickness.
AC specimen FORCE

CMOD Transducer

FIGURE 4 DC(T) experimental setup. The SCB and DC(T) tests output was recorded as a plot of the load versus the crack mouth opening displacement, or the CMOD. Figure 5 shows an example plot of the output of the fracture tests at high, medium, and low testing temperatures. As the temperature increased, the fracture energy increased because the softening curve was more shallow.
3.5

3.0 Lowest Test Temp. Intermediate Test Temp. High Test Temp.

2.5

Load [kN]

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0

CMOD [mm]

FIGURE 5 Typical fracture curves at high, intermediate, and lowest test temperatures.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham RESULTS

The results of this study are presented in two parts. The first part shows the direct comparison of the three low temperature laboratory testing procedures on the ten asphalt mixtures. The second part shows the comparison of the laboratory results and field performance for from the ten pavement sections in Minnesota and Illinois. Comparison of Low Temperature Laboratory Results The correlation between fracture energy determined from SCB and DC(T) tests depended on the test temperature level, as seen in Figure 6. Better correlation was obtained at the intermediate and low temperatures. It is believed that this discrepancy was primary due to different CMOD rates as well as due to different specimen shape and dimensions used in both tests. For example, the ligament area for the SCB was 1500mm2, while the ligament area for the DC(T) was 4125mm2. Since asphalt mixtures are very heterogeneous, the placement of aggregate within this ligament area could significantly effect the resulting fracture energy. The correlation between the two tests could also be slightly improved if the potential outliers were removed. In addition, it appeared that with an increase of testing temperature, the fracture energy increased and the spread of the replicates increased. This could occur because at lower temperatures, the asphalt cement and aggregate had similar stiffness, which caused a brittle failure with a small softening curve. However, at warmer temperatures, the asphalt cement is more ductile, which causes the cracks to move through the softer material, and increase the softening curve. However, since asphalt mixtures are heterogeneous, that indicates that the cracks will probably have to move around the aggregate, giving less consistent results.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham
Lowest Test Temperature
800
1700 SCB Fracture Energy [J/m2] SCB Fracture Energy [J/m2]

10
High Test Temperature

600

R2=0.5146

1300

R2=0.1932
900

400

200

500

0 0

200 400 600 DC(T) Fracture Energy [J/m2]

800

100 100

500 900 1300 DC(T) Fracture Energy [J/m2]

1700

Intermediate Test Temperature

1200

SCB Fracture Energy [J/m2]

900

R2=0.6063

600

300

300 600 900 DC(T) Fracture Energy [J/m2]

1200

FIGURE 6 Correlation between fracture energy from DC(T) and SCB tests. The correlation between the IDT strength test and the two fracture tests was weak regardless of the temperature level. Figure 7a shows a correlation between IDT strength and DC(T) facture energy at low temperatures. The range of IDT strength results is relatively small and the test poorly differentiates between various sites. The IDT strength value provides only a snapshot of the material toughness whereas fracture tests captured material crack absorption over entire damage process. The peak load, which is used in the calculation of fracture toughness, was similar in concept to the IDT strength as it also is just a single reading off the experiment, as seen in Figure 5. Reasonably, IDT strength correlated better with fracture toughness, as seen in Figure 7b.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham
Lowest Test Temperature
8 8

11
Lowest Test Temperature

R2=0.1187
IDT Tensile Strength [MPa]
6

R2=0.4103
IDT Tensile Strength [MPa]
6

0 0

200 400 600 2 DC(T) Fracture Energy [J/m ]

800

0 0

0.2 0.6 0.9 0.5 SCB Fracture Toughness [MPa*m ]

1.2

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 7 Correlation between IDT tensile strength and a) fracture energy from DC(T), b) SCB fracture toughness, for low temperature group. Based on the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparisons, it was found that on average IDT tensile strength results at the intermediate temperatures are statistically different from the low temperature results. However, there was no statistical difference between the results from the high temperature group and either intermediate or low group results. The graphical summary of this comparison is shown in Figure 8.
8 7 6
IDT Tensile Strength [MPa]
MN 75 2 MN 75 4 MnRoad Cell 03 MnRoad Cell 19 MnRoad Cell 33 MnRoad Cell 34 MnRoad Cell 35

5 4 3 2 1 0

High Temp.

Intermed. Temp.

Low temp.

FIGURE 8 IDT tensile strength results.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

12

One of the tools used currently in pavement evaluation is TCMODEL [7, 8]. TCMODEL requires creep compliance and coefficients of thermal contraction to determine the critical cracking temperature, Tcr. As a part of the low temperature cracking study [1], the University of Wisconsin Madison measured the coefficients of thermal contraction for the ten pavement sections using the dilatometric method [6]. Thermal stress curves and the creep compliance allowed the determination of Tcr. The Tcr calculated from TCMODEL was compared with a low PG grade limit of the binders that were originally used in the construction of the sections, as seen in Figure 9. A relatively weak trend could be observed between these two parameters, but Tcr was consistently lower than the low binder grade. This relationship implied that the PG grading system and TCMODEL are correlated, but due to the aging process in the field, the field materials became brittle and gave lower Tcr values. In addition, the IDT measurements, both creep compliance and strength that provide data for Tcr calculations, were not able to fully distinguish between materials.
40 MnROAD 35 MN 75 4 MnROAD 34 MN 75 2 MnROAD 33 MnROAD 03 MnROAD 19

PG... 40
35

PG... 34 PG... 28

[oC] Calculated Critical Cracking Temp. T

CR

30

25

20

15

PG... 22

10

FIGURE 9 Comparison of low PG grade and critical cracking temperature calculated from TCMODEL. Comparison of Low Temperature Laboratory and Field Results In order to ensure that field data and laboratory results were compared at similar conditions, the laboratory fracture energy, fracture toughness, and indirect tensile strength values were interpolated to the LTPP low-pavement temperature. Low-pavement temperature values were obtained at 50% reliability level from LTPPBIND software [14] using the weather stations in the closest vicinity to considered test sites. The station and low-pavement temperatures are presented in Table 2.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

13

TABLE 2 LTPP low-pavement temperatures.

Site MN75 MnROAD US20 6 IL I74 Station Collegeville, MN Buffalo, MN Freeport, IL Urbana, IL LTPP low-pavement temperature [C] -24.4 -23.8 -19.7 -16.4

The comparisons between laboratory parameters and field performance data are shown in the semi-log plots of Figure 10. Field performance was measured as the length of cracking in feet per 500 feet of pavement section. Several points were observed:

IDT tensile strength and SCB fracture toughness correlated in a similar manner with field cracking data. This confirmed the earlier observation that these laboratory parameters provide similar information on the material response. SCB fracture energy shows the best correlation with the field data for these ten pavement sections. Visually, all four parameters exhibit similar trend: the lower the parameter value, the more cracking occurs in the pavement. Correlation for DC(T) fracture energy seems to be weak primary due to one potential outlier point without which the R2 increases to 0.22.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

14

8 7
IDT Tensile Strength [MPa]

1200

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1

DC(T) Fracture Energy [J/m ]

R2=0.41

1000

R2=0.19

800

600

400

200

10 100 1000 Transverse cracking [ft/500ft]

10000

0 1

10 100 1000 Transverse cracking [ft/500ft]

10000

1.2
0.5 SCB Fracture Toughness [MPa*m ]

700

SCB Fracture Energy [J/m ]

R2=0.41

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1

R2=0.56

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 1

10 100 1000 Transverse cracking [ft/500ft]

10000

10 100 1000 Transverse cracking [ft/500ft]

10000

FIGURE 10 Comparison of laboratory parameters and field performance data. Another method for comparing the data is presented in Table 3. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was determined by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient on the ranked data. In this way, two tests can be compared not in terms of the absolute values but in terms of how closely they rank the data. From Table 3, it can be concluded that fracture tests, in general, rank better the data than IDT strength test. Also, the SCB fracture energy has the highest rank correlation with field data. TABLE 3 Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.
DC(T) Fracture Energy [J/m2] -0.527 SCB Fracture Toughness [MPa*m^0.5] -0.588 SCB Fracture Energy [J/m2] -0.855 IDT Tensile strength [MPa] -0.393

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this study, low temperature properties of asphalt mixtures were evaluated in the laboratory conditions using three experimental configurations. The comparison of the experimental results showed good correlation between two fracture tests, the SCB and DC(T), especially at lower and intermediate test temperatures. It is believed that the discrepancy between these two tests is

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham

15

caused primary by different specimen geometry and loading rates applied during the tests. Also, it was observed that correlation between fracture energy from either of the fracture tests and the IDT strength results was poor since both parameters measure conceptually different phenomena. Fracture energy measured material ability to resist cracking over entire test duration whereas IDT strength gave only a point measure at the peak load. Further analysis of the IDT results also showed that the IDT strength results obtained at high test temperatures are not statistically different from the values measured at the intermediate or lowest temperatures. The results from experimental evaluation were compared with the quantity of cracking observed in the pavement. SCB fracture energy showed the best correlation with the field data for a considered dataset and it also had the highest rank correlation coefficient. IDT strength and SCB fracture toughness exhibited similar correlation with field data, while the DC(T) fracture energy produced the weakest correlation due to an outlier point. The data presented in this study showed that laboratory fracture experiments, either SCB or DC(T), are best suited for qualitative cracking performance predictions at low temperatures. More detailed predictions can be made with advanced analytical and/or numerical models which consider not only material properties and whole pavement structure but also environmental and loading conditions throughout entire service life of the pavement [15]. By combining environmental and traffic loads, advanced models can explain abnormal behavior of otherwise superior materials, such as PG 58-40 mixture that is presented in Figure10. That material from MnROAD Cell 35, showed significant amount of cracking that can be explained only by combining thermal and traffic loading [1]. It is recommended to perform similar studies that compare laboratory fracture parameters with field performance data using different mixture types and different test sections at various climate conditions. This study only looked at a small geographic area in the north-central United States. Collected data should be also used for further verification and validation recently developed advanced thermal cracking models. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work in this paper was sponsored by Federal Highway Administration National Pooled Fund Study 776. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The results and opinions presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsoring agencies. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Mihai Marasteanu of the University of Minnesota and Dr. William Buttlar of the University of Illinois for providing the resources and equipment to run these tests, and providing the leadership for the authors during testing and analysis.

REFERENCES 1. Marasteanu M., et al., Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements, National Pooled Fund Study 776 report, 2007. 2. Clyne T. R., Worel B. J., Marasteanu M., Low Temperature Cracking Performance at MnROAD. Minnesota Department of Transportation, report, 2006. 3. Worel B. J., Andersen T., Mulvaney R., MnROAD 1999 Superpave Construction Report (Cell 33-35). Minnesota Department of Transportation, report, 2003. 4. Li X., Zofka A., Li X., Marasteanu M., Clyne T. R., Investigation of the Low-Temperature Fracture Properties of Three MnROAD Asphalt Mixtures. Minnesota Department of Transportation, report, 2006.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Zofka, Braham 5.

16

6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard T 322-03. Determining the Creep Compliance and Strength of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 25th Edition, 2005. Bahia H.U. Anderson D.A., Glass Transition Behavior and Physical Hardening of Asphalt Binders, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 62, pp. 93129, 1993 Mechanistic Empirical pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), version 1.003, built 5/24/2007 Hallin J. P. et al., Development of the 2002 guide for the design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures: Phase II, Report for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2004 Chong K.P., Kuruppu M.D., New Specimen for Fracture Toughness Determination for Rock and Other Materials, International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 26, R59-R62, 1984 Molenaar J. M. M., Molenaar A.A.A., Fracture Toughness of Asphalt in the Semi-Circular Bend Test, Proceedings of the 2nd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 2000 ASTM D 7313-07, Test Method for Determining Fracture Energy of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixtures Using the Disk-Shaped Compact Tension Geometry, 2007 Braham A. F., Buttlar W. G., Marasteanu M., Effect of Binder Type, Aggregate, and Mixture Composition on Fracture Energy of Hot-Mix Asphalt in Cold Climates, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2001, pp. 102-109, 2007 Wagoner M.P., Buttlar W.G., Blankenship P., Investigation of the Fracture Resistance of Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete Using a Disk-shaped Compact Tension Test, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1929, pp. 183-192, 2005. LTPPBIND, ver. 3.1 Beta, Sept. 15, 2005, developed for Federal Highway Administration Dave E. V., Braham A. F., Buttlar W. G., Paulino G. H., Integration of Laboratory Testing, Field Performance Data, and Numerical Simulations for the Study of Low-Temperature Cracking, Proceedings of Sixth RILEM (Runion Internationale des Laboratoires et Experts des Matriaux) International Conference on Cracking in Pavements, Chicago, pp: 369-378, June 16-18, 2008.

TRB 2009 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.