Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtur

University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative

Exchange
Masters Theses
Graduate School
5-2004
Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of

HMA Surface Mixtures Containing Recycled
Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
William R. Kingery
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Recommended Citation
Kingery, William R., "Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtures Containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement
(RAP). " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2004.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2271
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information,
please contact trace@utk.edu.
To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by William R. Kingery entitled "Laboratory Study of Fatigue
Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtures Containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP)." I have
examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Civil
Engineering.
Baoshan Huang, Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
Eric C. Drumm, J. Hal Deathrage
Accepted for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
To the Graduate Council:

I am submitting herewith a thesis written by William R. Kingery, III entitled Laboratory
Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtures Containing Recycled Asphalt
Pavement (RAP). I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and
content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Civil Engineering.
Dr. Baoshan Huang

Major Professor
We have read this thesis

And recommend its acceptance:
Dr. Eric C. Drumm
Dr. J. Hal Deatherage
Accepted for the Council:
Anne Mayhew
Vice Chancellor and
Dean of Graduate Studies
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtures

Containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
A Thesis
Presented for the
Master of Science
Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
William R. Kingery, III

May 2004
Acknowledgements
I would like to begin by thanking all the people who provided time, assistance and
direction in order for me to complete my masters degree. I would especially like to
thank Tennessee Department of Transportation for funding and providing their invaluable
time during this research project with the University of Tennessee. I would like to thank
Dr. Baoshan Huang for giving me the opportunity to attend graduate school and
providing support throughout this journey. I would like to thank N. Randy Rainwater for
giving me confidence and assistance in keeping a functional laboratory. I would also like
to thank Dr. Eric Drumm and Dr. Hal Deatherage for their assistance as members of my
graduate committee.
I would like to thank Zhixiang Zhang, a visiting scholar from China, for his input
and help during the preliminary stages of this project. Also thanks goes to Dragon
Vukosavljevic, Michael Cloud and Mason Pitt for their help in the lab during sample
preparation and testing. I would also like to thank Ken Thomas and Larry Roberts for
their craftsmanship and ideas.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support
throughout my entire college career, especially my parents Mr. Billy and Betty Kingery.
I would also like to thank my beautiful fianc for her love and support during crunch
time.
ii
Abstract
Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) has been used in the construction of asphalt
pavements since the 1930s. Conversely the use of RAP in load carrying layers has
always been a sensitive issue due to the uniformity and rheological properties of the
blended asphalt mixtures. Typically the inclusion of RAP will blend the long-term aged
asphalt binder in the RAP with the fresh asphalt binder resulting in a stiffer mixture.
Generally rutting will less likely be a problem with the inclusion of RAP. However, the
fatigue crack resistance of the HMA mixtures containing RAP has been a key interest to
designers and engineers. This thesis presents the results of a laboratory study, in which
the laboratory fatigue characteristics of asphalt mixtures containing RAP were evaluated.
A typical surface mixture meeting the state of Tennessee D mix criteria was
evaluated at 0, 10, 20 and 30 percent of screened RAP materials. Two types of
aggregates (limestone and gravel) and two types of binder (PG 64-22 and PG 76-22) were
used for this study. Fatigue characteristics were evaluated through indirect tensile
strength, semi-circular bending and beam fatigue tests.
The results from this study indicated that laboratory long-term aging and the
inclusion of RAP generally increased the stiffness and laboratory fatigue resistance for
the mixtures studied. For the mixtures studied, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP for both
binder types significantly changed the fatigue characteristics as compared to 0, 10 and 20
percent RAP. Increasing the percentage of RAP increased the fatigue resistance,
however at higher percentages of RAP the mixture becomes stiffer and some fatigue
iii
characteristics are compromised by adding RAP. Based on the workability and

performance in the lab, 20 percent RAP would be recommended for use in Tennessee
surface mixtures. Field validations are recommended to compare laboratory performance
to field performance to verify the optimum percentage of RAP to be used during
pavement construction.
iv
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................1
1.1. Problem Statement......................................................................................1
1.2. Objective.....................................................................................................3
1.3. Scope...........................................................................................................3
1.4. Background.................................................................................................4
1.5. Literature Review .......................................................................................8
2.0 Research Methodology ....................................................................................15
2.1. Materials ...................................................................................................15
2.2. Mixture Design .........................................................................................17
2.3. Aging Experiment.....................................................................................20
2.4. Specimen Preparation ...............................................................................21
2.5. Test Methods ............................................................................................22
2.5.1. Indirect Tensile Strength and Strain Test (IDT) ..............................22
2.5.2. Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) Test .................................................24
SCB Frequency Sweep Test...............................................26
SCB Tensile Strength Test.................................................27
SCB Fatigue Test ...............................................................29
SCB Notched Fracture Test ...............................................30
2.5.3. Flexural Beam Fatigue Test.............................................................32
2.5.4. Asphalt Binder Testing ....................................................................36
3.0 Discussion of Results.......................................................................................38
3.1. Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results......................................................38
v
3.2. Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) Test Results .............................................45

3.2.1. SCB Frequency Sweep Test ............................................................45
3.2.2. SCB Tensile Strength Test...............................................................45
3.2.3. SCB Fatigue Test .............................................................................47
3.2.4. SCB Notched Fracture Resistance Test ...........................................53
3.3. Flexural Beam Fatigue Test Results .........................................................55
3.4. Asphalt Binder Testing Results ................................................................61
3.5. Statistical Analysis of Laboratory Test.....................................................64
3.6. Test Variability .........................................................................................70
4.0 Conclusions......................................................................................................73
References..............................................................................................................77
Appendices.............................................................................................................83
Appendix A. Job Mix Formulas ...............................................................84
Appendix B. Indirect Tensile Strength Test Data ..................................101
Appendix C. Semi-Circular Bending Test Data.....................................120
Appendix D. Flexural Beam Fatigue Test Data .....................................171
Appendix E. MTS Test Templates .........................................................207
Vita.......................................................................................................................225
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Test Factorial .............................................................................................5
Table 2. Cost Comparison of Different Percentages of RAP ..................................7
Table 3. Savings Generated by Using RAP .............................................................8
Table 4. Limestone Job Mix Formula....................................................................18
Table 5. Gravel Job Mix Formula..........................................................................18
Table 6. IDT Results, Limestone Mixtures............................................................38
Table 7. Percent Change of IDT Properties, Limestone Mixtures.........................41
Table 8. IDT Results, Gravel Mixtures..................................................................42
Table 9. Percent Change of IDT Properties, Gravel Mixtures...............................44
Table 10. SCB Tensile Strength Test Results........................................................47
Table 11. Percent Change in SCB Strength ...........................................................48
Table 12. Comparison of Fatigue Life Relative to Slope ......................................51
Table 13. Beam Fatigue Test Results, Limestone Mixtures ..................................56
Table 14. Beam Fatigue Test Results, Gravel Mixtures ........................................59
Table 15. DSR Test Results ...................................................................................61
Table 16. Test Comparison ....................................................................................72
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gradations of Stockpiles and RAP, Limestone Mix ..............................16
Figure 2. Gradations of Stockpiles and RAP, Gravel Mix ....................................17
Figure 3. Limestone Mixture Gradations...............................................................19
Figure 4. Gravel Mixture Gradations.....................................................................19
Figure 5. Prepared Test Specimens........................................................................22
Figure 6. Normalized IDT Curve for TI Calculation.............................................24
Figure 7. Typical SCB Test Setup .........................................................................25
Figure 8. SCB Frequency Sweep Test ...................................................................27
Figure 9. Typical SCB Tensile Strength Test ........................................................28
Figure 10. Load and Deformations in SCB Fatigue Test.......................................30
Figure 11. SCB Notched Fracture Test Setup........................................................31
Figure 12. J-Integral for Different Notch Depths ..................................................32
Figure 13. Beam Fatigue Fixture ...........................................................................33
Figure 14. Flexural Stiffness vs. Load Cycles (Automated Software) ..................35
Figure 15. IDT Test Results, Limestone Mixtures ................................................39
Figure 16. Percent Change in IDT Properties, Limestone Mixtures......................41
Figure 17. IDT Test Results, Gravel Mixtures ......................................................43
Figure 18. Percent Change in IDT Properties, Gravel Mixtures............................44
Figure 19. SCB Frequency Sweep Test .................................................................46
Figure 20. SCB Composite Modulus and Phase Angle .........................................46
Figure 21. SCB Tensile Strength Test Results.......................................................48
Figure 22. SCB Fatigue Test Results.....................................................................49
viii
Figure 23. SCB Fatigue Test Log-Log Scale.........................................................50

Figure 24. Change in SCB Fatigue Slope Relative to 0% RAP.............................51
Figure 25. SCB Fatigue Dissipated Energy ...........................................................52
Figure 26. SCB Notched Fracture Energy .............................................................53
Figure 27. J-Integral from Semi-Circular Notched Fracture Test..........................54
Figure 28. Beam Fatigue Summary, Limestone Mixtures.....................................56
Figure 29. Flexural Stiffness vs. Loading Cycles, Limestone Mixtures................57
Figure 30. Beam Fatigue Summary, Gravel Mixtures...........................................59
Figure 31. Flexural Stiffness vs. Loading Cycles, Gravel Mixtures......................60
Figure 32. DSR Test Results, Limestone PG 76-22 ..............................................62
Figure 33. BBR Test Results, Limestone PG 76-22 ..............................................63
Figure 34. ANOVA Analysis, Limestone IDT Test ..............................................66
Figure 35. ANOVA Analysis, Gravel IDT Test ....................................................66
Figure 36. ANOVA Analysis, Limestone SCB IDT Test......................................67
Figure 37. ANOVA Analysis, Limestone Beam Fatigue Test...............................68
Figure 38. ANOVA Analysis, Gravel Beam Fatigue Test.....................................69
ix
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
With the increasing cost of construction and pavement rehabilitation programs,
recycled asphalt pavement has proven to be a valuable and economical resource.
Recycled asphalt pavements (RAP) have been used in construction as early as the 1930s
(Taylor, 1977) and millions of tons have been used since the 1970s. Oil embargos of the
1970s forced the asphalt industry into pavement recycling due to the increased cost of
crude oil, and the practice has increased due to the environmental risk associated with
material disposal. Due to the increased cost of construction, the asphalt industry has been
forced to seek alternatives anytime pavement rehabilitation is needed. The recycling of
existing pavements and mixing with virgin materials has proven to produce pavments that
perform as well or even better than asphalt pavements constructed of properly designed
virgin materials and result in substantial savings of material cost and environmental
concerns.
With the increasing use of RAP materials today, the addition of RAP in major
load carrying and surface layers of asphalt pavements has always been a sensitive issue.
The main concerns about the use of RAP (especially in significant quantity) in surface or
load carrying layers are the durability and long-term fatigue resistance of the HMA
mixtures containing RAP materials. Generally, the addition of RAP in HMA mixtures
will blend the long-term aged asphalt cement in the RAP with the fresh asphalt binder.
After blending the long-term aged asphalt cement in the RAP, the result will be a stiffer
mixture. With an increase in stiffness, rutting generally will not be a problem for such
mixtures. The main concerns for such mixtures are their resistance to long-term fatigue
cracking and moisture susceptibility. For this reason, many state DOTs limit or restrict
the use of RAP on the surface layer and limit the percentage of RAP used in structural
layers.
The current Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) specification

allows the use of up to 15 percent of RAP on the Type A, 20 percent on Type B, BM, B-M2, C-W and C mixtures (TDOT 1995). Currently there are no
specifications that allow the use of RAP in TDOT type D surface mixtures. All state
highway agencies permit the use of RAP at a specified percentage in base and binder
courses (Banasiak 1996). Although Tennessee doesnt allow the inclusion of RAP in
surface mixtures, surrounding states such as Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky and Virginia
generally permit 10 to 30 percent RAP in their surface mixtures.
According to TDOT, approximately 4.96 million tons of hot mix asphalt was used
in 2002 to resurface 1,990 lanes miles of road during the construction season (TDOT
2002). Of the 4.96 million tons of HMA laid in 2002, approximately 1.32 million tons
met the Mix type D grading. Permitting the use of RAP in surface mixtures would
generate savings associated with material and disposal cost. With the increasing trend of
incorporating RAP into surface mixtures, many states are generating tremendous savings
in construction cost. Florida reported that recycled mixtures have had good performance
history and cost generally 25 percent less per ton of mix as compared to conventional
2
mixtures with virgin aggregates (Choubane et al. 1998). A study conducted by the
University of New Hampshire indicated that the New Hampshire DOT currently allows
up 15% RAP in surface mixtures resulting in 10 percent savings in material cost (Daniel
and Lachance, 2003).
1.2 Objective
The objective of this document was to evaluate the laboratory fatigue
characteristics of Tennessee surface mixtures containing different percentages of No. 4
sieve screened RAP that meet the TDOT specifications for D mix. Fatigue
characteristics were determined through laboratory mixture performance test. Two types
of aggregates (Limestone and Gravel) and two types of asphalt binder (PG 64-22 and PG
76-22) were used to evaluate typical Tennessee surface mixtures containing 0, 10, 20 and
30 percent RAP.
1.3 Scope
The scope of this document was intended to employ an experimental approach to
evaluate the fatigue crack resistance of surface mixtures containing RAP. Two different
types of aggregates, Limestone and Gravel, were chosen for this study. For each
aggregate, two types of asphalt cement, PG 64-22 and PG 76-22 were used to evaluate
the affects of RAP on different binder types. Prior to testing, each mix was subject to
laboratory long-term aging in a forced draft oven at 100C for a period of 3-days. In
addition to long-term aging, a portion of the samples were conditioned by one freeze
thaw cycle to examine the potential for moisture induced damage. The testing matrix
3
was designed to compare the control mixture containing 0 percent RAP to mixtures
containing 10, 20 and 30 percent RAP. As shown in Table 1, the test used to evaluate the
fatigue resistance of mixtures containing RAP include indirect tensile strength test (IDT),
semi-circular bending test (SCB), SCB fatigue test, Semi-circular notched fracture test
and four-point beam (flexural beam) fatigue test.
1.4 Background
The National Asphalt Paving Association (NAPA) indicated that approximately
70 million tons of asphalt pavements are recycled each year, which is almost twice the
amount of combining recycled paper, glass, plastic and rubber. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) indicated that 80 percent of the asphalt pavement is removed
each year during widening and resurfacing projects is re-used. This number is
substantially higher than any other recyclable bi-product recorded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection. Prior to recycling, much of the asphalt waste was removed
and disposed of in landfills. As landfills started to fill up and knowledge of recycling
became available, the concept of pavement recycling gained a large amount of interest.
With the increasing demand on our national highway system, pavements that have
aged in place and undergone physical distresses such as rutting and fatigue cracking
during their service life are ideal candidate for recycling. Reprocessing the salvaged
materials, plus the addition of virgin asphalt, is done through several processes which
include the following: (1) hot mix recycling, (2) hot in-place recycling (3) cold in place
recycling and (4) full depth reclamation (ARRA 1992).
4
Table 1. Test Factorial

411-D Surface Mixtures
Performance Test
Asphalt
SCB
SCB Notched Fracture
Aggregate
RAP (%)
IDT
SCB IDT
0.5"
1.0"
1.5"
Cement
Fatigue
0
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
10
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
PG 64-22
20
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
30
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
Limestone
0
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
10
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
PG 76-22
20
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
30
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
0
y,z
y,z
10
y,z
y,z
PG 64-22
20
y,z
y,z
30
y,z
y,z
Gravel
0
y,z
y,z
10
y,z
y,z
PG 76-22
20
y,z
y,z
30
y,z
y,z
Note: Each Test will be conducted on triplicate samples
IDT - Indirect Tensile Strength
SCB - Semi-circular Bending
x - un-aged
y - long-term aged
z - long-term aged Freeze Thaw cycle
not part of this research report
Flexural
Beam
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
x,y
y,z
y,z
y,z
y,z
y,z
y,z
y,z
y,z
Hot mix asphalt recycling is a process where the RAP is blended with new materials
through conventional HMA production. Similar to conventional HMA production, the
RAP is handled and stored in stockpiles and used as needed. Both batch plants and drum
plants are capable of producing HMA containing recycled pavements with minor
modifications. Hot in-place recycling is a process that heats and softens the existing
surface by a milling machine that is capable of blending raw materials with the RAP,
placing the blended mixture and compacting in a single pass. Cold in place recycling is
similar to hot in-place recycling with exception of heat. Cold in-place recycling uses
rejuvenators or recycling agents (emulsifiers) that are remixed with the pulverized
pavement and blended with new materials. This process involves very little energy and
5
can be done very efficiently to correct minor pavement distresses. Full depth reclamation
is a process in which the entire pavement structure is pulverized and reused as a base
material. The five main steps in this process are pulverization, introduction of additive,
compaction, and application of a surface or wearing coarse (Kandhal 1997). These are
some of the most common methods of recycling; however it is important to observe the
existing pavement conditions prior to choosing which alternative is best.
Prior to pavement recycling, poor pavements were torn up by removing the entire
pavement structure and discarding the waste in landfills. The cost to rebuild the existing
roadway put major burdens on both the contractor and highway user. As these concerns
increased along with the cost of energy, the asphalt industry has been forced to seek
alternatives anytime pavement rehabilitation is required. As the demand on our national
highway system increases, pavement recycling has proven to be a cost effective method
of rehabilitation. When properly designed, the use of RAP during pavement
rehabilitation has proven to be more economical than conventional HMA rehabilitation
methods.
The cost associated by using RAP is typically evaluated on both a construction

cost and a material cost basis. The variables associated with construction cost will be
dependent on the location and the type of milling operation required. In this research,
material cost was evaluated with the inclusion of 10, 20 and 30 percent RAP. Tennessee
reported in 2002 that approximately 1.32 million tons of asphalt meeting the D mix
criteria was placed throughout the state. A detailed material cost analysis was performed
6
for a typical Tennessee surface mix containing 5.7 percent liquid asphalt. Vulcan
Materials Company and Marathon Ashland provided the average prices for the
aggregates and liquid asphalt respectively. Considering $8.00 per ton for aggregate and
$170.00 per ton for liquid asphalt, the cost to produce one ton of HMA with 5.7 percent
asphalt comes out to be $17.80. If you consider the cost associated with handling the
RAP to be $5.00 per ton, the cost of a mixture containing 30 percent RAP would be
$14.17. The savings generated are $3.63 per ton or 20 percent for a mixture containing
30 percent RAP. Tables 2 and 3 represent a cost comparison based on tons of asphalt
used in Tennessee during the 2002 paving season.
Table 2. Cost Comparison of Different Percentages of RAP

0% RAP
Material
Price ($/ton)
Used (%) Cost ($/ton)
D-Rock
$8.45
50
$4.23
#10 Screenings
$8.45
15
$1.27
Natural Sand
$6.00
25
$1.50
Manufactured Sand
$9.95
10
$1.00
*RAP
$5.00
PG 64-22
$170.00
5.7
$9.81
Material
D-Rock
#10 Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
*RAP
PG 64-22
Cost
Cost
$17.80
20% RAP
Material
Price ($/ton)
D-Rock
$8.45
50
$4.23
#10 Screenings
$8.45
0
$0.00
Natural Sand
$6.00
20
$1.20
Manufactured Sand
$9.95
10
$1.00
*RAP
$5.00
20
$1.00
PG 64-22
$170.00
4.5
$7.72
Cost
*Average cost of processing RAP
$15.14
Material
D-Rock
#10 Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
*RAP
PG 64-22
Cost
10% RAP
Price ($/ton)
$8.45
$8.45
$6.00
$9.95
$5.00
$170.00

50
$4.23
10
$0.85
20
$1.20
10
$1.00
10
$0.50
5.1
$8.67
$16.44
30% RAP
Price ($/ton)
$8.45
$8.45
$6.00
$9.95
$5.00
$170.00

50
$4.23
0
$0.00
10
$0.60
10
$1.00
30
$1.50
4
$6.85
$14.17
Table 3. Savings Generated by Using RAP
Percent RAP Cost ($/ton) Savings ($/ton) Savings (%)

D-Mix
$17.80
10%
$16.44
$1.36
8
20%
$15.14
$2.66
15
30%
$14.17
$3.63
20
1.5 Literature Review

Pavement damage is often hard to characterize because of the unpredictable
distresses the pavement has experienced during its life. Roberts et al. 1997, noted that
asphalt distresses should not be viewed with surprise unless the pavement experiences
these distresses early in the design life. Similar to other materials, as asphalt pavements
reach their design life, distresses are expected to occur as a result of the environment and
repeated traffic loads (Roberts et al. 1997). Four of the most common types of distresses
for asphalt pavements are rutting, moisture damage, thermal cracking and fatigue
cracking. Generally rutting will not be a problem when designing asphalt mixtures with
RAP because the aged binder from the RAP will blend with the virgin binder resulting in
a stiffer mixture. The main concern when designing asphalt pavement with the inclusion
of RAP is its resistance to fatigue cracking. Fatigue cracking often occurs when the
asphalt experiences excessive loads during its design life or has been stressed to the limit
of its fatigue life by repetitive loading. For this study, attention was only given to the
fatigue characteristics of asphalt pavement containing RAP, because the blended asphalt
mixture will tend to be stiffer resulting in a more brittle material.
8
Typically fatigue cracking occurs due to aging, repetitive stresses from axle loads,
temperature changes and or inadequate drainage. The aging process begins during the
production and construction process starting at the asphalt plant. During plant mixing,
the asphalt cement experiences oxidation from the exposure of air and high temperatures.
After the initial oxidation, the rate of aging decreases at a much slower rate when
compacted and placed. The rate of aging or any other factors affecting the process are
extremely complicated and have troubled the industry for a long time. Researchers
suggest that each reaction seems to lead to an undesirable change or embrittlement of the
asphalt, which in turn has been associated with HMA of poor durability properties (Finn
1967).
In addition to aging, fatigue cracking due to repeated loading or temperature

change induces undesirable tensile stress and strain in the pavement layers that initiate
microcracks. These stresses propagate and densify, leading to the formation of
macrocracks and further damage to the pavement. Past research has indicated that fatigue
cracking is thought to initiate from the bottom of the asphalt layer where tensile stresses
are most notable and progress up to the surface. However, recent research has indicated
that cracks most often initiate longitudinally in wheel paths and propagate downward
(i.e., top-down cracking) through the HMA layer (Myers and Roque, 2001). Typically
top-down cracking occurs after the surface layer has experienced high stresses from
repetitive traffic loading and high thermal stresses leading to surface age hardening. As
the pavement becomes more brittle, the initiation of top-down cracking leads to further
pavement distresses that permanently damage the pavement structure. In order to
9
address the concerns of how aging and fatigue are related, it is important to have a
controlled environment in the laboratory to characterize the behavior of pavements under
repeated stress or strain cycles.
Tangella et al. 1990, conducted NCHRP A-003A research project entitled

Fatigue Response of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixtures to evaluate test procedures for
measuring the fatigue response of asphalt paving mixtures and to summarize what is
known about the factors that influence pavement life. Mode of loading, typically either
controlled-stress or controlled-strain laboratory testing, was identified as one of the
primary factors affecting fatigue response (Tangella et al. 1990). They also believed that
the controlled-stress test essentially measures the loading necessary for crack initiation;
longer fatigue lives are recorded in controlled-strain test because crack propagation is
also included. Many types of fatigue testing were analyzed to come up with simple
fatigue test that would help characterize the fatigue life of pavements. Tengella et al.
1990, believed that the three most promising test methods were flexural fatigue test,
diametral fatigue, and tests employing fracture mechanics principals.
Flexural fatigue testing is used to estimate the fatigue life of flexible pavements
under repeated flexural bending. The flexural fatigue test consists of a rectangular
shaped asphalt beam cut from laboratory compacted samples and subjected to a user
defined cyclic stress or strain controlled load to the center of the beam until failure.
Constant stresses applied continuously to the beam create a negative bending moment
about the center point of the beam causing the beam to return to its original position
10
between each loading cycle. A cyclic load with a chosen amplitude to create a positive
moment equal in magnitude to the continuous negative moment is applied to the center
point of the beam until failure occurs. For strain-controlled test, a strain is applied
continuously to the center of the beam during each load cycle. Stiffness is measured
from the center point of the beam after the 50th load cycle to determine the initial flexural
stiffness, and failure is defined as 50 percent reduction in initial stiffness. Experience has
shown that thick asphalt pavements (greater than 5 inches (130-mm)) generally perform
close to constant stress mode of loading while thin asphalt pavements perform close to
the constant strain mode of loading (Roberts et al. 1991).
The diametral fatigue test is an indirect tensile test that applies repetitive or
continuous loading to a cylindrical sample with a compressive load which acts parallel to
and along the vertical diametral plane (Kennedy 1977). This loading configuration
develops a relatively uniform tensile stress perpendicular to the direction of the applied
load and along the vertical diametral plane. According to Kennedy and Hudson (1968),
under a line load of sufficient magnitude, the diametral specimen would fail near the load
line due to compression. The compressive stresses are greatly reduced by distributing the
load through a loading strip, however, and a sufficiently large load will actually induce
tensile failure along the vertical diameter. The biaxial state of stress which exists during
diametral testing is due to compressive and vertical stresses at the center of the specimen,
where the vertical compressive stress is three times the horizontal tensile stress (Tangella
et al. 1990). While diametral testing is a stress controlled test, Roberts et al. (1991)
11
believe that the second property determined from the indirect tensile test, which is tensile
strain at failure, is more useful for predicting cracking potential.
Similar to indirect tensile testing, European and South African researchers have
investigated the usefulness of the semi-circular bending test as a simple test which gives
decisive answers on the material characteristics needed for pavement design (Molenaar et
al. 2002). Test specimens are made by a gyratory compactor and cut into equal disk
typically 1-inch in thickness or cut from field cores. Molenaar et al. (2002) used this test
as a simple tool to obtain information of the modulus and the tensile characteristics of
asphalt mixtures. During this study, researchers investigated the advantages of using the
semi-circular bending test versus the indirect tensile test and discovered that a crack
would develop along the bottom of the semi-circular disk and cause the sample to fail in
tension. When comparing this with indirect tensile testing, indirect tensile specimens
most typically fail under compression near the loading strips by wedging or shear failure.
Although not a standard test method to characterize the pavements material behavior,
utilizing the basic principals of the semi-circular bending test can provide researchers
with a way to evaluate the tensile characteristics of the mixture tested.
Another approach for characterizing the fatigue response of asphalt concrete

makes use of the principals of fracture mechanics (Majidsadeh et al., 1971; Salam, 1971;
and Monismith et al., 1973), where fatigue is considered to develop in three phases: (1)
crack initiation, (2) stable crack growth, and (3) unstable crack propagation with the
second phase consuming most of the fatigue life (Tangella et al. 1990). This method of
12
evaluation has become a useful tool to characterize both fracture resistance and fatigue
properties through crack propagation.
Distresses such as cracking have been recognized by designers as a weak or

unrecoverable (plastic) zone that contributes to further failure of the pavement structure.
Repetitive loading experienced by pavements over time make them ideal candidates for
the application of fracture mechanics (Sulaiman and Stock, 1995). Initial solutions to
fracture mechanics assumed the pavements to be linear elastic for brittle materials, but
once the crack was initiated the assumption was no longer valid for fracture mechanic
analysis. Once stable crack growth has propagated, research suggests that the pavement
must be modeled using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) that describe the
stresses present around the crack. As solutions became available for situations in which
the crack tip was preceded by the development of a significant plastic zone, the J-integral
approach has become widely accepted as a solution for this situation (Sulaiman and
Stock, 1995). This concept was first introduced by Rice in 1968 as a path independent
integration of strain energy around the crack (Rice 1968).
Mull et al. 2002, used the J-integral concept on semi-circular specimens with
various notch-depths ratios subject to three-point bending to characterize fracture
resistance of different asphalt mixtures. The J-integral was determined by monotonically
loading the notched specimens at a rate of 0.02 in./min. until failure. According to
Mulls research, a relationship between the total strain energy to failure and the notch
depth were very linear. From this linear relationship between strain energy and notch
13
depth, fracture resistance of the mixture can be determined by taking the slope of the
fracture energy versus various crack lengths.
Kim and Wen (2002), used the concept of fracture mechanics from the indirect
tension test (IDT) as a simple performance indicator for fatigue cracking. During their
study, they defined fracture energy as the area under the stress-strain curve in the loading
portion, which was the sum of the strain energy and the dissipated energy due to
structural changes (such as micro-cracking). Materials that are highly elastic require
tremendous amounts of work to permanently deform the material. From their
observation, they suggest that from the IDT that fracture energy and the sum of strain
energy may be the proper indicator for the resistance of asphalt concrete fatigue cracking.
14
2.0 Research Methodology

The purpose of this laboratory study was to provide an understanding of how the
inclusion of RAP would affect the fatigue characteristics of a standard surface mixture
used in Tennessee. This section gives a detailed description of the test methodology used
to evaluate the fatigue characteristics of the laboratory compacted specimens.
2.1 Materials
The aggregates and asphalt binder were conventional for HMA surface mixtures
used in Tennessee. An aggregate structure meeting TDOT Specifications for 411-D
mixtures was used as a design basis. Two types of coarse aggregates (D-rock) were used:
Limestone and Gravel, both with a maximum aggregate size of -inch. The fine
aggregates consisted of No. 10 screenings, natural sand, manufactured sand, agricultural
lime and screened RAP from both from limestone and gravel sources.
For each mixture, the RAP material used in the mix design process as a substitute
for sand or screenings was originally designed as a limestone or gravel D-mix. To
maintain consistent aggregate types, RAP materials were only used in mixtures similar to
their original design. Both RAP materials were processed during a typical milling
operation and were stored and sampled similar to virgin aggregates. To preserve material
uniformity, all RAP materials were screened through the No. 4 sieve to acquire a
consistent gradation that was comparable to the fine aggregates used in this study. All
RAP material retained on the No. 4 sieve were discarded and not used as part of the
15
design. Gradations were determined on the bare aggregate after the binder was extracted
from the RAP material. The verified asphalt content of the RAP materials was 5.5
percent for limestone mixtures and 5.7 percent for gravel mixtures.
Two types of asphalt binder were used in the study, unmodified asphalt meeting
Superpave specifications for PG 64-22 and polymer modified asphalt meeting the
specification as PG 76-22. Figures 1 and 2 represent stockpile gradations for the
materials used in this study.
100
90
D-Rock
#10 Soft
Na. Sand
Man. Sand
RAP
Percent Passing, %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.5
No.200 No.100 No.50 No.30
No.8
1.5
No.4
2
2.5
3/8''
1/2''
3.5
3/4''
Sieve Size, in.
Figure 1. Gradations of Stockpiles and RAP, Limestone Mix.
16
100
D-Rock
Ag. Lime
#10 Soft
Nat. Sand
RAP
90
Percent Passing, %
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.5
No.200 No.100 No.50
1No.30
No.8
1.5
No.4
2
2.5
3/8''
1/2''
3.5
3/4''
Sieve Size, in.
Figure 2. Gradations of Stockpiles and RAP, Gravel Mix.
2.2 Mixture Design

Standard Marshall mix design procedures were used to determine the volumetric
proportions for the mix used in this study. Prior to designing any mixtures with the
inclusion of RAP, a control mix was first designed as a guide to follow during RAP mix
design. TDOT provided a job mix formula (JMF) for typical 411-D surface mixtures
used in Tennessee to represent our control mix. Asphalt contents for limestone mixtures
were designed at 5.0 percent and gravel mixtures were designed at 5.8 percent asphalt.
Tables 4 and 5 represent the job mix formulas for both limestone and gravel control
mixtures. For Limestone and Gravel mixtures, screened RAP was substituted in equal
proportions for the fine aggregate. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the gradations of the
blended mixtures were kept in a very narrow band so that all the mixtures resulted in
similar aggregate structures.
17
Table 4. Limestone Job Mix Formula
Sieve Size
Percent Used
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#8
#30
#50
#100
#200
Asphalt Content
5.0
Design
Natural Manufactured
Limestone DNo. 10
Sand
Range
Sand
Rock
Screenings
JMF
50%
15%
25%
10%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
100
100
100
99
95-100
70
100
100
100
85
80-93
21
92
98
99
59
54-76
7
61
93
82
44
35-57
4
29
63
28
25
17-29
3
21
13
17
10
10-18
2.0
20.0
2.0
9.0
5.4
3-10
1.8
16.0
1.0
5.0
4.1
0-6.5
Gmm
Gmb
Air Voids
VMA
Stability (lbs) Flow (.01")
2.456
2.356
4.0
16
2607
9.7
Table 5. Gravel Job Mix Formula

Sieve Size
Percent Used
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#8
#30
#50
#100
#200
Asphalt Content
5.8
Gravel DRock
55%
100
95
77
40
22
8
5
3.0
2.0
Gmm
2.360
No. 10 Soft Natural

Screenings
Sand
10%
25%
100
100
100
100
100
100
91
96
60
84
30
60
21
8
16.0
1.0
14.0
Gmb
Air Voids
2.265
4.0
18
Ag. Lime
10%
100
100
100
98
92
64
52
41.0
34.0
VMA
17
Design
Range
JMF
100
100
100
100
97
95-100
87
80-93
65
54-76
48
35-57
29
17-29
12
10-18
7.6
3-10
5.9
0-6.5
Stability (lbs) Flow (.01")
2972
10.9
100.0
Control
Gradation
90.0
Percent Passing, %
80.0
Upper Limit
70.0
Lower Limit
60.0
50.0
10% RAP
40.0
20% RAP
30.0
20.0
30% RAP
10.0
0.0
No.200 No.100 No.50 No.30 No.8
No.4
0.000
0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000
2.5003/8''3.0001/23.5003/4
Sieve Size, in.
Figure 3. Limestone Mixture Gradations.
100.0
90.0
Control
Gradation
Percent Passing, %
80.0
Upper Limit
70.0
Lower Limit
60.0
10% RAP
50.0
20% RAP
40.0
30% RAP
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
No.1001.000
No.50 No.30
No.8 2.000
No.4
0.000No.200
0.500
1.500
2.5003/8''3.0001/2''3.5003/4
Sieve Size, in.
Figure 4. Gravel Mixture Gradations.
19
2.3 Aging Experiment

A separate laboratory experiment was conducted to determine which aging
method would best simulate long-term aging of the mixtures. Both loose and compacted
mixtures were used to evaluate different laboratory aging methods to determine how
pressure, temperature and time affected the characteristics of the mixtures. The
compacted mixtures were laboratory aged to determine which laboratory aging method
would best represented long-term aging.
The aging procedure included both loose and compacted specimens that were
aged in a pressure aging vessel (PAV) at 100C for 1-day, 2-days and 3-days. The size of
the samples would make it difficult to long-term age a significant amount of specimens in
the PAV so a portion of the samples were long-term aged in a forced draft oven at 85C
for 5-days and at 100C for 3-days to compare with the PAV.
To compare the rheological properties of the aged mixtures, the binder was
extracted and recovered from each aging protocol. Binder properties from each method
of aging were then compared to an un-aged sample with the same mixture properties
using the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR). After comparing the rheological properties
of the extracted asphalt binders from the mixtures with different aging protocols, the 3day oven aging at 100C was found to give similar results to the standard loose mixture
oven aging at 85C for 5-days. Based on the rheological properties of the extracted
binder and investigating each aging method, half the test specimens were subjected to
oven aging at 100C for a period of 3-days (72-hours).
20
2.4 Specimen Preparation

To ensure the quality of each mixture, each stockpile was oven dried and broken
down into separate sieve sizes. By breaking the aggregate down into separate sieve sizes,
it reduced the variability of having inconsistent gradations. Prior to mixing, each mixture
was batched into 6000-8000 gram batches. Each batch was then superheated in a forced
draft oven prior to being mixed in the laboratory using a mechanical mixer. After
mixing, each mixture was subject to short-term aging for a period of 2-4 hours at 300F
(150C) prior to compaction. Two different methods of compactions were used in this
study. The Superpave Gyratory Compacter (SGC) was used to compact 4 6 inch
circular specimens and the vibratory compactor was used to compact beam specimens.
All circular specimens were compacted to 50.5 percent air voids and all beam samples
were compacted to 61 percent air voids.
Prior to testing, all samples were checked for air voids in accordance with
AASHTO T-269, Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving
Mixtures, to validate proper air void requirements. If any specimen was outside the
specified air void range, the specimen was discarded. Specimens suitable for testing
(Figure 5) were then cut using a wet blade saw into their respective sizes for each test.
After the specimens were cut they were stored at 77F (25C) for a minimum of two
hours prior to testing. All test were conducted at 77F (25C) throughout the study.
21
Figure 5. Prepared Test Specimens.
2.5 Test Methods

2.5.1 Indirect Tensile Strength and Strain Test (IDT)
The indirect tensile test (IDT) was used to determine the tensile strength and
strain of 4-inch (100-mm) diameter and 2.5-inch (37-mm) thick cylindrical samples.
Testing was done in triplicates on both un-aged and long-term aged specimens. Each
cylindrical sample was loaded along the diametral axis at a rate of 2 in./min. (50.8
mm/min.). This loading configuration develops a relatively uniform tensile stress
perpendicular to the direction of the applied load and along the vertical diametral plane,
which ultimately causes the specimen to fail by splitting along the vertical diameter
(Roberts et al. 1991). The load and deformations were continuously recorded and
indirect tensile strength and strain are computed as follows:
22
ST =
2 Pult
(1)
t D
T = 0.52H T
(2)
where
ST Tensile strength,
Pult Peak load,
t
thickness of the specimen,
D Diameter of the specimen,

T Horizontal tensile strain at failure, and
HT Horizontal deformation at peak load, in.
Toughness index (TI), a parameter describing the toughening characteristics in the

post-peak region, was also calculated from the indirect tensile test results. Figure 6
presents a typical normalized indirect tensile stress and strain curve. A dimensionless
indirect tensile toughness index, TI is defined as follows (Sobhan and Mashnad, 2002):
TI =
A Ap
where
TI Toughness index,
A Area under the normalized stress-strain curve up to strain ,
Ap Area under the normalized stress-strain curve up to strain p
Strain at the point of interest, and
p Strain corresponding to the peak stress.
23
(3)
1.2
IDT Normalized
0.8
0.6
Ap
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Strain, %
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Figure 6. Normalized IDT Curve for TI Calculation.
This toughness index compares the performance of a specimen with that of an

elastic perfectly plastic reference material, for which the TI remains constant at 1. For an
ideal brittle material with no post-peak load carrying capacity, the value of TI equals
zero. In this study, the values of indirect tensile toughness index were calculated up to
tensile strain of one percent. This strain level can be any strain greater than the strain
corresponding to the peak stress. The IDT test and TI calculation were used as a simple
performance test to understand how the RAP would affect the fatigue characteristics of
mixtures containing RAP.
2.5.2 Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) Test

The semi-circular bending (SCB) test for asphalt mixtures is more often reported
in Europe and South Africa (Molenarr et al 2002 and van de Ven et al 1997).
24
Researchers have used this test to evaluate the tensile strength characteristics and fracture
resistance of asphalt mixtures. The test set up is very simple, any loading frame that can
apply monotonic or dynamic loading can be used. Figure 7 illustrates a typical SCB test
set up. The SCB test fixture consists of a three-point bending setup that is fabricated so it
can be attached to both the load frame and a load cell. The distance between the two
supports at the bottom is 4-inches (100-mm). A small hole was drilled through the
bottom of the fixture so an LVDT could be mounted to the bottom of the specimen to
measure the deflection on the bottom flat surface.
ax
t m
2a
D
Figure 7. Typical SCB Test Setup.
25
SCB specimens were prepared using the SGC. After compaction, semi-circular
disks were cut in half from 6-inch (150-mm) diameter cylindrical SGC specimens and
then sliced into 1.0-inch (25-mm) thick specimens for testing. SCB testing was done in
triplicate samples for both short-term and long-term aged specimens. Specimens subject
to long-term aging were placed in a forced draft oven at 100C for three days.
During this study, the SCB test was used to characterize the various properties of
asphalt mixtures containing RAP. By using the SCB setup, mixture properties were
determined using both dynamic and monotonic loading. Dynamic loading consist of
applying cyclic loads at different frequencies to obtain viscoelastic properties, or by
applying continuous sinusoidal loading to the specimen until failure to determine fatigue
characteristics of different mixtures. Similar to the traditional indirect tensile strength
test, the SCB setup was used to apply monotonic loading to determine tensile strength
characteristics for different mixtures containing RAP.
SCB Frequency Sweep Test

A stress controlled frequency sweep test was conducted at 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1,
0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, and 10 Hz with a 100 second resting period between each frequency to
allow for elastic recovery. During the frequency sweep test, a sinusoidal stress with
amplitude of 200 lbs. (0.89 kN) was applied to the specimen. Mixture composite
modulus (E*) and phase angle () were calculated from the load and measured deflection.
Figure 8 represents a graphical illustration of the SCB frequency sweep test. The time
26
250
Load, lbs. & Vert. Defl., in.
200
150
Load
Deflection
100
50
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time, sec.
Figure 8. SCB Frequency Sweep Test.
lag between peak load and vertical deflection gives us a good understanding of how the
material behaves under cyclic loading and can be used as a tool for evaluating fatigue
properties of mixtures containing RAP.
SCB Tensile Strength Test

A semi-circular bending test was conducted at a constant displacement similar to
the IDT test. VenderVan 1997, believes that this test is a simple tool to obtain
information on the modulus and tensile characteristics for HMA mixtures. The reasoning
for this test is that a crack will develop along the bottom of the specimen that helps
characterize the tensile characteristics of the mixture. The specimen is loaded
monotonically at a loading rate of 2 in./min. (50 mm./min.) until failure occurs. As
shown in Figure 9, load and deformation are continuously recorded until failure.
27
4000
3500
3000
Load, lbs.
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vert. Defl., in.
Figure 9. Typical SCB Tensile Strength Test.
Analytical solutions for the SCB test can be achieved with proper application of
loading and supporting conditions to the constitutive equations of the asphalt mixture.
However, even the linear elastic solution between the load and bottom deflection requires
complicated mathematical derivation. Molenaar et al. 2002, reported a specific solution
between the top deflection and applied load as follows.
t = 4.8
P
D
(4)
v = 1.84
P
Mr
(5)
Where:
t maximum tensile stress at the bottom of the specimen,
P load per unit width of the specimen,
D diameter of specimen,
28
v - vertical displacement at the top of the specimen, and

Mr resilient modulus.
Equations (4) and (5) are only valid when the distance between the two bottomsupports equals 0.8 times of the diameter. Huang et al. 2003, used finite element analyses
to back-calculate the composite moduli of the specimens based on the recorded loads and
deflections.
SCB Fatigue Test

To characterize the material properties under dynamic loading, a continuous
sinusoidal load was applied to a semi-circular disk until failure. The semi-circular fatigue
test is similar to the stress controlled frequency sweep test except the specimen was
loaded at a constant frequency of 5-hz. The load amplitude for each mixture was a
fraction of the ultimate bearing capacity from the SCB tensile strength test. An LVDT
was mounted on the bottom center of the specimen to measure vertical deformation.
Load and deformation were continuously recorded to evaluate the fatigue characteristics
for each mixture. Figure 10 illustrates the load and deformation response from the SCB
fatigue test. By applying different load magnitudes at different percentages of the SCB
tensile strength, the effect of RAP on the mixture during dynamic loading can be
demonstrated.
29
0.0012
600
0.001
500
400
Stress, lbs.
Load & Defl.
0.0008
deflection
load
0.0006
300
0.0004
200
0.0002
100
0.5
1. 5
0
0.057
2.5
Time
0.0572
0.0574
0.0576
0.0578
0.058
0.0582
0.0584
0.0586
Strain, in./in.
Figure 10. Load and Deformations in SCB Fatigue Test.
SCB Notched Fracture Test

Similar to SCB test setup, the semi-circular notched fracture test applies a
constant rate of deformation to a notched specimen. Researchers have been using this
test to evaluate the fracture resistance of asphalt mixtures through the J-integral (Mull et
al. 2002). The J-integral concept was first proposed by Rice in 1968 as a path
independent integration of strain energy, density, traction and displacement along an
arbitrary counter-clockwise path around the crack (Rice 1968). According to Mull et al.
2002, the J-integral concept is a method to characterize fracture resistance of asphalt
mixtures having different notch-depths. To calculate Jc, which is the slope between the
fracture energies of different notch depths, at least two different notch depths need to be
considered. In this study three notch depths were used, 0.5 in. (12.5-mm), 1.0 in. (25.4mm) and 1.5 in. (38-mm). Figure 11, illustrates the test configuration for a typical semicircular notched fracture test.
30
Figure 11. SCB Notched Fracture Test Setup.
The loading rate for the notched fracture test was 0.02 in/min. at the temperature
of 25 oC. This rate was chosen according to Mull et al 2002. The J-integral can be
calculated through the following equation.
U U
1
J c = 1 2
b1 b2 a 2 a1
(6)
Where U is the strain energy to failure which equals to the area underneath the loaddeformation curve up to the peak load; b is the specimen thickness; and a represents the
notch depth. The diameter of the specimen (2rd) was 6-inches (150-mm), the specimen
thickness was approximately 1-inch (25.4-mm), and the spacing between the two
supports (2s) was 4-inches (100-mm).
Figure 12 illustrates fracture energy versus notch depth. The slope of the curve
between fracture energy and notch depth represents J-integral. Stiff mixtures that require
additional energy to initiate failure will have a higher J-integral (slope). The higher the J31
30.000
Fracture Energy, psi.
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
0
0.5
1.5
Notch Depth, (in.)
Figure 12. J-Integral for Different Notch Depths.
integral for a mixture during a semi-circular notched test, the stronger the fracture
resistance.
2.5.3 Flexural Beam Fatigue Test

This test was developed under SHRP A-003A to evaluate the fatigue response of
asphalt paving mixtures and to summarize what is known about the factors that influence
pavement life using third point loading. The flexural beam fatigue test was later
modified in SHRP-A-404 to improve the simplicity and reliability of the fatigue test.
The Flexural Beam Fatigue test is a strain controlled test to determine the fatigue
life of 15 in. long by 2 in. thick by 2.5 in. wide beam specimens cut from laboratory
32
compacted samples subjected to repeated flexural bending until failure (AASHTO TP894).
Beam specimens were compacted using the vibratory compactor to 61 percent

air voids and tested at 20C according to AASHTO TP8-94, Standard Test Method for
Determining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Subjected to
Repeated Flexural Bending. Specimens were placed in a beam fatigue fixture (Figure 13)
that would allow 4-point bending with free rotation and horizontal translation at all load
and reaction points. An MTS closed loop computer controlled data acquisition system
was used to apply the load.
Load
Specimen
Clamp
Reaction
Load
Deflection
Reaction
Return to
Original
Postion
Figure 13. Beam Fatigue Fixture.
33
A user defined strain level was applied to the beam at a frequency of 10 Hz such
that the specimen will undergo a minimum of 10,000 load cycles. During each load cycle
beam deflections were measured at the center of the beam to calculate maximum tensile
stress, maximum tensile strain, phase angle, stiffness, dissipated energy, and cumulative
dissipated energy. Fatigue life is defined as the number of cycles corresponding to a 50
percent reduction in initial stiffness; initial stiffness was measured at the 50th load cycle
(AASHTO TP8-94). Data was analyzed using automated fatigue software developed as a
part of NCHRP A-003A by Tsai and Tayebali (1992). Figure 14 represents a typical
stiffness versus load cycle plot using automated fatigue software. The cycles and beam
deflections were continuously recorded and the above parameters were computed as
follows:
Maximum Tensile Stress, psi:

=
3aP
wh 2
(7)
P = load applied by actuator, lbs.

w = width of beam, in.
h = specimen height, in.
Maximum Tensile Strain, psi:
=
12h
3L2 4a 2
(8)
= maximum deflection at center of beam, in.

a = space between inside clamps, 4.684 in.
L = length of beam between outside clamps, 14.055 in.
34
Flexural Stiffness (lbf/in^2)
Flexural Stiffness vs. Loading Cycles

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
250,100
Loading Cycles
Figure 14. Flexural Stiffness vs. Load Cycles (Automated Software).
Flexural Stiffness, psi:

S =
(9)
Phase Angle, deg:

= 360fs
(10)
f = load frequency, Hz
s = time lag between Pmax and max, sec.
Dissipated Energy (psi) per cycle:
wi = 0.25 2 S sin()
(11)
wi = energy dissipated at load cycle I,

i = strain at load cycle I,
Si = stiffness at load cycle I,
i = phase angle between stress and strain at load cycle i.
35
2.5.4 Asphalt Binder Testing
Binder testing was completed to investigate the effect of different percentages of

RAP on the mixtures performance. When the aged binder from RAP is combined with
the new binder, it will have some effect on the resultant binder grade (McDaniel et al.
2000). To evaluate the effects of incorporating different percentages of RAP binder on
the mechanical properties of different mixtures, the binder from each mixture with the
inclusion of RAP must be extracted and recovered in accordance with AASHTO
standards T164-01 and T 170-00. The recovered binder must then be tested to evaluate
the effects of RAP on the rheological properties of PG binders used in the Superpave
system. Binder test were conducted on blended PG 76-22 mixtures containing 10, 20 and
30 percent RAP.
Binder from each mixture was tested as original binder (un-aged) at the high
temperature range as well as short-term aged binder and long-term aged binder at high,
low and intermediate temperature ranges. To simulate short-term aging, the Rolling Thin
Film Oven (RTFO) was used to represent aging during HMA production and
construction. To represent long-term aging, the Pressure Aging Vessel (PAV) was used
to simulate aging in the first 5 to 10 years of the pavements service life. The binder test
conducted to determine the rheological properties of the RAP mixtures included the
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) and Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR).
The DSR was used to characterize the viscous and elastic behavior of the blended
binders containing RAP. The DSR test measures the high and intermediate temperature
36
complex modulus (G*) and phase angle () in accordance with AASHTO TP5-98 to
determine its resistance to rutting and fatigue cracking. The rutting parameter, G*/sin ,
which represents the high temperature performance grade was determined on the un-aged
mixtures as well as RTFO aged residue. The fatigue parameter, G*sin , which
represents the blended asphalt at intermediate temperatures was measured using PAV
aged binder.
The (BBR) was used to characterize the low temperature creep stiffness of the
blended asphalt mixtures containing RAP. To evaluate the low temperature performance
grade, PAV aged binder was placed in the BBR to measure the low-temperature creep
stiffness and creep rate. BBR specimens were tested in accordance with AASHTO TP198 for the mixtures studied.
37
3.0 Discussion of Results

The results of the laboratory fatigue testing for (1) indirect tensile strength (2)
semi-circular bending and (3) flexural beam fatigue tests are discussed in this chapter.
Data was taken from the test matrix discussed in Chapter 1 for both types of aggregates,
two types of binder and varying amounts of RAP ranging from 0 to 30 percent.
3.1 Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results

Table 6 summarizes the results from IDT testing for limestone mixtures.
Indirect tensile strength (ITS) was evaluated for both types of binder with the inclusion of
RAP. Mixtures subject to long-term aging had higher tensile strengths, lower strain at
peak load and lower toughness indices than un-aged mixtures. As shown in Figure 15,
the addition of screened RAP increased the tensile strength but significantly changed the
post failure characteristics for un-aged and long-term aged mixtures. As expected,
mixtures containing polymer modified asphalt PG 76-22 had higher tensile strengths and
similar post failure characteristics when compared to non-modified mixtures (PG 64-22).
Table 6. IDT Results, Limestone Mixtures

PG 64-22
% RAP
UA
Control
10
20
30
198
202
226
261
PG 76-22
% RAP
UA
Indirect Tensile
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
3.6
1.4
0.6
6.5
Strength, psi.
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
216
4.7
243
4.6
261
4.8
304
1.9
Indirect Tensile
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
2.0
4.3
2.5
4.2
Strength, psi.
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
270
3.6
284
2.3
318
1.9
332
3.0
234
Control
249
10
278
20
299
30
UA - un-aged
LT-A - long-term aged
UA
0.0036
0.0034
0.0031
0.0029
UA
0.0037
0.0037
0.0032
0.0028
Strain at Failure, in./in.

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
8.9
0.0027
10.9
8.9
0.0030
14.3
0.4
0.0028
10.9
6.9
0.0024
6.9
Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
9.9
0.0029
4.3
4.8
0.0030
8.9
9.9
0.0027
8.1
9.7
0.0026
4.9
38
UA
0.612
0.574
0.469
0.469
UA
0.670
0.571
0.482
0.460
Toughness Index
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
7.0
0.481
6.9
0.464
3.4
0.430
4.4
0.399
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
19.4
2.8
9.9
7.3
Toughness Index
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
5.9
0.537
6.3
0.473
11.8
0.399
6.7
0.370
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
3.8
1.2
5.8
15.3
Indirect Tensile Strength (psi): PG 76-22

400.00
400.00
350.00
350.00
300.00
300.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
long-term aged
Diametric Strain at Peak Load (%): PG 76-22

0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.25
0.20
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
Indirect Tensile Toughness Index: PG 76-22

0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.50
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.40
0.30
long-term aged
0.50
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
Indirect Tensile Strength (psi): Unaged Mixtures
Indirect Tensile Strength (psi): Long-term aged Mixtures
400.00
400.00
350.00
350.00
300.00
300.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
long-term aged
0.00
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
Figure 15. IDT Test Results, Limestone Mixtures.
39
PG 76-22
Table 7 presents the differences in IDT characteristics for both binder types in
addition to un-aged and long-term aged mixtures containing RAP. For both binder types,
mixtures containing 0 to 10 percent RAP displayed little difference between ITS,
diametric strain and post failure tenacity for un-aged and long-term aged mixtures.
However the addition of RAP at higher percentages (20-30 percent) resulted in
significant differences in tensile strength and post failure characteristics when compared
to the control mixture, Figure 16. This indicates increasing the percentage of RAP
significantly increases the tensile strength, lowers the strain at failure and lowers
toughness indices. At higher RAP percentages the change in IDT properties for PG 6422 had significantly different effects than those with PG 76-22. This affect is most
notable for PG 64-22 mixtures with high RAP contents subject to long-term aging.
Mixtures with PG 64-22 type binder gained significantly higher strengths after long-term
aging but saw little differences in strain at failure and toughness indices when compared
to long-term aged PG 76-22 mixtures. Conversely post peak characteristics, from both
types of binder, such as toughness indices were most notable for un-aged mixtures. The
reason for this phenomenon is believed to be mainly influenced by the aged binder
blending with the virgin binder resulting in a stiffer mixture.
Table 8 summarizes the results from IDT testing for gravel mixtures. Indirect
tensile strength was evaluated for both types of binder with the inclusion of RAP. To
evaluate the affects of moisture damage in addition to long-term aging, half the
specimens were subject to one freeze thaw cycle. The addition of screened RAP
increased the tensile strength when compared to control mixtures.
40
Table 7. Percent Change of IDT Properties, Limestone Mixtures

Indirect Tensile Strength
Strain at Failure
Toughness Index
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
%RAP
UA
LT-A
UA
LT-A
UA
LT-A
UA
LT-A
UA
LT-A
UA
LT-A
10
2
11
6
5
-6
10
0
3
-7
-4
-17
-14
20
12
17
16
15
-16
4
-16
-7
-30
-12
-39
-35
30
24
29
22
19
-24
-13
-32
-12
-30
-21
-46
-45
Note: The values in the Table indicated the increase or decrease of properties relative to the control mix (0% RAP)
%IDT
Change in IDT relative to Control (0% RAP): Long-term aged Mixtures
Change in IDT relative to Control (0% RAP): Unaged Mixtures
35.00
30.00
30.00
25.00
25.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15.00
% Change
10.00
20.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
PG 64-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
0.00
1
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
-5.00
-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
-25.00
-30.00
% Change
-15.00
% Change
PG 76-22
Change in TI relative to Control (0% RAP): Long-term aged Mixtures
Change in TI relative to Control (0% RAP): Unaged Mixtures

0.00
-10.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15.00
% Change
20.00
-20.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
-25.00
-30.00
-35.00
-35.00
-40.00
-40.00
-45.00
-45.00
-50.00
-50.00
PG 64-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 76-22
Figure 16. Percent Change in IDT Properties, Limestone Mixtures.
41
Table 8. IDT Results, Gravel Mixtures

PG 64-22
% RAP
LT-A
Control
10
20
30
206
226
263
291
Indirect Tensile Strength, psi.

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
8
201
13.7
8.1
222
1.2
2.7
252
7.6
1.8
272
1.3
LT-A
0.0025
0.0024
0.0022
0.0022
PG 76-22
Indirect Tensile Strength, psi.

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
233
3.2
229
4.3
Control
260
3.1
250
5.4
10
272
4.6
272
2.3
20
307
3.9
295
3.0
30
LT-A FT - long-term aged Freeze Thaw
% RAP
LT-A
LT-A
0.0026
0.0025
0.0025
0.0024

Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
2.9
0.0027
9.8
0.0025
2.4
0.0023
7.9
0.0020
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
3.9
9.7
4.2
5.2

Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
6.0
0.0028
3.1
0.0028
1.6
0.0026
3.7
0.0025
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
5.2
4.1
3
5.1
LT-A
0.503
0.433
0.425
0.411
LT-A
0.491
0.484
0.469
0.446
Toughness Index
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
0.8
0.487
17.3
0.418
7.9
0.403
6.8
0.392
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
6.1
12.0
22.2
15.0
Toughness Index
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
8.7
0.503
5.5
0.461
3
0.437
0.8
0.420
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
2.6
4.5
5.5
5.9
However, with the addition of screened RAP (Figure 17), there was no significant
difference in post failure characteristics for long-term aged and long-term aged freeze
thaw mixtures. As expected, mixtures containing polymer modified asphalt PG 76-22
had higher tensile strengths when compared to non-modified PG 64-22 asphalt.
Table 9 presents the differences in IDT characteristics for both binder types in
addition to long-term aging and long-term aged freeze thaw mixtures containing RAP.
As expected mixtures subject to one freeze thaw cycle had lower ITS when compared to
long-term aged mixtures. Post failure characteristics for both types of conditioning with
the inclusion of RAP had no significant difference when comparing to the control
mixture. For both binder types and both types of conditioning, the addition of RAP
resulted in no significant differences in IDT properties, Figure 18.
42
400.00
400.00
350.00
350.00
300.00
300.00
250.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
long-term aged
long-term aged
long-term aged FT
long-term aged FT
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.25
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.25
0.00
long-term aged
long-term aged FT
long-term aged
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.50
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.40
0.30
long-term aged FT
0.50
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
0.40
0.00
long-term aged
long-term aged FT
long-term aged
Indirect Tensile Strength (psi): Long-term aged Mixtures
Indirect Tensile Strength (psi): Long-term aged FT Mixtures
400.00
400.00
350.00
350.00
300.00
300.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
250.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
long-term aged FT
0.00
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
Figure 17. IDT Test Results, Gravel Mixtures.

43
PG 76-22
Table 9. Percent Change of IDT Properties, Gravel Mixtures.

Indirect Tensile Strength
Strain at Failure
Toughness Index
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
%RAP
LT-A
LT-A FT
LT-A
LT-A FT
LT-A
LT-A FT
LT-A
LT-A FT
LT-A
LT-A FT
LT-A
LT-A FT
10
9
10
10
8
-4
-8
-4
0
-16
-17
-1
-9
20
20
20
14
16
-14
-17
-4
-8
-18
-21
-5
-15
30
26
26
24
22
-14
-35
-8
-12
-22
-24
-10
-20
Note: The values in the Table indicated the increase or decrease of properties relative to the control mix (0% RAP)
LT-A FT - long-term aged Freeze Thaw
%IDT
Change in IDT relative to Control (0% RAP): Long-term aged Mixtures
Change in IDT relative to Control (0% RAP): Long-term aged FT Mixtures
50.00
50.00
45.00
45.00
40.00
40.00
35.00
35.00
30.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
25.00
20.00
30.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 64-22
Change in TI relative to Control (0% RAP): Long-term aged Mixtures
PG 76-22
Change in TI relative to Control (0% RAP): Long-term aged FT Mixtures
0.00
-5.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
25.00
0.00
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
-5.00
-10.00
-10.00
-15.00
-15.00
-20.00
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
-20.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
-25.00
-30.00
-30.00
-35.00
-35.00
-40.00
-40.00
-45.00
-45.00
-50.00
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
-25.00
-50.00
PG 64-22
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
PG 76-22
Figure 18. Percent Change in IDT Properties, Gravel Mixtures.
44
3.2 Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) Test Results

3.2.1 SCB Frequency Sweep Test
Figure 19 represents typical curves of composite modulus and phase angles versus
frequencies for the materials used in this study. SCB Composite modulus increased with
increasing frequency while phase angle decreased with frequency. This trend was typical
for mixtures containing RAP.
An increase in composite modulus was more significant for un-aged mixtures. As

shown in Figure 20, mixtures subject to long-term aging had significantly higher
composite modulus than un-aged mixtures. For un-aged mixtures the inclusion of 10
percent RAP significantly increased the composite modulus. Mixtures subject to longterm aging had little increase in composite modulus; however the inclusion of 30 percent
RAP significantly stiffened the mixture. An increase in stiffness led to a decrease in
phase angle. Figure 20 illustrates that mixtures subject to long-term aging had a lower
phase angle when compared to un-aged mixtures. Similarly, the addition of RAP reduced
the phase angle at higher RAP percentages. This trend indicates that with the inclusion of
RAP and long-term aging, mixtures become more elastic and viscous.
3.2.2 SCB Tensile Strength Test

Table 10 presents the results from the SCB tensile strength test. Similar to the
traditional indirect tensile strength test, semi-circular samples were loaded monotonically
at a loading rate of 2 in./min.. This test was used principally for SCB fatigue testing. By
statically loading the specimens, ultimate strength for each mixture was obtained.
45
SCB Frequency Sweep Composite Modulus
Phase Angle in SCB Frequency Sweep Test
1600000
70
1400000
60
Phase Angle (deg)
1200000
E* (psi)
1000000
800000
600000
400000
50
40
30
20
10
200000
0
0.01
0.1
0
0.01
10
0.1
Frequency (Hz)
10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 19. SCB Frequency Sweep Test.
SCB Phase Angle at 0.01 Hz: PG 64-22
SCB Composite Modulus at 0.01 Hz: PG 64-22
90
350000
80
300000
250000
60
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
50
40
E* (psi)
Phase Angle (deg)
70
30
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200000
150000
100000
20
50000
10
0
unaged
long-term aged
unaged
SCB Phase Angle at 0.01 Hz: PG 76-22
SCB Composite Modulus at 0.01 Hz: PG 76-22
70
350000
60
300000
250000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
40
30
E* (Psi)
50
Phase Angle (deg)
long-term aged
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
200000
150000
20
100000
10
50000
0
unaged
long-term aged
unaged
long-term aged
Figure 20. SCB Composite Modulus and Phase Angle.
46
Table 10. SCB Tensile Strength Test Results.

PG 64-22
% RAP
UA
Control
10
20
30
2125
2416
2741
2991
PG 76-22
% RAP
UA
2265
Control
2622
10
2742
20
3228
30
UA - un-aged
Load at Failure
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
7.5
2624
0.9
2740
9.4
2861
2.7
3434
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
5.1
5
10.2
7.6
Load at Failure
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
0.3
2664
0.5
3018
3.9
2935
3.4
3639
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
2.1
1.5
5.9
5.5
As shown in Figure 21 the inclusion of RAP increased the fatigue resistance for
both un-aged and long-term aged mixtures. Mixtures subject to long-term aging had
higher strengths than un-aged mixtures. For PG 64-22 mixtures, the addition of 20 to 30
percent RAP significantly increased the performance for un-aged mixtures. There was
little difference in strength between 0 to 10 percent RAP. However, mixtures containing
30 percent RAP were significantly stiffer than the control mix. As expected mixtures
containing PG 76-22 binder had higher strengths than mixtures containing PG 64-22
binder. Table 11 represents the change in SCB properties relative to 0 percent RAP.
3.2.3 SCB Fatigue Test

Figure 22 presents the results of the SCB fatigue test. Load levels were based on
a fraction of the ultimate strength from the SCB tensile strength test. Load levels ranging
47
Semi-Circular Bending Strength: PG 64-22

Semi-Circular Bending Strength: PG 76-22
4000
4000
3500
3500
2500
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
2000
1500
1000
Ultimate Strength, lbs.
Ultimate Strength, lbs.
3000
3000
2500
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
20% RAP
2000
1500
1000
500
500
0
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
Figure 21. SCB Tensile Strength Test Results.
Table 11. Percent Change in SCB Strength

Load at Failure
PG 64-22
PG 76-22
%RAP
UA
LT-A
UA
LT-A
10
12
4
14
12
20
22
8
17
9
30
29
24
30
27
Note: The values in the Table indicated the increase or
decrease of properties relative to the control mix (0% RAP)
%SCB
48
long-term aged
SCB Fatigue, Un-Aged PG 64-22
4000
4000
0% RAP
3500
20% RAP
3000
10% RAP
20% RAP
3000
30% RAP
2500
30% RAP
2500
Load
Load
0% RAP
3500
10% RAP
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10
100
Cycles, Nf
1000
10000
100000
Cycles, Nf
SCB Fatigue, Long-term Aged PG 64-22

4000
4000
0% RAP
3500
0% RAP
10% RAP
3500
20% RAP
3000
20% RAP
3000
30% RAP
30% RAP
2500
2500
2000
Load
Load
10% RAP
1500
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10
100
Cycles, Nf
1000
10000
100000
Cycles, Nf
Figure 22. SCB Fatigue Test Results.
from 15 to 35 percent of the ultimate SCB tensile strength were applied at a frequency of
5 Hz to evaluate the fatigue characteristics of mixtures containing RAP. Typically
fatigue data is plotted on log-log scale (Figure 23). For this study semi-log scale was
used to graphically illustrate how the inclusion of RAP stiffened the mixture when
compared to the control mixture. The effects of RAP were more noticeable and followed
similar trends as the previous test when plotted on semi-log scale. Additionally the slope
of the fatigue line plotted on the semi-log scale had slightly higher R2 values than log-log
R2 values for the same data.
49

100000
100000
0% RAP
0% RAP
10000
10000
10% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
-0.2081
y = 2345.4x
R2 = 0.9524
100
30% RAP
1000
Load
Load
1000
-0.1747
y = 2328.9x
2
R = 0.9781
100
-0.1927
y = 2670.3x
2
R = 0.958
-0.1664
y = 2688.4x
2
R = 0.9544
-0.1883
y = 2990.5x
2
R = 0.9666
10
-0.1612
y = 2817.2x
2
R = 0.9687
10
y = 3149.2x-0.1697
2
R = 0.9644
-0.1626
y = 3302.9x
2
R = 0.9634
10
100
1000
10000
100000 1000000
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Cycles, Nf
Cycles, Nf

100000
100000
0% RAP
0% RAP
10000
10000
10% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
y = 2772.4x-0.1843
R2 = 0.9602
100
30% RAP
1000
Load
Load
1000
-0.1626
y = 2729.5x
2
R = 0.9433
100
y = 2881.5x-0.1811
R2 = 0.9673
-0.16
y = 3102.8x
R2 = 0.9622
-0.1735
y = 3008.4x
R2 = 0.9608
10
-0.1531
y = 3014.8x
R2 = 0.9691
10
y = 3624.2x-0.1787
R2 = 0.9548
y = 3738.2x-0.1641
2
R = 0.9763
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Cycles, Nf
Cycles, Nf
Figure 23. SCB Fatigue Test Log-Log Scale.
Mixtures subject to long-term aging generally had higher fatigue lives when
compared to un-aged mixes. In addition to long-term aging the inclusion of RAP also
increased the fatigue life for the mixtures used in this study. Increasing the percentage of
RAP resulted in a higher fatigue life when compared to the control mixture at load levels
greater than 500 lbs. However, at lower stress levels below 500 lbs. the fatigue life of
mixtures containing 30 percent RAP had a lower fatigue life. This indicates that smaller
load levels, similar to highway conditions, would generally reduce the fatigue life of
mixtures containing 30 percent RAP.
Long-term aging significantly changed the mixtures resistance to fatigue cracking

for both binder types. As noted in Table 12 and Figure 24, 30 percent RAP would result
50
Table 12. Comparison of Fatigue Life Relative to Slope

PG 64-22
% RAP
Slope
R2
0
180
0.9872
10
197
0.9884
un-aged
20
216
0.9764
30
238
0.9958
0
217
0.9985
long-term
10
236
0.9969
20
237
0.9984
aged
30
294
0.9993
Note: % indicates the percent change in slope relative
to the control mix (0% RAP).
%
2
10
18
6
7
25
PG 76-22
% RAP
Slope
R2
0
208
0.9994
10
231
0.9999
un-aged
20
233
1.0000
30
278
0.9997
0
231
0.9955
long-term
10
256
0.9995
20
237
1.0000
aged
30
315
0.9995
Note: % indicates the percent change in slope relative
to the control mix (0% RAP).
SCB Fatigue: PG 76-22
SCB Fatigue: PG 64-22

30
30
25
25
20
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15
% Change
% Change
20
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15
10
10
0
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
long-term aged
SCB Fatigue: Long-term Aged MIxtures
SCB Fatigue: Unaged Mixtures

30
30
25
25
20
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15
% Change
20
% Change
%
10
11
26
10
3
27
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15
10
10
0
PG 64-22
unaged
PG 76-22
long-term aged
Figure 24. Change in SCB Fatigue Slope Relative to 0% RAP.
51
in higher slopes and lower fatigue life. Un-aged mixtures had no significant difference in
fatigue life up to 20 percent RAP for PG 64-22 mixtures. Mixtures containing PG 76-22
binder had higher fatigue resistance than those with PG 64-22 binder. There was little
difference in fatigue life for both un-aged and long-term aged mixtures with the inclusion
of 20 percent RAP.
The total dissipated energy to failure increased with long-term aging and the
inclusion of RAP, Figure 25. A load level of the same magnitude was applied to each
mixture to evaluate the correlation of fatigue life and dissipated energy by increasing the
percent RAP in the mix. Mixtures containing 20 percent RAP indicated a significant
increase in dissipated energy for un-aged mixtures. Long-term aged mixture increased
linearly up to 20 percent RAP and no significant difference was noticeable when
compared to 30 percent RAP. This also indicates that the inclusion of RAP and longterm aging increased the fatigue life when compared to the control mixture (0% RAP).
Total Dissipated Energy to Failure

700
Dissipated Energy (psi)
600
500
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
400
300
200
100
0
unaged
long-term aged
Figure 25. SCB Fatigue Dissipated Energy.

52
3.2.4 SCB Notched Fracture Resistance Test

Figure 26 presents the results from the SCB notched fracture test for limestone
mixtures. Fracture energy was evaluated for both types of binder with the inclusion of
RAP. Similar to IDT and SCB IDT, notched specimens were subject to a 0.02 in./min.
monotonic load. Notch depths of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 inches were used to evaluate the
fracture resistance for the mixtures used. The higher the J-integral for a mixture during a
semi-circular notched test, the stronger the fracture resistance.
Figure 27 represents the calculated J-integral for each mixture. The inclusion of
RAP and long-term aging exhibited higher J-integral values than mixtures without RAP.
Notched Fracture Energy, Unaged Mixes: PG 76-22

30.000
25.000
25.000
20.000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15.000
10.000
Notched Fracture Energy, Unaged Mixes: PG 64-22

30.000
5.000
20.000
0% Aged
10% Aged
20% Aged
30% Aged
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.5
1.5
0.5
Notch Depth, (in.)
1.5
Notch Depth, (in.)
Notched Fracture Energy, Aged Mixes: PG 76-22

Notched Fracture Energy, Long-term Aged Mixes: PG 64-22
30.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
0% Aged
10% Aged
20% Aged
30% Aged
15.000
10.000
25.000
20.000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
15.000
10.000
5.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.5
1.5
0.5
1
Notch Depth, (in.)
Notch Depth, (in.)
Figure 26. SCB Notched Fracture Energy.

53
1.5
J-Integral from SCB Notched Fracture Test: PG 76-22
J-Integral from SCB Notched Fracture Test: PG 64-22
25
25
20
20
Jc, psi.
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
10
15
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
Jc, psi.
15
10
0
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
long-term aged
Figure 27. J-Integral from Semi-Circular Notched Fracture Test.
As expected, mixtures containing PG 76-22 asphalt binder resulted in higher Jintegral values when compared to non-modified PG 64-22 asphalt. Long-term aging was
more notable for PG 64-22 mixtures than PG 76-22 mixtures.
When comparing the effects of long-term aging for both binder types, PG 64-22
had higher strength gains when compared to the strength gains for mixtures with PG 7622. J-integral for PG 76-22 mixtures with the inclusion of RAP resulted in no significant
difference when compared to un-aged mixtures.
Increasing the percentage of RAP generally increased the mixtures stiffness and
resistance to cracking. For un-aged PG 64-22 mixtures, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP
resulted in much higher J-integral than mixtures containing 0 to 20 percent RAP. For
laboratory long-term aged mixtures, J-integral increased more linearly when compared to
un-aged mixtures.
54
Un-aged PG 76-22 mixtures resulted in no significant difference up to 20 percent

RAP. However, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP significantly increased the fracture
resistance when compared to mixtures without RAP. Long-term aged PG 76-22 mixtures
had similar J-integral values when compared to un-aged mixtures. An inclusion of 30
percent RAP significantly increased the fracture resistance for PG 76-22 mixtures with no
significant change in fracture resistance for mixtures containing up to 20 percent RAP.
Three notch depths were used in this study to determine J-integral. The addition
of RAP resulted in a higher Jc when compared to mixtures without RAP. Higher Jintegral values accounts for the mixtures capability to absorb strain energy prior to
failure. Similar to ITS testing, the addition of screened RAP increased the tensile
strengths and lost some post failure tenacity resulting in higher J-integral values. This
indicates that the addition of RAP stiffened the mixture into a more elastic material that is
capable of absorbing more strain energy before tensile failure occurs. As failure
propagates, mixtures with high percentages of RAP will fail faster because of the reduced
post failure tenacity.
3.3 Flexural Beam Fatigue Test Results

Table 13 presents the results from the flexural beam fatigue test for limestone
mixtures. Flexural beam fatigue testing was evaluated on both types of binder with the
inclusion of RAP, Figure 28. A constant sinusoidal strain of 600 micro-strain was
applied to the neutral axis of the beam until the initial flexural stiffness was reduced by
50 percent.
55
Table 13. Beam Fatigue Test Results, Limestone Mixtures

PG 64-22
% RAP
UA
Control
10
20
30
15299
13840
25263
85641
PG 76-22
% RAP
UA
224022
Control
84224
10
28286
20
145680
30
UA - un-aged
Cycles to failure
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
49.0
13058
58.0
51185
22.0
48735
27.0
74233
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
23.0
33.0
66.0
57.0
Cycles to failure
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
33.5
131190
21.9
199974
33.4
53029
67.9
242768
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
94.9
17.4
33.4
40.8
UA
315000
401666
576667
700000
UA
560000
546667
495000
656666
Initial Stiffness, psi.

Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
2.0
445000
17.0
580000
19.0
640000
10.0
690000
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
11.0
5.0
9.0
10.0
Cumm. Dissipated Energy, psi.

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
2414
48
2186
21.0
2711
63
10176
37.0
5121
16
9645
70.0
18039
25
14777
62.0
Initial Stiffness
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
20.1
480000
18.5
560000
10.0
505000
3.2
733333
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
8.8
9.5
21.0
6.2

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
39306
26.38
20755
92.6
15960
23.31
33292
20.4
4334
40.99
7666
41.8
26032
67.74
40094
39.3
UA
UA
Number of Cycles to Failure: PG 76-22
300,000
90,000
80,000
250,000
70,000
200,000
Cycles, Nf
Cycles, Nf
60,000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
50,000
40,000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
150,000
100,000
30,000
20,000
50,000
10,000
0
unaged
unaged
long-term aged
Cumulative Dissipated Energy: PG 76-22
20,000
45,000.00
18,000
40,000.00
16,000
14,000
12,000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
Dissipated Energy (in-lbf/in3)
Dissipated Energy (in-lb/in3)
long-term aged
35,000.00
30,000.00
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
25,000.00
20,000.00
15,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
2,000
0
0.00
unaged
long-term aged
unaged
long-term aged
Figure 28. Beam Fatigue Summary, Limestone Mixtures.
56
Generally, the inclusion of RAP and laboratory long-term aging significantly

increased the fatigue life for PG 64-22 mixtures. In addition to the increase in fatigue
life, the cumulative dissipated energy also increased with the inclusion of RAP and longterm aging. For un-aged PG 64-22 mixtures, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP
significantly increased the fatigue life when compared to mixtures with less than 20
percent RAP. Fatigue life for long-term aged PG 64-22 mixtures significantly increased
with the inclusion of 10 percent RAP. Figure 29 represents stiffness vs. cycles for the
mixtures studied. The inclusion of RAP increased the mixtures stiffness and increased
the fatigue life when compared to mixtures without RAP.
Flexural Stiffness vs. Cycles, unaged mixtures: PG 64-22
Flexural Stiffness vs. Cycles, unaged mixtures: PG 76-22
700000
800000
600000
700000
600000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
400000
300000
Stiffness, psi
Stiffness, psi
500000
200000
500000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
400000
300000
200000
100000
100000
0
100
1000
10000
100000
0
100
1000000
1000
Cycles, No
Flexural Stiffness vs. Cycles, long-term aged mixtures: PG 64-22
100000
1000000
Flexural Stiffness vs. Cycles, long-term aged mixtures: PG 76-22
700000
800000
600000
700000
500000
600000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
400000
300000
200000
Stiffness, psi
Stiffness, psi
10000
Cycles, No
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
100000
0
100
1000
10000
100000
0
100
1000000
Cycles, No
1000
10000
Cycles, No
100000
1000000
Figure 29. Flexural Stiffness vs. Loading Cycles, Limestone Mixtures.

57
Fatigue life for PG 76-22 mixtures had noticeably different trends than PG 64-22
mixtures. The inclusion of 10 and 20 percent reduced the fatigue life for un-aged PG 7622 mixtures when compared to mixtures without RAP. Long-term aged PG 76-22
mixtures increased in fatigue life with the inclusion of 10 percent RAP, decreased with
20 percent RAP and significantly increased with the inclusion of 30 percent RAP.
Flexural stiffness generally increased with the inclusion of RAP for long-term aged
mixtures. However, un-aged PG 76-22 control mixture resulted in higher flexural
stiffness than mixtures with 10 and 20 percent RAP.
As expected mixtures with PG 76-22 asphalt had a longer fatigue life when
compared to PG 64-22 mixtures. However, PG 76-22 mixtures were found to have
similar trends to the other laboratory fatigue tests.
Table 14 and Figure 30, represents the results from the flexural beam fatigue test
for gravel mixtures. Flexural beam fatigue testing was evaluated on both types of binder
with the inclusion of RAP. To evaluate the affects of moisture damage, half the gravel
beams were subject to one freeze thaw cycle in addition to long-term aging in a forced
draft oven.
Long-term aged PG 76-22 mixtures with the inclusion of 10 and 20 percent RAP
resulted in no significant difference when compared to the control mixture. The addition
of 30 percent RAP significantly stiffened the mixture resulting in a higher fatigue life.
58
Table 14. Beam Fatigue Test Results, Gravel Mixtures

PG 64-22
% RAP
LTA
Control
10
20
30
17826
15673
46933
52151
PG 76-22
% RAP
LTA
Cycles to failure
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
39
4990
53
15029
36
11491
59
35787
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
23
19
30
10
Cycles to failure
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
44.0
65963
24.0
70104
21.0
65576
27.7
55712
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
1.0
53.0
92.0
74.0
91950
Control
80423
10
87376
20
250764
30
LTA - long-term aged
LT-A FT - long-term aged freeze thaw
LTA
603333
600000
670000
680000
LTA
613333
630000
633333
695000

Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
10.1
536667
8.6
533333
15.1
573333
12.8
650000
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
8
14.1
9.6
8.6

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
4009
41
1080
25.0
3323
57.2
3274
14.0
10689
43.6
2176
30.7
9583
53.6
6954
16.5

Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
11.0
520000
5.7
596666
10.7
543333
13.2
613333
Coef. Of
Var. (%)
8
10.9
12.2
11.1

Coef. Of
Coef. Of
LT-A FT
Var. (%)
Var. (%)
19307
58
12787
9.0
17891
24.7
15010
56.6
15372
35.5
13464
97.3
39659
10.8
11426
82.2
180,000
80,000
160,000
70,000
140,000
60,000
120,000
50,000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
40,000
30,000
Cycles, Nf
Cycles, Nf
LTA
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
100,000
80,000
60,000
20,000
40,000
10,000
20,000
0
0
long-term aged
long-term aged
long-term aged FT
50,000
18,000
45,000
16,000
40,000
20,000
14,000
12,000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
10,000
8,000
long-term aged FT
LTA
6,000
4,000
35,000
30,000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2,000
0
long-term aged
long-term aged
long-term aged FT
long-term aged FT
Figure 30. Beam Fatigue Summary, Gravel Mixtures.
59
No significant difference was notable for PG 76-22 mixtures subject to one freeze
thaw cycle with the inclusion of RAP. As expected, mixtures with PG 76-22 had higher
fatigue life when compared to PG 64-22 mixtures.
Figure 31 represents stiffness vs. loading cycles for both binder types. The
inclusion of RAP increased the mixtures stiffness for both long-term aged and long-term
aged freeze thaw mixtures. However, after one freeze thaw cycle, the mixtures studied
resulted in lower stiffness and fatigue life when compared to long-term aged mixtures.
Flexural Stiffness vs. Load Cycles, Long-term aged: PG 76-22
Flexural Stiffness vs. Load Cycles, Long-term Aged: PG 64-22
900000
900000
800000
800000
700000
600000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
500000
400000
Stiffness, psi.
Stiffness, psi.
700000
600000
400000
300000
300000
200000
200000
100000
100000
0
100
1000
10000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
500000
0
100
100000
1000
Flexural Stiffness vs. Load Cycles, Long-term Aged FT: PG 64-22
1000000
900000
800000
800000
700000
700000
600000
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
500000
400000
Stiffness, psi.
Stiffness, psi.
100000
Flexural Stiffness vs. Load Cycles, Long-term aged FT: PG 76-22
900000
300000
600000
400000
300000
200000
100000
100000
1000
10000
0
100
100000
Cycles, No
0% RAP
10% RAP
20% RAP
30% RAP
500000
200000
0
100
10000
Cycles, No
Cycles, No
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Cycles, No
Figure 31. Flexural Stiffness vs. Loading Cycles, Gravel Mixtures.
60
3.4 Asphalt Binder Testing Results

Table 15 presents the DSR results for Limestone PG 76-22 mixtures at high and
intermediate temperatures. Laboratory fatigue testing discussed in the previous sections
indicated that increasing the percentage of RAP in the mixture would notably increase the
mixtures stiffness and resistance to fatigue cracking for the mixtures studied.
To further understand the rheological properties of mixtures containing 10, 20 and

30 percent RAP, superpave binder testing was completed on the recovered binders. As
expected, increasing the percentage of RAP would notably increase G*/sin() at lower
temperatures and higher percentages of RAP, Figure 32. The superpave binder
specifications requires that original binder and RTFO aged binder satisfy a rutting factor,
G*/sin(), to be a minimum of 1.00 kPa and 2.20 kPa respectively. For each mixture,
original and RTFO aged binders met the minimum criteria for rutting resistance. This
indicates that increasing the percentage of RAP will increase the mixtures resistance to
rutting under repeated loading.
Table 15. DSR Test Results
61
DSR RTFO Binder: PG 76-22 Mixtures
DSR Original Binder: PG 76-22 Mixtures

8
20
18
16
14
G*/sin(), kPa
G*/sin(), kPa
6
T = 76C
4
3
T = 82C
12
10
T = 76C
8
6
T = 82C
T = 88C
1
T = 88C
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
15
% RAP
20
25
30
35
40
% RAP
DSR RTFO + PAV Binder: PG 76-22 Mixtures
10000
9000
8000
G*sin(), kPa
7000
T = 25C
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% RAP
Figure 32. DSR Test Results, Limestone PG 76-22.
Increasing the percentage of RAP will generally increase the mixtures stiffness.
Superpave binder specifications require that the fatigue factor, G*sin(), be a maximum
of 5000 kPa on RTFO and PAV aged binders. G*sin() increased with the inclusion of
RAP. The smaller the fatigue factor, G*sin(), the better the mixture resists to fatigue
cracking. For each mixture tested between 10 and 30 percent RAP, G*sin() did not
exceed 5000 kPa.
Figure 33 represents the results from BBR testing at -12C. BBR testing
indicated that increasing the percentage of RAP will increase the creep stiffness and
62
Creep Rate Trend: PG 76-22 Mixtures
500
0.5
450
0.45
400
0.4
350
0.35
300
T=-12C
250
200
Creep Rate
Creep Stiffness (MPa)
Creep Stiffness Trend: PG 76-22 Mixtures
0.3
T=-12C
0.25
0.2
0.15
150
100
0.1
50
0.05
0
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
20
30
40
% RAP
% RAP
Figure 33. BBR Test Results, Limestone PG 76-22.
decrease the logarithmic creep rate. Superpave binder specifications specify that the
binder stiffness be less than 300 MPa and a creep rate m-value be greater than 0.300.
For the mixture studied at -12C, the inclusion of 10, 20 and 30 percent RAP met the
specification for thermal cracking, however; the creep rate did not meet the specification
for m-value. This indicates that increasing the percentage of RAP will lower the low
temperature grade under superpave PG binder testing.
For the three different mixtures used for binder testing, the inclusion of RAP
typically increased the rheological properties of the blended asphalt binders. This
indicates that the inclusion of RAP significantly increases the mixtures stiffness and its
resistance to rutting and fatigue cracking. However, at low temperatures the potential of
thermal cracking is more likely with higher percentages of RAP. Further binder testing is
recommended to evaluate the effects on the rheological properties of mixtures containing
RAP.
63
3.5 Statistical Analysis of Laboratory Test

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the variability for each
mixture with the inclusion of RAP and comparing each to a control mix (0 percent RAP)
to understand the relative importance of each mixture containing RAP. A simple
ANOVA analysis was performed at a 95% confidence interval for IDT, SCB IDT and
Beam fatigue test. Laboratory test results were used to compare the means of mixtures
containing 0, 10, 20 and 30 percent RAP. The population means are represented as
1=0% RAP, 2=10% RAP, 3=20% RAP and 4=30% RAP. The hypothesis tested was:
Ho: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
H1: at least one differs
For each mixture tested the null hypothesis indicates that the inclusion of RAP
will not significantly affect the fatigue characteristics when compared to the control
mixture (0% RAP). The hypothesis is rejected if the inclusion of RAP significantly
increases the fatigue resistance of any one mixture containing RAP.
The analysis compares the means for each mixture and compares to the control
mixture for significance with p-value = 0.05. Each mixture is placed within a column of
homogenous subsets which represents no significant difference for the mixture within the
subset and significant difference for difference subsets.
64
Figure 34 represents an ANOVA analysis for PG 64-22 and PG 76-22 limestone

IDT test results. For both un-aged and long-term aged PG 64-22 mixtures the inclusion
of RAP resulted in no significant difference between 0 and 10 percent RAP. However,
the inclusion of 20 and 30 percent RAP significantly changed the indirect tensile strength
(ITS) properties for limestone PG 64-22 mixtures.
For both un-aged and long-term aged PG 76-22 mixtures, the inclusion of 20
percent RAP significantly increases the ITS properties. There is no significant difference
between 0 and 10 percent RAP.
Figure 35 represents an ANOVA analysis for PG 64-22 and PG 76-22 gravel IDT
test. For long-term aged PG 64-22 mixtures the inclusion of 20 percent RAP
significantly increased the ITS properties for gravel mixtures. Long-term aged freeze
thaw mixtures increased linearly up to 30 percent RAP.
For long-term aged PG 76-22 mixtures, the inclusion of 10 percent RAP

significantly increased ITS properties when compared to the control mixtures. Long-term
aged freeze thaw PG 76-22 mixtures significantly increased in ITS properties with the
inclusion of 20 percent RAP when compared to the control mixture.
Figure 36 represents the ANOVA analysis for SCB testing. For un-aged PG 64
mixtures, the inclusion of 20 percent RAP significantly increased the fatigue resistance
65
Unaged PG 76-22
Un-aged PG 64-22
a
Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3
Subset for alpha = .05

1
2
3
198.00
201.33
201.33
225.33
260.33
.971
.058
1.000
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.
3
3
3
3
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 3.000.

Long-term Aged PG
Long-term Aged PG 64-22

Tukey HSD

1
2
234.41
248.57
278.29
298.60
.307
.102
76-22
Tukey HSD
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
216.33
242.73
242.73
260.83
.052
.209
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.
303.87
1.000
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
26 9.69
28 3.72
31 7.60
33 2.20
.231
.206
Mean s for groups in h omog eneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 3.00 0.

Figure 34. ANOVA Analysis, Limestone IDT Test.
Long-term A ged PG 64-22
Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD
% R AP Gravel
0
10
20
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3
Subset for a lpha = .05

1
2
20 6.00
22 5.97
26 2.63
29 1.43
.323
.108
% RAP Gravel
0
10
20
30
Sig.
3
3
3
3

1
2
3
232.91
259.87
272.40
306.88
1.000
.485
1.000

Mean s fo r gro ups in h omog eneo us sub sets a re displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mea n Samp le Size = 3.00 0.
Long-term Aged FT PG 64-22
Tukey HSD
% RAP Gravel
0
10
20
30
Sig.
Tukey HSD
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
3
200.80
222.33
222.33
251.83
251.83
272.40
.444
.216
.479
% RAP Gravel
0
10
20
30
Sig.

N
3
3
3
3

1
2
3
229.08
249.79
249.79
272.09
272.09
294.65
.127
.096
.092

Figure 35. ANOVA Analysis, Gravel IDT Test.

66
Un-aged PG 64-22
Unaged PG 76-22
Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
3
2125.33
2416.00
2416.00
2741.00
2741.00
2991.67
.187
.130
.282
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.

2
2
2
2


a
Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD
% RAP Limestone
0
10
20
30
Sig.

1
2
3
2265.50
2622.50
2742.00
3228.50
1.000
.487
1.000
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
2624.99
2740.96
2860.67
3434.67
.574
1.000
% RAP Limestone
0
20
10
30
Sig.
N
2
2
2
2

1
2
2664.00
2934.50
3018.50
3639.00
.181
1.000


Figure 36. ANOVA Analysis, Limestone SCB IDT Test.
for SCB test. For long-term aged PG 64-22 mixtures, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP
significantly increased the SCB properties when compared to the control mixture.
The inclusion of 10 percent RAP significantly increased the SCB fatigue

resistance for un-aged PG 76-22 mixtures. However, for long-term aged PG 76 mixtures,
the inclusion of 30 percent RAP significantly increased the SCB fatigue resistance when
compared to the control mixture.
Figure 37 represents an ANOVA analysis for limestone beam fatigue testing. The
ANOVA analysis compares cycles to failure for each fatigue test to the fatigue life of the
control mixture. For un-aged PG 64-22 mixtures, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP
67
Long-term A ged PG 64-22
Un-aged PG 64-22
Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD
% RAP Limestone
10
0
20
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
13840.00
15298.67
25264.33
85641.33
.715
1.000
% RAP Limesto ne
0
20
10
30
Sig.

3
3
3
3
Mean s fo r gro ups in h omog eneo us sub sets a re displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mea n Samp le Size = 3.00 0.
Unaged PG 76-22
a,b
Tukey HSD
a,b
Tukey HSD
% RAP Limestone
20
10
30
0
Sig.
Subset
for alp ha
= .05
1
13 057 .67
48 735 .33
51 185 .00
74 232 .67
.103
N
2
3
3
3
Subset
for alpha
= .05
1
28286.00
84224.67
145680.33
890422.00
.433
% RAP Limestone
20
0
10
30
Sig.
N
2
2
3
3
Subset
for alpha
= .05
1
53029.00
131190.00
199974.67
242768.00
.136


b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean

of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are
not guaranteed.

not guaranteed.
Figure 37. ANOVA Analysis, Limestone Beam Fatigue Test.
significantly increased the fatigue life when compared to the control mixture. No
significant difference is notable for long-term aged PG 64-22 mixtures. No significant
difference was noticed for PG 76-22 mixtures with the inclusion of RAP when compared
to the control mixture.
Figure 38 presents an ANOVA analysis for gravel beam fatigue testing. No

significant difference was noticeable for long-term aged PG 64-22 mixtures. For longterm aged freeze thaw mixtures, the inclusion of 20 percent RAP significantly increased
the fatigue life for PG 64-22 mixtures when compared to the control mixture.
68

Tukey HSD
a,b
% RAP Gravel
10
0
20
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3
Tukey HSD
Subset
for alpha
= .05
1
15672.67
17826.00
46932.67
52151.00
.148
% RAP Gravel
10
20
0
30
Sig.
3
3
3
2

1
2
80422.67
87375.67
91950.00
250764.50
.982
1.000

not guaranteed.

Tukey HSD
Tukey HSD
% RAP Gravel
0
20
10
30
Sig.
N
3
3
3
3

1
2
3
4990.00
11491.00
11491.00
15029.00
35787.33
.098
.488
1.000
% RAP Gravel
30
20
0
10
Sig.

N
3
3
3
3
Subset
for alpha
= .05
1
55777.33
65576.33
65922.67
70104.00
.972

Figure 38. ANOVA Analysis, Gravel Beam Fatigue Test.
The inclusion of 30 percent RAP significantly increased the fatigue life for longterm aged PG 76-22 mixtures. No significant difference was notable for long-term aged
freeze thaw PG 76-22 mixtures.
Statistical analysis indicates that the inclusion of RAP does influence the fatigue
characteristics for the mixtures studied. For each test considered for statistical analysis,
increasing the percentage of RAP will ultimately increase the mixtures resistance to
fatigue cracking. Based on the initial hypothesis that the means of each mixture were
equal:
Ho: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
69
H1: at least one differs
After evaluating the laboratory test through analysis of variance at the 95%
confidence interval, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate is accepted and that
the inclusion of RAP will increase the fatigue life of the mixtures studied.
3.6 Test Variability

Based on the results from the laboratory fatigue test completed on the mixtures
containing RAP, the repeatability varied for each test. Two methods of compaction were
used during sample preparation for each test. All cylindrical samples were prepared
using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor and the rectangular specimens were compacted
using the Pavement Technology Vibratory Compactor.
Test completed indicated that the variability within each test method was low for
specimens compacted using the SGC and the variability increased for rectangular
specimens. Specimens prepared using the SGC were controlled by compacting to a
specified height and density that was easily repeated for each mixture and test. However,
for flexural beam fatigue testing the Vibratory Compactor was modified to compact
larger specimens which made it more difficult to be consistent with the proper density.
Data evaluated from each test indicated that the repeatability for cylindrical
specimens resulted in low coefficient of variations compared to the variations obtained
during flexural beam testing. IDT testing and SCB testing were easily repeated for each
70
test conducted. This indicates that the specimen quality was more repeatable for
cylindrical specimens resulting in better test results. Data from the flexural beam fatigue
test had more variability than any of the previous fatigue test completed. Test results
were more scattered during beam testing due to the difficulty in specimen preparation and
testing. A more precise method of compaction would be recommended for future beam
testing to reduce the variability. Table 16 illustrates a test comparison of the completed
test used to evaluate the fatigue characteristics of HMA mixtures containing RAP.
71
Table 16. Test Comparison

Type of Fatigue Test
Geometry
Load Type
Load Frequency
Repeatability
Advantages
Disadvantages
COV
Indirect Tensile Test (IDT)
4" Cylindrical
Static
2 in./min.
easy
test is easily
performed, obtain
tensile characteristics
material punches around

loading fixture
0-10%
SCB IDT
6" Semi-Circular
Static
2 in./min.
easy
test is easily
performed, obtain
tensile characteristics
specimen alignment
0-10%
SCB Fatigue
6" Semi-Circular
StressControlled
Dynamic
5 Hz
moderately easy
predict fatigue life at

different stress levels
Creep occurs
5-30%
SCB Notched IDT
6" Semi-Circular
Notched
Static
.02 in./min.
easy
evaluate the mixtures

stiffness through
fracture mechanics
specimen alignment, notches

are difficult to cut
0-25%
Flexural Beam Fatigue Test
15" x 2.5" x 2"

Rectangular
StrainControlled
Dynamic
600-700 micro-strain
Difficult
Stiffness is easily
obtained
Sample preperation is difficult,

data is very scattered
20-70%
72
4.0 Conclusions
A laboratory study has been conducted to evaluate the fatigue characteristics of
typical Tennessee surface mixtures containing RAP. Mixtures consisting of either
limestone or gravel meeting the TDOT D mix specification were considered for this
study. Fatigue crack characteristics were evaluated for mixtures containing 0, 10, 20 and
30 percent RAP and compared to the control mixture containing 0 percent RAP.
Laboratory testing completed on both un-aged and laboratory long-term aged mixtures
for both PG 64-22 and PG 76-22 mixtures containing RAP were presented and discussed.
The following conclusions can be summarized for the test conducted.
Laboratory mixture long-term aging and the inclusion of RAP influenced the
fatigue characteristics for the mixtures studied. Laboratory long-term aging had more
noticeable effects for PG 64-22 mixtures than PG 76-22 mixtures. This trend was typical
for each fatigue test completed.
The inclusion of RAP and laboratory long-term aging increased the ITS properties
for the limestone mixtures studied. The inclusion of RAP and long-term aging typically
increased the mixtures stiffness and resistance to fatigue cracking. However, as the
mixture increased in stiffness and tensile strength, the mixtures became more brittle
resulting in a loss in diametric strain and post failure tenacity with the inclusion of RAP
and laboratory long-term aging. Gravel mixtures subject to moisture induced damage
resulted in lower ITS properties than long-term aged gravel mixtures.
73
For both limestone and gravel IDT testing, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP
significantly changed the mixtures ITS properties. As expected, mixtures with PG 76-22
had higher strengths than PG 64-22 mixtures.
Laboratory long-term aging and the inclusion of RAP changed the mixtures
response under cyclic loading. The inclusion of RAP generally increased the mixtures
composite modulus. However, the inclusion of RAP decreased the phase angle between
peak load and peak deflection. This indicates that long-term aging and the inclusion of
RAP significantly stiffens the mixture into a more brittle material.
Laboratory long-term aging and the inclusion of RAP increased the SCB tensile
strength. The inclusion of RAP increased the mixtures stiffness and decreased the post
failure characteristics. Similar to IDT testing, SCB tensile strength testing followed the
same trend with the inclusion of RAP and long-term aging.
The inclusion of RAP and laboratory long-term aging increased the fatigue life in
the SCB fatigue test at stress levels above 20 percent of SCB tensile strength. However,
at lower stress levels, the inclusion of 30 percent RAP and long-term aging tended to
reduce the fatigue life of mixtures containing 30 percent RAP. This indicates that at
lower stress levels, similar to highway conditions, higher percentages of RAP would
potentially lower the fatigue life of mixtures containing RAP.
74
Laboratory long-term aging and the inclusion of RAP increased the mixtures
resistance to fracture failure in the SCB notched fracture test. Fracture energy and Jintegral values increased with the inclusion of RAP and long-term aging. The inclusion
of 30 percent RAP significantly increased the fracture resistance when compared to
control mixtures.
Beam fatigue testing indicated that the inclusion of RAP and laboratory long-term
aging generally increased the fatigue life. In addition to fatigue life, the flexural stiffness
increased with the inclusion of RAP and long-term aging. For limestone mixtures, an
increase in fatigue life was significant for PG 64-22 asphalt than the mixtures with PG
76-22 asphalt. Gravel mixtures subject to one freeze thaw cycle had a lower fatigue life
than long-term aged gravel mixtures. Mixtures with PG 76-22 asphalt performed better
than PG 64-22 mixtures. The inclusion of 30 percent RAP significantly increased the
fatigue properties for both aggregate mixtures used in the beam fatigue test.
Superpave binder testing completed on the extracted binder indicated that

laboratory long-term aging and the inclusion of RAP increased the rheological properties
of the blended mixture. DSR test indicated that the inclusion of up to 30 percent RAP
would satisfy both G*/sin() and G*sin(), the rutting and fatigue parameters for
performance graded asphalt binders. Both rutting and fatigue generally will not be a
problem for the mixtures studied up to 30 percent RAP. However, BBR testing indicated
that the low-temperature grade could possible drop by one performance grade for the
75
mixtures studied. Additional binder test are recommended to properly grade the blended
binders with the inclusion of RAP.
The results presented in this paper were completed on laboratory prepared

samples and the effects of fatigue life and mixture performance increased with the
inclusion of RAP for each test completed. Based on the results from each fatigue test, a
maximum of 20 percent screened RAP would be recommended for use in Tennessee
surface mixtures. Further field testing is recommended to validate the fatigue crack
resistance of field compacted to mixtures to laboratory compacted mixtures.
76
References
77
AASHTO T 164-01 Quantitative Extraction of Bitumen from Bituminous Paving

Mixtures, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, Part II, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 2003.
AASHTO T 166-00 Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using
Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens, Standard Specifications for Transportation
Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 2003.
AASHTO T 209-99 Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous
Paving Mixtures, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 2003.
AASHTO T 240-03 Effect of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling ThinFilm Oven Test), Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 2003.
AASHTO T 269-97 (1998) Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open
Bituminous Paving Mixtures, Standard Specifications for Transportation
AASHTO T 283-03 Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced
Damage, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, Part II, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 2003.
AASHTO T 308-01 Determining the Asphalt Binder Content of Hot-Mix Asphalt
(HMA) by the Ignition Method, Standard Specifications for Transportation
AASHTO T 312-03 Preparing and Determining the Density of the Hot-Mix Asphalt
(HMA) Specimens by Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor, Standard
Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and
Testing, Part II, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington D.C., 2003.
78
AASHTO T 313-03 Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using
the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR), Standard Specifications for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington D.C., 2003.
AASHTO T 315-02 Determining the Rheological Properties of Asphalt Binder Using a
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR), Standard Specifications for Transportation
AASHTO T 321-03 Determining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Hot-Mix Asphalt
(HMA) Subject to Repeated Flexural Bending, Standard Specifications for
Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part II,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington D.C., 2003.
Banasiak, D., States Plane off Excess in RAP Specs. Roads and Bridges, Vol. 34, No.
10, October 1996.
Bell, C.A., Summary Report on Aging of Asphalt-Aggregate Systems, Strategic
Highway Research Program, SHRP A-305, November 1989.
Benedetto, H. D., Soltani, A.A., Chaverot, P., Fatigue Damage for Bituminous Mixtures:
A Pertinent Approach Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologist, Vol. 65, 1996, pp 142-152.
Brock, J. D., Milling and Recycling, Technical Paper T-127, ASTEC, Chattanooga, TN.
Bronstein, M., J. B. Sousa. Computer Software ATS-testing system. SHRP Equipment
Inc., Walnut Creek, CA. 1987.
Choubane, B., Sholar, G.A., Musselman, J.A., Page, G.C., Long Term Performance
Evaluation of Asphalt-Rubber Surface Mixes. State Materials Office. Rep. No.
FL/DOT/SMO/98-431, November 1998.
Daniel, J.S., Lachance, A., Rheological Properties of Asphalt Mixtures Containing
Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP), Journal of the Transportation Research
Board (TRB), July 2003.
Finn, F. N., Factors Involved in the Design of Asphaltic Pavement Surfaces, HRB,
NCHRP Report 39, 1967.
79
Huang, B., Egan, B., Kingery, W.R., Zhang, Z., and Zuo, G., Laboratory Study of
Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtures Containing RAP, Journal of
the Transportation Research Board (TRB). January 2004.
Kandhal, P.S., Recycling of Asphalt Pavements An Overview Journal of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, Vol. 66, 1997, pp. 686-696.
Kandhal, P.S., Rao, S. S., Performance of Recycled Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures, NCAT
Report No. 95-1, May 1995.
Kennedy, T. W. and Hudson, W. R., Application of the Indirect Tensile Test to Stabilize
Materials, Highway Research Record 235, Highway Research Board,
Washington, D. C., 1968
Kennedy, T.W. and Anagnos, J.N., Procudures for the Static and Repeated Load Indirect
Tensile Tests. Research Record 183-14, Center for Transportation Research,
University of Texas at Austin.
Kennedy, T.W., Characterization of Asphalt Pavement Materials Using the Indirect
Tensile Test, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, Vol.
56, 1977.
Kim, Y. R., and Wen, W., Fracture Energy from Indirect Tension Testing, Journal of
the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, Vol. 71, 2002.
Kim, Y.R., Kim, N., and Khosla, N.P., 1992, "Effects of Aggregate Type and Gradation
on Fatigue and Permanent Deformation of Asphalt Concrete," Effects of
Aggregate and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt Mixture Performance, ASTM STP
1147, Richard Meininger, Editor, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp. 310-328.
LADOTD, Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD), Baton Rouge, LA,
2000, p. 220.
Majidzadeh, K., Kauffmann, E. M., and Saraf, C. L., Application of Fracture mechanics
in Analysis of Pavement Fatigue, Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologist, 1971.
Molenaar, A., Fracture Energy from Semi Circular Bending Test, Asphalt Paving
Technology, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 71,
2002, (In Press.)
Monismith, C. L., and Salam, Y. M., Distress Characteristics of Asphalt Concrete
Mixes, Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, 1973.
80
Myers, L.A., Roque, R., Evaluation of Top-Down Cracking in Thick Asphalt Pavements
and the Implications for Pavement Design. Transportation Research Circular,
Issue 503 pp 79-87, 2001.
Pais, J., Pereira, P. and Picado-Santos L., 2002, "Variability of Laboratory Fatigue Life of
Bituminous Mixtures Using Four Point Bending Test Results," International
Journal of Pavement, Vol. 1, Number 2, pp. 48 - 58.
Roberts, F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy, Hot Mix
Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction, 2nd Edition, NAPA
Education Foundation, Lanham, Maryland, 1991, p. 439.
Sobhan, K., Mashnad, M., Tensile Strength and Toughness of Soil-Cement-Fly-Ash
Composite Reinforced with Recycled High-Density Polyethylene Strips. Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering, March/April 2002.
Salam, Y. M., Characteristics of Deformation and Fracture of Asphalt Concrete, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1971.
SHRP-A-404. Fatigue Response of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixes. Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1994
Sulaiman, S. J., and Stock, A. F., The Use of Fracture Mechanics for the Evaluation of
Asphalt Mixes, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, Vol.
64, 1995.
Tangella, R., J. Crauss, J. A. Deacon, and C. L. Monismith (1990). Summary report of
fatigue response of asphalt mixtures. Technical Memorandum No. TM-UCB-A003A-89-3m, prepared for SHRP Project A-003A. Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Tangella, R., J. Crauss, J. A. Deacon, and C. L. Monismith. Summary report of fatigue
response of asphalt mixtures. Technical Memorandum No. TM-UCB-A-003A89-3m, prepared for SHRP Project A-003A. Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California, Berkeley. February 1990.
Taylor, N.H., Life Expectancy of Recycled Asphalt Paving, Recycling of Bituminous
Pavements, Editor, L.E. Wood, ASTM STP 662, American Society for Testing
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1977, pp. 3 15.
TDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, the Tennessee
Department of Transportation, Nashville, TN, March, 1995, p. 167.
81
Tsai, B. W., and A.A. Tayebali. Computer software for fatigue test data analysis for
SHRP Project A-003A. Prepared for SHRP Project A-003A. Asphalt Research
Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley,
January 1992.
82
Appendices
83
Appendix A: Job Mix Formulas
84
STATE OF TENNESSEE ASPHALT JOB MIX FORMULA

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
0% RAP Limestone PG 64-22
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
RAP
Producer and Location
Percent Used
47.500
14.250
23.750
9.500
Vulcan Materials Co.

Ingram
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
Anti-Strip Additive:
AC Contribution:
Asphalt Sp. Gravity:
PG 64-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
Dust to Asphalt Ratio:
5.00
1.03
N/A
% Fracture Face on CA:

Gravity of RAP Agg:
T.S.R.:
2.457
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.000
100.000
5.0
% Glassy Particles on CA:

Eff. Gravity of Agg:
N/A
2.650
Lbs/Ft3:
Ignition Oven Corr. Factor:
153.3
N/A
Beginning:
Mixing Temp Range(F):

Mixing Temperature(F):
100.0
0.81
Ending:
Compaction Temp Range(F):

Compaction Temperature(F):
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
50.0
100
100
15.0
100
100
25.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
92
61
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
99
85
59
44
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
29
21
20.0
16.0
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
25
10
5.4
4.1
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
Requested:
RAP
% Req.
Approved:
Contractor Personnel and Lab Tech Cert No.
Approved:
Regional Materials and Tests Supervisor
Approved:
Regional Construction Supervisor
85
Headquarters Materials and Tests

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
RAP
Percent Used
47.500
9.500
19.000
9.500

Ingram
10.053
4.447
100.000
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
0.55
4.45
1.03
T.S.R.:
2.453
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.0

N/A
2.645
Lbs/Ft3:
153.1
N/A
Beginning:

88.9
1.03
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
RAP
50.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
92
61
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
100
100
100
99
85
59
44
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
29
21
20.0
16.0
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
46
30
23.2
19.3
25
11
6.6
5.1
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
Requested:
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
86

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
RAP
Percent Used
47.500

Ingram
19.000
9.500
20.106
3.894
100.000
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.11
3.89
1.03
T.S.R.:
2.462
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.0

N/A
2.656
Lbs/Ft3:
153.6
N/A
Beginning:

77.9
1.09
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
RAP
50.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
100
100
100
99
85
60
46
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
46
30
23.2
19.3
27
12
6.9
5.5
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
#10 (Soft)
Requested:
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
87

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
RAP
Percent Used
47.500

Ingram
9.500
9.500
30.159
3.341
100.000
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.66
3.34
1.03
T.S.R.:
2.468
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.0

N/A
2.664
Lbs/Ft3:
154.0
N/A
Beginning:

66.8
1.46
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
RAP
50.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
30.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
100
100
100
99
85
60
45
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
46
30
23.2
19.3
25
14
9.1
7.3
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
#10 (Soft)
Requested:
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
88

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
RAP
Percent Used
47.500
14.250
23.750
9.500

Ingram
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
5.00
1.03
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
T.S.R.:
2.455
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.000
100.000
5.0

N/A
2.648
Lbs/Ft3:
153.2
N/A
Beginning:

100.0
0.81
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
50.0
100
100
15.0
100
100
25.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
92
61
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
99
85
59
44
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
29
21
20.0
16.0
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
25
10
5.4
4.1
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
Requested:
RAP
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
89

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Percent Used
47.500
9.500
19.000
9.500

Ingram
10.053
4.447
100.000
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
0.55
4.45
1.03
T.S.R.:
2.453
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.0

N/A
2.645
Lbs/Ft3:
153.1
N/A
Beginning:

88.9
1.03
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
RAP
50.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
92
61
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
100
100
100
99
85
59
44
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
29
21
20.0
16.0
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
46
30
23.2
19.3
25
11
6.6
5.1
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
Requested:
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
90

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Percent Used
47.500

Ingram
19.000
9.500
20.106
3.894
100.000
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.11
3.89
1.03
T.S.R.:
2.462
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.0

N/A
2.656
Lbs/Ft3:
153.6
N/A
Beginning:

77.9
1.09
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
RAP
50.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
100
100
100
99
85
60
46
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
46
30
23.2
19.3
27
12
6.9
5.5
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
#10 (Soft)
Requested:
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
91

01/10/03
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Mix
ACS-HM
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
07/16/2002
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Limestone)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Screenings
Natural Sand
Manufactured Sand
Percent Used
47.500

Ingram
9.500
9.500
30.159
3.341
100.000
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.5
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
N/A

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.66
3.34
1.03
T.S.R.:
2.468
#VALUE!
Log Miles
ADT
5.0

N/A
2.664
Lbs/Ft3:
154.0
N/A
Beginning:

66.8
1.46
Ending:

Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Limesto
ne)
Natural Sand
Manufactured
Sand
RAP
50.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
30.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
70
21
7
100
100
100
100
100
98
93
100
100
100
100
100
99
82
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
100
100
100
99
85
60
45
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
4
3
2.0
1.8
63
13
2.0
1.0
28
17
9.0
5.0
46
30
23.2
19.3
25
14
9.1
7.3
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
#10 (Soft)
Requested:
% Req.
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
92

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
0% RAP Gravel PG 64-22
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
9.420
9.420
23.550
Standard Const. Frank Road

Vulcan Mtl. Savannah, TN.
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
MARATHON ASHLAND, KNOXVILLE
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
5.80
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT

5.800
100.000
0.3%
100.0
1.02
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
55.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
25.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
91
60
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
97
87
65
48
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
30
21
16.0
14.0
60
8
1.0
29
12
7.6
5.9
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
RAP
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
93

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810

9.420
23.550
10.000
5.220
100.000
0.3%
90.0
0.62
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
5.22
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
0.58
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT


N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
RAP
55.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
25.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
91
60
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
97
87
65
48
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
30
21
16.0
14.0
60
8
1.0
57
27
14.8
10.8
28
10
5.0
3.6
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
Ag. Lime
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
94

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
4.710

18.840
20.000
4.640
100.000
0.3%
80.0
0.85
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
4.64
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.16
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT


N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
55.0
100
100
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
RAP
5.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
97
87
66
51
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
60
8
1.0
57
27
14.8
10.8
31
12
6.9
5.0
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
95

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 64-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
4.710

9.420
30.000
4.060
100.000
0.3%
70.0
1.04
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 64-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
4.06
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.74
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT


N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
55.0
100
100
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
RAP
5.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
30.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
97
87
67
52
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
60
8
1.0
57
27
14.8
10.8
31
14
8.2
6.0
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
96

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
9.420
9.420
23.550

RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
5.80
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT

5.800
100.000
0.3%
100.0
1.02
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
55.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
25.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
91
60
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
97
87
65
48
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
30
21
16.0
14.0
60
8
1.0
29
12
7.6
5.9
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
RAP
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
97

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
9.420

23.550
10.000
5.220
100.000
0.3%
90.0
0.96
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
5.22
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
0.58
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT


N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
55.0
100
100
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
RAP
10.0
100
100
25.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
97
87
66
51
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
60
8
1.0
57
27
14.8
10.8
32
13
7.5
5.6
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
98

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
4.710

18.840
20.000
4.640
100.000
0.3%
80.0
0.85
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
4.64
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.16
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT


N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
55.0
100
100
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
RAP
5.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
20.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
97
87
66
51
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
60
8
1.0
57
27
14.8
10.8
31
12
6.9
5.0
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
99

1/22/2003(r4)
Project Ref. No.

Project No.
Contract No.
Contractor
State Route No.
Hot-mix Producer
Type
Date
Region
County
Date of Letting
Roadway Surface
Mix
ACS-HM
11/03/2003
01/10/03
Item
411-D PG 76-22
Serial No.:
Design No.:
Material
Size or Grade
D Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Ag. Lime
Screenings
Natural Sand
Percent Used
51.810
4.710

9.420
30.000
4.060
100.000
0.3%
70.0
1.04
RAP
RAP
Asphalt Cement
Percent AC in RAP:
AC Contribution:
PG 76-22
5.8
5.8
Optimum AC Content:
Virgin AC
4.06
1.03
80.4

Gravity of RAP Agg:
Theo. Gravity:
L.O.I.:
Total
Dosage:
RAP AC
Percent Virgin AC:
1.74
T.S.R.:
2.367
8.0
Log Miles
ADT


N/A
2.573
Lbs/Ft3:
90.0
147.7
0.55
Beginning:
Ending:

310-350
330
290-330
310
Percents Used
Sieve
Size
2"
1.5"
1.25"
1"
3/4"
5/8"
1/2"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.16
No.30
No.50
No.100
No.200
D
Rock(Gravel)
Ag. Lime
55.0
100
100
#10 (Soft)
Natural Sand
RAP
5.0
100
100
10.0
100
100
30.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
77
40
22
100
100
100
100
100
98
92
100
100
100
100
100
96
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
97
87
67
52
Design
Range
100
100
100
100
100
100
95-100
80-93
54-76
35-57
8
5
3.0
2.0
64
52
41.0
34.0
60
8
1.0
57
27
14.8
10.8
31
14
8.2
6.0
17-29
10-18
3-10
0-6.5
% Req.
Requested:
Approved:
Approved:
Approved:
100
Appendix B: Indirect Tensile Strength Test Data
101
Limestone Mixtures
Virgin
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
10% RAP
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
20% RAP
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
30% RAP
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
4 in. IDT: PG 64-22

Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
192.0
0.003300
206.0
0.003508
196.5
0.003923
225.8
0.002359
205.6
0.002772
217.3
0.002925
Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
204.2
0.003515
198.9
0.003653
202.9
0.003071
236.5
0.003201
255.5
0.002474
236.2
0.003217
Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
226.7
0.003063
224.2
0.003071
226.4
0.003048
261.9
0.002903
272.9
0.002466
247.7
0.003056
Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
274.6
0.002903
241.9
0.002680
266.4
0.003079
308.5
0.002466
305.6
0.002458
297.5
0.002313
TI
0.57
0.62
0.65
0.38
0.57
0.50
TI
0.58
0.61
0.53
0.48
0.45
0.46
TI
0.49
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.39
0.47
TI
0.45
0.49
0.47
0.39
0.43
0.38
Virgin
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
10% RAP
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
20% RAP
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
30% RAP
U-1
U-2
U-3
A-1
A-2
A-3
4 in. IDT: PG 76-22

Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
232.82
0.003661
230.8
0.003377
239.62
0.004105
258.67
0.002925
276.18
0.002803
274.21
0.003056
Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
259.81
0.003492
238.52
0.003791
247.39
0.003806
289.31
0.0027
276.62
0.003217
285.22
0.00306
Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
271.53
0.003354
277.94
0.003354
285.4
0.002811
313.18
0.00264
315.11
0.002903
324.51
0.002474
Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
301.38
0.003025
284.96
0.002489
309.45
0.002765
339.96
0.002589
335.48
0.002489
321.17
0.002742
TI
0.625
0.686
0.7
0.531
0.56
0.52
TI
0.548
0.553
0.613
0.47
0.479
0.469
TI
0.4165
0.5064
0.522
0.4159
0.409
0.373
TI
0.489
0.428
0.464
0.352
0.325
0.434
avg
Stress
std
COV
avg
std
Strain
Diam. Strain,%
COV
avg
TI
std.
COV
198.2
7.2
3.6
0.0036
0.0003
0.358
8.9
0.612
0.043
7.0
216.2
10.2
4.7
0.0027
0.0003
0.269
10.9
0.481
0.093
19.4
202.0
2.8
1.4
0.0034
0.0003
0.341
8.9
0.574
0.039
6.9
242.7
11.1
4.6
0.0030
0.0004
0.296
14.3
0.464
0.013
2.8
225.7
1.3
0.6
0.0031
0.0000
0.306
0.4
0.469
0.016
3.4
260.8
12.6
4.8
0.0028
0.0003
0.281
10.9
0.430
0.043
9.9
260.9
17.0
6.5
0.0029
0.0002
0.289
6.9
0.469
0.021
4.4
303.9
5.7
1.9
0.0024
0.0001
0.241
3.6
0.399
0.029
7.3
COV
avg
std
COV
avg
TI
std.
COV
avg
Stress
std
Strain
diam strain %
234.4
4.6
2.0
0.0037
0.0004
0.371
9.9
0.670
0.040
5.9
269.7
9.6
3.6
0.0029
0.0001
0.293
4.3
0.537
0.021
3.8
248.6
10.7
4.3
0.0037
0.0002
0.370
4.8
0.571
0.036
6.3
283.7
6.5
2.3
0.0030
0.0003
0.299
8.9
0.473
0.006
1.2
278.3
6.9
2.5
0.0032
0.0003
0.317
9.9
0.482
0.057
11.8
317.6
6.1
1.9
0.0027
0.0002
0.267
8.1
0.399
0.023
5.8
298.6
12.5
4.2
0.0028
0.0003
0.276
9.7
0.460
0.031
6.7
332.2
9.8
3.0
0.0026
0.0001
0.261
4.9
0.370
0.057
15.3
102
0% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 64-22
250
250
200
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0% RAP IDT Long-term Aged: PG 64-22
150
100
150
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
0% RAP IST LTA-2: PG 64-22
250
250
200
200
150
Stress, psi.
S tress, psi.
0.004
100
50
150
100
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.006
0.008
Strain, in./in.

250
0% RAP IDT LTA-3: PG 64-22

250
200
S tre s s , p s i.
200
S tre s s , p s i.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.02
0.04
0.06
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
103
0.08
0.1
0.12
10% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 64-22
250
250
200
200
S tress, psi.
Stress, psi.
150
100
150
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
10% RAP IDT UA-2: PG 64-22
300
250
250
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.012
10% RAP IDT UA-3: PG 64-22
250
250
200
Stress, psi.
200
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
150
100
150
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
104
0.008
0.01
0.012
20% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 64-22

300
250
250
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
20% RAP IDT UA-2: PG 64-22
300
250
250
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
0.008
Strain, in./in.
20% RAP IDT UA-3: PG 64-22
250
300
250
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
105
0.008
0.01
30% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 64-22
300
300
250
250
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
350
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
30% RAP IDT UA-2: PG 64-22

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.008
30% RAP IDT UA-3: PG 64-22

350
300
300
250
250
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Strain, in./in.
106
0.01
0.012
0.014

300
250
250
200
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.

300
300
250
250
200
200
S tre s s , p s i.
S tre ss , p s i.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
107
0.008
10% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 76-22
300
300
250
250
200
200
S tre ss, p si.
Stress, psi.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
10% RAP IDT UA-2: PG 76-22
300
300
250
250
200
200
S tre s s , p s i.
S tre s s, p s i.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.006
0.008
Strain, in./in.
10% RAP IDT UA-3: PG 76-22
10% RAP LTA-3: PG 76-22

300
300
250
250
200
200
S tress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
108
0.008
20% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 76-22
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.012
20% RAP IDT UA-2: PG 76-22
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
20% RAP IDT UA-3: PG 76-22

350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
109
0.008
30% RAP IDT UA-1: PG 76-22
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
Strain, in./in.
0.01
0.012
350
350
300
300
250
Stress, psi.
250
Stress, psi.
0.008
30% RAP IDT UA-2: PG 76-22
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
30% RAP IDT UA-3: PG 76-22
350
350
300
300
250
Stress, psi.
250
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
110
0.008
0.01
0.012
Gravel Mixtures
Virgin
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
10% RAP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
20% RAP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
30% RAP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
4 in. IDT: PG 64-22

Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
188.0
0.002435
221.1
0.002420
208.9
0.002550
178.4
0.002642
193.0
0.002779
231.0
0.002573
Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
206.0
0.002144
242.8
0.002588
229.1
0.002504
225.5
0.002297
221.1
0.002474
220.4
0.002779
Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
268.8
0.002175
254.8
0.002282
264.3
0.002228
238.9
0.002366
242.7
0.002282
273.9
0.002175
Stress, psi.
Strain in./in.
285.4
0.002037
293.7
0.002351
295.2
0.002083
272.6
0.002010
275.8
0.002091
268.8
0.001884
TI
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.48
0.51
0.47
TI
0.45
0.41
0.42
0.46
0.43
0.36
TI
0.45
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.38
0.41
TI
0.44
0.40
0.39
0.36
0.40
0.42
Virgin
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
10% RAP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
20% RAP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
30% RAP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-1 (FT)
A-2 (FT)
A-3 (FT)
4 in. IDT: PG 76-22

Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
239.5322
0.002481
224.8722
0.002673
234.4407
0.002795
221.0975
0.002757
226.0573
0.002964
240.1466
0.00268
Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
251.6025
0.002604
267.4915
0.002451
260.5126
0.002497
234.4407
0.002848
255.1578
0.002941
259.8103
0.002711
Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
282.8098
0.002435
275.831
0.002458
258.625
0.002512
273.899
0.00268
265.253
0.00255
277.147
0.002543
Stress, psi.
Strain, in./in.
300.8495
0.002351
299.6205
0.002351
321.0399
0.002504
285.3556
0.002688
303.2197
0.002458
295.3824
0.002474
TI
0.5399
0.4675
0.4652
0.5175
0.4932
0.4980
TI
0.4617
0.4756
0.5132
0.4438
0.4552
0.4839
TI
0.4847
0.4627
0.4589
0.4337
0.4145
0.4624
TI
0.4425
0.4493
0.4475
0.3914
0.4299
0.4377
avg
Stress
std
COV
avg
std
Strain
Diam. Strain,%
COV
avg
TI
std.
COV
206.0
16.7
8.1
0.0025
0.0001
0.247
2.9
0.503
0.004
0.8
200.8
27.2
13.5
0.0027
0.0001
0.266
3.9
0.487
0.021
4.4
226.0
18.6
8.2
0.0024
0.0002
0.241
9.8
0.428
0.020
4.7
222.3
2.8
1.2
0.0025
0.0002
0.252
9.7
0.418
0.050
12.0
262.6
7.2
2.7
0.0022
0.0001
0.223
2.4
0.425
0.021
4.9
251.8
19.2
7.6
0.0023
0.0001
0.227
4.2
0.403
0.021
5.2
291.4
5.3
1.8
0.0022
0.0002
0.216
7.9
0.411
0.028
6.8
272.4
3.5
1.3
0.0020
0.0001
0.199
5.2
0.392
0.033
8.4
avg
std
strain
diam strain %
avg
TI
std.
COV
avg
Stress
std
232.9
7.4
3.2
0.0026
0.0002
0.265
6.0
0.491
0.042
8.7
229.1
9.9
4.3
0.0028
0.0001
0.280
5.2
0.503
0.013
2.6
259.9
8.0
3.1
0.0025
0.0001
0.252
3.1
0.484
0.027
5.5
249.8
13.5
5.4
0.0028
0.0001
0.283
4.1
0.461
0.021
4.5
272.4
12.4
4.6
0.0025
0.0000
0.247
1.6
0.469
0.014
3.0
272.1
6.1
2.3
0.0026
0.0001
0.259
3.0
0.437
0.024
5.5
307.2
12.0
3.9
0.0024
0.0001
0.240
3.7
0.446
0.004
0.8
294.7
9.0
3.0
0.0025
0.0001
0.254
5.1
0.420
0.025
5.9
111
0% RAP IDT LTA-1-FT: PG 64-22

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.01
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
Strain x, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
112

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
113

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.

350
350
300
300
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
250
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.006
20% RAP IDT LTA-3-FT: PG64-22
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
114

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
Stress, psi.
0.004
350
350
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.006
0.008
0.01
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
115
0.008
0.01

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.006
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
116

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
117

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, in.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
118

350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.

350
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.008
0.01
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.002
Strain, in./in.
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
350
350
300
300
250
250
Stress, psi.
Stress, psi.
0.004
Strain, in./in.
Strain, in./in.
200
150
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
Strain, in./in.
0.002
0.004
0.006
Strain, in./in.
119
Appendix C: Semi-Circular Bending Test Data
120
Frequency Sweep Test
Limestone PG 64-22
0% RAP FS-1 Long-term Aged
Frequency (Hz) T = 1 / F
t2
0.01
100
172.05
0.02
50
388.11
0.05
20
556.58
0.1
10
691.53
0.2
5
808.63
0.5
2
916.13
1
1
1019.95
2
0.5
1122.10
5
0.2
1223.23
10
0.1
1324.01
t1
154.05
379.61
555.18
690.33
808.08
916.01
1019.89
1122.03
1223.22
1324.01
? t = t2 - t1
18.00
8.50
1.40
1.20
0.55
0.12
0.06
0.07
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

64.80
61.20
25.20
43.20
39.60
21.60
21.60
50.40
10.80
21.60
Y2
96.74
117.07
127.54
131.92
133.44
132.78
132.06
131.13
130.33
129.78
Y1
82.58
101.70
113.04
117.83
121.17
124.58
123.20
123.62
126.13
124.27
? Y
14.16
15.37
14.50
14.09
12.27
8.20
8.85
7.51
4.20
5.51

t2
0.01
100
170.40
0.02
50
386.26
0.05
20
555.76
0.1
10
689.79
0.2
5
806.89
0.5
2
914.44
1
1
1018.24
2
0.5
1120.37
5
0.2
1221.50
10
0.1
1322.27
t1
151.90
377.26
552.96
688.29
806.34
914.28
1018.18
1120.31
1221.49
1322.26
? t = t2 - t1
18.50
9.00
2.80
1.50
0.55
0.16
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

66.60
64.80
50.38
54.00
39.60
28.80
21.60
46.08
14.40
32.40
Y2
101.53
123.20
134.88
139.95
141.81
141.50
141.19
140.60
139.95
139.50
Y1
89.89
110.59
121.58
127.51
130.95
133.44
132.75
133.95
133.85
134.61
? Y
11.65
12.61
13.30
12.44
10.85
8.06
8.44
6.65
6.10
4.89

t2
0.01
100
171.67
0.02
50
387.10
0.05
20
556.89
0.1
10
691.17
0.2
5
808.38
0.5
2
915.73
1
1
1019.59
2
0.5
1121.84
5
0.2
1222.98
10
0.1
1323.78
t1
150.67
377.60
554.49
690.17
807.93
915.61
1019.52
1121.77
1222.97
1323.77
? t = t2 - t1
21.00
9.50
2.40
1.00
0.45
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

75.60
68.40
43.20
36.00
32.40
21.60
23.40
50.40
21.60
36.00
Y2
90.96
114.42
127.03
132.99
135.50
135.43
135.05
134.47
133.71
133.09
Y1
79.34
101.91
114.56
120.69
124.65
128.13
126.65
127.44
127.58
128.58
? Y
11.61
12.51
12.47
12.30
10.85
7.30
8.41
7.03
6.13
4.51
121
0% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
177.00
389.41
557.50
691.53
808.19
915.70
1019.42
1121.45
1222.90
1323.63
t1
153.99
379.41
554.50
690.03
807.64
915.44
1019.36
1121.40
1222.88
1323.61
? t = t2 - t1
23.01
10.00
3.00
1.50
0.54
0.26
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.02
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

82.83
72.00
54.00
54.00
39.24
46.80
21.60
36.00
36.00
72.00
Y2
50.63
62.19
71.02
75.24
77.30
77.90
78.30
78.33
78.43
78.38
Y1
47.06
59.10
67.17
71.82
73.83
75.78
75.86
76.50
77.60
77.00
? Y
3.57
3.09
3.85
3.42
3.47
2.12
2.44
1.83
0.83
1.38
0% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
176.09
389.72
556.60
691.11
808.40
915.84
1019.62
1121.67
1222.75
1323.50
t1
152.55
379.22
553.79
689.71
807.50
915.60
1019.47
1121.62
1222.72
1323.49
? t = t2 - t1
23.54
10.50
2.81
1.40
0.90
0.24
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

84.74
75.60
50.58
50.40
64.80
43.20
54.00
36.00
54.00
36.00
Y2
51.90
65.37
72.94
76.47
78.30
78.71
79.01
78.96
78.77
78.67
Y1
47.94
60.55
68.30
72.80
74.43
75.92
77.00
77.31
77.85
77.35
? Y
3.96
4.82
4.64
3.67
3.87
2.79
2.01
1.65
0.92
1.32
0% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
178.20
387.07
556.70
691.34
808.26
916.04
1019.78
1121.83
1222.93
1323.54
t1
156.20
378.07
554.09
690.44
808.06
915.86
1019.75
1121.80
1222.92
1323.53
? t = t2 - t1
22.00
9.00
2.61
0.90
0.20
0.18
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

79.20
64.80
46.98
32.40
14.40
32.40
10.80
21.60
18.00
36.00
Y2
66.08
84.24
94.71
100.30
102.99
104.25
104.66
105.20
104.97
104.15
Y1
62.87
80.36
90.20
95.74
99.59
100.88
102.44
102.65
103.16
103.55
? Y
3.21
3.88
4.51
4.56
3.40
3.37
2.22
2.55
1.81
0.60
122

t2
0.01
100
173.27
0.02
50
388.21
0.05
20
556.92
0.1
10
692.15
0.2
5
809.01
0.5
2
916.19
1
1
1020.14
2
0.5
1122.19
5
0.2
1223.39
10
0.1
1324.13
t1
155.27
378.71
555.12
690.35
808.26
916.07
1020.04
1122.18
1223.37
1324.13
? t = t2 - t1
18.00
9.50
1.80
1.80
0.75
0.12
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

64.80
68.41
32.40
64.80
54.00
21.60
36.00
11.52
28.80
32.40
Y2
62.46
78.93
89.54
93.37
95.30
95.40
95.47
95.40
95.06
94.92
Y1
55.85
71.45
80.96
85.99
87.89
90.34
89.37
89.92
91.16
91.54
? Y
6.61
7.48
8.58
7.37
7.41
5.06
6.10
5.48
3.89
3.38

t2
0.01
100
173.11
0.02
50
388.55
0.05
20
557.54
0.1
10
691.18
0.2
5
808.83
0.5
2
916.04
1
1
1019.95
2
0.5
1122.08
5
0.2
1223.29
10
0.1
1324.07
t1
153.61
379.55
554.54
690.08
808.18
915.92
1019.86
1122.05
1223.28
1324.06
? t = t2 - t1
19.50
9.00
3.00
1.10
0.65
0.12
0.09
0.03
0.00
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

70.20
64.80
54.00
39.60
46.80
21.60
32.76
24.48
7.20
32.40
Y2
54.19
70.21
78.38
83.34
85.10
85.17
85.06
84.75
84.37
84.20
Y1
44.55
60.05
68.77
74.42
76.55
78.76
79.34
78.52
78.97
79.93
? Y
9.65
10.16
9.61
8.92
8.54
6.41
5.72
6.24
5.41
4.27

t2
0.01
100
171.91
0.02
50
385.34
0.05
20
556.18
0.1
10
691.05
0.2
5
808.63
0.5
2
915.96
1
1
1019.87
2
0.5
1122.02
5
0.2
1223.16
10
0.1
1323.97
t1
154.41
378.84
554.38
690.35
808.13
915.84
1019.78
1121.97
1223.14
1323.95
? t = t2 - t1
17.50
6.50
1.80
0.70
0.50
0.12
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

63.00
46.81
32.38
25.20
36.00
21.60
32.40
36.00
28.80
46.80
Y2
48.37
62.60
70.42
73.63
74.45
73.76
72.90
72.08
71.08
70.32
Y1
39.41
51.78
60.33
63.19
65.67
65.56
65.53
65.43
66.29
65.15
? Y
8.96
10.82
10.09
10.44
8.79
8.20
7.37
6.65
4.79
5.17
123
10% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
176.24
386.64
557.26
691.12
808.25
915.86
1019.53
1121.53
1222.69
1323.50
t1
154.74
380.14
554.46
689.92
807.50
915.54
1019.44
1121.48
1222.68
1323.50
? t = t2 - t1
21.50
6.50
2.80
1.20
0.75
0.32
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

77.40
46.80
50.40
43.20
54.00
57.60
32.40
36.00
18.00
0.00
Y2
54.89
71.14
80.26
84.94
87.40
88.15
88.58
88.82
88.68
88.87
Y1
51.13
66.59
75.58
80.12
83.54
85.16
86.19
86.05
87.35
86.77
? Y
3.76
4.55
4.68
4.82
3.86
2.99
2.39
2.77
1.33
2.10
10% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
176.51
388.40
557.46
690.87
808.40
915.56
1019.39
1121.41
1222.54
1323.31
t1
153.51
377.41
554.86
689.57
807.60
915.12
1019.29
1121.37
1222.51
1323.29
? t = t2 - t1
23.00
10.99
2.60
1.30
0.80
0.44
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.02
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

82.80
79.13
46.80
46.80
57.60
79.20
36.00
28.80
54.00
72.00
Y2
57.47
71.87
80.00
83.82
85.46
85.87
85.92
85.72
85.37
85.06
Y1
53.57
67.25
75.07
79.15
81.50
82.93
84.01
83.19
84.18
83.27
? Y
3.90
4.62
4.93
4.67
3.96
2.94
1.91
2.53
1.19
1.79
10% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
174.88
388.28
556.65
691.28
807.94
915.52
1019.28
1121.27
1222.39
1323.13
t1
155.38
380.28
554.64
689.38
807.19
915.34
1019.14
1121.18
1222.36
1323.12
? t = t2 - t1
19.50
8.00
2.01
1.90
0.75
0.18
0.14
0.09
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

70.20
57.60
36.18
68.40
54.00
32.40
50.40
64.80
54.00
36.00
Y2
44.15
56.38
63.38
66.80
68.68
69.35
69.78
69.71
69.92
70.09
Y1
41.65
53.69
60.08
63.89
66.17
67.61
67.73
68.60
68.77
69.18
? Y
2.50
2.69
3.30
2.91
2.51
1.74
2.05
1.11
1.15
0.91
124

t2
0.01
100
173.45
0.02
50
386.4
0.05
20
556.9
0.1
10
690.58
0.2
5
807.93
0.5
2
915.37
1
1
1019.2
2
0.5
1121.27
5
0.2
1222.43
10
0.1
1323.21
t1
153.45
379.40
554.10
689.57
807.23
915.25
1019.12
1121.27
1222.40
1323.20
? t = t2 - t1
20.00
7.00
2.80
1.01
0.70
0.12
0.08
0.00
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

72.00
50.40
50.40
36.36
50.40
21.60
28.80
0.00
54.00
36.00
Y2
73.35
85.03
91.13
93.33
93.71
92.75
91.89
91.20
90.09
89.61
Y1
60.95
72.35
79.41
82.93
84.20
84.90
84.13
84.44
85.30
85.30
? Y
12.40
12.68
11.72
10.40
9.51
7.85
7.76
6.76
4.79
4.31

t2
0.01
100
172.78
0.02
50
385.68
0.05
20
556.98
0.1
10
691.26
0.2
5
808.26
0.5
2
915.64
1
1
1019.45
2
0.5
1121.56
5
0.2
1222.76
10
0.1
1323.50
t1
152.78
379.68
553.98
689.96
807.71
915.46
1019.41
1121.54
1222.73
1323.49
? t = t2 - t1
20.00
6.00
3.00
1.30
0.55
0.18
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

72.00
43.20
54.05
46.80
39.60
32.40
14.40
14.40
54.00
36.00
Y2
56.57
71.80
80.24
83.82
84.96
84.96
84.65
83.31
83.65
83.50
Y1
46.30
61.84
69.53
73.90
76.73
78.00
78.35
78.17
79.75
79.62
? Y
10.27
9.96
10.71
9.92
8.23
6.96
6.30
5.14
3.90
3.88

t2
0.01
100
172.03
0.02
50
385.99
0.05
20
557.72
0.1
10
691.22
0.2
5
808.55
0.5
2
916.13
1
1
1020.00
2
0.5
1122.15
5
0.2
1223.31
10
0.1
1324.18
t1
156.03
378.49
555.32
690.02
808.25
916.03
1019.91
1122.14
1223.29
1324.18
? t = t2 - t1
16.00
7.50
2.40
1.20
0.30
0.10
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

57.60
54.00
43.20
43.20
21.60
18.00
32.40
7.20
36.00
0.00
Y2
94.23
111.28
120.41
124.30
125.40
124.80
124.10
123.30
122.41
121.93
Y1
81.10
97.09
106.77
111.56
114.52
114.56
115.18
115.93
116.66
116.17
? Y
13.13
14.19
13.64
12.74
10.88
10.24
8.92
7.37
5.75
5.76
125
20% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
173.18
391.24
558.51
692.30
809.38
916.81
1020.64
1122.75
1223.85
1324.59
t1
143.68
379.24
555.31
690.90
808.83
916.50
1020.48
1122.68
1223.80
1324.57
? t = t2 - t1
29.50
12.00
3.20
1.40
0.55
0.31
0.16
0.07
0.05
0.02
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

106.20
86.40
57.60
50.40
39.60
55.80
57.60
50.40
90.00
72.00
Y2
35.48
40.96
44.96
45.99
45.99
45.82
45.68
45.58
45.37
44.03
Y1
22.63
35.38
39.80
41.41
42.45
43.17
44.09
43.75
44.78
44.17
? Y
12.85
5.58
5.16
4.58
3.54
2.65
1.59
1.83
0.59
-0.14
20% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
176.37
387.66
556.69
691.08
808.09
915.58
1019.20
1121.31
1222.37
1323.21
t1
154.37
378.66
553.89
689.69
807.35
915.32
1019.67
1121.27
1222.36
1323.21
? t = t2 - t1
22.00
9.00
2.80
1.39
0.74
0.26
-0.47
0.04
0.01
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

79.20
64.80
50.40
50.04
53.28
46.80
-169.20
28.80
18.00
0.00
Y2
50.39
60.48
66.01
68.57
69.61
69.80
69.83
69.71
69.40
69.34
Y1
46.30
56.34
61.84
64.41
66.27
67.29
68.32
67.46
68.64
67.88
? Y
4.09
4.14
4.17
4.16
3.34
2.51
1.51
2.25
0.76
1.46
20% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
175.87
388.68
557.50
690.89
808.13
915.54
1019.25
1121.33
1222.47
1323.32
t1
152.87
378.18
554.70
689.29
807.64
915.36
1019.16
1121.33
1222.45
1323.31
? t = t2 - t1
23.00
10.50
2.80
1.60
0.49
0.18
0.09
0.00
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

82.80
75.60
50.40
57.60
35.28
32.40
32.40
0.00
36.00
36.00
Y2
57.98
75.69
85.30
89.85
92.02
92.68
92.92
93.02
92.54
92.71
Y1
53.78
71.25
79.62
84.86
87.23
89.30
89.72
91.82
90.64
91.05
? Y
4.20
4.44
5.68
4.99
4.79
3.38
3.20
1.20
1.90
1.66
126

t2
0.01
100
168.28
0.02
50
385.19
0.05
20
557.19
0.1
10
691.13
0.2
5
808.10
0.5
2
915.80
1
1
1019.70
2
0.5
1121.80
5
0.2
1222.96
10
0.1
1323.73
t1
153.78
380.19
554.40
690.03
807.76
915.65
1019.63
1121.73
1222.93
1323.73
? t = t2 - t1
14.50
5.00
2.79
1.10
0.34
0.15
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

52.20
35.97
50.22
39.60
24.48
27.00
25.20
50.40
54.00
0.00
Y2
69.32
82.93
90.27
93.54
94.64
93.95
94.06
93.70
93.26
93.13
Y1
62.43
75.00
81.90
85.55
87.72
89.30
88.99
88.68
89.96
89.65
? Y
6.89
7.93
8.37
7.99
6.92
4.65
5.07
5.02
3.30
3.48

t2
0.01
100
172.37
0.02
50
388.28
0.05
20
557.73
0.1
10
691.43
0.2
5
808.42
0.5
2
916.02
1
1
1019.93
2
0.5
1122.04
5
0.2
1223.16
10
0.1
1323.94
t1
152.37
379.28
554.53
690.03
808.07
915.80
1019.82
1121.99
1223.13
1323.93
? t = t2 - t1
20.00
9.00
3.20
1.40
0.35
0.22
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

72.00
64.80
57.60
50.40
25.20
39.42
39.60
36.00
54.00
36.00
Y2
58.43
68.30
73.73
75.76
76.24
75.18
74.60
74.14
73.32
72.87
Y1
48.90
58.98
64.46
66.84
68.18
69.08
68.40
68.53
68.66
69.56
? Y
9.53
9.32
9.27
8.92
8.06
6.10
6.20
5.61
4.66
3.31

t2
0.01
100
173.06
0.02
50
387.02
0.05
20
556.89
0.1
10
691.27
0.2
5
808.53
0.5
2
916.06
1
1
1019.91
2
0.5
1122.04
5
0.2
1223.24
10
0.1
1324.03
t1
152.56
381.02
555.29
690.27
808.03
915.90
1019.81
1121.97
1223.22
1324.02
? t = t2 - t1
20.50
6.00
1.60
1.00
0.50
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

73.80
43.20
28.80
36.00
36.00
28.80
36.00
50.40
36.00
36.00
Y2
81.76
91.81
95.64
97.23
97.15
95.64
95.46
94.71
93.95
93.13
Y1
67.53
79.31
84.89
87.13
89.09
89.85
89.96
88.71
88.71
88.61
? Y
14.23
12.50
10.75
10.10
8.06
5.79
5.50
6.00
5.24
4.52
127
30% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
172.73
387.63
556.17
690.13
807.78
915.24
1018.98
1121.09
1222.18
1322.95
t1
153.73
378.63
554.17
689.53
807.13
915.12
1018.88
1121.02
1222.16
1322.94
? t = t2 - t1
19.00
9.00
2.00
0.60
0.65
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

68.40
64.80
36.00
21.60
46.80
22.14
36.00
50.40
36.00
36.00
Y2
54.36
65.15
72.93
76.14
77.73
78.00
78.20
78.27
78.17
77.89
Y1
51.75
61.50
68.29
71.80
73.52
75.45
75.45
76.58
76.59
76.80
? Y
2.61
3.65
4.64
4.34
4.21
2.55
2.75
1.69
1.58
1.09
30% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
170.47
388.36
556.39
690.76
807.86
915.54
1019.26
1121.27
1222.42
1323.20
t1
154.50
378.86
553.79
689.26
807.36
915.36
1019.11
1121.22
1222.42
1323.18
? t = t2 - t1
15.97
9.50
2.60
1.50
0.50
0.18
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.02
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

57.49
68.40
46.80
54.00
36.00
32.40
54.00
36.00
0.00
72.00
Y2
69.87
81.89
88.50
91.09
91.85
91.23
90.64
89.99
89.09
88.65
Y1
59.32
72.35
79.76
82.20
84.09
85.86
86.68
85.34
86.92
85.41
? Y
10.55
9.54
8.74
8.89
7.76
5.37
3.96
4.65
2.17
3.24
30% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
167.97
386.77
556.62
689.84
807.59
914.89
1018.61
1120.77
1221.89
1322.64
t1
151.47
377.77
552.82
688.74
806.89
914.76
1018.57
1120.71
1221.86
1322.64
? t = t2 - t1
16.50
9.00
3.80
1.10
0.70
0.13
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

59.40
64.80
68.40
39.60
50.40
23.40
14.40
43.20
54.00
0.00
Y2
48.85
60.80
67.39
69.87
70.93
71.49
71.45
71.28
71.11
71.04
Y1
44.09
55.19
62.11
65.18
66.46
68.46
69.04
68.87
69.63
68.87
? Y
4.76
5.61
5.28
4.69
4.47
3.03
2.41
2.41
1.48
2.17
128
Limestone PG 76-22
t2
0.01
100
173.90
0.02
50
388.90
0.05
20
559.10
0.1
10
692.50
0.2
5
809.20
0.5
2
916.90
1
1
1020.60
2
0.5
1122.73
5
0.2
1223.85
10
0.1
1324.68
t1
156.00
381.90
556.30
691.20
808.80
916.60
1020.50
1122.68
1223.84
1324.67
? t = t2 - t1
17.90
7.00
2.80
1.30
0.40
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

64.44
50.40
50.40
46.80
28.80
54.00
36.00
35.93
35.82
36.36

t2
0.01
100
174.33
0.02
50
390.22
0.05
20
557.92
0.1
10
692.41
0.2
5
809.15
0.5
2
916.62
1
1
1020.45
2
0.5
1122.54
5
0.2
1223.65
10
0.1
1324.44
t1
157.33
380.72
555.12
690.81
808.65
916.48
1020.34
1122.48
1223.64
1324.43
? t = t2 - t1
17.00
9.50
2.80
1.60
0.50
0.14
0.11
0.06
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

61.20
68.40
50.40
57.60
36.00
25.02
39.60
46.08
18.00
25.20

t2
0.01
100
176.21
0.02
50
388.56
0.05
20
557.97
0.1
10
692.13
0.2
5
808.89
0.5
2
914.44
1
1
1020.30
2
0.5
1122.36
5
0.2
1223.46
10
0.1
1324.30
t1
157.21
380.06
555.17
690.73
808.54
914.26
1020.14
1122.30
1223.43
1324.29
? t = t2 - t1
19.00
8.50
2.80
1.40
0.35
0.18
0.16
0.06
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

68.40
61.20
50.35
50.40
25.13
32.40
57.60
43.20
46.80
36.00
129
Y2
66.70
78.60
84.00
87.10
86.70
89.60
84.60
84.31
82.41
81.86
Y2
69.28
83.89
91.58
94.06
94.71
93.61
92.88
92.33
91.20
90.47
Y2
72.08
82.76
88.78
90.16
90.92
89.03
88.78
88.13
87.27
86.68
Y1
54.20
68.10
73.80
77.50
77.00
79.10
80.59
78.48
77.93
78.98
Y1
58.29
72.52
79.90
84.55
85.06
85.96
86.61
85.86
85.68
86.65
Y1
61.33
71.77
77.35
80.38
81.34
81.89
82.34
81.89
82.82
82.65
? Y
12.50
10.50
10.20
9.60
9.70
10.50
4.02
5.82
4.48
2.88
? Y
10.99
11.37
11.68
9.51
9.65
7.65
6.27
6.48
5.51
3.83
? Y
10.75
10.99
11.44
9.79
9.58
7.13
6.44
6.24
4.44
4.03
0% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
169.27
387.24
557.03
690.97
808.25
915.83
1019.60
1121.63
1222.72
1323.47
? t = t2 - t1
t1
153.27
15.9998
380.24
6.9998
554.63
2.4000
689.97
1.0000
807.85
0.4000
915.55
0.2800
1019.48
0.1200
1121.59
0.0402
1222.71
0.0121
1323.46
0.0088
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

57.60
50.40
43.20
36.00
28.80
50.41
43.20
28.94
21.78
31.68
Y2
67.04
82.89
91.51
95.19
96.40
952.64
95.02
94.30
93.13
92.33
Y1
54.50
69.70
78.62
83.27
85.96
87.51
87.65
88.16
88.41
88.54
? Y
12.54
13.20
12.89
11.92
10.44
865.13
7.37
6.13
4.72
3.79
0% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
171.87
386.00
557.24
691.00
808.36
916.05
1019.89
1121.98
1223.11
1323.86
? t = t2 - t1
t1
157.87
14.00
379.00
7.00
554.84
2.40
690.10
0.90
808.06
0.30
915.89
0.16
1019.75
0.14
1121.91
0.07
1223.09
0.02
1323.85
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

50.40
50.40
43.20
32.40
21.60
28.80
48.96
50.40
36.00
46.80
Y2
62.61
72.13
76.69
78.67
78.91
78.14
77.66
77.08
76.45
75.94
Y1
53.64
63.07
68.25
71.07
72.13
73.34
73.75
72.98
73.05
73.17
? Y
8.97
9.07
8.44
7.60
6.78
4.80
3.91
4.10
3.40
2.77
0% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
171.049
384.96
556.268
691.017
808.486
915.581
1019.556
1121.621
1222.687
1323.556
? t = t2 - t1
t1
151.049
20
378.461
6.499
554.668
1.6
689.917
1.1
807.736
0.75
915.54
0.041
1019.436
0.12
1121.571
0.05
1222.669
0.018
1323.554
0.002
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

72
46.7928
28.8
39.6
54
7.38
43.2
36
32.4
7.2
Y2
55.331
66.631
72.523
74.865
75.141
75.003
74.624
74.073
73.315
72.867
Y1
46.683
57.467
63.496
67.217
68.423
69.284
69.215
69.387
69.835
69.801
? Y
8.648
9.164
9.027
7.648
6.718
5.719
5.409
4.686
3.48
3.066
130

t2
0.01
100
170.56
0.02
50
388.00
0.05
20
556.50
0.1
10
691.07
0.2
5
808.82
0.5
2
916.32
1
1
1020.03
2
0.5
1122.07
5
0.2
1223.24
10
0.1
1324.05
t1
157.06
380.00
555.10
690.27
808.37
916.08
1019.93
1122.05
1223.21
1324.04
? t = t2 - t1
13.50
8.00
1.40
0.80
0.45
0.24
0.10
0.02
0.03
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

48.60
57.60
25.20
28.80
32.40
43.20
36.00
17.93
57.60
46.80
Y2
69.41
83.31
90.08
91.89
91.58
89.51
87.96
86.82
84.55
83.26
Y1
47.39
61.03
69.46
73.54
73.85
75.30
74.21
80.62
74.62
75.25
? Y
14.68
14.85
13.75
12.23
11.82
9.47
9.16
4.13
6.62
5.34

t2
0.01
100
169.75
0.02
50
386.24
0.05
20
558.67
0.1
10
691.81
0.2
5
808.70
0.5
2
916.52
1
1
1020.25
2
0.5
1122.33
5
0.2
1223.46
10
0.1
1324.26
t1
154.75
381.24
555.47
690.41
808.55
916.32
1020.18
1122.30
1223.45
1324.26
? t = t2 - t1
15.00
5.00
3.20
1.40
0.15
0.20
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

54.00
36.00
57.60
50.36
10.80
36.00
25.20
18.00
21.60
14.40
Y2
84.03
99.02
106.10
108.32
108.01
106.05
104.44
103.15
101.39
100.10
Y1
63.88
79.64
87.96
90.49
91.83
92.76
92.35
92.71
93.13
93.33
? Y
13.44
12.92
12.09
11.89
10.78
8.85
8.06
6.96
5.51
4.51

t2
0.01
100
168.69
0.02
50
385.06
0.05
20
556.79
0.1
10
691.39
0.2
5
808.58
0.5
2
916.41
1
1
1020.24
2
0.5
1122.39
5
0.2
1223.50
10
0.1
1324.31
t1
152.19
380.56
555.59
690.49
808.28
916.31
1020.14
1122.35
1223.49
1324.30
? t = t2 - t1
16.50
4.50
1.20
0.90
0.30
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

59.40
32.41
21.60
32.40
21.60
18.00
36.00
32.40
25.20
25.20
Y2
127.13
141.08
147.85
149.56
148.84
146.46
144.96
143.51
141.70
140.36
Y1
103.52
119.95
126.30
131.47
132.25
133.44
132.45
137.62
136.17
132.82
? Y
15.74
14.09
14.37
12.06
11.06
8.68
8.34
3.93
3.69
5.03
131
10% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
? t = t2 - t1
t2
t1
167.245
150.245
17
384.253
377.253
7
554.205
551.405
2.8
688.06
687.06
1
805.306
804.706
0.6
912.605
912.545
0.06
1016.623 1016.443
0.18
1118.652 1118.64
0.012
1219.804 1219.786
0.018
1320.606 1320.598
0.008
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

61.2
50.4
50.4
36
43.2
10.8
64.8
8.64
32.4
28.8
Y2
60.18869
72.316
78.621
81.14
81.791
80.895
80.447
79.999
79.2066
78.414
Y1
49.474
61.567
67.872
71.661
73.419
74.934
75.865
75.865
76.933
75.727
? Y
10.71469
10.749
10.749
9.479
8.372
5.961
4.582
4.134
2.2736
2.687
10% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
167.659
383.054
555.216
688.794
805.735
913.332
1017.113
1119.218
1220.396
1321.239
? t = t2 - t1
t1
151.159
16.5
377.554
5.5
551.616
3.6
687.794
1
805.285
0.45
913.092
0.24
1017.023
0.09
1119.198
0.02
1220.374
0.022
1321.239
0.0003
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

59.4
39.6
64.8
36
32.4
43.2
32.4
14.4
39.6
1.08
Y2
48.475
55.23
58.948
60.774
60.705
59.913
58.983
58.122
57.433
56.847
Y1
33.591
41.136
47.2
49.887
51.334
52.644
53.505
52.265
53.264
53.126
? Y
14.884
14.094
11.748
10.887
9.371
7.269
5.478
5.857
4.169
3.721
10% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
? t = t2 - t1
t2
t1
173.542
152.54
21.002
385.001
378.501
6.5
555.721
554.321
1.4
690.776
689.576
1.2
808.053
806.95
1.103
915.237
915.117
0.12
1019.119 1019.05
0.069
1121.217 1121.182
0.035
1222.291 1222.27
0.021
1323.152 1323.146
0.006
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

75.6072
46.8
25.2
43.2
79.416
21.6
24.84
25.2
37.8
21.6
Y2
50.025
61.291
67.424
69.973
70.421
70.593
70.214
69.801
69.146
68.664
Y1
42.515
52.712
59.465
62.325
64.84
65.77
65.908
65.908
65.77
66.459
? Y
7.51
8.579
7.959
7.648
5.581
4.823
4.306
3.893
3.376
2.205
132

t2
0.01
100
170.79
0.02
50
390.31
0.05
20
559.76
0.1
10
693.68
0.2
5
810.92
0.5
2
918.67
1
1
1022.34
2
0.5
1124.52
5
0.2
1225.59
10
0.1
1326.42
t1
157.79
382.31
557.16
692.58
810.47
918.43
1022.27
1124.48
1225.58
1326.42
? t = t2 - t1
13.00
8.00
2.60
1.10
0.45
0.24
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

46.80
57.60
46.80
39.60
32.40
43.20
25.20
25.20
14.40
7.20
Y2
122.24
140.08
147.80
149.39
148.15
145.53
143.19
140.98
138.36
136.29
Y1
93.99
113.49
121.27
125.61
128.16
127.75
130.09
127.68
132.23
127.75
? Y
14.13
13.30
13.26
11.89
9.99
8.89
6.55
6.65
3.07
4.27

t2
0.01
100
168.83
0.02
50
387.74
0.05
20
557.79
0.1
10
691.67
0.2
5
808.90
0.5
2
916.53
1
1
1020.48
2
0.5
1122.56
5
0.2
1223.66
10
0.1
1324.48
t1
156.33
378.74
555.39
690.87
808.50
916.43
1020.38
1122.51
1223.64
1324.48
? t = t2 - t1
12.50
9.00
2.40
0.80
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

45.00
64.81
43.20
28.80
28.80
18.00
36.00
36.00
21.60
18.00
Y2
90.20
105.01
112.25
113.00
112.87
109.35
107.35
105.01
102.67
100.67
Y1
64.29
79.65
86.89
90.96
91.37
93.16
90.89
91.92
90.82
91.44
? Y
12.95
12.68
12.68
11.02
10.75
8.10
8.23
6.55
5.93
4.62

t2
0.01
100
167.54
0.02
50
385.99
0.05
20
556.89
0.1
10
690.76
0.2
5
808.71
0.5
2
916.24
1
1
1020.09
2
0.5
1122.21
5
0.2
1223.30
10
0.1
1324.16
t1
153.54
378.99
555.09
690.46
808.21
916.06
1020.03
1122.17
1223.28
1324.15
? t = t2 - t1
14.00
7.00
1.80
0.30
0.50
0.18
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

50.40
50.40
32.40
10.80
36.00
32.40
21.24
28.80
25.20
28.80
Y2
158.21
179.43
187.97
190.11
189.63
186.11
183.91
181.43
178.88
177.02
Y1
124.44
146.77
156.14
162.69
164.27
164.68
166.61
167.23
167.16
167.44
? Y
16.88
16.33
15.92
13.71
12.68
10.72
8.65
7.10
5.86
4.79
133
20% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
? t = t2 - t1
t2
t1
167.333
152.833
14.5
386.253
379.253
7
555.889
554.089
1.8
690.047
689.147
0.9
807.459
806.809
0.65
915.003
914.823
0.18
1018.86
1018.76
0.1
1120.932 1120.92
0.012
1222.048 1222.04
0.008
1322.91 1322.899
0.0105
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

52.2
50.4
32.4
32.4
46.8
32.4
36
8.64
14.4
37.8
Y2
54.228
64.357
69.319
71.248
71.454
70.628
69.869
69.112
68.147
67.596
Y1
44.237
53.677
58.879
61.326
62.6
63.84
63.255
63.427
63.634
64.2196
? Y
9.991
10.68
10.44
9.922
8.854
6.788
6.614
5.685
4.513
3.3764
20% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
? t = t2 - t1
t2
t1
171.127
153.627
17.5
386.573
380.073
6.5
557.206
554.806
2.4
690.461
690.061
0.4
807.907
807.56
0.347
915.697
915.48
0.217
1019.461 1019.28
0.181
1121.53
1121.51
0.02
1222.68
1222.65
0.03
1323.47 1323.465
0.005
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

63
46.8
43.2
14.4
24.984
39.06
65.16
14.4
54
18
Y2
49.473
58.259
67.738
64.461
64.84
64.219
63.806
63.358
62.807
62.256
Y1
41.688
49.439
54.263
56.399
57.67
58.259
58.535
58.707
59.086
59.806
? Y
7.785
8.82
13.475
8.062
7.17
5.96
5.271
4.651
3.721
2.45
20% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
169.026
385.933
556.352
690.837
808.214
915.604
1019.41
1121.558
1222.649
1323.485
? t = t2 - t1
t1
156.53
12.496
377.93
8.003
554.352
2
689.636
1.201
807.714
0.5
915.443
0.161
1019.297
0.113
1121.498
0.06
1222.639
0.01
1323.475
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

44.9856
57.6216
36
43.236
36
28.98
40.68
43.2
18
36
Y2
33.45
41.068
44.96
46.235
46.89
46.579
46.132
45.856
45.546
45.098
Y1
27.8966
33.936
37.795
40.171
40.895
42.102
42.136
42.067
42.756
42.928
? Y
5.5534
7.132
7.165
6.064
5.995
4.477
3.996
3.789
2.79
2.17
134

t2
0.01
100
164.00
0.02
50
382.84
0.05
20
555.34
0.1
10
689.79
0.2
5
807.11
0.5
2
915.02
1
1
1018.76
2
0.5
1120.89
5
0.2
1222.04
10
0.1
1322.82
t1
152.50
378.84
553.94
689.09
806.86
914.82
1018.72
1120.86
1222.03
1322.82
? t = t2 - t1
11.50
4.00
1.40
0.70
0.25
0.20
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

41.40
28.80
25.20
25.20
18.00
36.00
14.40
18.00
18.00
25.20
Y2
60.81
85.27
96.12
99.05
98.88
95.78
93.71
91.99
89.75
88.37
Y1
42.72
56.16
64.08
68.56
68.98
72.87
69.94
69.60
69.08
71.15
? Y
3.62
5.82
6.41
6.10
5.98
4.58
4.75
4.48
4.13
3.45

t2
0.01
100
163.24
0.02
50
382.77
0.05
20
554.31
0.1
10
688.75
0.2
5
806.60
0.5
2
914.44
1
1
1018.25
2
0.5
1120.40
5
0.2
1221.54
10
0.1
1322.27
t1
152.24
377.77
552.71
688.35
806.40
914.32
1018.18
1120.38
1221.52
1322.27
? t = t2 - t1
11.00
5.00
1.60
0.40
0.20
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.00
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

39.60
35.99
28.80
14.40
14.40
21.60
25.20
14.40
32.40
14.40
Y2
152.80
177.60
188.63
190.52
189.83
185.53
182.08
179.67
176.40
173.99
Y1
102.33
127.82
141.60
147.97
151.42
154.00
157.45
151.94
150.04
153.66
? Y
10.09
9.96
9.41
8.51
7.68
6.30
4.93
5.55
5.27
4.07

t2
0.01
100
166.70
0.02
50
385.64
0.05
20
556.80
0.1
10
690.91
0.2
5
808.71
0.5
2
916.22
1
1
1020.04
2
0.5
1122.13
5
0.2
1223.23
10
0.1
1324.07
t1
155.20
379.14
555.00
690.21
808.26
916.04
1019.94
1122.09
1223.22
1324.06
? t = t2 - t1
11.50
6.50
1.80
0.70
0.45
0.18
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.01
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

41.40
46.80
32.40
25.20
32.40
32.40
37.44
28.80
28.80
32.40
Y2
148.11
161.76
166.41
164.34
160.41
153.49
147.91
143.87
139.43
136.85
Y1
89.30
107.80
117.31
122.07
121.96
120.21
122.38
120.52
118.45
120.00
? Y
19.60
17.98
16.37
14.09
12.82
11.09
8.51
7.79
6.99
5.62
135
30% RAP FS-1 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
166.629
385.037
556.404
690.358
807.941
915.657
1019.538
1121.619
1222.744
1323.502
? t = t2 - t1
t1
155.129
11.5
379.037
6
554.604
1.8
689.758
0.6
807.641
0.3
915.497
0.16
1019.468
0.07
1121.534
0.085
1222.734
0.01
1323.486
0.016
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

41.4
43.2
32.4
21.6
21.6
28.8
25.2
61.2
18
57.6
Y2
65.546
72.867
76.571
77.26
76.829
75.021
74.245
73.384
72.264
71.317
Y1
48.061
56.675
50.809
63.996
66.149
65.805
66.838
64.082
64.168
64.168
? Y
17.485
16.192
25.762
13.264
10.68
9.216
7.407
9.302
8.096
7.149
30% RAP FS-2 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
t2
166.95
383.275
557.75
692.319
809.747
917.292
1021.098
1123.178
1224.34
1325.138
? t = t2 - t1
t1
155.95
11
379.275
4
556.15
1.6
691.519
0.8
809.147
0.6
917.112
0.18
1021.088
0.01
1123.153
0.025
1224.337
0.003
1325.136
0.002
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

39.6
28.8
28.8
28.8
43.2
32.4
3.6
18
5.4
7.2
Y2
60.723
73.384
78.38
79.586
79.672
78.466
77.346
76.743
75.882
74.676
Y1
42.98
53.659
60.378
62.962
65.804
63.651
65.718
64.513
64.771
65.374
? Y
17.743
19.725
18.002
16.624
13.868
14.815
11.628
12.23
11.111
9.302
30% RAP FS-3 Unaged

Frequency (Hz)
T=1/F
0.01
100
0.02
50
0.05
20
0.1
10
0.2
5
0.5
2
1
1
2
0.5
5
0.2
10
0.1
? t = t2 - t1
t2
t1
165.582
152.582
13
382.027
378.027
4
555.211
553.011
2.2
689.566
688.466
1.1
807.217
806.366
0.851
914.719
914.579
0.14
1018.515 1018.485
0.03
1120.596 1120.556
0.04
1221.738 1221.73
0.008
1322.54 1322.529
0.011
= ((t2 - t1) / T) * 360

46.8
28.8
39.6
39.6
61.272
25.2
10.8
28.8
14.4
39.6
Y2
48.923
54.4
57.019
57.639
57.295
56.33
55.538
54.779
53.849
53.195
Y1
38.07
43.617
46.614
47.648
49.233
48.854
48.785
48.992
49.956
49.991
? Y
10.853
10.783
10.405
9.991
8.062
7.476
6.753
5.787
3.893
3.204
136
SCB Tensile Strength Test

0% RAP Long-term Aged SCB IDT: PG 64-22
0% RAP Unaged SCB IDT: PG 64-22
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
2500
A-1
A-2
A-3
2000
1500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
3000
2500
U-1
U-2
U-3
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05
Defl., in.
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
2500
A-1
A-2
A-3
2000
1500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.15
0.2
2500
U-1
U-2
U-3
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
20% Long-term Aged SCB IDT: PG 64-22
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
2500
A-1
A-2
A-3
2000
1500
Load, lbs.
3000
Load, lbs.
0.1
Defl., in.
2500
U-1
U-2
U-3
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05
0.1
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
137
0.15
0.2
30% Unaged SCB IDT: PG 64-22
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
2500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
A-1
A-2
A-3
2000
1500
2500
U-1
U-2
U-3
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
0% RAP SCB IDT: PG 76-22

4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
0% A-1
0% A-2
0% U-1
0% U-2
2000
1500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
3000
2500
1000
2500
10% A-1
10% A-2
10% U-1
10% U-2
2000
1500
1000
500
500
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.05
Vert. Defl., in.
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vert. Defl., in.

4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
20% A-1
20% A-2
20% U-1
20% U-2
2000
1500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
3000
2500
1000
2500
30%
30%
30%
30%
2000
1500
1000
500
500
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vert. Defl., in.
0.05
0.1
Vert. Defl., in.
138
0.15
0.2
A-1
A-2
U-1
U-2
SCB Fatigue Test

PG 64-22 SCB Fatigue Test Summary
LTA
IDT
0%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.15
2625
2500
919
525
394
10%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.15
2742
2742
960
548
411
20%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.15
2862
2862
1002
572
429
30%
3436
1.00
3436
0.35
1203
0.20
687
0.15
515
LTA - Long-term Aged
UA - Un-aged
Cycles to Failure
1614
6614
26000
1013
10920
25502
2000
15814
28000
1510
7818
24500
1311
7514
16502
1211
10020
15002
1600
16900
37502
1911
7320
26502
AVG
1310
7155
13502
1
1412
7094
18668
1312
14611
17000
1
1179
11850
19168
1810
16900
21001
1
1803
16538
28834
2211
13912
19002
1
1877
9683
23335
Stdev
175
453
6524
152
2433
5576
200
627
8282
352
3671
3883
COV
UA
IDT
Cycles to Failure
AVG
Stdev
COV
12.4
6.4
35.0
0%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.10
2125
2125
744
425
213
810
5715
38820
712
5516
24502
810
6250
38812
1
777
8741
51067
57
380
8264
7.3
4.3
16.2
12.9
20.5
29.1
10%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.10
2416
2416
846
483
242
1711
8015
76512
1200
7815
94515
1513
11515
106513
1
1475
9115
92513
258
2081
15100
17.5
22.8
16.3
11.1
3.8
28.7
20%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.10
2743
2743
960
549
274
1712
8317
146000
1212
5916
155000
1610
9610
157000
1
1511
7948
152667
264
1874
5859
17.5
23.6
3.8
18.7
37.9
16.6
30%
1.00
0.35
0.20
0.15
2985
2985
1045
597
448
2210
14316
48000
2410
10620
72000
2410
22510
48500
1
2343
15815
56167
115
6085
13714
4.9
38.5
24.4
139
Limestone SCB Fatigue PG 76-22 SCB Test Summary

Mix
LTA
0%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
2666
933
533
10%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
3018
1056
211
20%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
2934
1027
205
30%
IDT
1.00
3639
0.35
1274
0.20
255
LTA - Long-term Aged
UA - Un-aged
Cycles to Failure
1
2
AVG
2802
7002
1
2402
8250
1
2602
7626
2102
12202
1
2802
10575
1
2452
11389
3702
20200
1
2502
19210
1
3102
19705
1802
11402
1
1402
11000
1
1602
11201
Stdev
200
624
350
814
600
495
200
201
Cycles to Failure
1
2
COV
Mix
UA
7.7
8.2
0%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
2265
793
453
957
7119
14.3
7.1
10%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
2622
918
524
19.3
2.5
20%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
2742
960
548
12.5
1.8
30%
1.00
0.35
0.20
IDT
3228
1130
646
140
AVG
Stdev
COV
1
1075
5920
1
1016
6520
59
600
5.8
9.2
2202
10202
1
1602
5202
1
1902
7702
0
300
2500
15.8
32.5
2602
11000
1
1600
12800
1
2101
11900
501
900
23.8
7.6
3319
1
3200
10800
1
2150
10301
1050
500
48.8
4.8
3161
1100
9801
SCB Notched IDT

Limestone PG 64-22
.5" Notched Samples
ID
0%
10%
20%
30%
0001A(.5)
0002A(.5)
0003A(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
0004U(.5)
0005U(.5)
0006U(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
1001A(.5)
1002A(.5)
1003A(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
1004U(.5)
1005U(.5)
1006U(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
2001A(.5)
2002A(.5)
2003A(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
2004U(.5)
2005U(.5)
2006U(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
3001A(.5)
3002A(.5)
3003A(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
3004U(.5)
3005U(.5)
3006U(.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
Notch
in.
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
Width
mm
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
in.
1.125
1.040
1.030
1.065
0.05
4.9
1.125
1.045
1.035
1.0683333
0.05
4.6
1.045
1.030
1.200
1.0916667
0.09
8.6
1.180
1.035
1.045
1.0866667
0.08
7.5
1.060
1.040
1.180
1.0933333
0.08
6.9
1.170
1.035
1.030
1.0783333
0.08
7.4
1.045
1.025
1.200
1.09
0.10
8.8
1.170
1.035
1.030
1.0783333
0.08
7.4
m
0.029
0.026
0.026
0.027051
0.00
4.9
0.029
0.027
0.026
0.0271357
0.00
4.6
0.027
0.026
0.030
0.0277283
0.00
8.6
0.030
0.026
0.027
0.0276013
0.00
7.5
0.027
0.026
0.030
0.0277707
0.00
6.9
0.030
0.026
0.026
0.0273897
0.00
7.4
0.027
0.026
0.030
0.027686
0.00
8.8
0.030
0.026
0.026
0.0273897
0.00
7.4
Peak
lbs.
newtons
412.28
1833.91
381.96
1699.04
345.44
1536.59
379.89333 1689.849123
33.47
148.87
8.8
8.8
242.76
1079.85
206.96
920.60
251.04
1116.68
233.58667 1039.044882
23.43
104.21
10.0
10.0
313.06
1392.56
445.36
1981.06
522.54
2324.37
426.98667 1899.33063
105.94
471.25
24.8
24.8
329.59
1466.09
286.18
1272.99
337.17
1499.81
317.64667 1412.962256
27.51
122.38
8.7
8.7
348.19
1548.83
506.01
2250.84
601.10
2673.83
485.1
2157.831522
127.75
568.24
26.3
26.3
345.44
1536.59
371.63
1653.09
340.62
1515.15
352.56333 1568.279271
16.69
74.23
4.7
4.7
555.62
2471.52
638.31
2839.34
574.92
2557.37
589.61667 2622.744649
43.26
192.43
7.3
7.3
461.90
2054.63
541.15
2407.15
430.89
1916.69
477.98
2126.16
56.86
252.93
11.9
11.9
Defl.
in.
0.051
0.054
0.036
0.04719
0.01
20.2
0.056
0.059
0.056
0.0572767
0.00
2.9
0.061
0.043
0.048
0.05075
0.01
18.4
0.064
0.054
0.059
0.0589333
0.01
8.9
0.056
0.043
0.048
0.049178
0.01
13.3
0.055
0.054
0.059
0.0561433
0.00
5.1
0.050
0.061
0.044
0.0516667
0.01
16.8
0.054
0.055
0.088
0.07
0.02
29.1
141
mm
1.300
1.374
0.922
1.198626
0.24
20.2
1.431
1.504
1.430
1.4548273
0.04
2.9
1.553
1.097
1.216
1.28905
0.24
18.4
1.636
1.369
1.486
1.4969067
0.13
8.9
1.426
1.097
1.224
1.2491212
0.17
13.3
1.397
1.372
1.510
1.4260407
0.07
5.1
1.280
1.547
1.110
1.3123333
0.22
16.8
1.382
1.397
2.230
1.67
0.49
29.1
Triangle
Area
in^2
10.548
10.332
6.270
9.049979267
2.41
26.6
6.837
6.126
7.067
6.676709133
0.49
7.3
9.573
9.620
12.512
10.56845703
1.68
15.9
10.613
7.713
9.862
9.395857167
1.51
16.0
9.773
10.930
14.487
11.72965824
2.46
20.9
9.500
10.034
10.122
9.885044433
0.34
3.4
14.002
19.437
12.562
15.3333885
3.63
23.6
12.564
14.882
18.916
15.45
3.21
20.8
Peak Load Area and Calculations

Origin
Origin
Origin
Area
Area
Strain Energy
lb-in.
N-m
lbs/in.^2
12.4875
1.41089754
11.100
12.69901
1.434794953
12.211
8.7165
0.984831905
8.463
11.30100333
1.276841466
10.5910693
2.24
0.25
1.93
19.8
19.8
18.2
9.5055
1.073976902
8.449
9.20207
1.039693928
8.806
9.66109
1.091556205
9.334
9.45622
1.068409012
8.86317614
0.23
0.03
0.45
2.5
2.5
5.0
14
1.581787032
13.397
13.11164
1.481415866
12.730
17.8797
2.020134114
14.900
14.99711333
1.694445671
13.67554225
2.54
0.29
1.11
16.9
16.9
8.1
14.73306
1.664611661
12.486
11.65501
1.316838834
11.261
13.95904
1.577159175
13.358
13.44903667
1.519536557
12.3681521
1.60
0.18
1.05
11.9
11.9
8.5
13.86538
1.56657702
13.081
15.41924
1.742139563
14.826
20.5546
2.322357123
17.419
16.61307333
1.877024569
15.10863067
3.50
0.40
2.18
21.1
21.1
14.4
13.90619
1.571187929
11.886
14.0582
1.588362747
13.583
14.92266
1.686033576
14.488
14.29568333
1.615194751
13.31881794
0.55
0.06
1.32
3.8
3.8
9.9
17.96965
2.030297096
17.196
24.20174
2.734428463
23.611
16.59323
1.874782574
13.828
19.58820667
2.213169378
18.21166088
4.05
0.46
4.97
20.7
20.7
27.3
17.81744
2.013099681
15.229
20.18994
2.281156091
19.507
24.65021
2.785098751
23.932
20.89
2.36
19.56
3.47
0.39
4.35
16.6
16.6
22.3
1" Notched Samples

ID
0%
10%
20%
30%
0011A(1)
0012A(1)
0013A(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
0014U(1)
0015U(1)
0016U(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
1011A(1)
1012A(1)
1013A(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
1014U(1)
1015U(1)
1016U(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
2011A(1)
2012A(1)
2013A(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
2014U(1)
2015U(1)
2016U(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
3011A(1)
3012A(1)
3013A(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
3014U(1)
3015U(1)
3016U(1)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
Notch
in.
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
mm
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
Width
in.
m
1.020
0.026
1.025
0.026
1.190
0.030
1.0783333 0.0273897
0.10
0.00
9.0
9.0
1.180
0.030
1.035
0.026
1.035
0.026
1.0833333 0.0275167
0.08
0.00
7.7
7.7
1.195
0.030
1.033
0.026
1.025
0.026
1.0843333 0.0275421
0.10
0.00
8.8
8.8
1.175
0.030
1.035
0.026
1.026
0.026
1.0786667 0.0273981
0.08
0.00
7.7
7.7
1.030
0.026
1.030
0.026
1.164
0.030
1.0746667 0.0272965
0.08
0.00
7.2
7.2
1.155
0.029
1.031
0.026
1.025
0.026
1.0703333 0.0271865
0.07
0.00
6.9
6.9
1.030
0.026
1.032
0.026
1.154
0.029
1.072
0.0272288
0.07
0.00
6.6
6.6
1.158
0.029
1.030
0.026
1.032
0.026
1.0733333 0.0272627
0.07
0.00
6.8
6.8
Peak
lbs.
newtons
206.93
920.47
260.68
1159.56
315.12
1401.73
260.91067 1160.588046
54.10
240.63
20.7
20.7
162.14
721.23
172.47
767.18
153.18
681.39
162.59733 723.2687101
9.65
42.93
5.9
5.9
319.94
1423.16
326.14
1450.74
266.88
1187.14
304.32
1353.68231
32.57
144.89
10.7
10.7
240.69
1070.64
235.18
1046.13
184.88
822.39
220.25
979.720455
30.75
136.80
14.0
14.0
309.60
1377.17
349.58
1555.00
384.72
1711.32
347.96567 1547.827838
37.59
167.19
10.8
10.8
275.84
1227.01
313.05
1392.52
228.29
1015.48
272.39433 1211.669921
42.49
188.98
15.6
15.6
350.75
1560.23
461.21
2051.56
365.43
1625.50
392.46367 1745.764731
59.99
266.83
15.3
15.3
320.64
1426.26
413.66
1840.05
373.007
1659.22
369.10067 1641.840967
46.64
207.44
12.6
12.6
Defl.
in.
mm
0.036
0.919
0.036
0.922
0.037
0.930
0.03636
0.923544
0.00
0.01
0.6
0.6
0.050
1.262
0.049
1.247
0.046
1.168
0.0482667 1.2259733
0.00
0.05
4.1
4.1
0.043
1.097
0.037
0.930
0.036
0.914
0.0386
0.98044
0.00
0.10
10.3
10.3
0.049
1.232
0.047
1.203
0.042
1.062
0.04589
1.165606
0.00
0.09
7.8
7.8
0.037
0.945
0.038
0.965
0.024
0.610
0.0330667 0.8398933
0.01
0.20
23.8
23.8
0.049
1.242
0.036
0.917
0.037
0.945
0.0407333 1.0346267
0.01
0.18
17.4
17.4
0.029
0.742
0.035
0.889
0.027
0.691
0.0304667 0.7738533
0.00
0.10
13.3
13.3
0.027
0.691
0.041
1.031
0.042
1.057
0.0364667 0.9262533
0.01
0.20
22.0
22.0
142
Triangle
Area
in^2
3.743
4.731
5.767
4.7471461
1.01
21.3
4.029
4.234
3.523
3.9288345
0.37
9.3
6.911
5.968
4.804
5.894302
1.06
17.9
5.837
5.570
3.864
5.090320933
1.07
21.0
5.759
6.642
4.617
5.672387667
1.02
17.9
6.744
5.651
4.246
5.54703595
1.25
22.6
5.121
8.071
4.970
6.053996867
1.75
28.9
4.361
8.397
7.759
6.838826533
2.17
31.7
Origin
Area
lb-in.
5.3955
6.5848
7.711
6.563766667
1.16
17.6
5.925
5.849
4.9275
5.567166667
0.56
10.0
8.8269
7.9683
6.2983
7.697833333
1.29
16.7
8.4358
7.6539
5.5919
7.2272
1.47
20.3
7.91053
9.5694
6.66147
8.047133333
1.46
18.1
9.19142
7.53443
5.9213
7.54905
1.64
21.7
6.40195
10.69507
6.92041
8.00581
2.34
29.3
5.61123
11.33472
11.59807
9.514673333
3.38
35.6
Origin
Area
N-m
0.609609424
0.743982232
0.8712257
0.741605785
0.13
17.6
0.669434869
0.660848025
0.556732543
0.629005146
0.06
10.0
0.997305425
0.900296686
0.71161209
0.869738067
0.15
16.7
0.953117075
0.864774269
0.631799636
0.81656366
0.17
20.3
0.893769555
1.08119663
0.752644776
0.909203654
0.16
18.1
1.03849064
0.851275976
0.669016825
0.852927814
0.18
21.7
0.723322964
1.208380217
0.781901057
0.904534746
0.26
29.3
0.633983632
1.280650936
1.31040548
1.075013349
0.38
35.6
Origin
Strain Energy
lbs/in.^2
5.290
6.424
6.480
6.064577646
0.67
11.1
5.021
5.651
4.761
5.144421245
0.46
8.9
7.387
7.714
6.145
7.081652164
0.83
11.7
7.179
7.395
5.450
6.67489055
1.07
16.0
7.680
9.291
5.723
7.564572732
1.79
23.6
7.958
7.308
5.777
7.01423433
1.12
16.0
6.215
10.363
5.997
7.52527148
2.46
32.7
4.846
11.005
11.238
9.029548069
3.63
40.1
1.5" Notched Samples

Notch
ID
0%
10%
20%
30%
0021A(1.5)
0022A(1.5)
0023A(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
0024U(1.5)
0025U(1.5)
0026U(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
1021A(1.5)
1022A(1.5)
1023A(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
1024U(1.5)
1025U(1.5)
1026U(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
2021A(1.5)
2022A(1.5)
2023A(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
2024U(1.5)
2025U(1.5)
2026U(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
3021A(1.5)
3022A(1.5)
3023A(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
3024U(1.5)
3025U(1.5)
3026U(1.5)
Average
STD Dev.
COV
in.
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
mm
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
Width
in.
m
0.935
0.024
0.955
0.024
0.960
0.024
0.95
0.02413
0.01
0.00
1.4
1.4
0.940
0.024
0.945
0.024
0.965
0.025
0.95
0.02413
0.01
0.00
1.4
1.4
0.975
0.025
0.975
0.025
0.902
0.023
0.9506667 0.0241469
0.04
0.00
4.4
4.4
0.935
0.024
0.945
0.024
0.960
0.024
0.9466667 0.0240453
0.01
0.00
1.3
1.3
0.992
0.025
0.965
0.025
0.971
0.025
0.976
0.0247904
0.01
0.00
1.5
1.5
0.970
0.025
0.964
0.024
0.930
0.024
0.9546667 0.0242485
0.02
0.00
2.3
2.3
0.831
0.021
1.002
0.025
1.014
0.026
0.949
0.0241046
0.10
0.00
10.8
10.8
0.964
0.024
0.956
0.024
0.938
0.024
0.9526667 0.0241977
0.01
0.00
1.4
1.4
Peak
Defl.
lbs.
newtons
in.
mm
147.66
656.82
0.026
0.650
149.70
665.90
0.023
0.584
144.91
644.59
0.022
0.559
147.42333 655.7714198 0.0235333 0.5977467
2.40
10.69
0.00
0.05
1.6
1.6
7.9
7.9
132.50
589.39
0.030
0.770
129.75
577.16
0.037
0.927
115.28
512.79
0.032
0.809
125.84333 559.7788322 0.0328967 0.8355753
9.25
41.15
0.00
0.08
7.4
7.4
9.8
9.8
142.16
632.34
0.019
0.483
175.23
779.47
0.027
0.678
177.30
788.67
0.019
0.475
164.89633 733.4951679 0.0214667 0.5452533
19.72
87.72
0.00
0.12
12.0
12.0
21.1
21.1
143.53
638.45
0.023
0.582
152.49
678.31
0.028
0.699
135.95
604.74
0.028
0.711
143.99
640.4991978 0.0261333 0.6637867
8.28
36.83
0.00
0.07
5.8
5.8
10.8
10.8
242.76
1079.85
0.016
0.406
180.05
800.90
0.017
0.442
204.17
908.19
0.018
0.450
208.99333 929.6483252 0.0170333 0.4326467
31.63
140.71
0.00
0.02
15.1
15.1
5.3
5.3
184.19
819.32
0.027
0.693
200.04
889.82
0.039
0.993
177.99
791.74
0.033
0.838
187.40667 833.6260828 0.0331333 0.8415867
11.37
50.58
0.01
0.15
6.1
6.1
17.8
17.8
169.03
751.89
0.018
0.455
240.69
1070.64
0.024
0.610
248.96
1107.43
0.020
0.505
219.56033 976.6526659
0.0206
0.52324
43.95
195.52
0.00
0.08
20.0
20.0
15.1
15.1
164.20
730.40
0.038
0.970
212.44
944.98
0.023
0.579
160.07
712.03
0.025
0.640
178.90333 795.8013854 0.0287333 0.7298267
29.12
129.52
0.01
0.21
16.3
16.3
28.8
28.8
143
Triangle
Area
in^2
1.890
1.722
1.594
1.735202667
0.15
8.6
2.009
2.368
1.837
2.0712081
0.27
13.1
1.350
2.339
1.658
1.782532517
0.51
28.4
1.643
2.097
1.903
1.881152
0.23
12.1
1.942
1.566
1.807
1.7718065
0.19
10.7
2.514
3.911
2.937
3.1206035
0.72
23.0
1.513
2.888
2.477
2.29275315
0.71
30.8
3.136
2.422
2.017
2.524972667
0.57
22.4
Origin
Area
lb-in.
2.94846
2.50112
2.49739
2.64899
0.26
9.8
2.97141
3.80356
2.65248
3.142483333
0.59
18.9
2.01184
3.4222
2.53533
2.656456667
0.71
26.8
2.48416
2.93918
2.85436
2.759233333
0.24
8.8
2.5079
2.28852
2.32987
2.37543
0.12
4.9
3.60231
5.52244
4.13431
4.419686667
0.99
22.4
2.2653
3.64711
3.11092
3.007776667
0.70
23.2
3.81585
3.53177
2.79789
3.381836667
0.53
15.5
Origin
Area
N-m
0.333131128
0.282588513
0.28216708
0.299295574
0.03
9.8
0.335724129
0.42974442
0.29968989
0.355052813
0.07
18.9
0.227307316
0.386656541
0.286453723
0.300139193
0.08
26.8
0.280672291
0.332082629
0.322499259
0.311751393
0.03
8.8
0.28335455
0.258567947
0.263239868
0.268387455
0.01
4.9
0.407006232
0.623951713
0.467114139
0.499357361
0.11
22.4
0.25594444
0.41206795
0.351486637
0.339833009
0.08
23.2
0.431133003
0.399036285
0.316119008
0.382096099
0.06
15.5
Origin
Strain Energy
lbs/in.^2
3.153
2.619
2.601
2.791284965
0.31
11.2
3.161
4.025
2.749
3.311563208
0.65
19.7
2.063
3.510
2.811
2.7947205
0.72
25.9
2.657
3.110
2.973
2.913463556
0.23
8.0
2.528
2.372
2.399
2.433034162
0.08
3.4
3.714
5.729
4.445
4.629296157
1.02
22.0
2.726
3.640
3.068
3.144597187
0.46
14.7
3.958
3.694
2.983
3.545165289
0.50
14.2
Notched IDT 0004UA(.5): PG 64-22
700
700
600
600
500
500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
Notched IDT 0001LTA(.5): PG 64-22
400
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.

700
700
600
600
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
500
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.

700
700
600
600
500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
500
400
300
200
400
300
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
144
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
200
400
300
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.06
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
Load, lbs.
400
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
Nothced IDT 1006UA(.5): PG 64-22
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
Nothced IDT 1002LTA(.5): PG 64-22
Load, lbs.
0.04
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
145
0.1

700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

700
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
146
0.1

700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

700
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
300
400
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
147
0.1
Notched IDT 0014UA(1): PG 64-22

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
Notched IDT 0011LTA(1): PG 64-22

500
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.

500
500
450
450
400
400
350
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
350
250
200
300
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
148
0.1
0.12

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

500
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
149
0.1

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

500
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl,. in.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
150
0.1

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

500
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
250
200
250
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
151
0.1
Notched IDT 0024UA(1.5): PG 64-22

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
Notched IDT 0021LTA(1.5): PG 64-22

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.06
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.06
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
152

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.06
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.06
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
153

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.06
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.06
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
154
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.1
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
Defl., in.
0.06
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.06
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
155
Limestone PG 76-22
.5" Notched Samples

ID
0%
10%
20%
30%
0101
0102
0103
Average
STD Dev.
COV
0104
0105
0105
Average
STD Dev.
COV
10101
10102
10103
Average
STD Dev.
COV
10104
10105
10106
Average
STD Dev.
COV
20101
20102
20103
Average
STD Dev.
COV
20104
20105
20106
Average
STD Dev.
COV
30101
30102
30103
Average
STD Dev.
COV
30104
30105
30106
Average
STD Dev.
COV
Notch
in.
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.00
0.0
Width
mm
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
0.00
0.0
in.
1.190
1.170
0.920
1.0933333
0.15
13.8
1.140
1.150
1.120
1.1366667
0.02
1.3
1.130
1.050
1.140
1.1066667
0.05
4.5
1.150
1.140
1.110
1.1333333
0.02
1.8
1.150
1.140
1.020
1.1033333
0.07
6.6
1.050
1.170
1.160
1.1266667
0.07
5.9
1.170
1.160
1.020
1.1166667
0.08
7.5
1.130
1.160
1.030
1.1066667
0.07
6.2
m
0.030
0.030
0.023
0.0277707
0.00
13.8
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.0288713
0.00
1.3
0.029
0.027
0.029
0.0281093
0.00
4.5
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.0287867
0.00
1.8
0.029
0.029
0.026
0.0280247
0.00
6.6
0.027
0.030
0.029
0.0286173
0.00
5.9
0.030
0.029
0.026
0.0283633
0.00
7.5
0.029
0.029
0.026
0.0281093
0.00
6.2
Peak
lbs.
newtons
298.98
1329.95
391.61
1741.97
246.90
1098.27
312.49833 1390.061336
73.29
326.03
23.5
23.5
345.44
1536.61
397.82
1769.57
433.65
1928.97
392.30233 1745.047085
44.36
197.33
11.3
11.3
293.07
1303.64
345.44
1536.59
313.06
1392.54
317.1887 1410.925119
26.43
117.56
8.3
8.3
412.29
1833.94
450.28
2002.93
575.60
2560.42
479.38917 2132.428479
85.46
380.16
17.8
17.8
412.00
1832.66
387.48
1723.59
442.61
1968.81
414.0277 1841.686296
27.62
122.86
6.7
6.7
514.96
2290.67
508.07
2260.02
465.35
2069.97
496.12753 2206.884416
26.88
119.56
5.4
5.4
430.20
1913.64
453.63
2017.86
503.74
2240.74
462.52453 2057.41088
37.56
167.10
8.1
8.1
588.70
2618.66
512.21
2278.41
624.53
2778.05
575.15
2558.37
57.38
255.22
10.0
10.0
Defl.
in.
0.064
0.066
0.058
0.0629433
0.00
0.1
0.065
0.054
0.048
0.05539
0.01
15.6
0.057
0.072
0.063
0.0638047
0.01
11.5
0.054
0.055
0.070
0.059798
0.01
15.5
0.093
0.072
0.060
0.075013
0.02
22.0
0.014
0.050
0.052
0.038593
0.02
55.7
0.097
0.073
0.071
0.0801817
0.01
18.4
0.070
0.055
0.065
0.06
0.01
11.8
156
mm
1.632
1.685
1.479
1.5987607
0.11
6.7
1.645
1.361
1.214
1.4069052
0.22
15.6
1.453
1.820
1.589
1.6206385
0.19
11.5
1.366
1.400
1.790
1.5188692
0.24
15.5
2.359
1.825
1.532
1.9053302
0.42
22.0
0.350
1.269
1.322
0.9802622
0.55
55.7
2.469
1.847
1.794
2.0366143
0.38
18.4
1.773
1.400
1.650
1.61
0.19
11.8
Origin
Area
lb-in.
10.99
15.3662
13.25
13.20206667
2.19
16.6
17.304
13.99772
15.33
15.54390667
1.66
10.7
14.12
16.10858
13.48136
14.56998
1.37
9.4
13.86303
15.19587
18.22352
15.76080667
2.23
14.2
13.7672
17.66059
17.51909
16.31562667
2.21
13.5
18.27304
17.3969
17.16265
17.61086333
0.59
3.3
22.32
23.13913
24.86927
23.4428
1.30
5.6
27.07379
24.33
28.31128
26.57
2.04
7.7
Peak Load
Origin
Origin
Area
Strain Energy
N-m
lbs/in.^2
1.24170282
9.235
1.736146849
13.134
1.497048441
14.402
1.491632703
12.25699077
0.25
2.69
16.6
22.0
1.955088772
15.179
1.581529427
12.172
1.7320568
13.688
1.756224999
13.67945927
0.19
1.50
10.7
11.0
1.595345207
12.496
1.820024496
15.342
1.523188602
11.826
1.646186101
13.22094479
0.15
1.87
9.4
14.1
1.566311506
12.055
1.71690215
13.330
2.058980544
16.418
1.7807314
13.93403494
0.25
2.24
14.2
16.1
1.555484173
11.971
1.995378017
15.492
1.97939067
17.176
1.84341762
14.87960077
0.25
2.66
13.5
17.8
2.064575551
17.403
1.965585058
14.869
1.939118372
14.795
1.98975966
15.68914282
0.07
1.48
3.3
9.5
2.521820468
19.077
2.614369698
19.948
2.809849199
24.382
2.648679788
21.13536206
0.15
2.84
5.6
13.5
3.058926424
23.959
2.748919892
20.974
3.198743969
27.487
3.00
24.14
0.23
3.26
7.7
13.5
Origin
Strain Energy
J/m
41.081
58.421
64.064
54.52179147
11.98
22.0
67.519
54.143
60.885
60.8492443
6.69
11.0
55.583
68.242
52.604
58.80967103
8.30
14.1
53.622
59.293
73.029
61.98165288
9.98
16.1
53.252
68.911
76.401
66.18773773
11.81
17.8
77.412
66.141
65.813
69.78875889
6.60
9.5
84.858
88.731
108.455
94.01474024
12.65
13.5
106.575
93.298
122.267
107.38
14.50
13.5
1" Notched Samples

ID
0%
10%
20%
30%
0201
0202
0203
Average
STD Dev.
COV
0204
0205
0206
Average
STD Dev.
COV
10201
10202
10203
Average
STD Dev.
COV
10204
10205
10206
Average
STD Dev.
COV
20201
20202
20203
Average
STD Dev.
COV
20204
20205
20206
Average
STD Dev.
COV
30201
30202
30203
Average
STD Dev.
COV
30204
30205
30206
Average
STD Dev.
COV
Notch
in.
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
1
1
1
1
0.00
0.0
mm
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
0.00
0.0
Width
in.
m
1.130
0.029
1.150
0.029
1.010
0.026
1.0966667 0.0278553
0.08
0.00
6.9
6.9
1.170
0.030
1.150
0.029
1.050
0.027
1.1233333 0.0285327
0.06
0.00
5.7
5.7
1.060
0.027
1.170
0.030
1.110
0.028
1.1133333 0.0282787
0.06
0.00
4.9
4.9
1.150
0.029
1.130
0.029
1.070
0.027
1.1166667 0.0283633
0.04
0.00
3.7
3.7
1.150
0.029
1.160
0.029
0.980
0.025
1.0966667 0.0278553
0.10
0.00
9.2
9.2
1.130
0.029
1.180
0.030
1.130
0.029
1.1466667 0.0291253
0.03
0.00
2.5
2.5
1.180
0.030
1.170
0.030
0.970
0.025
1.1066667 0.0281093
0.12
0.00
10.7
10.7
1.160
0.029
1.140
0.029
1.090
0.028
1.13
0.028702
0.04
0.00
3.2
3.2
lbs.
191.09
207.62
221.40
206.70567
15.18
7.3
229.67
249.65
275.83
251.71667
23.15
9.2
235.18
142.00
229.67
202.28333
52.28
25.8
377.14
368.18
372.663
6.33
1.7
242.76
237.00
285.49
255.08367
26.49
10.4
334.00
337.00
449.00
373.33333
65.55
17.6
302.00
240.00
315.80
285.93333
40.37
14.1
428.00
324.00
463.28
405.09333
72.41
17.9
Peak
newtons
850.02
923.54
984.85
919.4722806
67.51
7.3
1021.62
1110.50
1226.95
1119.691111
102.97
9.2
1046.13
631.65
1021.62
899.800769
232.55
25.8
1677.61
1637.76
1657.69
28.18
1.7
1079.85
1054.23
1269.93
1134.668268
117.84
10.4
1485.71
1499.05
1997.25
1660.6688
291.56
17.6
1343.36
1067.57
1404.75
1271.894372
179.59
14.1
1903.84
1441.22
2060.77
1801.944267
322.10
17.9
Defl.
in.
mm
0.051
1.288
0.049
1.252
0.049
1.252
0.0497477 1.2635907
0.00
0.02
1.6
1.6
0.028
0.704
0.035
0.892
0.038
0.967
0.0336253 0.8540835
0.01
0.14
15.9
15.9
0.059
1.501
0.021
0.523
0.063
1.600
0.0475653 1.2081595
0.02
0.60
49.3
49.3
0.038
0.973
0.033
0.845
0.0357715 0.9085961
0.00
0.09
10.0
10.0
0.030
0.766
0.055
1.392
0.046
1.168
0.0436527 1.1087794
0.01
0.32
28.6
28.6
0.051
1.302
0.031
0.791
0.041
1.033
0.0410217 1.0419503
0.01
0.26
24.5
24.5
0.056
1.426
0.033
0.836
0.028
0.721
0.0391557 0.9945539
0.01
0.38
38.0
38.0
0.035
0.888
0.060
1.536
0.052
1.330
0.0492737 1.2515511
0.01
0.33
26.4
26.4
157
Origin
Area
lb-in.
6.8398
6.905
6.904
6.882933333
0.04
0.5
4.083
4.67
4.9
4.551
0.42
9.3
9.26
3.65
7.73
6.88
2.90
42.2
9.79
7.99
8.89
1.27
14.3
4.29
7.19
7.49
6.323333333
1.77
27.9
6.99
5.61
11.61
8.07
3.14
38.9
7.436
4.63
4.85
5.638666667
1.56
27.7
8.701
12.53
16.701
12.644
4.00
31.6
Origin
Area
N-m
0.772793353
0.780159961
0.780046976
0.777666763
0.00
0.5
0.461316889
0.52763896
0.553625461
0.51419377
0.05
9.3
1.046239137
0.412394476
0.873372411
0.777335341
0.33
42.2
1.106121075
0.902748456
1.004434765
0.14
14.3
0.484704741
0.812360626
0.846256062
0.714440476
0.20
27.9
0.789763668
0.633844661
1.311753389
0.911787239
0.36
38.9
0.840154884
0.523119568
0.547976222
0.637083558
0.18
27.7
0.98308064
1.415699394
1.886958944
1.428579659
0.45
31.6
Origin
Strain Energy
lbs/in.^2
6.053
6.004
6.836
6.297637248
0.47
7.4
3.490
4.061
4.667
4.072426607
0.59
14.5
8.736
3.120
6.964
6.273157047
2.87
45.8
8.664
7.467
8.065503267
0.85
10.5
3.730
6.198
7.643
5.857189263
1.98
33.8
6.186
4.754
10.274
7.071471426
2.86
40.5
6.302
3.957
5.000
5.086319958
1.17
23.1
7.501
10.991
15.322
11.2713695
3.92
34.8
Origin
Strain Energy
J/m
26.925
26.709
30.406
28.01327596
2.08
7.4
15.523
18.064
20.758
18.11504948
2.62
14.5
38.859
13.877
30.977
27.90438264
12.77
45.8
38.538
33.216
35.87713294
3.76
10.5
16.594
27.571
33.997
26.05406642
8.80
33.8
27.516
21.148
45.703
31.45546063
12.74
40.5
28.031
17.603
22.241
22.62507016
5.22
23.1
33.365
48.891
68.156
50.13753122
17.43
34.8
1.5" Notched Samples

ID
0%
10%
20%
30%
0301
0302
0303
Average
STD Dev.
COV
0304
0305
0306
Average
STD Dev.
COV
10301
10302
10303
Average
STD Dev.
COV
10304
10305
10306
Average
STD Dev.
COV
20301
20302
20303
Average
STD Dev.
COV
20304
20305
20306
Average
STD Dev.
COV
30301
30302
30303
Average
STD Dev.
COV
30304
30305
30306
Average
STD Dev.
COV
Notch
in.
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.00
0.0
mm
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
0.00
0.0
Width
in.
m
1.130
0.029
1.100
0.028
1.140
0.029
1.1233333 0.0285327
0.02
0.00
1.9
1.9
1.150
0.029
1.130
0.029
1.010
0.026
1.0966667 0.0278553
0.08
0.00
6.9
6.9
1.130
0.029
0.980
0.025
1.170
0.030
1.0933333 0.0277707
0.10
0.00
9.2
9.2
1.170
0.030
1.140
0.029
1.040
0.026
1.1166667 0.0283633
0.07
0.00
6.1
6.1
1.040
0.026
1.160
0.029
1.130
0.029
1.11
0.028194
0.06
0.00
5.6
5.6
1.130
0.029
1.180
0.030
1.100
0.028
1.1366667 0.0288713
0.04
0.00
3.6
3.6
1.150
0.029
1.150
0.029
1.020
0.026
1.1066667 0.0281093
0.08
0.00
6.8
6.8
1.160
0.029
1.180
0.030
1.040
0.026
1.1266667 0.0286173
0.08
0.00
6.7
6.7
lbs.
148.35
145.60
142.57
145.50667
2.89
2.0
176.61
159.50
211.75
182.62
26.64
14.6
138.02
153.80
134.57
142.13
10.25
7.2
200.04
233.80
282.73
238.85667
41.58
17.4
174.50
118.03
159.38
150.63667
29.23
19.4
120.00
258.60
250.30
209.63333
77.74
37.1
137.33
164.90
114.00
138.74233
25.48
18.4
259.30
300.60
292.32
284.07333
21.85
7.7
Peak
newtons
659.89
647.66
634.18
647.2456648
12.86
2.0
785.60
709.49
941.91
812.3339364
118.49
14.6
613.94
684.14
598.60
632.2255086
45.61
7.2
889.82
1039.99
1257.65
1062.487002
184.94
17.4
776.21
525.02
708.96
670.0650334
130.03
19.4
533.79
1150.31
1113.39
932.495186
345.79
37.1
610.87
733.50
507.10
617.156422
113.33
18.4
1153.42
1337.13
1300.30
1263.620683
97.19
7.7
Defl.
in.
mm
0.036
0.910
0.037
0.950
0.044
1.128
0.039209 0.9959086
0.00
0.12
11.6
11.6
0.031
0.796
0.031
0.792
0.031
0.783
0.031125 0.790575
0.00
0.01
0.0
0.8
0.027
0.674
0.036
0.917
0.026
0.665
0.0296077 0.7520347
0.01
0.14
19.0
19.0
0.027
0.687
0.035
0.879
0.028
0.712
0.0298967 0.7593753
0.00
0.10
13.7
13.7
0.025
0.639
0.027
0.696
0.046
1.164
0.03279
0.832866
0.01
0.29
34.6
34.6
0.020
0.498
0.038
0.965
0.025
0.643
0.02764
0.702056
0.01
0.24
34.1
34.1
0.023
0.594
0.035
0.888
0.023
0.573
0.0269817 0.6853343
0.01
0.18
25.7
25.7
0.027
0.687
0.037
0.949
0.030
0.772
0.03161
0.802894
0.01
0.13
16.7
16.7
158
Origin
Area
lb-in.
3.21
3.34
4.07
3.54
0.46
13.1
3.86
2.92
3.523
3.434333333
0.48
13.9
2.331
4.09
2.178
2.866333333
1.06
37.1
3.303
4.728
5.24
4.423666667
1.00
22.7
2.625
2.267
4.45
3.114
1.17
37.6
1.741
5.55
3.49
3.593666667
1.91
53.1
2.05
3.84
1.67
2.52
1.16
46.0
4.07
6.82
4.97
5.286666667
1.40
26.5
Origin
Area
N-m
0.362681169
0.377369192
0.459848087
0.39996615
0.05
13.1
0.436121282
0.329915581
0.398045408
0.388027424
0.05
13.9
0.263367541
0.462107783
0.246080868
0.323852064
0.12
37.1
0.373188755
0.534192078
0.592040289
0.499807041
0.11
22.7
0.296585069
0.256136514
0.502782307
0.35183463
0.13
37.6
0.196706516
0.627065573
0.39431691
0.406029666
0.22
53.1
0.231618815
0.433861586
0.188684596
0.284721666
0.13
46.0
0.459848087
0.770556254
0.561534396
0.597312913
0.16
26.5
Origin
Strain Energy
lbs/in.^2
2.841
3.036
3.570
3.149082347
0.38
12.0
3.357
2.584
3.488
3.142903782
0.49
15.5
2.063
4.173
1.862
2.699279903
1.28
47.4
2.823
4.147
5.038
4.002968961
1.11
27.8
2.524
1.954
3.938
2.805467301
1.02
36.4
1.541
4.703
3.173
3.138941689
1.58
50.4
1.783
3.339
1.637
2.252998011
0.94
41.9
3.509
5.780
4.779
4.68904262
1.14
24.3
Origin
Strain Energy
J/m
12.636
13.506
15.881
14.00781108
1.68
12.0
14.931
11.495
15.516
13.98032746
2.17
15.5
9.176
18.565
8.281
12.00699085
5.70
47.4
12.558
18.448
22.412
17.80608659
4.96
27.8
11.227
8.693
17.517
12.47933576
4.54
36.4
6.853
20.922
14.113
13.9627032
7.04
50.4
7.929
14.853
7.283
10.02183081
4.20
41.9
15.607
25.709
21.257
20.85789316
5.06
24.3

700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

700
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
Notched IDT 0102UA: PG 76-22
300
300
200
200
100
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl.,in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl.,in.
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl.,in.
159
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
450
400
600
350
500
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
400
300
250
200
150
200
100
100
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
160
0.1

700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

700
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
161
0.1

700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

700
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
162
0.1

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

500
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.1

500
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
Defl.,in.
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
163
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

500
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
Notched IDT 10203(1): PG 76-22
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
164
0.1

500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

500
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
165
0.1
500
500
450
450
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
400
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
500
500
450
450
400
400
350
350
300
300
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
166
0.1

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
167
0.1

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl.,in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
168
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.12
0.14
0.16
300
250
250
200
Load, lbs.
200
Load, lbs.
0.1

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
169
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16

300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.

300
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.16
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.04
0.06
Defl., in.
0.08
0.1
Defl., in.
300
300
250
250
200
200
Load, lbs.
Load, lbs.
0.08
Defl., in.
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Defl., in.
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Defl., in.
170
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Appendix D: Flexural Beam Fatigue Test Data
171
Limestone Mixtures
PG 64-22 Beam Fatigue Test Summary
Aged Specimens
Cummulative
Cycles, N
Dissipated Energy
(in-lbf/in^3)
16,196
2,703.168
10,364
1,804.834
12,613
2,048.549
13,058
2,186
2,941
465
23
21
Percent
Rap
Specimen
0%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
10%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
56,229
32,324
65,002
51,185
16,913
33
20%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
30%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
Unaged Specimens
Cummulative
Cycles, N
Dissipated Energy
(in-lbf/in^3)
12,917
2,011.37
9,345
1,517.61
23,634
3,712.48
15,299
2,414
7,436
1,151
49
48
Stiffnes
Specimen
410,000.000
425,000.000
500,000.000
445,000
48,218
11
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
11,761.071
5,903.875
12,863.054
10,176.000
3,740.572
36.759
610,000.000
560,000.000
570,000.000
580,000.000
26,457.513
4.562
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
19,456
4,645
17,419
13,840
8,028
58
4,010.991
769.007
3,352.042
2,710.680
1,713.512
63.213
450,000.000
325,000.000
430,000.000
401,666.667
67,144.124
16.716
84,324
22,307
39,575
48,735
32,007
66
17,102.993
4,015.847
7,814.909
9,644.583
6,732.691
69.808
690,000.000
580,000.000
650,000.000
640,000.000
55,677.644
8.700
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
21,886
22,306
31,598
25,263
5,490
22
4,496.125
4,808.246
6,057.998
5,120.790
826.513
16.140
630,000.000
650,000.000
450,000.000
576,666.667
110,151.411
19.101
107,604
88,402
26,692
74,232.67
42,276.06
56.95
22,365.632
17,294.130
4,670.672
14,776.81
9,112.11
61.66
750,000.000
700,000.000
620,000.000
690,000.00
65,574.39
9.50
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
104,033
93,103
59,788
85,641.33
23,046.96
26.91
21,246.412
20,099.014
12,770.259
18,038.56
4,598.41
25.49
780,000.000
650,000.000
670,000.000
700,000.00
70,000.00
10.00
172
Stiffnes
310,000.000
315,000.000
320,000.000
315,000
5,000
2

3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
001u64
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100
10,100
12,100
14,100
Loading Cycles

3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
002u64
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100
10,100
Loading Cycles

3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
003u64
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
Loading Cycles
173
20,100
25,100

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
101u64
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
Loading Cycles

3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
102u64
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
1,100
2,100
3,100
4,100
5,100
Loading Cycles

4.500E+05
4.000E+05
3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
103u64
5,100
10,100
Loading Cycles
174
15,100
20,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
201u64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
202u64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
Loading Cycles

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
203u64
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
Loading Cycles
175
25,100
30,100
35,100

9.000E+05
8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
3011u64
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
120,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
302u64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
303u64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
Loading Cycles
176
50,100
60,100
70,100

4.500E+05
4.000E+05
3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
001-a-64
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
Loading Cycles

4.500E+05
4.000E+05
3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
002-a-64
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100
10,100
12,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
004-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100
Loading Cycles
177
10,100
12,100
14,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
101-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
60,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
102-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
30,100
35,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
103-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
Loading Cycles
178
50,100
60,100
70,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
201-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
202-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
203-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
Loading Cycles
179
40,100
50,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
301-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
120,100
Loading Cycles

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
302-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
303-a-64
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
Loading Cycles
180
25,100
30,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
001U76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100 40,100 60,100 80,100 100,100 120,100 140,100 160,100

Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
002u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
250,100
Loading Cycles

4.500E+05
4.000E+05
3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
003u76
50,100
100,100 150,100 200,100 250,100 300,100 350,100

Loading Cycles
181

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
101U76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100 20,100 30,100 40,100 50,100 60,100 70,100 80,100

Loading Cycles

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
102u76
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100 20,100 30,100 40,100 50,100 60,100 70,100 80,100

Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
103u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
Loading Cycles
182
80,100
100,100
120,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
201u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100 150,100 200,100 250,100 300,100 350,100

Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
203u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100 15,100 20,100 25,100 30,100 35,100 40,100

Loading Cycles

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
205u76
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
Loading Cycles
183
20,100
25,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
301u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100 40,100
60,100 80,100 100,100 120,100 140,100 160,100

Loading Cycles

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
304u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
250,100
300,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
305u76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
Loading Cycles
184
40,100
50,100
60,100

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
001-a-76
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
250,100
Loading Cycles

4.500E+05
4.000E+05
3.500E+05
3.000E+05
2.500E+05
2.000E+05
1.500E+05
1.000E+05
5.000E+04
0.000E+00
100
002-a-76
600
1,100
1,600
2,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
003-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
Loading Cycles
185
40,100
50,100

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
101-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
102-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
250,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
103-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
Loading Cycles
186
200,100
250,100

5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
201-a-76
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
202-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
60,100
70,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
202-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
Loading Cycles
187
50,100
60,100
70,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
301-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100 120,100 140,100
Loading Cycles

9.000E+05
8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
302-a-76
50,100
100,100 150,100 200,100 250,100 300,100 350,100

Loading Cycles

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
303-a-76
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100 150,100 200,100 250,100 300,100 350,100

Loading Cycles
188
Gravel Mixtures
Long-term Aged Specimens
Cummulative
Cycles, N
Dissipated Energy
(in-lbf/in^3)
19,778
4,211.429
23,541
5,560.499
10,159
2,255.543
17,826
4,009
6,901
1,662
39
41
Percent
Rap
Specimen
0%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
10%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
7,506
15,370
24,142
15,673
8,322
53
20%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
30%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
Long-term Aged Freeze Thaw Specimens

Cummulative
Cycles, N
Stiffnes
Dissipated Energy
(in-lbf/in^3)
4,443
948.15
560,000.000
6,288
1,389.30
560,000.000
4,239
901.61
490,000.000
4,990
1,080
536,667
1,129
269
40,415
23
25
8
Stiffnes
Specimen
540,000.000
660,000.000
610,000.000
603,333
60,277
10
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
1,529.435
3,120.721
5,321.412
3,323.856
1,904.132
57.287
570,000.000
660,000.000
570,000.000
600,000.000
51,961.524
8.660
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
11,694
17,004
16,389
15,029
2,905
19
2,755.658
3,633.505
3,433.561
3,274.241
460.099
14.052
620,000.000
490,000.000
490,000.000
533,333.333
75,055.535
14.073
66,238
40,292
34,268
46,933
16,988
36
15,924.691
9,186.100
6,959.164
10,689.985
4,668.128
43.668
760,000.000
690,000.000
560,000.000
670,000.000
101,488.916
15.148
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
7,508
14,046
12,919
11,491
3,495
30
1,441.844
2,753.662
2,334.500
2,176.669
670.000
30.781
610,000.000
600,000.000
510,000.000
573,333.333
55,075.705
9.606
44,157
26,192
86,104
52,151.00
30,745.57
58.95
8,097.088
5,348.758
15,304.217
9,583.35
5,141.45
53.65
640,000.000
620,000.000
780,000.000
680,000.00
87,177.98
12.82
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
38,641
31,902
36,819
35,787.33
3,485.94
9.74
8,045.471
5,752.847
7,066.024
6,954.78
1,150.35
16.54
710,000.000
600,000.000
640,000.000
650,000.00
55,677.64
8.57
189
Flexural Stiffness (lbf/in

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
L064
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
m064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
NL064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
Loading Cycles
190
8,100
10,100
12,100
Dissipated Energy (in-lbf/i
Dissipated Energy vs. Loading Cycles

2.500E-01
2.000E-01
1.500E-01
L1064
1.000E-01
5.000E-02
0.000E+00
100
1,100
2,100
3,100
4,100
5,100
6,100
7,100
8,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M1064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
Loading Cycles

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
NL1064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
Loading Cycles
191
25,100
30,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L2064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
60,100
70,100
Loading Cycles

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M2064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
R2064
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100 15,100 20,100 25,100 30,100 35,100 40,100

Loading Cycles
192

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L3064
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M306411
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
30,100
Loading Cycles

9.000E+05
8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
R3064
20,100
40,100
60,100
Loading Cycles
193
80,100
100,100

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
L064FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,100
2,100
3,100
4,100
5,100
Loading Cycles
Dissipated Energy (in-lbf/i
Dissipated Energy vs. Loading Cycles

2.500E-01
2.000E-01
1.500E-01
M064FT
1.000E-01
5.000E-02
0.000E+00
100
1,100
2,100
3,100
4,100
5,100
6,100
7,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NM064FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,100
2,100
3,100
Loading Cycles
194
4,100
5,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L1064FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100
10,100
12,100
14,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NM1064FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NR1064FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
Loading Cycles
195
100,000

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L2064FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,100
2,100
3,100
4,100
5,100
6,100
7,100
8,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M2064FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100 10,100 12,100 14,100 16,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
R2064FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
2,100
4,100
6,100
8,100
Loading Cycles
196
10,100
12,100
14,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L3064FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M3064FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
25,100
30,100
35,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
R3064FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100 15,100 20,100 25,100 30,100 35,100 40,100

Loading Cycles
197

Long-term Aged Specimens
Cummulative
Cycles, N
Stiffnes
Dissipated Energy
(in-lbf/in^3)
56,151
8,757.028
670,000.000
135,398
30,926.331
630,000.000
84,301
18,236.245
540,000.000
91,950
19,307
613,333
40,173
11,123
66,583
44
58
11
Percent
Rap
Specimen
0%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
10%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
58,163
91,151
91,954
80,423
19,282
24
12,877.079
19,535.876
21,262.021
17,891.659
4,427.686
24.747
20%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
99,316
96,272
66,539
87,376
18,109
21
30%
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
Specimen
Long-term Aged Freeze Thaw Specimens

Cummulative
Cycles, N
Dissipated Energy
(in-lbf/in^3)
Stiffnes
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
66,339
65,506
65,923
589
1
11,965.57
13,602.00
12,784
1,157
9
490,000
550,000.000
520,000
42,426
8
600,000.000
620,000.000
670,000.000
630,000.000
36,055.513
5.723
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
92,469
90,230
27,613
70,104
36,815
53
20,357.32
19,471.070
5,203.218
15,010.535
8,504.938
56.660
660,000.000
600,000.000
530,000.000
596,666.667
65,064.071
10.905
17,055.561
19,783.464
9,279.480
15,372.835
5,450.422
35.455
710,000.000
610,000.000
580,000.000
633,333.333
68,068.593
10.748
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
135,455
33,857
27,417
65,576
60,602
92
28,584.126
6,386.977
5,423.445
13,464.849
13,102.538
97.309
620,000.000
500,000.000
510,000.000
543,333.333
66,583.281
12.255
201,577
36,621.648
760,000.000
299,952
167,176.33
69,561.63
41.61
42,697.205
39,659.43
4,296.07
10.83
630,000.000
695,000.00
91,923.88
13.23
1
2
3
Avg.
Std.
COV
102,993
27,221
36,922
55,712.00
41,232.84
74.01
22,228.418
5,194.660
6,856.946
11,426.67
9,391.43
82.19
690,000.000
590,000.000
560,000.000
613,333.33
68,068.59
11.10
198

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
60,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100 40,100 60,100 80,100 100,100 120,100 140,100 160,100

Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NR076
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
Loading Cycles
199
80,100
100,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
NL1076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
60,100
70,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
NM1076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
NR1076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
Loading Cycles
200
100,000

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L2076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
120,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M2076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
120,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
r2076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
Loading Cycles
201
50,100
60,100
70,100

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L3076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
50,100
100,100
150,100
200,100
250,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
R3076
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
Loading Cycles
202
100,000
1,000,000

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
M076FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
50,100
60,100
70,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
R076FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
10,100
20,100
30,100
40,100
Loading Cycles
203
50,100
60,100
70,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L1076FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
M1076FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
R1076FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
5,100
10,100
15,100
20,100
Loading Cycles
204
25,100
30,100

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L2076FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100 40,100 60,100 80,100 100,10 120,10 140,10 160,10

0
0
0
0
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NM2076
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NR2076FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
Loading Cycles
205
100,000

8.000E+05
7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
L3076FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
20,100
40,100
60,100
80,100
100,100
120,100
Loading Cycles

7.000E+05
6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
NL3076FT
3.000E+05
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Loading Cycles

6.000E+05
5.000E+05
4.000E+05
3.000E+05
NM3076FT
2.000E+05
1.000E+05
0.000E+00
100
1,000
10,000
Loading Cycles
206
100,000
Appendix E: MTS Test Templates
207
Indirect Tensile Strength Test Template (IDT)

TestWare-SX
Procedure Name = IDT Default Procedure
File Specification = C:\WINNT\Profiles\All Users\Start Menu\Programs\MTS Pavement
Testing\4 in. IDT.000
IDT : Step
Step Done Trigger 1 = Retract
Step Done Trigger 2 = Stop
Pre-load : Monotonic Command
Start Trigger = Step Start
End Trigger = <none>
Segment Shape = Ramp
Rate
= 5 ( lbf/Sec )
Control Channel 1
Control Mode = Force sg
End level
= -10 ( lbf )
Hold : Hold Command
Start Trigger = Pre-load
Hold Time
= 1 ( Sec )
Control Channel 1
Dectect : Operator Event
Start Trigger = Hold
Button ID
= Button 2
Single Shot
= Yes
Button Label = Start
Description
= Begin IDT
Grab Focus
= Yes
IDT Test : Monotonic Command
Start Trigger = Dectect
End Trigger = Fail
Rate
= 2 in/Min
Control Channel 1
Control Mode = Disp sg
End level
= -1.0 ( in )
208
Data : Data Acquisition

Mode
= Timed
Buffer Type
= Single
Master Channel = Force
Slave Channel 1 = Time
Slave Channel 2 = Displacement
Data Header = IDT
Time Increment = 0.1 ( Sec )
Buffer Size
= 1024
Peak : Data Acquisition
Mode
= Valley / Peak
Buffer Type
= Single
Data Header
= Ultimate Force
Sensitivity = 100 ( lbf )
Buffer Size
= 1024
Fail : Failure Detector
Input Signal = Force
Record Data = 0
Data Header =
Event Type
= Minimum
Noise Bandwidth = 100 ( lbf )
Event Trigger = 10 %
Retract : Monotonic Command
Start Trigger = IDT Test
Rate
= 2 in/Min
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
Stop : Operator Event
209
Button ID
= Button 1
Single Shot
= Yes
Button Label = Stop
Description
=
Grab Focus
= Yes
Recovery : Step
Step Done Trigger 1 = Recover
Recover : Monotonic Command
Rate
= 1.0 ( in/Sec )
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
210
Semi-Circular Bending Strength Test Template (SCB IDT)

TestWare-SX
Procedure Name = Idt_Semi Default Procedure
Testing\SCB IDT.000
SCB IDT : Step
Plot : Run-time Plotting
Title
= Plot Title
X Axis
=X
Channel = Time
Scaling = Linear
Minimum = 0.000000 Sec
Maximum = 1.000000 Sec
Y Axis
=Y
Channel 1 = Force
Color = Red
Style = Solid
Channel 2 = <none>
Color = Blue
Style = Solid
Channel 3 = <none>
Color = Black
Style = Solid
Scaling = Linear
Minimum = 0.000000 lbf
Maximum = 224.808945 lbf
X Axis Level Cross
= Not Enabled
Y Axis Level Cross
= Not Enabled
Reduce Rate on Decimation
= Not Enabled
Rate
= 5 ( lbf/Sec )
Control Channel 1
211
End level
= -10 ( lbf )

Button ID
= Button 2
Single Shot
= Yes
Description
= Begin IDT
Grab Focus
= Yes
End Trigger = Fail
Rate
= 2 in/Min
Control Channel 1
End level
= -0.5 ( in )
Mode
= Timed
Buffer Type
= Single
Data Header = IDT
Buffer Size
= 16000
Mode
= Valley / Peak
Buffer Type
= Single
Data Header
= Ultimate Force
Buffer Size
= 1024
212

Record Data = 0
Data Header =
Event Type
= Minimum
Rate
= 2 in/Min
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
Button ID
= Button 1
Single Shot
= Yes
Button Label = Stop
Description
=
Grab Focus
= Yes
Recovery : Step
Rate
= 1.0 ( in/Sec )
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
213
Semi-Circular Bending Fatigue Test Template (SCB Fatigue)

TestWare-SX
Procedure Name = 5 Hz SCB Fatigue Default Procedure
Testing\5 Hz SCB Fatigue.000
5 Hz SCB Fatigue Test : Step
Step Done Trigger 1 = Unload
Real Time Plot : Run-time Plotting
Title
= Plot Title
X Axis
=X
Channel = Time
Scaling = Linear
Y Axis
=Y
Channel 1 = LVDT B
Color = Red
Style = Solid
Channel 2 = <none>
Color = Blue
Style = Solid
Channel 3 = <none>
Color = Black
Style = Solid
Scaling = Linear
Minimum = 0.000000 in
Maximum = 0.039370 in
X Axis Level Cross
= Not Enabled
Y Axis Level Cross
= Not Enabled
Reduce Rate on Decimation
= Not Enabled
Pre Load : Monotonic Command
Rate
= 5 ( lbf/Sec )
Control Channel 1
End level
= -10 ( lbf )
214
Initial Cycles : Cyclic Command

Start Trigger = Pre Load
Segment Shape = Haversine
Frequency
= 5 ( Hz )
Repeats
= 2 cycles
Compensation = None
Control Channel 1
End level 1 = -Enter Desired Load (From SCB IDT Test), ( lbf )
End level 2 = -10 ( lbf )
Initial Data : Data Acquisition
Start Trigger = Pre Load
Mode
= Peak / Valley
Buffer Type
= Single
Slave Channel 3 = LVDT B
Slave Channel 4 = Control Channel 1 Segments
Data Header
= Initial Data
Buffer Size = 6
Cycle Process : Cyclic Command
Start Trigger = Initial Cycles
Frequency
= 5 ( Hz )
Repeats
= 200000 cycles
Compensation = None
Control Channel 1
End level 1 = - Enter Desired Load (From SCB IDT Test), ( lbf )
End level 2 = -10 ( lbf )
Counting Process : Data Acquisition
Start Trigger = Initial Cycles
Mode
= Level Crossing
Buffer Type
= Trigger only
Master Channel = Control Channel 1 Segments
215

Slave Channel 3 = Force
Slave Channel 4 = LVDT A
Data Header
= Count Segments
Level Increment = 100 cycles
Buffer Size = 1
Data Acquisition Process : Data Acquisition
Start Trigger = Counting Process
Mode
= Peak / Valley
Buffer Type
= Single
Slave Channel 3 = LVDT B
Slave Channel 4 = Control Channel 1 Segments
Data Header
= Cycles of Data
Buffer Size = 6
Unload : Monotonic Command
Start Trigger = Cycle Process
Rate
= 1.0 ( in/Sec )
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
216
Semi-Circular Bending Notched IDT Test Template (SCB Notched IDT)
TestWare-SX
Procedure Name = Notched IDT Default Procedure (modified)
Testing\Notched IDT.000
SCB Notched IDT : Step
Plot : Run-time Plotting
Title
= Plot Title
X Axis
=X
Channel = Time
Scaling = Linear
Y Axis
=Y
Channel 1 = Force
Color = Red
Style = Solid
Channel 2 = <none>
Color = Blue
Style = Solid
Channel 3 = <none>
Color = Black
Style = Solid
Scaling = Linear
Minimum = 0.000000 lbf
Maximum = 224.808945 lbf
X Axis Level Cross = Not Enabled
Y Axis Level Cross = Not Enabled
Reduce Rate on Decimation= Not Enabled
Rate
= 5 ( lbf/Sec )
Control Channel 1
217

End level
= -10 ( lbf )
Button ID
= Button 2
Single Shot
= Yes
Description
= Begin IDT
Grab Focus
= Yes
End Trigger = Fail
Rate
= 0.02 in/Min
Control Channel 1
End level
= -0.5 ( in )
Mode
= Timed
Buffer Type
= Single
Data Header = IDT
Buffer Size
= 16000
Mode
= Valley / Peak
Buffer Type
= Single
Data Header
= Ultimate Force
Buffer Size
= 1024
218

Record Data = 0
Data Header =
Event Type
= Minimum
Rate
= 2 in/Min
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
Button ID
= Button 1
Single Shot
= Yes
Button Label = Stop
Description
=
Grab Focus
= Yes
Recovery : Step
Rate
= 0.9999999 ( in/Sec )
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0.1 ( in )
219
Flexural Beam Fatigue Test

TestWare-SX
Procedure Name = Asphalt Flexural Fatigue Test Default Procedure
File Specification = C:\TS2\MTS Pavement Testing\Asphalt Flexural Fatigue Test.000
Software Version = 4.0C
Pre-test Information : Step
Step Done Trigger 1 = Operator Initiate Test
Record Test Type : Program Control
Action
= Message Only
Message
= KEY_TEST_TYPE ASPHALT_FLEX_FATIGUE
This is a keyword phrase that gets written to the data file only. Do not change it.
Send To:
Screen
= No
LUC Display
= No
Data File
= Yes
Pre-test Information : Operator Information
Form fields
Label
= ~~~Pre-test Specimen Characteristics~~~
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= Non-Editable
Label
= Identifier
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Label
= Age
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= None
Label
Width
220
Default Entry = 2.5 ( in )

Minimum
= 0 ( in )
Type
= Real
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Label
= Height
Minimum
= 0 ( in )
Type
= Real
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Label
= Distance Between Outside Clamps [L]
Minimum
= 0 ( in )
Type
= Real
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Label
= Distance Between Inside Clamps [a]
Minimum
= 0 ( in )
Type
= Real
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Label
= ~~~Additional Pre-test Information~~~
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= Non-Editable
Label
= Test Date
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Label
= Test Temperature
Default Entry = 67.99995 ( deg_F )
Type
= Real
Attribute
= Non-Blank
Operator Initiate Test : Operator Event

Start Trigger = Pre-test Information
Button ID
= Button 1
Single Shot
= Yes
221
Description
Grab Focus
= Press to start the test.

= Yes
Test Execution : Step

Step Done Trigger 1 = Cyclic Command
Step Done Trigger 2 = Operator Terminate Test
Cyclic Command : Cyclic Command
End Trigger = Dynamic Properties Monitor
Frequency
= 5 -10 ( Hz )
Repeats
= 1000000 cycles
Compensation = Phase/Amplitude (PAC)
Control Channel 1
End level 1 = -Enter Desired Strain Level ( in )
End level 2 = Enter Desired Strain Level ( in )
Trigger Dynamic Properties Monitor : Data Limit Detector
Data Channel = Control Channel 1 Segments
Limit Value = 50 cycles
Limit Value is = Relative
Detector Options = Greater than Limit Value
Trigger Option = Trigger Once
Dynamic Properties Monitor : Dynamic Property Monitor
Start Trigger = Trigger Dynamic Properties Monitor
Control Channel = Control Channel 1
Force Sensor = Force
Length Sensor = Displacement
Plot Update Rate = 20 cycles
Reduce Plot Rate When Decimation Occurs = Yes
Save Data
= Yes
X Axis Scaling = Logarithmic
K*
Axis Scaling
Minimum
= 0 ( lbf/in )
Maximum
= 5.710147 ( lbf/in )
Limit Detector = Relative
Minimum
= 50 %
222
Maximum
Auto Scaling
Phase
Axis Scaling
Minimum
Maximum
Limit Detector
Minimum
Maximum
Auto Scaling
Displacement
Axis Scaling
Minimum
Maximum
Limit Detector
Minimum
Maximum
Auto Scaling
Load
Axis Scaling
Minimum
Maximum
Limit Detector
Minimum
Maximum
Auto Scaling
Total Energy
Axis Scaling
Minimum
Maximum
Limit Detector
Minimum
Maximum
Auto Scaling
= Off
= Yes
= -1 ( deg )
= 1 ( deg )
= Absolute
= Off
= Off
= Yes
= 0 ( in )
= 0.0003937008 ( in )
= Absolute
= Off
= Off
= Yes
= 0 ( lbf )
= 2.248089 ( lbf )
= Absolute
= Off
= Off
= Yes
= 0 ( in-lbf )
= 0.0008850746 ( in-lbf )
= Absolute
= Off
= Off
= Yes
Operator Terminate Test : Operator Event

Button ID
= Button 1
Single Shot
= Yes
Button Label = Terminate
Description = Press to terminate the test.
Grab Focus
= Yes
223
Go To Zero Load : Step

Step Done Trigger 1 = Go To Zero Load
Go To Zero Load : Monotonic Command
Time
= 2 ( Sec )
Control Channel 1
End level
= 0 ( in )
Post-test Information : Step

Step Done Trigger 1 = Post-test Information
Post-test Information : Operator Information
Form fields
Label
= ~~~Post-test Observations~~~
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= Non-Editable
Label
= Specimen Appearance
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= None
Label
= Test Completion Status
Default Entry = Normal
Type
= String
Attribute
= None
Label
= Additional Comments
Default Entry =
Type
= String
Attribute
= None
224
Vita
William R. Kingery III was born in Roanoke, Virginia on October 18, 1978. He
attended Franklin County High School where he graduated in 1997. Upon completion of
high school he attended Virginia Western Community College for one year. In the fall of
1998 he enrolled at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) to pursue a degree in
Civil Engineering. While in college he worked part time for Stone Engineering, Inc. of
Rocky Mount, VA. In May of 2002 he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil
Engineering from UTK. After graduation he enrolled in graduate school at UTK to
pursue a degree in Pavement Engineering. He received his Masters of Science in Civil
Engineering from UTK in May 2004.
225

Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtur

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtur

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative

Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of

To the Graduate Council:

To the Graduate Council:

Dr. Baoshan Huang

We have read this thesis

Dr. Eric C. Drumm

Dr. J. Hal Deatherage

Accepted for the Council:

(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)

Laboratory Study of Fatigue Characteristics of HMA Surface Mixtures

William R. Kingery, III

characteristics are compromised by adding RAP. Based on the workability and

3.2. Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) Test Results .............................................45

Figure 23. SCB Fatigue Test Log-Log Scale.........................................................50

The current Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) specification

Table 1. Test Factorial

The cost associated by using RAP is typically evaluated on both a construction

Table 2. Cost Comparison of Different Percentages of RAP

Used (%) Cost ($/ton)

Used (%) Cost ($/ton)

Table 3. Savings Generated by Using RAP

Percent RAP Cost ($/ton) Savings ($/ton) Savings (%)

1.5 Literature Review

In addition to aging, fatigue cracking due to repeated loading or temperature

Tangella et al. 1990, conducted NCHRP A-003A research project entitled

Another approach for characterizing the fatigue response of asphalt concrete

Distresses such as cracking have been recognized by designers as a weak or

2.0 Research Methodology

No.200 No.100 No.50 No.30

Sieve Size, in.

Figure 1. Gradations of Stockpiles and RAP, Limestone Mix.

No.200 No.100 No.50

Sieve Size, in.

Figure 2. Gradations of Stockpiles and RAP, Gravel Mix.

2.2 Mixture Design

Table 4. Limestone Job Mix Formula

Table 5. Gravel Job Mix Formula

No. 10 Soft Natural

Figure 3. Limestone Mixture Gradations.

Figure 4. Gravel Mixture Gradations.

2.3 Aging Experiment

2.4 Specimen Preparation

Figure 5. Prepared Test Specimens.

2.5 Test Methods

thickness of the specimen,

D Diameter of the specimen,

Toughness index (TI), a parameter describing the toughening characteristics in the

Figure 6. Normalized IDT Curve for TI Calculation.

This toughness index compares the performance of a specimen with that of an

2.5.2 Semi-Circular Bending (SCB) Test

Figure 7. Typical SCB Test Setup.

SCB Frequency Sweep Test

Load, lbs. & Vert. Defl., in.

Figure 8. SCB Frequency Sweep Test.

SCB Tensile Strength Test

Vert. Defl., in.

Figure 9. Typical SCB Tensile Strength Test.

v - vertical displacement at the top of the specimen, and

SCB Fatigue Test

Load & Defl.

Figure 10. Load and Deformations in SCB Fatigue Test.

SCB Notched Fracture Test