| Literature DB >> 31075825 |
Chenchen Zhang1,2, Qi Ren3, Zhendong Qian4, Xudong Wang5.
Abstract
High percentage reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is prevailing in pavement engineering for its advantages in sustainability and environmental friendliness, however, its fatigue resistance remains a major concern. Fine aggregate matrix (FAM) is a crucial part in the fatigue resistance of asphalt mixtures with high RAP content. Hence, the linear amplitude sweep (LAS) test of FAM has been developed to study the fatigue resistance of asphalt mixtures. However, the torsional loading mode of the LAS test with a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) is a limitation to simulate traffic load. In this paper, an alternative LAS test for FAM with high RAP content was proposed. Beam FAM specimens were tested using a dual-cantilever flexural loading fixture in a dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA). To investigate the influence of RAP content and the rejuvenating agent (RA), four kinds of FAM mixes were tested with this method to study their fatigue resistance. The test results suggested that the repeatability of this alternative approach was reliable. A fatigue failure criterion based on maximum C × N was defined. Then, fatigue life prediction models based on viscoelastic continuum damage (VECD) analysis were established according to the LAS test results and validated by a strain-controlled time sweep (TS) test. It turned out that as RAP content increased, the modulus of FAM would be significantly raised, accompanied with a drop in the phase angle. The fatigue life of FAM would be greatly shortened when the RAP binder replacement rate reached 50%. Adding RA could considerably improve the dynamic properties of FAM mixes with high RAP content, resulting in a decrease in modulus, increase in phase angle and elongating fatigue life, but could not recover to the level of virgin binder.Entities:
Keywords: fatigue; fine aggregate matrix; flexural bending; linear amplitude sweep; reclaimed asphalt pavement; rejuvenating agent; viscoelastic continuum damage
Year: 2019 PMID: 31075825 PMCID: PMC6540296 DOI: 10.3390/ma12091508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Technical index of virgin asphalt binder.
| Technical Index | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Penetration | 0.1 mm (25 °C) | 68 |
| Softening point | °C | 49 |
| Ductility | cm (5 cm/min, 5 °C) | 27.8 |
| Viscosity | Pa•s (60 °C) | 0.51 |
| Flash point | °C | 271 |
| Wax content | % | 1.1 |
| Density | g/cm3 (15 °C) | 1.027 |
Figure 1Gradations of hot mix asphalt (HMA), fine aggregate matrix (FAM) and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).
Summary of FAM mixes. RA = rejuvenating agent.
| Mix | Target Binder Content (%) | Binder Replacement Rate (%) | Binder Replacement Content (%) | Virgin Binder Content (%) | RAP Content (%) | RA Content * (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% RAP | 9.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | - |
| 25% RAP | 25 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 29.7 | - | |
| 50% RAP | 50 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 61.6 | - | |
| 50% RAP + RA | 50 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 61.6 | 10 |
* By weight of target binder content.
Figure 2FAM specimen preparation: (a) precision cutting machinery; (b) FAM specimens.
Figure 3Dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) dual-cantilever bending fixture.
Figure 4Strain applied in the linear amplitude sweep (LAS) test.
Figure 5Frequency sweep results of FAM mixes: (a) Dynamic modulus; (b) Phase angle.
Figure 6Typical replicate results of LAS test (0% RAP). MAE = mean absolute error.
Figure 7LAS test results of FAM mixes.
Figure 8Comparison of failure criterion between peak phase angle and max C × N: (a) LAS test; (b) time sweep (TS) test.
Figure 9Damage characterization curves of FAM mixes from LAS tests.
Parameters of fatigue life prediction models. VECD = viscoelastic continuum damage.
| Mix | VECD-Based Fatigue Model Parameters | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0% RAP | 1361 | 0.365 | 3.743 | 2735 | 3.95 × 10−2 | 0.358 | 5.66 × 10−4 | 7.487 |
| 25% RAP | 2060 | 0.301 | 4.322 | 1940 | 1.51 × 10−2 | 0.365 | 1.42 × 10−5 | 8.647 |
| 50% RAP | 2705 | 0.250 | 5.008 | 1550 | 6.11 × 10−2 | 0.413 | 1.30 × 10−7 | 10.016 |
| 50% RAP+RA | 1812 | 0.324 | 4.085 | 2225 | 3.37 × 10−2 | 0.318 | 5.64 × 10−5 | 8.169 |
Note: is the flexural dynamic modulus in the linear viscoelastic region; is the slope of dynamic modulus versus loading frequency. equals to . S is damage intensity at failure point. C1 and C2 are regression coefficients. A and B are fatigue model parameters described in Equations (13) and (14).
Figure 10Predicted fatigue lives for FAM mixes at four strain amplitudes.
Results of time sweep fatigue test.
| Mix | Strain level (%) | Fatigue Life | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation (%) | Fatigue Performance Ranking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured | Predicted | |||||
| 0% RAP | 0.10 | 22,432 | 1664 | 7.4 | 1 | 1 |
| 0.09 | 46,310 | 3801 | 8.2 | |||
| 0.08 | 122,571 | 19,473 | 15.9 | |||
| 0.07 | 329,224 | 21,940 | 6.7 | |||
| 25% RAP | 0.10 | 5062 | 740 | 14.6 | 3 | 3 |
| 0.09 | 11,932 | 1626 | 13.6 | |||
| 0.08 | 35,858 | 2142 | 6.0 | |||
| 0.07 | 116,548 | 14,384 | 12.3 | |||
| 50% RAP | 0.10 | 3524 | 440 | 12.5 | 4 | 4 |
| 0.09 | 15,425 | 1630 | 10.6 | |||
| 0.08 | 65,568 | 4608 | 7.0 | |||
| 0.07 | 282,052 | 6405 | 2.3 | |||
| 50% RAP + RA | 0.10 | 6049 | 575 | 9.5 | 2 | 2 |
| 0.09 | 14,782 | 736 | 5.0 | |||
| 0.08 | 64,868 | 7005 | 10.8 | |||
| 0.07 | 182,665 | 22,795 | 12.5 | |||
Figure 11Measured fatigue lives versus predicted fatigue lives. R2 = correlation coefficient.
Efficiency comparison between TS and LAS tests.
| Test Method | Number of FAM Specimens Required for Each Mix | Average Total Testing Time for Each FAM Mix (h) |
|---|---|---|
| Time sweep | 12 | 27 |
| Linear amplitude sweep | 3 | 3 |