Erkensenkalf FourPointBendingTest AsphaltConcreteResponseACRe Delftuniversityoftechnologyreport7 00 117 6dec2000

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/280565127
the four point bending test - asphalt concrete response
Technical Report · December 2000
CITATIONS READS
0 1,774
2 authors, including:
Sandra Erkens
Delft University of Technology
80 PUBLICATIONS 325 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Finite Element Analysis of Accelerated Pavement testing View project
EFFECT OF POLYMER FIBRE ADDITION ON WARM MIX ASPHALT MECHANICAL RESPONSES View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra Erkens on 30 July 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Equation Section 1
Report 7-00-117-6 FOUR POINT BENDING FATIGUE TESTS
ISSN 0169-9288 Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe)
December 2000 ir. S.M.J.G. Erkens and J.A.M. Kalf

Report 7-00-117-6 FOUR POINT BENDING FATIGUE TESTS
ISSN 0169-9288 Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe)
December 2000 ir. S.M.J.G. Erkens and J.A.M. Kalf
This project was carried out as an assignment for the

Technology Foundation STW, Applied Science
Division of NWO and the Technology Programme of
the Ministry of Economic Affairs as part of the NWO
Priority Programme for Materials Research.
Assignment number: DCT 4090-3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We want to thank all my colleagues from the Road & Railway Laboratory for their advice and
support. Special thanks are due to ing. A. Miradi for co-ordinating the use of the equipment
and to ing. M.R. Poot and K. Jenkins, MSc. for the ideas the contributed during the
discussions about fatigue testing when these tests were initiated. Finally, the work of J.A.M.
Kalf, who prepared and analysed the specimens and carried out the tests is greatly
appreciated.
From this place I also want to thank the Shell Research and Technology Centre in Amsterdam
and the Technology Foundation STW, Applied Science Division of NOW and the
Technology Programme of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, their financial support enabled
us to carry out the ACRe project, for which these tests were performed.
Sandra Erkens
Lab W&S ACRe 3

SUMMARY
In the ACRe project a 3D constitutive model for Asphalt Concrete is being developed.
The model is implemented in the 3D Finite Elements Code CAPA-3D and used to
simulate pavement structures as well as laboratory tests. Along with the development
and implementation of the model, the test set-ups, procedures and instrumentation is
being developed. Since material modelling requires tests with carefully controlled,
well-known and preferably uniform internal stress distributions standard road
engineering tests do not suffice. Therefore, sophisticated uniaxial tension and
compression equipment was developed. These results, although ideally suited for
modelling purposes, can not be placed within a road-engineering framework. Since
the material used in the project is not a standard mixture, a series of typical road
engineering tests is carried out on the mixture to provide a road engineering type
casting. One of these tests is the four point bending fatigue test.
In this report the set-up used for these tests as well as the data-acquisition software
that is part of the equipment is discussed in detail (Chapter 2). This includes some
background information on the equations used to analyse the test data.
In Chapter 3 the actual specimens, test conditions and results are presented. The test
results are compared to those found from test on other mixtures. The ACRe mixture
appears to be comparable to DAC mixtures, but with a better fatigue resistance.
TU Delft ACRe 4
SAMENVATTING
In het ACRe project wordt een 3D constitutief model voor asfalt ontwikkeld. Het
model wordt vervolgens geïmplementeerd in het 3D Eindige Elementen Pakket
CAPA 3D. Naast de modelontwikkeling en –implementatie worden in het project ook
de benodigde opstellingen, proefprocedures en instrumentatie ontwikkeld. Omdat het
ontwikkelen van een materiaalmodel proeven met een zorgvuldig gecontroleerde,
bekende en bij voorkeur uniforme spanningsverdeling vereist, voldoen stand
wegbouwkundige proeven niet. Daarom zijn er geavanceerde opstellingen voor het
doen uniaxial trek- en drukproeven ontwikkeld. De resultaten hiervan zijn weliswaar
uitermate geschikt voor modelvorming, maar zijn moeilijk te plaatsen binnen het
bestaande wegbouwkundige referentie kader. Aangezien het in het project gebruikte
materiaal geen standaard asfaltmengsel is, is het onderworpen aan een serie standaard
wegbouwkundige proeven om het te kunnen plaatsen binnen de bekende
asfaltmengsels. Een van de proeven die hiervoor is gebruikt is de vierpuntsbuigproef.
In dit rqapport wordt naast het verslag van de proevenserie ook uitgebreid ingegaan
op de voor de proeven gebruikte opstelling en de bijbehorende data-aquisitie software.
In hoofdstuk 2 wordt de nodige achtergrondinformatie over de bij de analyse
gebruikte formules gegeven.
In hoofdstuk 3 wordt vervolgens een overzicht gegeven van de proefstukken,

proefcondities en resusltaten. Deze resultaten zijn vergeleken met die van
vermoeiingsproeven op andere mengsels en het blijkt dat het gedrag van het ACRe-
mengsel lijkt op dat van Dicht Asfalt Beton, maar met een betere
vermoeiingsweerstand.
Lab W&S ACRe 5

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 7
2. BENDING FATIGUE TESTS ..................................................................................................... 9

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 4-POINT BENDING BEAM TEST ................................................................................................... 9
2.3 THEORY AND DERIVATION OF EXPRESSIONS ............................................................................. 11
2.3.1 Maximum tensile stress ................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Maximum tensile strain................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3 Stiffness values................................................................................................................ 16
2.3.4 Phase angle and energy dissipation ............................................................................... 22
2.3.5 Final remarks ................................................................................................................. 22
3. FPBF TESTS ON SPECIMENS FROM THE ACRe MIX ..................................................... 23
3.1 ACRE MIX ................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2 FPBF SPECIMENS ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................... 25
3.4 SINE VERSUS HAVERSINE .......................................................................................................... 29
4. CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS ............................................................................. 30
TU Delft ACRe 6
1. INTRODUCTION
In the Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe) project, a three dimensional, non-linear

material model for asphalt concrete (A.C.) is being developed. Such a model
describes the material response to any three dimensional state of stress. The ACRe
model is based on Desai’s flow surface, combined with relations that govern the
different types of response (elasticity, cracking, plastic deformation) exhibited by
asphalt concrete. These types of response and the flow surface are expressed in
mathematical expressions. These are generally applicable, since they characterise a
type of behaviour, the exact characteristics (strength, stiffness, rate of degradation) are
controlled by parameters in these expressions. These parameters are material-specific
and have to be determined through a series of tests. The parameters are determined
from the response of the material to a given state of stress, it does not really matter
what state of stress this is, as long as it is the same state of stress throughout the
specimen. Tests that result in such a uniform state of stress usually require
sophisticated set-ups and test procedures. In the ACRe projects a series of such test
are developed to facilitate the parameter determination for the model development.
The set-ups are developed specifically for this purpose because the tests used in road
engineering generally result in a non-uniform state of stress. As a result, the values
obtained from these tests are the result of a combination of the state of stress and the
material characteristics. This kind of information can not be used to determine
material characteristics, hence the development of other tests that can be used for this
objective. However, this means that the information obtained about the material under
investigation do not fit within the framework of road engineering characterisation.
Since the mixture used in the ACRe project is not a standard asphalt mixture, makes it
rather hard to explain in road engineering terms what kind of material is used. For this
reason, it was decided to also perform a series of standard road engineering tests on
the material. The results from these tests are meant to provide a frame of reference for
the mixture in comparison to other asphalt mixtures. The test selected for this
typecasting of the mix are the related to the parameters used in road engineering
design. The most common of these are Marshall stability and flow values, stiffness
and fatigue resistance. The Marshall characteristics are commonly used to establish
the quality of a mixture, increasing the demands for application under more strenuous
circumstances. The required values for these parameters are specified as intervals,
based on experience. The stiffness relations, usually expressed as a function of
frequency and temperature, are determined through so-called frequency sweep tests,
in these tests a specimen is subjected to sinusoidal signals at a variety of frequencies
and temperatures, usually force controlled. The corresponding deformations are
determined and from this, the stiffness is determined for each condition. The mix
stiffness is used as input for elastic multi-layer analyses of pavement structures. These
analyses result in an indication of the expected stresses and strains in the structure due
to a standard wheel load. The horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the pavement,
under the centre line of the load is used as input for fatigue analyses. Empirical
relations express the expected number of load repetitions a pavement can sustain as a
Lab W&S ACRe 7

function of this tensile strain. The sensitivity of a mix to fatigue is assessed via fatigue
bending tests, applying different levels of tensile strain and determining the
corresponding number of load repetitions.
In order to obtain values for ACRe material, Marshall test, indirect tensile frequency
sweep tests and four point bending fatigue tests were selected. The Marshall and
frequency sweep test were performed by MSc. students, who also reported the results
(El-Odaissy 1999, Arif 1999 and Medani 1999). In this report the results of the four
point bending tests and some background information on this test are presented.
TU Delft ACRe 8
2. BENDING FATIGUE TESTS
Equation Section (Next)
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The principle of bending fatigue tests is based on the consideration that a wheel load
on a pavement will lead to bending of the pavement. Although the stresses due to a
single wheel are relatively small, the repetition of tensile stresses that result from
repeated vehicle loads will eventually induce cracking. These cracks reduce the
effective height of the pavement, which leads to larger tensile stresses and thus the
cracks propagate from the bottom to the top of the pavement. In a bending test the
specimen is subjected to a similar kind of loading, although the actual state of stress
differs from that in the road due to differences in supports, loading conditions and
geometry. Since the results from a bending tests depend on a combination of
structural and material influences, different types of bending test on the same material
will yield different results. The most common bending fatigue test are the two point,
three point and four point bending test. For each type of test, an empirical relation
between test result and expected pavement performance must be determined on the
basis of actual observations. Since this relation should ideally depend on the
pavement geometry, any empirical relation between Ntest and Nroad must necessarily be
inaccurate. However, it does provide an indication and as such it is used in design
procedures all over the world.
2.2 4-POINT BENDING BEAM TEST

In the Netherlands the four point bending tests is used for fatigue testing of asphalt
mixtures. This test has been utilised by the road authorities to establish fatigue design
life relations for different types of asphalt mixtures. It was also used by Shell in
establishing the fatigue relations used in their Shell Pavement Design Manual. The
specimen geometry and the test conditions vary, making comparison of results
tiresome. The temperatures used for testing vary considerably 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 or
30oC are used, where 20oC eventually became the most common test temperature. The
applied frequencies also vary: 10 or 30 Hz, with 30 Hz the most common condition.
The specimen geometry is also different in different projects, the cross section is
either 50x50 mm or 40x40 mm and the length can be 400 mm or 450 mm. Further
variations between test are induced by the loading clamps and the way in which these
are tightened. Fortunately, there was early agreement in the Netherlands on full
sinusoidal loading in displacement control. The strain levels are slected in such a way
that the number of load repetitions until failure varies between 104 and 106, where
failure is defined as a 50% reduction in stiffness. Taking into account all the
differences between test programmes it is rather surprising that fatigue relations
proved so useful for design purposes. However, it will be clear that these results
cannot be used for a one-on-one comparison of mixtures. The tests discussed in this
report are carried out to obtain an indication of the four point bending fatigue
resistance of the ACRe mixture relative to other mixtures.
The set up used for these tests is shown in Figure 2.1. It is manufactured by the
Industrial Process Controls Ltd. (IPC) in Melbourne, Australia (Sinadinos 1986). The
Lab W&S ACRe 9

mechanism allows for free translation and rotation of the clamps. Pneumatic actuators
at the ends of the beam centre it laterally and clamp it. The load is applied to the
specimen through the piston rods. The specimen itself is 400 mm long with a width
and depth not exceeding 50 mm. A pneumatic system capable of applying sine or
haversine load signals up to 10Hz is used in the set-up. Servomotor-driven clamps
secure the beam at four points. The distances between the clamps are equal, dividing
the beam into three spans (Figure 2.2). The deflection of the beam at the centre is
measured with a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT), the measurement is
relative to the deflection of the middle of the two outer spans. The loading frame is
enclosed in a temperature control cabinet.
Figure 2.1: A Picture of the 4-Point Bending Beam Fatigue Testing Equipment
The set-up is controlled via a PC, which also registers the response. The software
requires the following input:
 Test temperature (0C to 30C)
 Test frequency (0.5 Hz to 10Hz) (100 ms to 2000 ms)
 Dimensions of the specimen ( 50 mm   50 mm)
 Rest period ( 10 s)
 Mode of loading and loading wave (displacement/force controlled and
sine/haversine)
 Terminal pulse count ( 10.000.000)
 Test loading strain (100 to 2000 m/m), which is the strain in the outer fibres
expressed as a peak-peak value (See Section )
The following output data is determined and displayed on the screen:

 Test loading time (hours, minutes and seconds)
 Applied load
 Beam deflection
 Tensile stress and strain
 Core and skin temperature of a dummy specimen
 Phase angle
 Loading cycle count
TU Delft ACRe 10
 Flexural stiffness
 Modulus of elasticity
 Dissipated energy
 Cumulative dissipated energy
A binary file is created and is continuously updated during the test. From the binary
file an ASCII file can be created. This file can be used as input for a spreadsheet
program.
It is important to note that the default signal in the test software is a haversine load, if
a test with full sine loading is finished and a new test is started using the same
settings the loading signal changes form sine to haversine. To prevent errors, before
starting a test, the type of signal that is selected must be checked.
2.3 THEORY AND DERIVATION OF EXPRESSIONS

In this section the background of the relations used by the IPC software (King 1998)
is discussed. On the basis of the settings and the measurements, the software performs
several calculations and the results are presented as output of the test. The first of
these calculations is that of the maximum tensile stress, the deflection and thus the
stresses and strains vary as a function of time. The imposed deflection is a full sine
signal (Figure 2.2), and assuming linear elastic behaviour (a standard, although not
completely correct, assumption in fatigue analyses) this would result in a
tension/compression state of stress over the beam. The maximum tensile stress is the
stress in the outer fibre at the moment of the maximum deflection. In the software, the
deflection, strain and stress values are defined as peak-peak values. As a result, for a
haversine they are equal to the actual input values, but for a full sine, the signal
consist of a negative and positive component of equal magnitude. This means that the
actual value of a signal at its maximum is half of the peak-peak value (Figure 2.3).
118.5m m 118.5m m 118.5m m
2 H aversine
Sine
piston 
displacem ent
tim e
[m m ]

A B C
Figure 2.2: A sinusoidal deformation is applied to the central supports
Lab W&S ACRe 11

A


C
Figure 2.3: Deflection defined as the distance between the neutral line in the
original (horizontal) situation and that at time t (A,B,C refer to Figure 2.2)
2.3.1 Maximum tensile stress

IPC gives the following expression for the maximum tensile stress:
aP (2.1)
 t  3000 2
wh
Where:
t : tensile stress (kPa)
a : l/3, distance between reaction and load clamps (typically 118.5 mm)
P : peak force (N), as peak-to-peak value
w : beam width (mm)
h : beam height (mm)
From Figure 2.2 it can be seen that the deflection for a haversine varies between zero
and 2, while for a sine it is ± A similar relation is valid for the load, if the peak-to-
peak load is P a full sine load varies between ±P/2, while a haversine varies between
zero and P. The stress in bending can be determined via:
M Fa
 centre   (2.2)
W 1 wh 2
6
Where:
M: bending moment at the centre of the beam [Nmm]
W: resistance of the cross section against bending [mm3]
F: the applied load [N]
For a peak-to-peak load with value P, the actual maximum load of a sine will be
different than that of a haversine, as mentioned above. This gives two different
solutions for Equation (2.2):
P / 2a 3Pa
 centre   ; sine load (2.3)
1 2 wh 2
wh
6
TU Delft ACRe 12
6 Pa
 centre  ; haversine load (2.4)
wh 2
The factor 1000 difference between Equations (2.3) and (2.1) is because the
expression used by IPC (Equation (2.1)) transforms the unity of the tensile stress to
kPa, while on the basis of the units provided for the quantities used in the relation, the
unit would be MPa (N/mm2). From this analysis it is clear that the expression
provided for the tensile stress is correct only if a full sine load is used, for a haversine
the stress would be twice as high. Fortunately, in this series of tests only sine loading
is used.
2.3.2 Maximum tensile strain

IPC uses the following expression to determine the maximum tensile strain
(mm/mm):
12h
t  (2.5)
23a 2
Where
 : peak deflection at center of beam (mm)
In order to arrive at an expression for the tensile strain, first the deflections have to be
known. The deflection at a given point of the bending beam can be determined from
its moment distribution (Figure 2.4).
F F
2/9l 1/6l
A  
A F l/3
B
W B = W A + A l/6+  1 (l/6+l/9)+  2 l/6
Figure 2.4: Deflection of the beam determined from its bending moment
The angle between the neutral line after bending and the horizontal at any point along
the horizontal axis (x) can be computed as:
Lab W&S ACRe 13

x
M
 ( x)   0   dx (2.6)
0
EI
Where:
(x)=angle at point x
angle at x
M = bending moment
E = Young’s modulus
I = moment of inertia (1/12wh3 for a rectangular cross section)
Correspondingly, the deflection (w) at any point can be determined via:

x
M
w( X )  w0   0 ( X  x0 )   ( X  x) dx (2.7)
0
EI
Where X is the x-co-ordinate of the point where the deflection is determined.
In this case there are two points of the beam from which the deflection should be
determined, one is of course the centre of the beam. The other point of interest is
x=l/6, the point half way between the support and the loading clamp. The reason is
that the LVDT used to register the deflection is mounted in a frame that rests at the
beam at l/6 and 5l/6, using those points as a reference. The deflection of the centre of
the beam with respect to the supports is the sum of the registered deflection and the
deflection at x=l/6 and x=5l/6, which are the same due to the symmetry of the beam.
IPC states that the relative deflection registered by the LVDT is half of the total
deflection with respect to the supports.
Since the beam is rectangular with constant values for E and I, the M/EI distribution
has the same shape as that of the bending moment. As a result, determining the
integral is rather easy. First of all, the angle of the neutral line at the supports must be
determined, to do this consider the angle at the centre of the beam:
l/2
M
 (l / 2)   0   dx  0 (2.8)
0
EI
Because of symmetry, the angle at this position is zero, thus the angle at the support is
equal to the integral in Equation (2.8). This can be split in to the contribution of the
triangular part and that of the rectangular part of the M/EI-line (Figure 2.4).
 1 Fl l Fl l 
l/2
M Fl 2
0    dx      (2.9)
0
EI  2 3EI 3 3EI 6  9 EI
Now the deflection at the reference point (x=l/6) can be found, using the expression
derived for the angle at the supports and the fact that the deflection at those points
(w0) must be zero.
TU Delft ACRe 14
l
x
l M l
w    w0   0   (  x) dx
6 6 0 EI 6
x
Fl 3 Fx l
 0  (  x) dx (2.10)
54 EI 0 EI 6
l
Fl 3 F  lx 2 x 3  6 23Fl 3
   
54 EI EI  12 3  0 1296 EI
Similarly, the deflection at the centre of the beam is found from the bending moment.
Because of the discontinuity in the expression for the bending moment at x=l/3, its
contribution to the deflection at the centre consists of two parts. For convenience, the
relation is now formulated using the areas under the the bending moment distribution
and the distances between the centres of gravity and the centre of the beam:
l l 1 Fl l 5l Fl l l
w    w0   0    
 2 2 2 3EI 3 18 3EI 6 12
(2.11)
Fl 3  1 5 3  23Fl 3
 0    
EI  18 324 648  648EI
Comparing Equations (2.10) and (2.11)shows that, if the specimen behaves according
to beam theory, the deflection at the centre is twice that at l/6. Since the transducer
registers the deflection at the centre relative to that at l/6, the true deflection is twice
the values registered by the LVDT. The IPC software automatically multiplies the
registered value by 2, so the output values are “true” deflections. It must, however, be
noted that if a beam deforms non-uniformly, the calculated deflection will be
incorrect. Under those conditions the assumptions with respect to the stress
distributions used in the above derivations are no longer valid.
To obtain an expression for the tensile strain, Equations (2.11) and (2.2) are rwritten
to expressions for F, the applied force. As stated before, for a haversine load F is
equal to the peak-peak value for the force signal (P), used as input by IPC. For a sine
load F=P/2.
l
648 EI w  
F  2 (2.12)
3
23 l
l l h l h
F F F
M
t   32  3 32  3 2 
W wh wh I
6 12 (2.13)
I
F t
l h
32
By combining Equations (2.12) and (2.13) and substituting Hooke’s law (t=Et) an
expression for the strain can be obtained:
Lab W&S ACRe 15

l
648 w   EI
tI  2
 
l h 23 l 3
32 (2.14)
l l
648 w   EI 108 h w  
 t EI   2 l h
 2
32 2
23 l 32 23 l
Using a=l/3 and realising that w(l/2) is the deflection at the centre, termed c in the
IPC manual it is clear that Equation (2.14) is equal to the expression for the tensile
strain mentioned in the manual (Equation (2.5)). It must be noted that the expression
for the strain is obtained by combining two expressions for F, in case of a haversine F
is equal to the peak-peak load P, but for a sine load F=P/2, however since F is not part
of the resulting strain equation, this difference does not influence the strain.
2.3.3 Stiffness values

The software gives two stiffness values, one is called the flexural stiffness (Equation
(2.16)), the other modulus of elasticity (Equation (2.17)). This is kind of confusing,
since the expression used for what is called the flexural stiffness is what is commonly
used for the Young’s modulus or stiffness modulus. The usual definition of flexural
stiffness is a structural rather than a material quantity, the product of Youngs’
modulus and the moment of inertia (I=1/12bh3 for rectangular cross sections). The
confusion is increased because in the derivation of the expression for the strain
(Section 2.3.2) Hooke’s law (t = E t) is used. Without using this relation, the
expression for the strain cannot be found. Therefore, the use of various stiffness
definitions is not only confusing but also incorrect. According to IPC the second
expression is included in order to take shear effects into account. It is generally
accepted that these effects are negligible for bending beams if the height is smaller
than 10% of the length. For the specimens used in this set-up (h=50 mm and l=400
mm) this is not the case, thus taking the shear effects into account is reasonable.
However, this leads to additional (shear) terms in the stress and strain relations, it
does not change the Young’s modulus, which is a material property. The shear
stresses and strains are related via the shear stiffness, which depends on the Young’s
modulus:
E
G (2.15)
2 1  v 
Fortunately, the stiffness used in the test output and as a termination criterion is the
IPC “flexural stiffness”, which is in accordance with the Dutch practice.
t
S (2.16)
1000 t
Pa 23a 2
E [  k (1   )] (2.17)
wh 4h 2
Where:
P : peak force (N)
TU Delft ACRe 16
 : peak deflection at centre of the beam (mm)
a : distance between reaction and load clamps(mm)
w : beam width(mm)
h : beam height (mm)
k : actual shear stress divided by average shear stress (assumed 1.5)
 : Poisson's ratio (default value = 0.40)
Looking at Equation (2.17), it is clear that if Equation (2.1) is divided by Equation

(2.5):
aP
3000
t 3 2
wh 2  23000a P  aP 23000a  kPa   aP 23a  MPa 
2
 (2.18)
t 12 h 4w h3 w h 4h 2 w h 4h 2
23a 2
the first term in the stiffness equation is found. However, the expression for the stress
is valid only for sine loads, for haversines it would be twice as large, which would
result in a stiffness twice as high.
The second term in Equation (2.17) is incorporated to take the shear effects into
account. As stated above, for beams higher than 1/10 of the length it can be
appropriate to take shear into account. But it is not correct to do this via the
expression for the stiffness, while determining the deflection solely on the basis of the
bending stresses. If shear stresses influence the test, the registered deformation will
partially be due to shear and partially to bending. Analysing the test, again using the
assumption that the material behaves linear elastically, should then provide an
expression for the deflection in which both the influence of bending stresses and those
of shear stresses are taken into account. The authors prefer such a complete
expression above the one in Equation (2.17), where the shear stress ratio is used.
Using the differential equations for a beam loaded in bending and shear:
dQ
q
dx
dM
mQ
dx
(2.19)
 dw 
Q  GA   
 dx 
 d 
M  EI  
 dx 
Where: q = distributed load
m = distributed moment
Q = shear force
M = bending moment
G = shear stiffness (E/2(1+))
 = Poisson’s constant
A = cross sectional area (bw for rectangular cross sections)
E = Young’s modulus
I = moment of inertia (1/12 bh3 for rectangular cross sections)
Lab W&S ACRe 17

In a four point bending test both q and m are zero. Because of the presence of point
loads, the above relations are set up for three distinct regions, with boundary and
transition conditions.
l
For 0  x  :
3
Q  F and M  Fx
l/2
M
w(0)  0 and  (0)   EI dx
0
l 2l
For  x  :
3 3
Fl
Q  0 and M 
3
l l l
    0 and w1    w2  
 2  3  3
2
For  x  l :
3
Q  F and M  F (l  x)
 2l   2l 
w(l )  0 and w2    w3  
3 3
Because the test is symmetrical, only the left-hand side will be considered.
l
0 x :
3
 d  d M Fx
 
Fx 2
A
M  EI      1 ( x ) (2.20)
 dx  dx EI EI 2 EI
At x=0 the angle can be computed from the moment distribution as shown in
Equation (2.9). Substituting this in Equation (2.20) yields:
F 02 Fl 2 Fl 2
1 (0)  A  A (2.21)
2 EI 9 EI 9 EI
Using the expression for the shear force:
 dw  dw Q F Fx 2 Fl 2
Q  GA          
 dx  dx GA GA 2 EI 9 EI
Fx  l 2 x 2  Fx
w1 ( x)     B (2.22)
3EI  3 2  GA
TU Delft ACRe 18
Since w(0)=0, the above expression leads to B=0. Substituting x=l/6 in Equation
l Fl  l 2 l 2  Fx 23Fl 3 Fx
(2.22) as a check gives: w1          . The first
 6  18 EI  3 72  GA 1296 EI GA
(bending) term is equal to what was found in the previous section, where shear
deformations were neglected.
For the second part of the beam this approach results in:
l 2l
x :
3 3
 d  d M Fl Flx
M  EI       2 ( x)  C (2.23)
 dx  dx EI 3EI 3EI
At x=l/2 the angle is zero, substituting this in Equation (2.23) yields:
l
Fl  
l Fl 2
2       C  0  C  
2
(2.24)
 2 3EI 6 EI
Using the expression for the shear force:
 dw  dw Q Flx Fl 2
Q  GA          
 dx  dx GA 3EI 6 EI
w2 ( x) 
Fl
6 EI
 lx  x2   D (2.25)
At the transition between the two formulations at l/3, continuity of the deflections is
required. Using this equality, D can be found:
l l Fl Fl 3 Fl 3 Fl  l 2 l 2 
w1    w2         D 
 3  3 3GA 162 EI 27 EI 6 EI  3 9 
Fl Fl 3
Dw 
3GA 162 EI
This gives as expression for the deflection for the second part of the beam:
Fl  2 l2  Fl
w2 ( x)    x  lx  w (2.26)
6 EI  27  3GA
Checking the solution for by substituting x=l/2 and G   G:
 l  Fl   l  l l 2  23Fl 3
2
w2         l   
 2  6 EI   2  2 27  648 EI
Lab W&S ACRe 19

This is in agreement with what was found for pure bending in the previous section.
During the test the transducer registers the actual deflection at the centre, with respect
to the deflection at x=l/6. For pure bending this deflection is:
l  l  23Fl
3
w   w   (2.27)
 2  6  1296 EI
For the combination of bending and shear it is:

3
l l
F   F  l
l  l  Fl  l
2 2 
      
l l Fl 6 6 Fl
w2    w1         l    w
 2 
 6  6 EI   2  2 27  3GA 6 EI 9 EI 6GA
l  l  23Fl
3
Fl
w2    w1     (2.28)
 2  6  1296 EI 6GA
The contribution of shear deformations is Fl/6GA, the true bending part of the
deflection is the transducer signal minus this shear contribution. If the deflection is
corrected for this component, the Young’s modulus can again be determined from the
remaining bending component of the deflection. The influence of the shear stresses
can be quantified using:
A  wh
1
I  wh3 (2.29)
12
E
G
2(1   )
Substituting these definitions in Equations (2.27) and (2.29) gives:
 l  2  69 Fl
3
bending : w   
 2  324 Ewh
3
(2.30)
 l  2  69 Fl
3
2(1   ) Fl 2 Fl  69l 2 (1   ) 
bending : w        
 2  324 Ewh
3
3Ewh Ewh  324h 2 3 
Substituting the dimensions from the specimen under consideration (h=50 mm and
l=450 mm) gives:
l 2 Fl  1
  0 : w   13.6963   ; shear contribution : 2.3%
 2  Ewh  3
(2.31)
 l  2 Fl  1
  0.5 : w    13.6963   ; shear contribution : 3.5%
 2  Ewh  2
Considering the overall accuracy of this test, with the assumptions of linear elastic
material response and symmetric deformations as well as the unknown effects of the
clamps, correction of the deflection and, indirectly, the stiffness for the shear
influence does not appear to be worthwhile. However, if this correction is to be
applied, it means substituting Equation (2.28) instead of (2.27) in Equation (2.14).
TU Delft ACRe 20
l
w   Ewh
 t wh2
 2
 
2l  69l 2 (1   ) 
2l  2
 
 324h 3 
l
w   Ewh
t E  2 
2l
 (2.32)
 69l 2 1    wh 2
2l 2
 
 324h 3 
l l
w  w 
t   2  2
 69l 2
h 1      23a h(1   ) 
2
     
 324h 3   12h 2 3 
Using this relation for the strain to derive an expression for the Youngs modulus
yields:
 23a 2 
6 Fa Fa   2h(1   ) 
 wh 2  2h
2

E   (2.33)
  
l  
l
w  wh  w  
 2  2
 23a 2
h(1   ) 
 2
 
 12h 3 
Substituting F=P for a haversine load or F=P/2 for a sine load results in the Young’s
modulus. Comparing this expression with Equation (2.17) (repeated here for
convenience):
Pa 23a 2
E [  k (1   )] (2.17)
wh 4h 2
Basically, the expressions are very similar. The only difference is the factor k that is
incorporated in the expression used by IPC. It is not quite clear why the term is
included. The effect is that the influence of the shear stresses is increased. In the
stiffnesses found using the different expressions are shown. Obviously, all relations
are meant to give a material stiffness, so the differentiation in software (flexural
stiffness versus Youngs modulus) is rather confusing. Although the beam dimensions
are such that there is some influence of the shear, this is limited. When the other
assumptions with respect to this test are taken into account (linear elastic material
response, equal clamping forces in all tests), it seems that the effect of these
simplifications would probably be much larger than the shear-effects. It does therefore
not seem worthwhile to apply the correction on the stiffness, especially since the
relation incorporated in the software includes an as yet unexplained multiplication
factor for the shear influence. Fortunately, the stiffness used to control the test is the
so-called flexural stiffness, i.e. the Young’s modulus found if shear is neglected. It is
recommended to simply use this value and neglect the additional stiffness value.
Lab W&S ACRe 21

2.3.4 Phase angle and energy dissipation
In the output also the phase angle between load and deformation (Equation (2.34))
and the dissipated energy, both per cycle and cumulative are presented.
  360 fs (2.34)
Where:
s : time lag between Pmax and w(l/2)max, in seconds
f : load frequency (Hz)
The dissipated energy is calculated by determining the area within the stress-strain
hysteresis loop for each captured data pulse. Cumulative dissipated energy is the
summation of the dissipated energy per cycle. (It should be noted that the dissipated
energy is actually given per unit of volume resulting in Nmm/mm3. For sake of
simplicity the unit kPa or MPa is used to express the amount of energy per unit of
volume).
2.3.5 Final remarks

From the previous sections it is clear that the IPC software doesnot differentiate
between the stress in the beam due to a haversine load and a sine load. The idea
behind this is that in a beam loaded in displacement control with a haversine, the
stresses rapidly (within a few hundred cycles) becomes a full sine. This is due to the
repeated tensile strains on one and compressive strains at the other side of the beam,
which cause permanent deformation. Due to that deformation, it again takes
alternating tension and compression to retain the beam deformation between the
original (horizontal) situation and the specified maximum deflection. In that case,
both a haversine displacement signal and a full sinusoidal signal would lead to F=P/2.
However, if permanent deformation does indeed occur in the beam, the assumption of
linear elastic material response under the applied conditions is invalid. This would
render all the observations and the equations doubtful.
In Section 3.4 the results of tests performed to asses the effect of a haversine
deformation signal on the forces, stresses and strains in a four point bending test are
presented. It appears that the stresses immediately become fully sinusoidal, indicating
that there is only a limited difference between haversine and sine deformation signals.
TU Delft ACRe 22
3. FPBF TESTS ON THE ACRE MIXTURE
Equation Section (Next)
3.1 ACRE MIXTURE

The asphalt mix used in the experiments was a rather coarse grained, bitumen rich,
downscaled dense asphalt concrete. It was downscaled to allow a high minimum
specimen dimension versus maximum aggregate size, leading to a maximum
aggregate size of 5 mm. The mix consists of 3 components:
1. Filler: The filler was a weak filler of 100 % calcium powder with a density of
2770 kg/m3 (Appendix 1).
2. Aggregate: The aggregate used in the mix was crushed rock with a maximum
grain size of 5 mm and a density of 2675 kg/m3. The sieve curve of the sand and
that of the aggregate is shown in Appendix 2.
3. Bitumen: The bitumen was 45/60 bitumen with a density of 1020 kg/m3, a
penetration of 47x0.1 mm and TR&K = 52 C ( PI = -0.83; see Appendix 3). The
samples were obtained directly from stock.
The specific densities of the components are summarised in table 2.1.

In general the uncertainties are explained in Erkens et al. (1998).
Component Density [kg/m3]

Sand 2675 ± 15
Filler 2780 resp. 2770 ± 10
Bitumen 1025 ± 5
Table 3.1: Density of the mix components
The mass percentages of each component in the mix are:

 77.1 % crushed sand (ms = 77.1 %)
 14.3 % filler (mf = 14.3 %)
 8.6 % bitumen (mb = 8.6 %)
The density of the mix is, according to Test 67: Specimen Density (CROW, 1995):
m s  m f  mb
 mix  (3.1)
ms m f mb
 
s f b
Where:
mj = mass percentage of component j [%]
j = density of component j [kg/m3]
index s = crushed sand
index f = filler
index b = bitumen
Lab W&S ACRe 23

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

The beams were cut from plates made with the mix described in the previous section.
The plates were produced by Unihorn and the specimens were cut from the plates at
the Delft University of Technology. At the top, bottom and all sides at least 15 mm of
material was removed to avoid edge effects in the specimens. The intended specimen
dimensions were 50x50x400 mm. Six beams could be cut from each plate, which
resulted in twelve specimens. The beams are coded by the plate number in
combination with a specimen number.
The specimen density (sp) and void percentage (Va) were determined. With the
weight of the specimen under water and in dry and wet conditions the specimen
density (sp) can be determined as described in test 67: Density of the asphalt sample
(CROW,1995).
mdry . w
 sp  (3.2)
mwet  munder
where:
mdry = dry mass specimen [kg]
mwet = wet mass specimen [kg]
munder = mass specimen under water [kg]
w = density of water [kg/m3]
code Height [mm] Width [mm] Length [mm] Density [kg/m3] Voids [%]
3-1 51.2 49.7 402 2287 3.1
3-2 50.8 49.8 401 2281 3.3
3-3 50.4 50.0 401 2286 3.1
3-4 50.7 49.8 401 2283 3.3
3-5 50.1 50.3 400 2283 3.3
3-6 50.1 52.0 400 2284 3.2
4-1 51.2 49.9 401 2294 2.8
4-2 50.4 50.3 401 2296 2.7
4-3 50.6 50.1 401 2292 2.9
4-4 50.7 50.1 401 2284 3.2
4-5 51.0 50.0 400 2276 3.6
4-6 50.3 50.2 400 2285 3.2
Average 50.3 50.2 400 2286 3.1
Table 3.2: Specimen dimensions, density and void percentage
With the specimen density and the mix density mix the percentage of air voids (Va) in
the specimens can be computed, according to Test 69: Percentage of air voids
(CROW, 1995):
 mix   sp
Va   100 (3.3)
 mix
where: Va = percentage voids [%]
mix = density of the mix [kg/m3]
TU Delft ACRe 24
sp = density of the specimen [kg/m3]
The resulting specimen density (sp), the percentage voids (Va) as well as the
geometry are shown in Table 3.2.
With the densities of the components from table 2.1 and the specimen density (sp)
from Table 2.2 the volume percentage of each component for each specimen can be
calculated.
mj  sp
Vj    100 (3.4)
m f  ms  mb j
Where: Vj = volume percentage of component j [%]

mj = mass percentage of component j [%]
sp = specimen density [kg/m3]
j = density of component j [kg/m3]
index s = crushed sand
index f = filler
index b = bitumen
Substitution in Equation 2.4 of the densities from Table 2.1, the mass percentages and
the average specimen density (sp = 2286 kg/m3) from Table 2.2 gives the following
volume percentages:
Vs = 65.9%
Vf = 11.8%
Vb = 19.2%
3.3 TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS

In Section 2.2 it was mentioned that the test conditions used for four point bending
fatigue tests vary considerably. The most common conditions are 30 Hz and 20 oC, so
it would seem logical to adhere to those conditions. However, the set-up used is a
pneumatic system that can apply frequencies up to 10 Hz. Therefore, the conditions
used are 10 Hz and 20oC. The tests are performed in displacement control, using a full
sinusoidal signal. The strain level (expressed as a peak-peak value in the IPC
software) is selected such that the number of cycles until failure is between 104 and
106. With 10 Hz this amounts to tests that last between 15 minutes and 28 hours. After
several strain levels, it turned out that for this combination of mix characteristics,
loading conditions and geometry, the strain levels that fulfilled the requirements were:
700, 900 and 1100 peak-peak, actual strain levels: 350, 450 and 550 Several
specimens failed in the preparation phase, while the appropriate conditions were
established. In some cases the information from these specimens could not be used,
for example because the test terminated at a maximum number of load repetitions
without reaching a 50% stiffness reduction (the failure criterion). In order cases it was
felt that the test took to long, which shed doubt on the reliability. This was the case
for tests that took more than 30 hours to run, in those test permanent deformation of
the specimens could be observed with the naked eye. With respect to the assumptions
underlying the calculations of strain and stiffness (Section 2.3), this renders the
accuracy of the results doubtful.
Lab W&S ACRe 25

In Table 3.3 the test conditions and the number of load repetitions for each specimen
are shown. The strain levels mentioned here are the actual strain levels to wich the
outer fibres of the specimen are subjected, which is half the input value for the IPC
software.
strain [m/m] N [#cycles] f [Hz] T [oC] S0 [N/mm2] code

6.50E-04 25900 10 20 3556 3-6
5.50E-04 32400 10 20 3493 4-6
5.50E-04 54760 10 20 3268 3-5
4.50E-04 79920 10 20 3543 4-3
4.50E-04 135430 10 20 3582 3-4
3.50E-04 320890 10 20 3216 4-5
3.50E-04 284810 10 20 3530 3-3
2.50E-04 822780 10 20 3543 4-4
Table 3.3: Test conditions and results for the ACRe specimens
In Figure 3.1 the individual test data are presented. It can be seen that the variation in
the shape of the curves is considerable. However, if the strains and the number of load
repetitions until failure are considered, which is usually done on a log-log basis, the
variation is quite acceptable. The data are plotted in this way in Figure 3.2, where also
some other four point bending fatigue data are incorporated to provide a frame of
reference for the results.
4000
Smix [MPa] 3-5 ; 550x10-6 4-6 ; 550x10-6
3500 3-4 ; 450x10-6 4-3 ; 450x10-6
3-3 ; 350x10-6 4-5 ; 350x10-6
3000 4-4 ; 250x10-6 3-6 ; 650x10-6
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
N [# cycles]
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
Figure 3.1: Smix versus #cycles for the individual tests
TU Delft ACRe 26
1.E+07
Number of Load Repetitions
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
N = 3E-10
-4.3557
R2 = 0.9318 Tensile Strain

1.E+03
0.0001 0.001
Half-warm Stab, Jenkins, 10Hz, 20'C Hot Mix Stab, Jenkins,10Hz, 20'C van Gurp, s15, 15'C
DAB, van Eerden, 30Hz, 20'C ACRe DAB, Alphen, van, 10HZ, 15'C
punten van Alphen, eq. rek SPDM F1 SPDM F2
rws2000 van Gurp, s15, 25'C van Gurp, RW352, 15'C
van Gurp, S3, 25'C van Gurp, RW352, 25'C van Gurp, S3, 15'C
DWW, 20'C
Figure 3.2: N- relations on log-log scale, ACRe results versus some others
From the data presented in Figure 3.2 it can be seen that the ACRe material exhibits a
rather good resistance against fatigue. The slope of the fatigue line is similar to those
of the other data sets, but its position indicates that the material can sustain a larger
strain at the same number of load repetitions compared to other mixtures. The data
plotted in this graph are taken from literature (Alphen, van et al 1985, Eerden, van der
1984, Gurp, van 1986, and Jenkins 2000) and the corresponding test conditions are
mentioned in the legend.
Additional information on the meaning of the fatigue results was obtained from
standards, using both the Shell Pavement Design Manual (SPDM 1978) and the Dutch
design guide (RWS 2000). Using the average initial stiffness found from the fatigue
tests (Table 3.3), the corresponding F1 and F2 characteristics were determined using
charts M3 and M4 from the SPDM, see Figure 3.3. The resulting F1 and F2
characteristics are positioned on the right hand side of the ACRe line (Figure 3.2),
which indicates that the ACRe material is rather fatigue resistant. In a similar way the
general fatigue chart for asphalt concrete from RWS was used. This line is also shown
in Figure 3.2 and the numerical values for this line as well as the SPDM lines are
presented in Table 3.4.
N Corresponding strain
SPDM F1 SPDM F2 RWS 2000
4
1x10 5.4x10-4 4.4x10-4 3.2x10-4
1x105 3.6x10-4 2.6x10-4 2.1x10-4
1x106 2.4x10-4 1.7x10-4 1.3x10-4
1x107 1.6x10-4 1x10-4 8.7x10-5
1x108 1.2x10-4 6.4x10-5 5.6x10-5
Table 3.4: Fatigue data read from design charts for the average ACRe mixture
stiffness
Lab W&S ACRe 27

Figure 3.3: Fatigue data from the F1 and F2 mixtures from the SPDM for the
ACRe stiffness
To ensure that the stiffness value found for the ACRe mix, which is the input for the
F1 and F2 characteristics, is reasonable, the SPDM M2 chart is used (Figure 3.4). This
graph presents the mixture stiffness as a function of temperature. Like the F1 and F2
characteristics, the S1 and S2 lines do not represented specific mixtures, but rather
classes of asphalt mixtures:
1: dense base course mixtures with average volumetric composition (moderate
aggregate, bitumen and void contents)
2: mixes with higher void contents (open graded) or dense mixes with low aggregate
and high bitumen contents
SACRe
Figure 3.4: Stiffness ACRe mix compared to the SPDM stiffness characteristics
TU Delft ACRe 28
The SPDM mix stiffness chart was determined for a loading time of 0.02 s, which for
a sine load corresponds to 25 Hz, which is higher than the 10 Hz used in the tests
discussed in this report. From Figure 3.4 it can be seen that the mix stiffness found for
the ACRe mix from the fatigue tests at 20oC falls within the interval indicated in the
SPDM for this temperature. So it can be concluded that the stiffness is reasonable and,
therefore, that the fatigue resistance is rather good.
3.4 SINE VERSUS HAVERSINE

In the Netherlands, fatigue tests are performed in four point bending using a full sine
displacement signal as the control parameter. In other countries, sometimes haversine
signals are used. In force control, this will cause considerable differences, since a
haversine force signal contains a permanent component that will lead to continuously
increasing creep. In displacement control, it is unclear whether there is a large
difference between the two types of control signals. Under a haversine displacement
signal, creep will occur until the beam reaches a new neutral position, half way in
between the original horizontal one and the maximum deformation. Although the
deformation amplitude remains the same, the stresses and strains in that stage are
again tension-compression. This means that at that stage of the test actually a slightly
curved beam is tested using a full sine. Whether this is very different from testing a
virgin beam in a full sine displacement mode, depends on how fast the beam creeps
towards the new equilibrium position. It was already mentioned in Chapter 2 that IPC
claims that this change occurs within the first few load repetitions, causing them to
use the sine signal relation (Equation (2.1)) to compute the stresses for haversine as
well as sine displacement signals.
To assess what happens, some tests in displacement control were ran, monitoring the
force signal on a scope. A typical result is shown in Figure 3.5, indicating that the
force is a full sine from the first load repetition on. This seems to validate the claim by
IPC.
Figure 3.5: The force signal in a haversine deformation controlled test
Lab W&S ACRe 29

4. CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS
Although bending fatigue tests are often used for fatigue characterisation of asphalt
mixes, they do not really provide a material characterisation but rather give an
indication of the performance under a standard set of conditions. Since these (test)
conditions are not rigidly standardised, it is difficult to compare the results of different
test series. Because of the large number of tests that has been performed, the results
can be used to obtain some indication of the kind of response, if differences in
conditions are taken into account. In this project the test conditions were: 10 Hz and
20oC, using 50x50x400 mm specimens.
During the project, the set-up that was used, a pneumatic four point bending set-up
from IPC, and the software that belongs to the equipment were evaluated. The
software uses peak-peak values to characterise the loads, which means that in a
displacement controlled test with a full sine signal the actual strain level is half of the
specified value. Furthermore, the software gives two stiffness values, a bending
stiffness, which is actually the Young’s modulus if the influence of shear is neglected,
and a Young’s modulus, where the effect of shear stresses is taken into account but in
an unnecessarily indirect way. In this report the derivation of both stiffnesses is given,
which leads to an alternative expression for the Young’s modulus if shear is to be
accounted for. In most cases, however, the shear influence can be ignored.
The test results on the ACRe mixture show good agreement with those on other
mixtures. The material appears to be as susceptible to strain level as the other
mixtures (fatigue line has the same slope) and in general it resists rather high strain
levels at the standard values for fatigue life (104<N<106), indicating a good fatigue
resistance.
TU Delft ACRe 30
REFERENCES
Alphen, C.A.M. van and Molenaar, A.A.A.. (1985), “Vermoeiingsonderzoek middels

het beproeven van een asfaltmengsel met de vierpuntsbuig- en splijtproef”, Delft
University of Technology Report 7-85-113-8 (in Dutch)
Arif, S.H. (1999), “Simple Tests for the Evaluation of Asphalt Mix Characteristics
and their Effect on the Pavement Behaviour”, MSc. Thesis Delft University of
Technology
Company, S. I., (1978), "Shell Pavement Design Manual", Shell International

Petroleum Company Ltd., London
CROW, “Standaard RAW Bepalingen, 1995”,ISBN 90-6628-198-7, 1995 (in Dutch)

Eerden, M.A.C. van der (1984), “Vermoeiingsonderzoek aan een Dicht Asfalt Beton
ten behoeve van het Project RW15”, Delft University of Technology Report 12-84-
404-3 (in Dutch)
El-Odaisy, M.H. (1999), “The Effect of the Sealoflex ® on the Mechanical Behavior
of an Asphalt Mixture”, MSc. thesis TR 082 International Institute for Infrastructural,
Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering
Erkens, S.M.J.G. and Poot, M.R. (1998), “The Uniaxial Compression Test – Asphalt
Concrete Response (ACRe)”, Delft University of Technology Report 7-98-117-4
Gurp, Ch.A.P.M. van (1986), “Vermoeiingsonderzoek op deklaagmengsels”, Delft
University of Technology Report 7-86-401-3 (in Dutch)
Jenkins K.J.(2000,) “Mix Design Considerations for Cold and Half-warm Bituminous
Mixes with emphasis on Foamed Bitumen”, PhD. Dissertation, University of
Stellenbosch, South Africa
King, S. (1998), “UTM2: Universal Testing Machine – Test 021: Feed Back
Controlled Beam Fatigue Test”, Industrial Process Controls Ltd.(IPC)
Medani, T.O. (1999), “a Simplified Procedure for Estimation of the Fatigue and Crack
Growth Characteristics of Asphaltic mixes”, MSc. thesis TR 081 International
Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering
RWS (2000), “Handleiding Ontwerpsysteem Asfaltverhardingen – Ascon”,

Rijkswaterstaat, dienst Weg- en Waterbouwkunde (in Dutch)
Sinadinos, C., (1986),”Beam Fatigue System – hardware reference”, Industrial

Process Controls Ltd.(IPC)
Lab W&S ACRe 31

APPENDIX 1: FILLER COMPOSITION 00
RL210-01
Steengroeve Laboratory Analysis-report
Sample-name Wigro Sample no. 95-134(I);96-

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

.
231 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ALPINE

+ 63 m %(m/m) 19 15 14 5 25
+ 90 m %(m/m) 11 9 9 0 15
+ 2 mm %(m/m) 0 0 0 0
232 BITUMEN NUMBER ml/100g 47 44 46 42 48
235 MASS LOSS 150 C %(m/m) 0.34 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.5
ANALYSES AFTER DRYING AT 110 C
222 DRYING AT 110 C %(m/m) X X X

236 DENSITY kg/m3 2780 2770 2770 2675 2875
237 VOIDS %(v/v) 38 38 37 36 42
238 SOLVABILITY H2O %(m/m) 2.0 2.2 0.8 0 10
239 SOLVABILITY HCL %(m/m) 63.3 65.5 67.7 55 75
TU Delft ACRe 32
APPENDIX 2: SIEVE CURVE CRUSHED ROCK 0/5 AND FILLER
00
100
percentage passing
sand
80
aggregate
60
[%]
40
20
Sieve size [mm]
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Dry sieving Crushed sand 0/5 Aggregate (sand + filler)
Sieve [mm] Percentage passing Percentage passing
[% m/m] [% m/m]
4 97.5 96.8
2.8 94.9 94.4
2 90.6 90.8
1 60.4 65.3
0.5 34.5 43.4
0.355 26.4 36.6
0.25 18.1 29.6
0.18 11.3 25.2
0.125 5.9 20.6
0.063 1.8 14.6
From the previous Appendix it is known that the filler was sieved on the 63 m, 90 m
and 2 mm sieves. It is assumed that the material that remained on the 90 m sieve and
passed through the 2 mm sieve would have passed the 125 m sieve used to analyse
the sand.
The combined sieve data is found by computing the mass percentage on each sieve
(difference between two adjacent values) and expressing that as a percentage of the
combined mass (m%*=m% * Ms/(Ms+Mf). Where necessary, the percentages for the
filler and sand are combined.
For example:
Sieve 63 m: 1.8% x 2.7/3.2+ 84% x0.5/3.2=14.6% (2.7 kg sand+ 0.5 kg filler=3.2 kg
aggregate)
Sieve 125 m: (5.9%-1.8%)x2.7/3.2+16%x0.5/3.2+14.6%=20.6%
Sieve 180 m: (11.3%-5.9%)x2.7/3.2+20.6%=25.2%, etc.
Lab W&S ACRe 33

APPENDIX 3: BITUMEN CHARACTERISTICS 00
1. Penetration test
Pen.45/60 (batch I) Pen.45/60 (batch II)

1e 2e 3e average 1e 2e 3e average
47 46 48 47 47 48 47 47.3
2. Ring & Ball
R&B (batch I) R&B (batch II)

Thermo boiling Startin Result Thermo boiling Starting Result
-stat ring g temp -stat ring temp
45 9 8.6 51/51 45 9 7.2 52/52.1
20T ( R & B)  500 log( pen)  1952

PI 
T ( R & B )  50 log( pen)  120
(A3.1)
Result batch I: PI = -1.10
Result batch II: PI = -0.83
Density bitumen: b= (1020  5) kg/m3
TU Delft ACRe 34
APPENDIX 4: DATA SHEETS FPBF TEST 00
4 point bending test

Date: 24-02-2000
Project: Acre
Asphalt type: ACRe mix
Sample nr: 3-1
Specimen length (mm): 402
Specimen width (mm): 49.7
Specimen height (mm): 51.2
Poisson ratio: 0.30
Load pulse width (ms): 100
Repetition pulse period (ms): 100
Flexural Strain [sine ] (): 300
Test termination stiffness (MPa): 1500
Density: 2287.3 (kg/m3)
Temp climate chamber : 20 °C

Sample placed in climate chamber : date: 22-02 / time: 12.00 hr
Starting the test: date: 24-02 / time: 9.10 hr
Ending the test: date: 25-02 / time: hr
Filename: C:\Acre\BINDATA\ 3-1-300 .BIN

Filename: C:\Acre\CSVDATA\ 3-1-300 .CSV
Remarks:
Operator: J.A.M. Kalf
Lab W&S ACRe 35

Date:28-02-2000 Project: Acre
Sample nr: 3-2
Poisson ratio: 0.30

Ending the test: date: 01-03 / time: 14.00 hr
Filename: C:\Acre\BINDATA\ 3-2-300 .BIN

Filename: C:\Acre\CSVDATA\ 3-2-300 .CSV
Remarks:
TU Delft ACRe 36
Date: 21-09-2000 Project: Acre
Sample nr: 3-3
Poisson ratio: 0.30

Filename: C:\Acre\BINDATA\ 3-3a.BIN

Filename: C:\Acre\CSVDATA\ 3-3a.CSV
Remarks:
Lab W&S ACRe 37

Sample nr: 3-4
Poisson ratio: 0.30

Filename: C:\Acre\BINDATA\ 3-4.BIN

Filename: C:\Acre\CSVDATA\ 3-4.CSV
Remarks:
TU Delft ACRe 38
Sample nr: 3-5
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Remarks:
Lab W&S ACRe 39

Date:27-09-2000 Project: Acre
Sample nr: 3-6
Poisson ratio: 0.30
Density: 2284 (kg/m3)


Remarks:
TU Delft ACRe 40
Sample nr: 4-1
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Ending the test: date: / time: hr
Filename: C:\Acre\BINDATA\ .BIN

Filename: C:\Acre\CSVDATA\ .CSV
Remarks:
Lab W&S ACRe 41

Sample nr: 4-2
Specimen length (mm): 40.1
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Remarks:
TU Delft ACRe 42
Sample nr: 4-3
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Remarks:
Lab W&S ACRe 43

Sample nr: 4-4
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Remarks:
TU Delft ACRe 44
Sample nr: 4-5
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Remarks:
Lab W&S ACRe 45

Sample nr: 4-6
Poisson ratio: 0.30


Remarks:
TU Delft ACRe 46
View publication stats

Erkensenkalf FourPointBendingTest AsphaltConcreteResponseACRe Delftuniversityoftechnologyreport7 00 117 6dec2000

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Erkensenkalf FourPointBendingTest AsphaltConcreteResponseACRe Delftuniversityoftechnologyreport7 00 117 6dec2000

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

the four point bending test - asphalt concrete response

Technical Report · December 2000

Finite Element Analysis of Accelerated Pavement testing View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

December 2000 ir. S.M.J.G. Erkens and J.A.M. Kalf

December 2000 ir. S.M.J.G. Erkens and J.A.M. Kalf

This project was carried out as an assignment for the

Assignment number: DCT 4090-3

Lab W&S ACRe 3

In hoofdstuk 3 wordt vervolgens een overzicht gegeven van de proefstukken,

Lab W&S ACRe 5

2. BENDING FATIGUE TESTS ..................................................................................................... 9

In the Asphalt Concrete Response (ACRe) project, a three dimensional, non-linear

Lab W&S ACRe 7

2.2 4-POINT BENDING BEAM TEST

Lab W&S ACRe 9

The following output data is determined and displayed on the screen:

2.3 THEORY AND DERIVATION OF EXPRESSIONS

118.5m m 118.5m m 118.5m m

Lab W&S ACRe 11

2.3.1 Maximum tensile stress

2.3.2 Maximum tensile strain

Lab W&S ACRe 13

Correspondingly, the deflection (w) at any point can be determined via:

Lab W&S ACRe 15

2.3.3 Stiffness values

Looking at Equation (2.17), it is clear that if Equation (2.1) is divided by Equation

Lab W&S ACRe 17

Using the expression for the shear force:

At x=l/2 the angle is zero, substituting this in Equation (2.23) yields:

Using the expression for the shear force:

Checking the solution for by substituting x=l/2 and G   G:

Lab W&S ACRe 19

For the combination of bending and shear it is:

Lab W&S ACRe 21

2.3.5 Final remarks

3.1 ACRE MIXTURE

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

Component Density [kg/m3]

The mass percentages of each component in the mix are:

Lab W&S ACRe 23

3.2 FPBF SPECIMENS

Where: Vj = volume percentage of component j [%]

3.3 TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS

Lab W&S ACRe 25

strain [m/m] N [#cycles] f [Hz] T [oC] S0 [N/mm2] code

Figure 3.1: Smix versus #cycles for the individual tests

R2 = 0.9318 Tensile Strain

Lab W&S ACRe 27

3.4 SINE VERSUS HAVERSINE

Figure 3.5: The force signal in a haversine deformation controlled test

Lab W&S ACRe 29

Alphen, C.A.M. van and Molenaar, A.A.A.. (1985), “Vermoeiingsonderzoek middels

Company, S. I., (1978), "Shell Pavement Design Manual", Shell International

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

RWS (2000), “Handleiding Ontwerpsysteem Asfaltverhardingen – Ascon”,

Sinadinos, C., (1986),”Beam Fatigue System – hardware reference”, Industrial

Lab W&S ACRe 31

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

WI ANALYSES SI Value of batch no. Warranty

FILLERANALYSES I II III Min. Max

231 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ALPINE