THE PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AND LIFE-CYCLE COST …

THE PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AND LIFE-CYCLE COST IMPACTS OF CARBON FIBER MODIFIED HOT MIX

ASPHALT

By

BRUCE R. WILJANEN

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

© 2003 Bruce R. Wiljanen

ABSTRACT

Hot mix asphalt (HMA) roadway repair and maintenance encompasses thousands of miles in the United States and all over the world. A better performing, longer lasting HMA pavement benefits all parties involved. Technologies to lengthen time between needed repair intervals and decrease maintenance costs are welcomed and being researched. One new technology in HMA pavements is carbon fibers. Carbon fibers, if successfully introduced into HMA pavement, may provide performance benefits and qualities to benefit intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Advancements in carbon fiber production, resulting in improved carbon fiber properties, add to the economic and performance attractiveness. Laboratory testing can be utilized as an indicator for field performance before possibly spending excess money in production. Performance predictions are made in three of HMA’s failure mechanisms which are thermal cracking, fatigue cracking, and permanent deformation. Another mechanism, reflective cracking, will also be examined although laboratory testing is not currently directly related to field performance. Field and laboratory specimens were manufactured for laboratory testing. Variations in mixture types included binder contents, binder types, and carbon fiber percentages. Results of this research are:

• Asphalt binder testing (such as the dynamic shear rheometer, bending beam rheometer, and direct tensile tester) was difficult to perform due to the irregularities in test specimens caused by the carbon fiber.

• Asphalt content had more influence than carbon fiber content on results in the low temperature performance utilizing the indirect tensile test.

• The addition of carbon fibers at a percentage of 0.50% by mass of asphalt binder combined with a 0.1% increase in optimum asphalt binder content is economically attractive in fatigue analysis.

• An economical analysis in permanent deformation data comparing a mixture with 0.50% carbon fiber by mass of asphalt binder at a 0.1% increase in optimum asphalt binder content versus a mixture with an increase in high temperature binder grade due to binder modification would be of interest.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. vii Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review............................................................................................ 4

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Thermal Cracking ............................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Consequences of Thermal Cracking ........................................................... 7 2.2.2 Methods of Minimizing Thermal Cracking ................................................ 7 2.2.3 Test Methods to Identify Susceptibility to Thermal Cracking.................... 8

2.3 Fatigue Cracking................................................................................................. 8 2.3.1 Consequences of Fatigue Cracking............................................................. 9 2.3.2 Methods of Resisting Fatigue Cracking...................................................... 9 2.3.3 Test Procedures to Predict Fatigue Cracking Susceptibility....................... 9

2.4 Permanent Deformation (Rutting) .................................................................... 10 2.4.1 Rutting in HMA ........................................................................................ 10 2.4.2 Rutting in Aggregate Support System ...................................................... 12 2.4.3 Factors to Help Improve Rut Resistance .................................................. 13 2.4.4 Tests to Model or Predict Rutting............................................................. 13

2.5 Reflective Cracking .......................................................................................... 14 2.5.1 Consequences of Reflective Cracking ...................................................... 16 2.5.2 Methods of Mitigating Reflective Cracking ............................................. 16 2.5.3 Tests to Model or Predict Reflective Cracking......................................... 20

Chapter 3 Design of Experiment ................................................................................... 22 3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Pertinent Factors ............................................................................................... 24 3.3 Field Production Testing................................................................................... 25 3.4 Laboratory Production Testing ......................................................................... 26 3.5 Methods of Testing ........................................................................................... 27 3.6 Experimental Plan and Update.......................................................................... 28

Chapter 4 Test Methods................................................................................................. 30 4.1 Materials ........................................................................................................... 30 4.2 Specimen Preparation for Performance Testing ............................................... 31 4.3 Binder Properties .............................................................................................. 34

4.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 34 4.3.2 Rotational Viscometer .............................................................................. 34 4.3.3 Rolling Thin Film Oven............................................................................ 35 4.3.4 Pressure Aging Vessel .............................................................................. 36 4.3.5 Dynamic Shear Rheometer ....................................................................... 37 4.3.6 Bending Beam Rheometer ........................................................................ 40 4.3.7 Direct Tension Tester................................................................................ 41

i

4.4 HMA Performance Testing............................................................................... 42 4.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 42 4.4.2 Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus ............................................ 43 4.4.3 Four-Point Beam Fatigue.......................................................................... 45 4.4.4 Indirect Tensile ......................................................................................... 47 4.4.5 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer...................................................................... 48 4.4.6 Reflective Cracking Test........................................................................... 50

Chapter 5 Summary of Test Results .............................................................................. 53 5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 53 5.2 Asphalt Binder Test Results.............................................................................. 54 5.3 HMA Performance Test Results ....................................................................... 60

5.3.1 Indirect Tension for Resilient Modulus .................................................... 60 5.3.2 Four-Point Beam Fatigue.......................................................................... 62 5.3.3 Indirect Tension ........................................................................................ 67 5.3.4 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer...................................................................... 69 5.3.5 Reflective Cracking .................................................................................. 73

Chapter 6 Analysis of Test Results................................................................................ 76 6.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 76 6.2 Indirect Tension for Resilient Modulus Analysis ............................................. 78 6.3 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Analysis................................................................... 81

6.3.1 Implications on Pavement Design ............................................................ 84 6.3.2 Possible Approach to Fatigue Analysis .................................................... 86

6.4 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Analysis............................................................... 87 6.5 Economic Impact with CFMA Pavements ....................................................... 90

6.5.1 Life-cycle Cost Analysis – Fatigue........................................................... 92 6.5.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis – Permanent Deformation ............................... 98

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Work............................... 103 7.1 Further Recommendations in Test Methods ................................................... 104

7.1.1 Asphalt Binder Testing ........................................................................... 104 7.1.2 Four-Point Beam Fatigue........................................................................ 104 7.1.3 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer.................................................................... 105 7.1.4 Reflective Cracking ................................................................................ 105

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 107 APPENDIX A: Aggregate Processing, Specimen Batch Weights, and Volumetrics…. A-1 APPENDIX B: Correction Factors and Test Specimen Air Voids……………………. B-1 APPENDIX C: Asphalt Binder Test Results………………………………………….. C-1 APPENDIX D: Resilient Modulus……………………………………………………..D-1 APPENDIX E: Four-Point Beam Fatigue………………………………………………E-1 APPENDIX F: Asphalt Pavement Analyzer……………………………………………F-1 APPENDIX G: Reflective Crack Test Graphs…………………………………………G-1 APPENDIX H: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Surface Plots…………………………. H-1 APPENDIX I: Determinations of Various HMA Layer Thicknesses to Achieve …….. I-1 Equivalent Tensile Strain

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Rutting in the HMA Layer (Asphalt Institute, 1996) ...................................... 11 Figure 2.2 Effect of Shear Loading (Asphalt Institute, 1996) .......................................... 11 Figure 2.3 Rutting in Aggregate Support System (Asphalt Institute, 1996)..................... 12 Figure 2.4 Vertical Movement from Traffic ..................................................................... 15 Figure 2.5 Horizontal Movement from Low Temperature ............................................... 15 Figure 3.1 MTU Sample Test Configuration for Reflective Cracking ............................. 27 Figure 4.1 Superpave Gyratory Compactor ...................................................................... 32 Figure 4.2 Linear Kneading Compactor ........................................................................... 32 Figure 4.3 Complex Shear Modulus and Phase Angle ..................................................... 38 Figure 4.4 Indirect Tensile Test for Resilient Modulus.................................................... 44 Figure 4.5 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Apparatus ............................................................... 46 Figure 4.6 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA)................................................................. 49 Figure 4.7 APA Wheel Types........................................................................................... 51 Figure 4.8 Reflective Crack Testing Materials ................................................................. 52 Figure 4.9 Reflective Crack Testing in the APA .............................................................. 52 Figure 5.1 Post Blending of CFMA.................................................................................. 55 Figure 5.2 Pouring of DSR Sample .................................................................................. 55 Figure 5.3 CFMA DSR Sample Preparation..................................................................... 56 Figure 5.4 All DSR Samples............................................................................................. 56 Figure 5.5 Pouring RTFO Sample .................................................................................... 57 Figure 5.6 RTFO Aged CFMA......................................................................................... 58 Figure 5.7 BBR Preparation.............................................................................................. 59 Figure 5.8 CFMA Deformed Beam .................................................................................. 59 Figure 5.9 IDT Failure Temperature vs. Percent Asphalt Content (Mathy 2002)............ 68 Figure 5.10 CFMA Surface Plot (Mathy 2002) ................................................................ 69 Figure 5.11 First Attempt at Determining Cycles for 7 mm Rut Depth (104 Series)....... 71 Figure 5.12 Second Attempt at Determining Cycles for 7 mm Rut Depth (104 Series) .. 72 Figure 6.1 Designed Pavement System for Analysis in Everstress (Metric Units) ....... 77 Figure 6.2 Designed Pavement System for Analysis in Everstress (English Units) ..... 77 Figure 6.3 Surface Plot - 101 Series @ 600 Microstrain .................................................. 86

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 CFMA Phase 0 Summary (Cleven 2000) ......................................................... 23 Table 3.2 Initial Proposed Experimental Plan .................................................................. 28 Table 3.3 Updated Plan for Field Production Experimental Design ................................ 29 Table 3.4 Updated Plan for Laboratory Production Experimental Design....................... 29 Table 4.1 Optimum Asphalt Binder Contents................................................................... 34 Table 5.1 Resilient Modulus Results - Field Production .................................................. 61 Table 5.2 Resilient Modulus Results - Lab Production .................................................... 61 Table 5.3 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 101 Series (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber).............. 62 Table 5.4 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 102 Series (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber).............. 63 Table 5.5 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 103 Series (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)......... 63 Table 5.6 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 104 Series (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)......... 63 Table 5.7 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 105 Series (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)......... 64 Table 5.8 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 201 Series (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber).............. 64 Table 5.9 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 202 Series (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber).............. 64 Table 5.10 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 203 Series (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber)....... 65 Table 5.11 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 204 Series (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber)....... 65 Table 5.12 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - PG 64-22, 5.2% AC ............................... 65 Table 5.13 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - PG 70-22, 5.2% AC ............................... 66 Table 5.14 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - PG 76-22, 5.2% AC ............................... 66 Table 5.15 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 0.25% Carbon Fiber, 5.4% AC .............. 66 Table 5.16 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 0.75% Carbon Fiber, 5.4% AC .............. 67 Table 5.17 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 0.50% Polypropylene Fiber, 6.0% AC... 67 Table 5.18 APA Results - 100 Series Field Production.................................................... 70 Table 5.19 Estimated Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth (100 Series) .......................... 72 Table 5.20 APA Results - 200 Series Field Production.................................................... 73 Table 5.21 APA Results - Laboratory Production ............................................................ 73 Table 5.22 Cycles to Achieve Reflective Crack Propagation to Surface ......................... 74 Table 5.23 Existing Crack Width Measurements ............................................................. 75 Table 6.1 Resilient Modulus and Horizontal Tensile Strain Values – 100 Series............ 78 Table 6.2 Modulus of Elasticity and Horizontal Tensile Strain Values - 200 Series ....... 79 Table 6.3 Resilient Modulus and Horizontal Tensile Strain Values – Lab Mixes ........... 79 Table 6.4 Allowable Number of Load Repetitions to Prevent Fatigue Cracking – 100

Series......................................................................................................................... 80 Table 6.5 Allowable Number of Load Repetitions to Prevent Fatigue Cracking - 200

Series......................................................................................................................... 81 Table 6.6 Allowable Number of Load Repetitions to Prevent Fatigue Cracking – Lab

Mixes......................................................................................................................... 81 Table 6.7 Modulus of Elasticity Values for 100 Series at 600 Microstrain...................... 83 Table 6.8 Horizontal Tensile Strain Values for 100 Series at 600 Microstrain................ 83 Table 6.9 Allowable Load Cycles to Prevent Fatigue Cracking at 600 Microstrain – 100

Series......................................................................................................................... 84

iv

Table 6.10 Data used in Regression Analysis for Surface Plots - 101 Series @ 600 Microstrain................................................................................................................ 85

Table 6.11 Surface Plot Matrix - 101 Series @ 600 Microstrain ..................................... 85 Table 6.12 Varying Thickness to Achieve Same Tensile Strain in Bottom of HMA Layer

(100 Series @ 600 Microstrain)................................................................................ 87 Table 6.13 APA Percent Improvements - 100 Series ....................................................... 88 Table 6.14 APA Percent Improvements - 200 Series ....................................................... 88 Table 6.15 APA Percent Improvements - Lab Mixes....................................................... 88 Table 6.16 Number of Load Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth - 100 Series................ 89 Table 6.17 Number of Load Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth - 200 Series................ 89 Table 6.18 Number of Load Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth - Lab Mixes ............... 90 Table 6.19 Fatigue LCCA 100 Series @ 600 Microstrain (Traffic Volume of 3 Million

ESALs)...................................................................................................................... 92 Table 6.20 Fatigue LCCA 100 Series @ 600 Microstrain (Traffic Volume of 10 Million







ESALs)...................................................................................................................... 96 Table 6.27 Fatigue LCCA Lab Mixes @ 600 Microstrain (Traffic Volume of 3 Million




ESALs)...................................................................................................................... 98 Table 6.31 Permanent Deformation LCCA - 100 Series (Traffic Volume of 3 Million

ESALs)...................................................................................................................... 99 Table 6.32 Permanent Deformation LCCA -100 Series (Traffic Volume 10 Million

ESALs).................................................................................................................... 100 Table 6.33 Permanent Deformation LCCA - 200 Series (Traffic Volume of 3 Million

ESALs).................................................................................................................... 100 Table 6.34 Permanent Deformation LCCA - 200 Series (Traffic Volume of 10 Million

ESALs).................................................................................................................... 101 Table 6.35 Permanent Deformation LCCA - Lab Mixes (Traffic Volume of 3 Million

ESALs).................................................................................................................... 101

v

Table 6.36 Permanent Deformation LCCA - Lab Mixes (Traffic Volume of 10 Million ESALs).................................................................................................................... 102

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Chris Williams, for all of his help and for initiating the opportunity to experience working and living in Finland. I appreciate all that was done for me. I would like to thank my family for giving me direction and support. I appreciate all of the summer work and laboratory help performed by Pat Leow, Matt Rottermond, Brett Stanton, and Mike Zelenock. I appreciate all of the laboratory help from Chris Boyd, Tim Elam, and Chris Robinette. I would like to thank Dan Hill and Krista Hofmann for information regarding this topic and for all of their help. And finally, I would also like to thank Ed Tulppo and Jim Vivian for their help in the bituminous and binder laboratories.

vii

Chapter 1 Introduction

There is an increasing need to repair and maintain thousands of miles of hot mix asphalt

(HMA) roadways in the United States and all over the world. A better performing,

longer lasting HMA pavement results in benefits for all parties involved. Technologies to

prolong repair intervals and decrease maintenance costs for agencies and users are

welcomed and being researched. For instance, in 1987 the Strategic Highway Research

Program (SHRP) was initiated with $150 million of funding. One end result of this

research money was the development of Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements

(Superpave), a new system used for analyzing, designing, and specifying HMA. A key

aspect of Superpave is that Superpave testing can be directly related to field performance.

This provides a valuable, cost effective tool to analyze a new technology’s effectiveness

before implementation.

One new technology in HMA pavements is the use of carbon fibers. Stress relieving

interlayers or HMA modifications are not new concepts, but the use of carbon fibers in

these applications is quite new. The addition of carbon fibers into the HMA itself or as

use in a stress relieving interlayer may provide benefits to HMA performance and life.

Advancements in carbon fiber production, resulting in improved carbon fiber properties

and lower production costs, add to the prospect that their use will result in extended

pavement life at an economical level.

1

Prior to spending excess money with field production, laboratory testing can be utilized

to predict field performances. Performance predictions are made in a pavement’s three

failure mechanisms which are thermal cracking, fatigue cracking, and permanent

deformation. Another mechanism, reflective cracking, will also be examined although

laboratory testing is not currently directly related to field performance.

Investigated in this thesis are attempts to answer the question:

Does the addition of carbon fibers into HMA pavement (or pavement system) provide

improvements to HMA pavement properties in an economical manner?

To try to answer that question, laboratory testing was utilized to compare results from an

unmodified mixture with results from different types of carbon modified mixtures.

Results from this thesis will provide some insight to potential property enhancements and

the cost effectiveness to attain them.

Chapter 2 presents a literature review, which covers the topic of HMA failure

mechanisms. Chapter 3 explains the design of the experiment utilizing the knowledge of

previous work, testing strategies, and the experimental plan. Chapter 4 describes the test

methods used for the experiment. Material classification, test specimen production, and

both asphalt binder and HMA tests are included. Chapter 5 summarizes the test results of

asphalt binder and HMA testing. Chapter 6 discusses analysis of test results and

processes involved. Life-cycle cost analysis is also presented for fatigue and permanent

2

deformation. Chapter 7 completes the report with conclusions and recommendations for

further work.

3

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Hot mix asphalt pavement design has undergone significant changes over the past 15

years with the initiation and completion of the $150 million SHRP. Although the

evolution of the HMA material research products to implementation tools has been

generally successful with the accomplishment of Superpave, there have been additional

technological improvements that have continued to be introduced. These areas include

improved manufactured products for use in HMA, advancements in pavement

performance testing tools, and improved industrial processes.

Manufactured products, which have been introduced into HMA with success, are

additives/modifiers in the form of polymers for improved rheological properties of

asphalt binders and antistrip agents for reducing moisture damage. More recently,

improved fibers have been produced with the hypothesis that their introduction into HMA

will enhance pavement performance. Although the introduction of fibers into HMA is

not a new concept, the introduction of carbon fibers is new. Carbon fibers, if successfully

introduced into HMA, have the significant added benefit of being electrically conductive.

An electrically conductive pavement could be used in intelligent transportation systems

(ITS) (Chen and Chung 1993). ITS applications would be in vehicle guidance and

control, which could have wide ranging improvements in traffic flow, safety, and

improved goods movement (Shi and Chung 1999). First, the method of introducing

4

carbon fibers into HMA and retaining their properties needs to be examined and second,

their effects on pavement performance assessed.

Three distinct failure mechanisms (more exist) for pavement deterioration are: thermal

cracking, fatigue cracking, and permanent deformation (Superpave Mix Design 1996). A

fourth failure mechanism for rehabilitated pavements is reflective cracking. Thermal

cracking is a distress related to the low temperature properties of the mixture and has a

direct relationship to the material’s thermal coefficient of shrinkage. The thermal

coefficient of shrinkage has been shown to be directly related to binder rheological

properties (properties measured in the bending beam rheometer and direct tension test),

the binder content of the mixture, and the percent air voids of the mixture. The last two

mixture variables, binder content and percent air voids, have been found to be of tertiary

importance (when they are within construction specification limits) compared to the low

temperature rheological properties of the binder (Williams 2002).

Fatigue cracking studies have demonstrated that this phenomenon is load induced with

mixture variables having an effect on the performance. In other words, fatigue cracking

cannot occur without loading, and most importantly, repeated loading. Typically fatigue

cracking is associated as being an intermediate pavement temperature distress, but can

still occur at lower pavement temperatures. The following mixture variables: binder

properties, air voids, and binder content can improve or add to the detriment of fatigue

performance. Often these mixture variables leading to improved fatigue performance can

be detrimental to permanent deformation performance (Huang 1993).

5

Like fatigue cracking, permanent deformation occurs from repeated loading, but at higher

pavement temperatures with the same mixture variables that effect fatigue performance

also effect permanent deformation; binder properties, air voids, and binder content. In

summary, primary pavement distresses cannot be individually examined alone because

they all share mixture variables that affect their performance.

A fourth distress commonly seen in HMA overlays is reflective cracking. This distress

can be examined independent of the other three for one type of application of carbon

fibers. The application of carbon fibers as an interlayer stress relief for cracked

pavements may have some performance benefits. A typical rule of thumb on overlaid

pavements is that the existing cracks will propagate through an overlay at the rate of one

inch per year (Williams 2002). Thus, if the overlay is three inches thick, cracks will

appear on the surface of the overlay in three years. An overlay three inches thick with

carbon fibers may extend the time longer than three years before cracks appear on the

surface of the overlay.

2.2 Thermal Cracking

Thermal cracking is not related to traffic loading, but is due to tensile stresses caused by

low temperature shrinkage, which exceed the maximum allowable fracture stress of the

HMA. Thermal cracks develop transversely across the HMA layer from the surface

down (since the coldest temperatures are on the surface). Primarily the “softness” or lack

of stiffness of a mix due to the grade of the asphalt binder affects thermal cracking.

6

However, the asphalt binder content can govern the stiffness of the HMA mixture and

also affect thermal cracking. Other factors that may influence this phenomenon are layer

thickness and underlying layer type.

2.2.1 Consequences of Thermal Cracking

Thermal cracking, like any type of cracking, can cause the deterioration of pavement.

The effects have an impact on all parties involved (i.e., owner, contractor, user, etc.).

Possible problems they can cause are as follows:

• Weakening the pavement system by permitting the infiltration of water into lower

layers of the pavement system,

• Premature deterioration of the overlay,

• Increase in maintenance time and cost, and

• Poor ride quality and unsafe conditions.

2.2.2 Methods of Minimizing Thermal Cracking

One of the most effective methods to minimize thermal cracking is in binder selection.

Selecting a binder which does not exhibit a high stiffness at low temperatures (but also

does not hinder other performance qualities) is preferred. Lower stiffness in the asphalt

binder relates to a better response to shrinkage stresses. This better response means that

cracking will not occur as soon or as frequently as an asphalt binder with higher stiffness.

7

Air and pavement temperature characteristics of the given paving location for HMA use

should be used in selecting the proper binder to resist thermal cracking.

2.2.3 Test Methods to Identify Susceptibility to Thermal Cracking

Test methods to identify susceptibility to thermal cracking can be placed in two

categories: (1) tests for asphalt binder and (2) tests for HMA mixture. Tests on the

asphalt binder for thermal cracking are the bending beam rheometer (BBR) and the direct

tensile test (DTT). The BBR measures creep stiffness and the rate at which creep

stiffness changes with time during loading. The DTT measures failure strain, which is

the change in length over the effective gauge length at the stress of the maximum load on

the specimen. A test for the HMA mixture includes the indirect tension test. This test

measures creep compliance and strength at low temperatures of the HMA mixture. Creep

compliance is the strain divided by the applied stress a given test temperature and time of

loading (Roberts et. al, 1996).

2.3 Fatigue Cracking

Fatigue cracking is a load-associated occurrence that is usually associated with repeated

loading (traffic), which overstresses the materials and results in cracks. It typically

occurs longitudinally to the roadway and is first seen in wheel paths. Other factors that

influence fatigue cracking include: thin pavements or weak underlying layers allowing

large pavement deflections, inadequate or poor structural design, poor construction, or the

pavement has simply reached the end of its design life.

8

2.3.1 Consequences of Fatigue Cracking

Along with the consequences stated for thermal and reflective cracking, fatigue cracking

also has the danger of causing potholes when excessive fatigue cracking (referred to as

alligator cracking) combines with transverse cracks and pieces become dislodged due to

traffic.

2.3.2 Methods of Resisting Fatigue Cracking

Recommended methods for resisting fatigue cracking are as follows (Roberts et. al,

1996):

• Use of resilient HMA that can withstand loads and resulting deflections,

• Adequate design for heavy traffic loads,

• Drainage (keeping underlying layers moisture free),

• Thicker pavements, and

Use of materials that are not abnormally affected by moisture. •

2.3.3 Test Procedures to Predict Fatigue Cracking Susceptibility

Fatigue performance is tested in the laboratory using resilient modulus and beam fatigue

test equipment. The resilient modulus test measures HMA stiffness while various

temperatures, loads, loading frequencies, and load durations may be used. Correlative

equations are used to predict cycles to failure from resilient modulus results (Huang

1993). Beam fatigue tests measure an estimated cycles to failure when exposed to cyclic

9

loading. A terminal stiffness and terminal modulus value can be used as inputs into

pavement life equations.

2.4 Permanent Deformation (Rutting)

Permanent deformation, e.g. rutting, is a non-recoverable distortion occurring in wheel

paths of a pavement. Ruts in a pavement can be dangerous because they create a place

for water to collect on the roadway surface. This may lead to hydroplaning or increased

stopping distances, which can result in accidents. Rutting is caused by material

consolidation and/or displacement due to traffic loads. This movement may occur in the

HMA layer(s) itself or in the supporting aggregate system below the HMA (reflecting to

the HMA surface).

2.4.1 Rutting in HMA

Rutting in the HMA layer (Figure 2.1) can be caused by permanent shear deformation,

plastic flow, or continued compaction (consolidation) due to traffic. Shear deformation

can be a result of inadequate aggregate (well-rounded and/or weak) in the HMA mixture.

Inadequate aggregate results in non-recoverable HMA movement along the shear plane

during heavy truck trafficking. Material is forced out from under the tires causing a

depression in the wheel path and a little mound on the edge (Figure 2.2). Plastic flow due

to excessive binder may lead to a decrease in aggregate interlock and more load carried

by the binder itself. This produces similar effects as shear deformation in that there is a

lateral movement of material from under the loading area to the outer edge.

10

Figure 2.1 Rutting in the HMA Layer (Asphalt Institute, 1996)

Figure 2.2 Effect of Shear Loading (Asphalt Institute, 1996)

The rut caused by further compaction due to traffic is the result of a reduction in volume.

Compaction of the HMA layer after construction occurs in almost every pavement. Upon

completion of construction there is typically 6 to 8 percent air voids. After about a year

of traffic exposure, 3 to 5 percent air voids is common in wheel paths of HMA layers.

This decrease in the amount of air means less volume and a small rut is formed. In

excessive cases, the air voids can be reduced to zero resulting in significant rutting.

11

2.4.2 Rutting in Aggregate Support System

The surface of the road follows the contours of what is beneath it. If ruts are evident in

the aggregate support system below the surface, they will also become noticeable on the

surface. Rutting in the aggregate support system, e.g. base or subbase, may result from

improper construction or inadequate strength. Improper construction could mean

inadequate compaction of the underlying layers. Further compaction is experienced in

the underlying layers when exposed to heavy traffic loads, which causes deformations in

the pavement system. This deformation will “reflect” to the surface resulting in a rut.

Inadequate strength could result from poor aggregate strength or not enough thickness in

an underlying layer (inadequate pavement design). Heavy loads will cause the similar

deformations resulting in ruts as the improperly constructed pavement system. A visual

of rutting in the aggregate support system is shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Rutting in Aggregate Support System (Asphalt Institute, 1996)

12

2.4.3 Factors to Help Improve Rut Resistance

The three components of HMA, aggregate, asphalt binder, and air, all influence the

potential of rutting. An aggregate with adequate strength, good interlock, and the ability

to compact economically is desired. Rough aggregate with crushed faces that are not flat

and elongated typically provide adequate rut resistance. Asphalt binder should be

relatively viscous and stiff at high temperatures to provide ample resistance to rutting.

The optimum asphalt binder content is also important. Too much asphalt binder in the

HMA may cause aggregate to “float” in asphalt and not bear the load of traffic.

Excessive air in the HMA will result in excess rutting under traffic due to

densification/consolidation under traffic.

2.4.4 Tests to Model or Predict Rutting

Laboratory tests have been developed in an attempt to simulate rutting due to traffic

loading. Many variations of loaded wheel testing devices exist to model rutting including

the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer, the Hamburg wheel tracking device, the French rutting

tester, the Nottingham rutting tester, and the Georgia loaded wheel tester. They all are

similar in that a compacted HMA specimen (may be different shape or size) is tested

using a repetitive back-and-forth load. Superpave recommends tests such as the

volumetric test criteria, the uniaxial strain test, repeated shear test at constant stress ratio

and at constant height, simple shear test at constant height, or frequency sweep test at

constant height, to predict rutting (Superpave Mix Design 1996).

13

Tests such as the creep test, the dynamic modulus test, and incremental static tests are

also used to estimate permanent deformation. The results from these tests are input into

equations to predict permanent deformation of the mixture. When conducting the tests

and analysis, it is vital to have proper estimates of material properties and to perform the

tests at stress levels that will most likely be experienced in the field with the use of the

pavement.

2.5 Reflective Cracking

Reflective cracks are cracks that appear in a new pavement layer from cracks in the layer

below. The fracture is a result of capacity exceeding stresses in the overlay directly

above and caused by existing cracks in the original pavement. These stresses are

developed through the movement of the original pavement containing primary cracks.

Two types of movement that influence the propagation of the crack through the HMA

overlay are vertical and horizontal. Vertical movements and their resulting stresses are

associated with traffic loading. A simplified schematic of the vertical movement in the

original pavement layer due to traffic loading is shown in Figure 2.4.

14

TrafficLoad

Overlay

OriginalPavement

Figure 2.4 Vertical Movement from Traffic

Horizontal movements are correlated with thermal conditions. High temperatures cause

asphalt to expand and become able to flow like a viscous liquid. Low temperatures cause

asphalt to contract and act like an elastic and sometimes brittle solid. When an asphalt is

contracting, added tensile stress develops in a region above a crack. Figure 2.5 shows an

exaggerated example of horizontal movement due to thermal conditions.

ContractionOverlay

OriginalPavement

Figure 2.5 Horizontal Movement from Low Temperature

When the HMA overlay is placed over a portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, it

also experiences stresses from bending and curling of the PCC due to temperature

15

changes in the pavement. Curling causes the crack or joint to become larger than it

originally was, resulting in a high stress concentration above the joint in the HMA layer.

2.5.1 Consequences of Reflective Cracking

There are many adverse effects as a result of reflective cracks. The effects have an

impact on all parties involved (i.e., owner, contractor, user, etc.). Possible problems

they can cause are (FHWA 1986):

Weakening the pavement system by infiltration of water into the lower layers, •

•

•

•

Premature deterioration of the overlay,

Increase in maintenance time and cost, and

Poor ride quality and unsafe conditions.

2.5.2 Methods of Mitigating Reflective Cracking

Approaches to mitigate reflective cracking are to retard the time before a crack appears

on the surface of the overlay and/or to minimize the size and number of reflective cracks.

Some alternatives for attempting to accomplish reflective crack mitigation are as follows

(Dempsey et. al, 1997):

16

Increase overlay thickness, •

Use a modified overlay mix, •

•

•

Modifying existing pavement prior to overlay construction, and

Use of interlayer to reduce stresses and inhibit cracks.

Increasing layer thickness is a method of attempting to retard the time it takes before a

crack reaches the surface of the overlay. The longer path the crack has to propagate, the

longer it will take to reach the surface.

Modifications to the overlay mix may include improving the grade of the asphalt,

utilizing additives in the asphalt cement, or reinforcing the overlay. A better response to

the expansion and contraction due to temperature changes is expected by improving the

grade of asphalt cement, thus decreasing stresses. Additives to the asphalt cement can

improve a mixture’s qualities (e.g., lower viscosity, better ability to resist hardening, etc.)

resulting in a higher tolerance to stress and better resistance of cracking. Some possible

additives that can be used in asphalt cement are crumb rubber, styrene-butadiene-styrene

(S.B.S.), ethyl vinyl acetate (E.V.A.), and fibers (asbestos, carbon, cellulose, polyester,

polypropylene, etc.).

Another alternative is to reinforce the overlay so that the reinforcement will carry some

of the stress produced. Some types of reinforcements include wire mesh, polypropylene,

steel, and glass fiber. A reduction and delay of the amount of reflective cracking is

anticipated with all of the above stated methods because of the added costs.

17

Modifications to the existing pavement prior to construction are intended to reduce,

change, or eliminate the cracks below the overlay emanating to the pavement surface.

Some processes used to modify the existing pavement prior to overlay construction

include applying an asphalt rejuvenating agent, filling the cracks with a material, placing

a special type of plant-mix, placing an asphalt emulsion seal, or crushing and shaping

(rubblizing) the existing pavement.

An interlayer is used to relieve stresses, restrain cracks, minimize crack sizes, and stop

water infiltration. A stress relieving interlayer provides relief from the movement and

stress of the original layer by absorbing the stresses before they can reach the overlay

surface. A crack restraining interlayer is typically a thick granular layer that diminishes

cracks from reflecting. The interlayer to minimize crack sizes provides support to the

overlay so the reflective cracks do not become too many or too large. A water stopping

interlayer keeps water from infiltrating into the pavement system, which can lead to a

weakened structure beneath the pavement.

An interlayer can be used to attain more than one of the desired qualities mentioned

above. Stress relieving and crack restraining interlayers will be discussed further since

they are more commonly used for the mitigation of reflective cracking. The interlayer is

typically more effective when vertical movements in the original pavement are restricted.

Many interlayers are thin and may not be capable to withstand large deflections from the

original pavement. If there are large deflections in the original pavement, then

18

stabilization should be considered. Secondly, care should be taken when placing an

interlayer because any deformities in the interlayer may cause deformities in the overlay.

Thus, installation is important to effectiveness.

Crack restraining interlayers are usually gravel or granular in nature and has

demonstrated effectiveness in mitigating reflective cracking. Drainage for this type of

interlayer is recommended. Large aggregate sizes have been used with few fines.

Increased sizes of the interlayer are a result of the large aggregate size. It may become a

vertical clearance problem for overhead structures because the roadway height may

increase too much. Thus, drainage and final elevations are two factors to consider with

gravel or granular crack restraining interlayers.

Stress relieving interlayers are chosen based on their properties for a given application or

project. A variety of materials can be used as stress relieving interlayers including

(FHWA 1986); (Dempsey et. al, 1997):

Fabrics or grids, •

•

•

Geotextiles, and

Fibers.

Common fabrics used may consist of nylon, polyester, polypropylene, or a combination

of all three. Common grids used may consist of glass, polyester, or polypropylene. Both

can be placed on the original pavement surface or on a leveling course above the original

19

pavement surface. A tack coat between the leveling course or original pavement and the

interlayer fabric is recommended. More tack coat than what is needed tends to improve

the delay in reflective cracking, but will not ultimately mitigate it.

Geotextiles used as stress relieving interlayers should be resistant to high heat, have a

high tensile strength, adhere well to the existing surface and overlay, and have a

reasonable cost. They can be used with or without bituminous concrete. There is an

added benefit of waterproofing and better adhesion when bituminous concrete is used

with a geotextile. All geotextiles are used to reduce the peak stress in the overlay above

the existing cracks.

Fibers may be used as a mat for stress relieving interlayer made out of carbon fibers,

polyester, polypropylene, and/or other materials. Compatibility with the tack coat,

overlay material, and original pavement material are important. The fibers should have a

high enough heat resistance for it not to melt when the overlay is placed. Fiber mats are

used to absorb and reduce the stresses before they reach the overlay and cause cracks to

reflect. Nationally, the investigation of fiber mat effectiveness is still ongoing.

2.5.3 Tests to Model or Predict Reflective Cracking

Laboratory tests to accurately simulate reflective cracking in the field are beneficial in

determining mitigation method’s effectiveness. Traffic loading (vertical movements)

and thermal loading (horizontal movements) simulations are two design parameters that

should be simulated while trying to keep the test realistic yet simple. For complete

20

analysis, tests should be performed on both the components and the combined materials

used in hopes of mitigating reflective cracking. As of 1993, lab procedures existed to

simulate reflective cracking, but the validation of its effectiveness compared to field

projects have been limited. At the Second International RILEM Conference in Liege

Belgium, 1993, Dumas and Vecoven presented a shrinkage-bending test to simulate

reflective cracking. Three features of the apparatus include cyclic loading, vertical

movements, and horizontal movements. Some additional considerations they noted to

consider for future testing are traffic frequency, rate of crack opening, and temperature.

21

Chapter 3 Design of Experiment

3.1 Introduction

Testing of experimental hypotheses in an unbiased statistical manner is the desired result

in a design of experiment. What questions to ask to form the experimental hypotheses,

factors to consider in the hypotheses, and assumptions made in the process are important

considerations in design. Without proper understanding of what is being asked and

methods to best achieve answers relevant to the questions, the experiment may result in a

biased or unsubstantial conclusion.

Three main questions pertinent to this study are:

1. Can carbon fibers be introduced into hot mix asphalt without substantial breakdown? 2. Does the introduction of carbon fibers into hot mix asphalt improve pavement

performance? 3. Can a carbon fiber interlayer provide stress relief for HMA overlays that are placed

on cracked pavements? Questions 1 and 2 pertain to the potential use of carbon fibers in prolonging the life of

HMA pavements. They have been and are continuing to be studied as part of the carbon

fiber modified asphalt (CFMA) research at Conoco, in which Michigan Technological

University (MTU) has participated. Phase 0 work on the CFMA project was performed

in 1998. Table 3.1 (Cleven 2000) presents results of phase 0. Results proved adequate to

justify further studies. Question 3 deals with the possible use of carbon fibers to improve

pavement rehabilitation. Thus, two major topics of interest are studied in this project:

1. The use of carbon fibers in prolonging pavement life, and

2. The use of carbon fibers in pavement rehabilitation.

22

Table 3.1 CFMA Phase 0 Summary (Cleven 2000)

Test

Attribute

Improvement

Typical Range of PMAs

Resilient Modulus @ 5°C @ 25°C

Mixture Stiffness 30% 45%

-25 to +10% 10 to 100%

Repeated Load Deformation

Resistance to Permanent Deformation 50% 25 to 100%

Fatigue Life Pavement Life 25% 0 to 100% Indirect Tensile @ -20°C Thermal Cracking 73% 25 to 100%

Laboratory tests that have been linked to field performance can be utilized in initial

investigations of these topics before implementing a field study. A better understanding

of differences in laboratory and field test results can be made between CFMA and

unmodified HMA upon completion of both types of studies. Carbon fiber breakdown has

been and needs to be studied in the laboratory prior to the field because if breakdown is

excessive in laboratory mixing, it will most likely occur in field production.

The breakdown of carbon fibers in HMA applications was explored by Cleven (2000).

He discovered difficulties in maintaining fiber length and conjectured the possible causes

as carbon fiber brittleness, aggregate characteristics, and the HMA mixing process.

Fitzgerald (2000) studied encasing carbon fibers with either asphalt and/or low-density

polyethylene (LDPE) to lessen breakdown. An improvement of 27% and 80% was found

for asphalt and LPDE, respectively, yet the average final carbon fiber length was only

1.03 mm for asphalt and 1.45 mm for LPDE. A pugmill mixer was utilized in

Fitzgerald’s study. Carbon fiber brittleness has been reduced due to an improved

manufacturing process, possibly resulting in fibers (with or without encasing) that are

able to withstand the contact with aggregates and the HMA mixing process to maintain a

23

sufficient length to improve pavement performance. An estimated length for

improvements in mechanical properties is 6 mm (Fitzgerald 2000). The critical length for

carbon fibers has not yet been determined and may be different.

There are two types of HMA mixing processes in use today, the drum mixer and the

pugmill mixer. The pugmill mixer is the more severe type of mixing for HMA.

However, the vast majority of HMA produced in the United States today utilize drum

type facilities. Therefore, drum mixing is being used in the experiments and a bucket

mixer is being utilized to simulate this process in the laboratory. Undesirable aggregate

characteristics, e.g. sharpness and angularity, can result in fiber breakdown in either type

of mixing.

3.2 Pertinent Factors

Factors to consider include mixture effects and performance effects. Mixture effects are

subject to changes in aggregate structure, asphalt content, fiber content, and fiber type.

To realize the contributions of carbon fibers in HMA, aggregate structure was held

constant for all CFMA mixes while fiber content and fiber types are experimentally

adjusted. The issue of retained fiber length and amount of fiber recovered will also be

examined. Asphalt binder content was adjusted in field production testing while it was

held constant at the optimum content in laboratory production, as the laboratory process

is not a continuous one.

24

Performance effects taken into consideration for this study include thermal cracking,

fatigue cracking, permanent deformation, and reflective cracking. CFMA mixes were

compared to unmodified control mixes in the laboratory tests pertaining to these

performance properties. All material properties of the aggregate, asphalt binder, and the

HMA mixture shall be characterized before factors are investigated.

3.3 Field Production Testing

CFMA and unmodified HMA were produced in Ponca City, Oklahoma to be tested in the

laboratory at MTU. The material was already mixed using a drum plant, and received in

5-gallon pails. The material was heated and separated into sample sizes for testing.

Material preparation is explained in section 4.2. Field production mixes that were tested

include two productions classified as a 100 series and 200 series. The 100 series consist

of:

• a neat 5.0% targeted binder content HMA mixture,


• a 0.50lb/ton carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.1% targeted binder content,

• a 0.50lb/ton carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.3% targeted binder content, and

• a 0.50lb/ton carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.5% targeted binder content.

The 200 series consist of:



• a 0.75% carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.5% targeted binder content,

25

• a 0.25% carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.2% targeted binder content,

• a neat 5.2% targeted binder content HMA mixture mixed using bags and metered

in with the baghouse auger,

• a 0.50%, 5/32 inch carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.3% targeted binder content

mixed and metered in with the baghouse auger, and

• a 0.50% carbon fiber HMA mixture at 5.3% targeted binder content mixed and

metered in with the baghouse auger.

Results from laboratory tests related to pavement performance can be analyzed with the

various types of mixtures used.

3.4 Laboratory Production Testing

Materials were sent to MTU from an HMA plant in Ponca City, Oklahoma. Aggregates

that were sampled from the stockpiles were sent along with unmodified PG 64-22 asphalt

and CFMA binder samples. Verification of aggregate gradations and asphalt binder

properties were performed prior to testing. An adjustment in aggregate gradation was

made to better represent the stockpiles from the laboratory materials. Materials were then

combined and optimum binder content was determined. Test specimens were made at the

appropriate optimum binder content for each type of HMA used. It was determined that

the initial proposed gradation resulted in minimal permanent deformation on unmodified

specimens when tested in the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer. Therefore, a new gradation

was proposed and implemented for laboratory use. The new gradation would result in

more permanent deformation with unmodified specimens, which would hopefully

provide a better indication of CFMA effects. In addition to testing an unmodified

26

control group, specimens were also made and tested with an increase of one and two high

temperature performance grades of asphalt binder (PG 70-22 and PG 76-22) to use in

comparison and analysis.

3.5 Methods of Testing

Thermal cracking susceptibility is commonly quantified using physical property testing

on the asphalt binder. Therefore, physical properties of the asphalt binder were tested on

original and CFMA binder. Fatigue cracking of HMA is best measured in the laboratory

using the four-point beam fatigue apparatus and the indirect tensile test for resilient

modulus. Permanent deformation, e.g. rutting, can be tested in the laboratory using a

loaded wheel test and in this study an Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) was used.

The fourth failure mechanism discussed, reflective cracking, was tested in the APA

with a configuration shown in Figure 3.1 developed at MTU. Testing may include

carbon fibers in the HMA and not as an interlayer as shown in the figure.

HMA Sample

Carbon Fiber InterlayerConcrete Blocks with Cracks

Flexible Support System

Existing Cracks

Figure 3.1 MTU Sample Test Configuration for Reflective Cracking

(Williams 2001)

27

3.6 Experimental Plan and Update

The initial proposed experimental plan for this study is shown in Table 3.2. Note that it

includes different mixing types, different fiber types, and different fiber lengths.

Table 3.2 Initial Proposed Experimental Plan

Plant Variables Plant Type Drum Pugmill

Premixing Yes No Yes

Drum Injection Point

N/A A B C N/A

Fiber Type Fiber Length, mm

3.2 AAA AAA 6.4 AAA AAA 12.7 AAA AAA Mesopitch

25.4 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 3.2 6.4 12.7 Pan

25.4 AAA AAA 3.2 6.4 12.7 Isopitch

25.4 AAA AAA

Mix

Var

iabl

es

None N/A AAA AAA Note: One A represents one test sample

A new plan was proposed that only the drum mix produced material be tested. An

updated proposed experimental plan for field-produced mixes is shown in Table 3.3 and

for laboratory-produced mixes in Table 3.4.

28

Table 3.3 Updated Plan for Field Production Experimental Design

Baghouse AugerFiber Type

(Length, mm) Fiber Percent BinderContent High Medium Low Medium

0.25 BBB0.50 AAA AAA AAA BBB0.75 BBB

Mesopitch(4.0) 0.50 BBB

None N/A AAABBB

AAABBB BBB

Mesopitch(6.4)

Fiber Injection PointRe-circulation PumpMix Variables

Note: One A and one B represent one sample for performance testing in all permanent deformation and fatigue tests; A from the first production day (100 series) and B from the second production day (200 series).

Table 3.4 Updated Plan for Laboratory Production Experimental Design

5oC 25oCPG 64-22 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAPG 70-22 AAA A AAA A AAA AAA AAA AAPG 76-22 AAA A AAA A AAA AA AAA AA

0.25% Carbon Fiber (6.4 mm) AAA AAA AAA AA AAA AA

0.75% Carbon Fiber(6.4 mm) AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AA

0.50% PolypropyleneFiber (7 mm) AAA A AAA A AAA AAA AAA AA

Bind

erG

rade

Fibe

r Mod

ifica

tion

Mix Variables(Constant Gradation)

Performance TestResilient Modulus Beam

FatigueAPA Reflective

Crack

Note: IDT testing was deemed unnecessary due to the low temperature properties obtained from field produced IDT testing.

A better understanding comparing laboratory test data to field production data will be

possible. The effects of carbon fibers in HMA based on laboratory tests used to predict

pavement life and pavement rehabilitation performances will also be presented. Upon

completion of this research, recommendations could be made for future work.

29

Chapter 4 Test Methods

4.1 Materials

The binder used for the laboratory control group performance testing, which includes all

field produced mixes, is an unmodified PG 64-22. Carbon fibers were already mixed in

the binder for the 0.25% and 0.75% CFMA used in laboratory. Common fibers used in

modifying asphalt binders are polypropylene fibers. They were used at 0.50% by weight

of asphalt binder and added during the laboratory mixing process to compare to carbon

fiber modified mixtures. Samples were also produced and tested using a binder with one

and two increases in high temperature grading, i.e. PG 70-22 and PG 76-22. In field

production carbon fibers were added at a rate of 0.50 lb/ton by weight of asphalt binder.

An initial aggregate blend was proposed and resulted in minimal permanent deformation

in laboratory testing of the unmodified samples or experimental control group. A new

aggregate blend was created to increase the permanent deformation on the unmodified

samples. This was done so a difference in permanent deformation results between the

carbon modified and unmodified specimens could be made, as it would be less likely to

differentiate any binder modification in a superior performing aggregate structure. The

aggregate blend was designed following Superpave mix design procedures (AASHTO

2000). Materials were obtained from a hot-mix asphalt plant in Ponca City, Oklahoma.

Aggregates obtained were separated into coarse and fine sieve fractions. All fine material

was considered passing the No. 4 sieve. All coarse materials were separated to each

30

sieve size above the No. 4. Screenings were mechanically bonded together due to a large

amount of water in the barrel, and thus the material had to be broken apart.

4.2 Specimen Preparation for Performance Testing

Field and laboratory produced HMA samples were tested in the laboratory. Field

samples were mixed at a hot-mix asphalt plant and sent to MTU. They were then heated

again and split down into proper sizes for test specimens. Sample sizes were

proportioned between 3,100 and 3,400 grams for resilient modulus and indirect tensile

specimens, between 4,400 and 4,700 grams for asphalt pavement analyzer specimens,

and between 10,500 and 10,800 grams for the four-point beam fatigue specimens were

proportioned. Superpave recommends approximately 4,700 grams for a sufficient

cylindrical specimen height of 115 mm. A smaller size sample was used for resilient

modulus and indirect tensile specimens because they required a 50 mm (instead of 75

mm) test height and to ensure enough material to manufacture specimens throughout the

study. Resilient modulus, indirect tensile, and asphalt pavement analyzer specimens were

compacted using a Pine gyratory compactor as shown in Figure 4.1. A linear kneading

compactor (Figure 4.2) was used to manufacture four-point beam fatigue specimens.

31

Figure 4.1 Superpave Gyratory Compactor

Figure 4.2 Linear Kneading Compactor

Laboratory samples were blended and mixed in the laboratory to obtain similar specimen

sizes as field produced samples. Gradations of the material sent to the laboratory were

32

compared to gradations of the stockpiles and adjustments were made in blending to

emulate field production. With the aggregate blend adjustment to increase permanent

deformation, the laboratory blend resulted in a coarser mixture than the field produced

blend. Compaction was the same as in field produced mixes via Superpave gyratory

compaction. All test specimens were compacted to target 7 percent air voids (93% of

theoretical maximum specific gravity), which is representative of acceptable field

compaction.

A sample size of approximately 2,000 grams was taken from each kind of mix to perform

maximum theoretical specific (MTSG) gravity tests. Bulk specific gravities (BSG) were

calculated from all manufactured performance test specimens. Air voids were calculated

using the following equation:

100 mm mba

mm

G GVG

−= ×

where, Va = air voids in compacted mixture, percent of total volume;

Gmm = maximum theoretical specific gravity of paving mixture; and

Gmb = bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture. An optimum binder content was determined for the laboratory blend for different asphalt

binder types. Superpave specifies optimum asphalt binder content as the binder content

at which 4.0% air voids are achieved at the design number of gyrations. The optimum

binder content was calculated and shown for various mixes in the following Table 4.1.

33

Table 4.1 Optimum Asphalt Binder Contents

Mixture Type Optimum

Asphalt Content, %

Neat, PG 64-22 5.2 PG 70-22 5.2 PG 76-22 5.2

0.25% Carbon Fiber 5.4 0.75% Carbon Fiber 5.4

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 6.0

4.3 Binder Properties

4.3.1 Introduction

Asphalt binder characterization was performed to compare physical properties of an

original unmodified asphalt binder and the same asphalt binder modified with carbon

fiber. Flow attributes, elastic and viscous components, and low temperature analysis of

original and aged asphalt binder are determined. Tests including a rotational viscometer,

rolling thin film oven, pressure aging vessel, dynamic shear rheometer, bending beam

rheometer, and direct tension tester were utilized in characterizing the asphalt binders.

4.3.2 Rotational Viscometer

4.3.2.1 Objective of the Rotational Viscometer

Flow attributes of an asphalt binder are necessary to ensure safety in pumping and

handling. The rotational viscosity of a binder is used in determining the temperature

ranges at which the binder is adequately fluid. Mixing and compacting temperatures can

34

be estimated via temperature-viscosity plots. Modified and unmodified asphalt binders

may be tested in a rotational viscometer.

4.3.2.2 Procedure for Rotational Viscometer Testing

Rotational viscometer procedures are detailed in AASHTO TP48 or ASTM D4402.

Modified and unmodified binder is heated until it is easy to pour and the proper amount

(typically between eight and eleven grams, depending on the spindle used) is poured into

the sample chamber. The sample chamber is placed into a thermo-container and a

spindle is lowered into the sample. After placing the insulator cap on the sample

chamber, start the test (rotation of the spindle) ensuring the viscometer torque is in the

acceptable range between two and ninety-eight percent. A different spindle size may be

needed if the torque is not within the range requirements. Once the viscosity reading is

stable for ten minutes, take one reading every minute for a total of three readings. The

final viscosity reading is the average of the three readings and noted in Pa-s.

4.3.3 Rolling Thin Film Oven

4.3.3.1 Objective of the Rolling Thin Film Oven

The rolling thin film oven (RTFO) is used to replicate the short-term aging of asphalt

binders that occurs during the manufacture and construction of HMA. Heat and air

movement are used to simulate this aging. Along with aging binder to be used in further

physical property testing, the mass loss (amount of volatiles lost) is also computed via

RTFO testing. The mass loss is used as an indicator for the quantity of aging that would

35

happen during the manufacture and construction processes, via a loss of volatiles in the

subject asphalt binder.

4.3.3.2 Procedure for the Rolling Thin Film Oven

A description of the rolling thin film oven procedures is found in AASHTO T240 or

ASTM D 2872. Thirty-five grams of the asphalt binder are poured into glass RTFO

bottles. Specimens are cooled for one hour and then placed into a 163°C RTFO to rotate

and hence “age” for eighty-five minutes. Air movement to the specimen inside the bottle

is accomplished with the use of blowers in the RTFO. Bottles are poured and scraped

into a container to save the RTFO aged sample for further testing. Mass loss is computed

from two of the bottles used. The equation for mass loss is shown below.

, % 100Original Mass Aged MassMass Loss xOriginal Mass

−=

A maximum value of 1.00% is specified by Superpave.

4.3.4 Pressure Aging Vessel

4.3.4.1 Objective of the Pressure Aging Vessel

Asphalt binder as a part of HMA ages in-service due to exposure to the elements. The

pressure aging vessel (PAV) is used to simulate this aging in the laboratory through

applying a combination of high temperature and pressure to an RTFO aged binder. An

RTFO aged binder is used in the PAV so the manufacturing and construction aging is

accounted for in this aging simulation. Physical hardening, dynamic shear rheometer,

36

bending beam rheometer, and direct tension testing are typically performed on a PAV

aged binder.

4.3.4.2 Procedure for the Pressure Aging Vessel

AASHTO PP1 procedures are followed in PAV test operation. RTFO aged binder is

heated and fifty grams poured into each PAV pan. The pans are placed in a PAV sample

rack and loaded into a preheated PAV. Aging occurs for twenty hours at high

temperatures and pressures. A temperature of 100°C and a pressure of 2.1 ± 0.1 MPa

were used in testing, although the temperature may vary for different climatic conditions.

Due to the samples exposure to increased pressures, they are degassed in a degassing

oven before use in testing.

4.3.5 Dynamic Shear Rheometer

4.3.5.1 Objective of the Dynamic Shear Rheometer

The dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) measures the elastic and viscous components of

original, RTFO aged, and/or PAV aged asphalt binders. Loading time, frequency, and

temperature have considerable effects in testing. Test properties are used to associate

rutting and fatigue characteristics at high and intermediate pavement temperatures.

Original and RTFO aged samples are tested at high temperatures to address resistance to

permanent deformation, while PAV samples are tested at intermediate temperatures to

determine resistance to fatigue cracking. The complex shear modulus (G*) and phase

37

angle (δ) are the measured properties. The complex shear modulus quantifies total

resistance to binder deformation when shear pulses are repeatedly applied. Recoverable

(elastic) and non-recoverable (viscous) parts constitute G*. The phase angle denotes

quantities of recoverable and non-recoverable deformation. Figure 4.3 illustrates

graphically G* and δ. The equation used to determine G* is the maximum shear stress

divided by maximum shear strain. The lag in time between stress application and the

resulting strain is δ.

Viscous Behavior

Elastic Behavior

G*

δ

Figure 4.3 Complex Shear Modulus and Phase Angle (Asphalt Institute 1996) Both values are necessary to characterize asphalt binders with the dynamic shear

rheometer. The G*/sin δ parameter characterizes the viscous behavior, while the G*sin δ

parameter characterizes the elastic behavior of aged samples in Superpave. An increase

in G* or a decrease in δ indicate an increase in permanent deformation resistance. A

38

decrease in G* or δ indicates less work dissipated per loading cycle and thus a greater

resistance to fatigue cracking.

4.3.5.2 Procedure for Dynamic Shear Rheometer Testing

Dynamic shear rheometer testing follows guidelines in AASHTO TP5. Binder is heated

until smooth pouring is achieved and samples are poured into molds. Two different size

molds and test plates may be used; one with an eight millimeter diameter for test

temperatures of forty degrees Celsius and below and one with a twenty-five millimeter

diameter for test temperatures of forty-six degrees Celsius and above. The different size

test plates are primarily because of equipment specifications in applying shear loads.

After cooling for ten minutes the sample is removed from the mold by attaching it to the

upper test plate on the DSR. The gap is set for the proper size plates and the specimen is

positioned between the plates at the specified gap size with excess material removed from

the edges. The DSR operates by oscillating the upper test plate at a given speed of

oscillation or frequency (10 radians per second used in Superpave), while the lower test

plate remains stationary. Once the test is complete, then G* and sin δ are recorded,

G*/sin δ or the G*sin δ value is calculated and compared to the Superpave Performance

Graded Asphalt Binder Specification criteria. A minimum value of 1.00 kPa is specified

for original unaged binder and 2.20 kPa minimum for RTFO aged binder (both values are

G*/sin δ). PAV aged binder samples have a maximum specification of 5000 kPa for

G*sin δ. If the criterion is not satisfied, another test is attempted at the temperature

directly to the left of the current temperature on the Superpave Performance Graded

39

Asphalt Binder Specification chart. If the criterion is met by a considerable margin,

perform another test at a 6°C higher temperature increment of the current temperature.

4.3.6 Bending Beam Rheometer

4.3.6.1 Objective of the Bending Beam Rheometer

Low temperatures can produce high thermal stresses in the asphalt binder, which can then

lead to cracking as a relief of this induced stress. The bending beam rheometer (BBR)

can be used to test an asphalt binder’s susceptibility to thermal cracking. Since low

temperature properties are relevant with in-service asphalt binder, PAV aged samples are

tested in a BBR. Superpave specifications have two values to be checked when testing

with a BBR. They are creep stiffness [S(t)] and the m-value. Creep stiffness indicates

how the asphalt binder resists creep or constant loading. The m-value indicates the rate

that creep stiffness changes with time during loading. It is a measure of slope on a log

creep stiffness versus log time graph at 60 seconds into the 240-second test. The

equation used to determine creep stiffness is:

3

3( )4 (

PLS tbh t)δ

=

where, S(t) = creep stiffness at a certain time;

P = applied constant load, 100g; L = distance between beam supports, 102 mm; b = beam width, 12.5 mm; h = beam thickness, 6.25 mm; δ(t) = deflection at a certain time; and t = time, 60 seconds.

40

4.3.6.2 Procedure for Bending Beam Rheometer Testing

Bending beam rheometer testing is performed in accordance with AASHTO TP1. Beams

are made by pouring PAV aged binder into molds and trimming the excess binder. The

molds containing the beams are placed in a freezer for five to ten minutes and the beams

removed from the molds. Beams are conditioned in a liquid (ethylene glycol, methanol,

and water) bath of the BBR prior to testing. BBR testing is performed by applying a load

to the midpoint of the beam. Loads are employed with pneumatic pressure and

transducers measure deflection. A total test time is 240 seconds for each beam. The

creep stiffness (S(t)) and m-value are recorded by a computer. If results do not meet

criteria at the temperature tested, the test needs to be performed again at the next highest

6°C temperature. Superpave specifies 300 MPa maximum for S(t) and a 0.300 minimum

m-value.

4.3.7 Direct Tension Tester

4.3.7.1 Objective of the Direct Tension Tester

The direct tension test (DTT) is used in addition to the BBR to evaluate low temperature

properties of an asphalt binder. It was designed to study stiff and ductile asphalt binders.

The DTT uses the failure strain of an asphalt binder at low temperatures to estimate

thermal cracking temperatures. Failure strain is defined as the change in length divided

by the effective gauge length. It corresponds to the stress at which the maximum load is

applied to the specimen. This may or may not be the load at which the specimen breaks.

41

4.3.7.2 Procedure for Direct Tension Testing

Direct tension testing follows procedures outlined in AASHTO TP3. The test is only

used if the asphalt binder had BBR creep stiffness values between 300 and 600 MPa.

Otherwise the test is not necessary to perform. “Dog bone” shaped molds are prepared

and PAV aged binder is poured in the molds. Specimens are cooled at room temperature

and excess binder is trimmed away using a heated scraper. Molds are carefully removed

and specimens are conditioned in the liquid medium of the DTT prior to testing. The test

phase is initiated by loading the specimen into loading pins and zeroing the position of

the pins. The loading pins will move apart at a constant rate of one mm/min until the

binder specimen fails, e.g. breaks, and the strain (from maximum applied load) is

recorded along with noting the location of the failure path on the specimen. If the binder

does not meet the prescribed failure strain criteria at the given temperature, another set of

tests need to performed at a 6°C lower temperature. Superpave specifies a minimum of

1.0% failure strain.

4.4 HMA Performance Testing

4.4.1 Introduction

Laboratory tests that have been linked to in-situ pavement performance are used to

estimate in-situ pavement performance. Inputs such as climate, material properties,

traffic, and layer information may be used along with performance testing to predict

pavement distresses like thermal cracking, fatigue cracking, and rutting. The indirect

42

tension test for resilient modulus, the four-point beam fatigue test, the indirect tensile test,

and the asphalt pavement analyzer were utilized in this study.

4.4.2 Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus

4.4.2.1 Objective of the Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus

The indirect tension test for resilient modulus is a nondestructive method to measure

stiffness of HMA. Various temperatures, loads, loading frequencies, and load durations

may be used. Estimates of Poisson’s ratio along with the measured deformation of the

specimen are used to calculate the resilient modulus. Resilient modulus values can be

used in pavement analysis and design. A relative pavement life (load cycles to failure) of

HMA mixes can be summarized for comparisons.

4.4.2.2 Procedure of Indirect Tension Testing for Resilient Modulus

Resilient Modulus testing is performed using the “5-Pulse IT-Modulus & Poisson Ratio

Test” on the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) 100 following ASTM D 4123 guidelines.

Specimens of 150 mm diameter are mixed and (gyratory) compacted following

Superpave guidelines (AASHTO 2000). A height of approximately 50 mm is desired for

testing with specimens trimmed on both sides. Specimens are marked with two

perpendicular lines passing through the midpoint on each side. Height measurements are

taken in four locations, making sure deviations are not more that 3 mm (to ensure nearly

parallel cut sides). If the specimen has height measurements with a range greater than 3

mm, a lathe is used to “trim” specimens within tolerance. Prepared specimens are placed

43

in a controlled-temperature chamber prior to testing to ensure constant temperature

during testing. Each specimen is placed in the testing apparatus (Figure 4.4) with linear

variable differential transducers (LVDTs) attached to measure vertical and horizontal

deformation.

Figure 4.4 Indirect Tensile Test for Resilient Modulus A repeated haversine waveform load is applied to the specimen for preconditioning in

order to non-varying deformation readout. The 5-pulse haversine waveform load is then

applied on the vertical axis. Since the test is nondestructive, specimens are rotated ninety

degrees and tested on each marked axis. Test temperatures of 5°C and 25°C are utilized

for this study. A peak loading force of 1500 Newtons for 25°C testing and between 2500

to 3000 newtons for 5°C testing are used. Load frequency and load duration are applied

at a constant 1.0 Hz and 0.1 second, respectively. The equation below shows the

derivation of resilient modulus.

44

( 0.27RR

PEt H

)ν +=

∆

where, ER = resilient modulus of elasticity, MPa or psi; P = repeated load, N or lbf; νR = resilient Poisson’s ratio; t = thickness of specimen, mm or in; and ∆H = total recoverable horizontal deformation, mm or in.

4.4.3 Four-Point Beam Fatigue

4.4.3.1 Objective of the Four-Point Beam Fatigue Test

The four-point beam fatigue test evaluates fatigue properties of a HMA. Repeated traffic

loading is simulated and an estimate for the load cycles to failure can be made. The

fatigue life of the HMA is a good indicator for how long the pavement will last before

fatigue cracking is evident. Results can be input into pavement analysis models to obtain

a relative estimate of cycles to failure for HMA mixes.

4.4.3.2 Procedure for the Four-Point Beam Fatigue Testing

A HasDek SLAB-PACTM linear kneading compactor was utilized to compact HMA slabs.

Slabs were cut to the proper width of 63 mm (trimmed on both sides) to obtain beam

samples for testing in the four-point beam fatigue. Beam samples have a height of 50

mm and a length of 380 mm. Measurements of width and height are taken in five

locations along the beam and entered into the computer. The beam is placed in the

testing apparatus as shown in Figure 4.5.

45

Figure 4.5 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Apparatus The test is performed by applying repeated haversine loads to third points resulting in a

constant moment across the middle third of the beam. A constant strain mode of testing

is utilized in the study and failure is designated as fifty percent of the original load.

Equations used in calculating stress, strain, and flexural modulus are as follow:

( )( )

2

2 2

2 2

3 ]

12 ]3 4

3 4]

48s

aP Stressbh

hd Strainl aPa l a

E Flexural ModulusId

σ

ε

= [

= [−

− = [

where, σ = tensile stress in the outer fibers, psi or MPa; ε = tensile strain in the outer fibers, inches/in or mm/mm; Es = flexural stiffness modulus, psi or MPa; a = distance between support and first applied load, inches or mm; P = total dynamic load with ½ P applied at third points, lbs or N; b = specimen width, inches or mm; h = specimen height, inches or mm;

46

l = reaction span length, inches or mm; I = moment of inertia of specimen, in4 or mm4; and d = dynamic deflection of beam at the center, inches or mm.

4.4.4 Indirect Tensile

4.4.4.1 Objective of the Indirect Tensile Test

The indirect tensile test utilizes intermediate and low temperatures to determine creep

compliance and strength of HMA mixtures. Testing is performed by applying a single or

repeated compressive load across the vertical diametral plane of a cylindrical specimen.

Estimates for thermal crack and fatigue crack analysis can be made from indirect tensile

testing.

4.4.4.2 Procedure for Indirect Tensile Testing

Specimens for indirect tensile testing were made at MTU and sent to Mathy Construction

Company in Onalaska, Wisconsin for testing. Two tests are typically performed with the

indirect tensile tester: (1) creep compliance and strength at low temperatures and (2)

strength at intermediate temperatures.

For creep compliance and strength at low temperatures, three test temperatures are used

(0°, -10°, and -20°C). The first portion of the test involves applying a static creep load

that produces between 50 and 750 horizontal microstrain on the specimen for 100

seconds. Vertical and horizontal deformations are measured for the entire duration. The

second portion of the test involves loading the specimen to failure with a load rate of 12.5

47

mm per minute. Vertical and horizontal deformations are measured until the load has

achieved 10 percent lower than the peak load. Results are used in thermal cracking

analysis.

Strength at intermediate temperatures is performed at -10°, 4°, and 20°C. The specimen

is loaded via the rate of 50 mm per minute of the vertical ram. This load is applied until

failure, which is peak load. Deformation and load are monitored for the entire duration

of the test.

4.4.5 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer

4.4.5.1 Objective of the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer

The asphalt pavement analyzer (APA) is a loaded wheel test used to assess a HMA’s

susceptibility to permanent deformation (rutting). Cylindrical specimens were used in

this study to assess the amount of permanent deformation. An Automated Data

Acquisition System takes rut measurements at two locations on cylinders and obtains an

average rut depth per specimen. With keeping all variables constant (temperature, wheel

load, hose pressure, dry conditions) the results obtained will give the relative permanent

deformation susceptibility comparative to each HMA tested.

4.4.5.2 Procedure of Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Testing

Specimens of 150 mm diameter are mixed and (gyratory) compacted following

Superpave procedures (AASHTO 2000). They are trimmed to a height of 75 mm ± 0.5

48

mm and placed in the test molds with the cut face down, leaving the undisturbed surface

to be tested. Specimens are placed in the APA (Figure 4.6) at the desired test temperature

for a time between 4 and 20 hours for conditioning to ensure a consistent temperature

throughout the sample.

Figure 4.6 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA)

All specimens for this study are tested dry at 60ºC (140°F). APA testing consists of 8000

wheel cycles with 100 conditioning cycles. The applied wheel load is 100-lb with a hose

pressure of 100psi. Only one specimen was tested per wheel path. A concrete “dummy”

specimen was placed in the other location of the mold and the sampling points for that

location turned off because the data acquisition system takes averages of all sampling

points that are active. If two test samples were in one mold (being tested under the same

wheel path) it would average the rut depth of both samples together and not distinguish

49

between each sample; a limitation of the data acquisition system. This limitation would

result in more specimens being tested than necessary.

4.4.6 Reflective Cracking Test

4.4.6.1 Objective of Reflective Cracking Test

The main objective of the developed reflective cracking test in this experiment is to

determine if carbon fibers can help mitigate the phenomenon and propagation. The test

utilizes cyclic wheel loading and vertical movement with constant temperature for all

tests. A relative number of load cycles for the crack to propagate through the total

thickness of the slab is desired.

4.4.6.2 Procedure for Reflective Cracking Test

The procedure used for the reflective cracking test is one developed at MTU. The APA

is utilized with beam specimens of approximately 125 mm wide and 300 mm long. Two

rubber mats are placed in the base of molds as the flexible support system. Three

concrete blocks are placed atop the mats with equal crack widths between them to create

existing cracks. A crack sealant is placed between the concrete blocks and a tack coat

applied on top of the concrete blocks for adequate adhesion to the HMA test beam.

Specimens are conditioned in the APA for 1 hour at the 25°C (77°F) test temperature to

ensure a constant temperature throughout the specimen. Testing consists of a repeated

250-lb load on a 150-mm diameter steel wheel for 30,000 cycles. Smooth wheels (Figure

50

4.7) will be used in the APA unlike the inverted type that is used with hose applications

(simulating tire pressure).

Figure 4.7 APA Wheel Types

Due to the difficulty in determining the load cycle when a reflective crack has propagated

to the HMA surface, two sampling points of the APA will be used directly above the

existing cracks. A steep change in slope will be considered the load application at which

the crack propagated through and caused a sharp change in measured “rut” depth.

Pictures of the materials and test configuration are shown in Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9,

respectively.

51

Mold

Rubber Mat

Concrete Block

HMA Specimen

Figure 4.8 Reflective Crack Testing Materials

Figure 4.9 Reflective Crack Testing in the APA

52

Chapter 5 Summary of Test Results

5.1 Introduction

Material was provided to Michigan Technological University (MTU) from a hot-mix

asphalt (HMA) plant located in Ponca City, Oklahoma. Pre-mixed HMA from two

production days were used in field testing while aggregates and various asphalt binder

types were combined in the laboratory for laboratory testing. Samples were prepared and

tested for resilient modulus, flexural modulus, indirect tension, permanent deformation,

and relative resistance to reflective cracking. Rheological properties were tested on a

neat asphalt binder (PG 64-22) and a 0.50% carbon fiber modified asphalt binder. The

neat asphalt binder was combined with carbon fiber to produce a 0.50% carbon fiber

modified asphalt binder by weight.

The main purpose of testing is to obtain answers to the question:

What affect does the addition of carbon fibers have when introduced into asphalt binder

or HMA?

Analysis of test results will aide in better understanding of the potential benefits of

carbon modified asphalt (CFMA). Analysis from resilient modulus, flexural modulus,

permanent deformation, and reflective cracking is described in Chapter 6. Indirect

tension testing was only performed on the 100 series samples and was not conducted in

analysis.

53

On the second day of production (200 series), bags were used to introduce carbon fibers

into the HMA mixture for the trial runs denoted 205, 206, and 207. Inadequate fiber

dispersion resulted. Therefore, performance testing was not included for the

aforementioned trial runs.

5.2 Asphalt Binder Test Results

Rheological testing was performed on a neat (PG 64-22) asphalt binder and a 1/4-inch,

0.50% carbon fiber modified (PG 64-22) asphalt binder to see what differences would

result. Testing apparatuses used in the study were a rotational viscometer, rolling thin

film oven (RTFO), pressure aging vessel (PAV), dynamic shear rheometer (DSR),

bending beam rheometer (BBR), and a direct tension tester (DTT).

Binder testing was not pursued with asphalt binders of different carbon fiber lengths and

percentages due to difficulties in procuring specimens. Carbon fibers were blended by

hand with the neat binder in laboratory, as shown in Figure 5.1. Difficulties arose when

trying to pour specimens into the testing molds. At times, carbon fibers stuck together in

clumps while the binder was being poured into the mold and other times the carbon fiber

clumps would fall into the mold and cause deformities in specimens. It was difficult to

ensure a homogeneous test specimen. Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3 demonstrate DSR

sample preparation. The first CFMA sample prepared consisted mostly of the asphalt

binder while carbon fibers clumped together. The second and third samples prepared

involved pouring some binder into the mold and dabbing a carbon fiber clump into the

mold. All prepared samples are shown in Figure 5.4.

54

Figure 5.1 Post Blending of CFMA

Figure 5.2 Pouring of DSR Sample

55

Figure 5.3 CFMA DSR Sample Preparation

Figure 5.4 All DSR Samples

56

Problems were also encountered with the preparation of CFMA test specimens for all

binder rheological testing. Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 demonstrate inconsistencies in

CFMA binder before and after RTFO aging. Similar test inconsistencies were

experienced after PAV aging.

Figure 5.5 Pouring RTFO Sample

57

Figure 5.6 RTFO Aged CFMA BBR sample preparation also proved difficult with CFMA binder. Carbon fibers stuck

together in some locations causing problem with consistency (Figure 5.7). Localized

clumping caused deformities in the beams as shown in Figure 5.8. Similar problems

were encountered with DSR testing.

58

Figure 5.7 BBR Preparation

Figure 5.8 CFMA Deformed Beam

Further binder testing was discontinued due to the lack of confidence that homogeneous

CFMA specimens could be procured.

59

5.3 HMA Performance Test Results

This section summarizes the results obtained from resilient modulus, four-point beam

fatigue, indirect tension, permanent deformation, and reflective crack testing.

5.3.1 Indirect Tension for Resilient Modulus

Resilient modulus is a relative measure of mixture stiffness; higher resilient modulus

values imply a stiffer mixture. Two test temperatures of 5°C and 25°C were targeted for

testing. An estimated resilient Poisson ratio of 0.40 was used in determining the resilient

modulus for all mixtures. This is a reasonable Poisson ratio value for HMA (Huang

1993). An average of resilient modulus for each mix type in the field produced mixes is

shown in Table 5.1 and an average resilient modulus for each mix type in laboratory

production is shown in Table 5.2.

60

Table 5.1 Resilient Modulus Results - Field Production

Temp.,oC

Mix Identification

Average Resilient Modulus,

ksi


MPa101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,285 15,767102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,060 14,214

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,956 20,396104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,555 17,630105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,695 18,596

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,864 19,762202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,982 20,576

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,740 18,906204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 2,772 19,127

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 722 4,982102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 425 2,933

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 796 5,492104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 703 4,851105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 672 4,637

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 698 4,816202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 621 4,285

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 609 4,202204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 655 4,520

5.8

25.0

Statistics (from ksi modulus

values)

n = 7; s.d. = 218n = 5; s.d. = 106n = 6; s.d. = 149n = 7; s.d. = 68n = 5; s.d. = 119n = 6; s.d. = 1430n = 6; s.d. = 1597n = 6; s.d. = 534n = 6; s.d. = 1997n = 7; s.d. = 41n = 7; s.d. = 123

n = 6; s.d. = 810n = 6; s.d. = 335n = 6; s.d. = 746

n = 7; s.d. = 84n = 7; s.d. = 65n = 6; s.d. = 43n = 6; s.d. = 453

Table 5.2 Resilient Modulus Results - Lab Production

Temp., oC

Mix Identification


ksi


MPa

Statistics (from ksi modulus

values)

Neat 2,873 19,824 n = 3; s.d. = 370PG 70-22 2,846 19,641 n = 3; s.d. = 742PG 76-22 2,421 16,704 n = 4; s.d. = 952

0.25% Carbon Fiber 2,851 19,673 n = 3; s.d. = 2870.75% Carbon Fiber 2,889 19,935 n = 3; s.d. = 825

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 2,240 15,457 n = 4; s.d. = 519Neat 675 4,659 n = 3; s.d. = 215

PG 70-22 937 6,468 n = 3; s.d. = 272PG 76-22 603 4,162 n = 3; s.d. = 269

0.25% Carbon Fiber 707 4,875 n = 3; s.d. = 6400.75% Carbon Fiber 713 4,918 n = 3; s.d. = 270

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 466 3,216 n = 3; s.d. = 269

5.0

25.8

61


The peak to peak micro-strain, cycles to failure, and terminal modulus of elasticity are

key values in four-point beam fatigue testing. The peak to peak micro-strain is selected

at the beginning of the test. Since three beams are tested per slab, adjustments are made

to obtain a suitable range of values from each slab. The range of values is dictated by

cycles to failure. A range of 10,000 to 100,000 cycles was desired for reasonable test

duration. A test consisting of 100,000 cycles has a duration of approximately 3 hours. In

this study cycles to failure was designated as achievement of fifty percent of the initial

stress, where the initial stress is measured at the 200th load cycle. Modulus of elasticity

values are used in analysis as a relative indicator of the mixtures’ flexural stiffness. Data

is given in the tables below with the gray color indicating tests not used in analysis either

because they were at too low of a strain level and did not fail or because an error occurred

in testing and values for failure were unreliable when extrapolated.

Table 5.3 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 101 Series (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles

Termination Stiffness

(MPa)

Initial Modulus of Elasticity

(MPa)

Termination Modulus of Elasticity

(MPa) 101-3A1 800 14,105 1,038 2,199 1,100 n = 5101-3B2 1,100 28,021 569 1,213 612 mean = 791101-3A3 700 38,506 971 2,056 1,030 s.d. = 222101-3B1 900 104,907 526 1,119 564101-3B3 600 143,790 687 1,460 730101-3A2 600 299,565 963 2,124 1,021

Statistics (using Term. Mod. of Elas.

Values)

62


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 102-3A2 1,100 7,180 692 1,471 735 n = 5102-3A1 800 32,978 887 1,890 949 mean = 811102-3B2 1,000 33,712 600 1,272 646 s.d. = 148102-3B1 700 161,655 700 1,489 740102-3A3 500 434,040 926 1,966 985102-3B3 400 13,401,400 867 1,855 N/A


Values)

Table 5.5 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 103 Series (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)

InitialModulus ofElasticity

(MPa)


(MPa) 103-3A2 1,100 4,228 1,079 2,313 1,151 n = 6103-3B1 1,000 8,506 1,083 2,283 1,138 mean = 1,342103-3A1 700 19,390 1,502 3,203 1,601 s.d. = 241103-3A3 600 24,698 1,455 3,092 1,544103-3B3 700 36,075 1,015 2,167 1,083103-3B2 400 279,300 1,450 3,071 1,536


Values)


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)

InitialModulus of Elasticity

(MPa)


(MPa) 104-4B3 1,000 4,951 992 2,166 1,057 n = 6104-4A3 1,000 6,290 742 1,564 781 mean = 1,155104-4A1 800 17,230 885 1,895 946 s.d. = 297104-4B1 600 25,157 1,366 2,908 1,459104-4B2 500 56,482 1,454 3,103 1,549104-4A2 500 124,525 1,075 2,277 1,136


Values)

63


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 105-3A1 800 7,929 1,112 2,382 1,191 n = 6105-3B2 900 13,346 923 1,950 976 mean = 1,293105-3A2 600 33,965 1,415 3,020 1,510 s.d. = 211105-3B1 700 34,605 1,116 2,356 1,178105-3B3 500 102,284 1,320 2,840 1,420105-3A3 400 4,045,833 1,393 2,980 1,480


Values)


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 201-5B2 950 10,246 844 1,793 897 n = 6201-5A3 1,000 16,618 650 1,385 693 mean = 854201-5B1 750 26,725 927 1,964 982 s.d. = 134201-5A2 850 30,645 668 1,425 713201-5A1 650 83,851 774 1,658 829201-5B3 550 131,280 952 2,024 1,011


Values)


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 202-1B2 950 10,323 1,045 2,239 1,120 n = 6202-1A2 950 11,734 838 1,783 891 mean = 1,113202-1A1 800 25,306 1,039 2,220 1,110 s.d. = 199202-1B1 750 44,880 947 2,007 1,004202-1B3 550 100,870 1,390 2,962 1,481202-1A3 600 108,653 1,011 2,144 1,072


Values)

64


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 203-2B2 1,000 5,333 1,026 2,183 1,092 n = 6203-2A2 950 19,330 852 1,819 909 mean = 1,179203-2A1 750 21,020 1,079 2,302 1,150 s.d. = 172203-2B1 750 27,450 1,144 2,427 1,214203-2A3 550 119,055 1,230 2,625 1,313203-2B3 500 364,140 1,306 2,793 1,396


Values)


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 204-5B1 800 15,770 1,006 2,152 1,077 n = 6204-5A1 750 17,900 1,223 2,598 1,299 mean = 1,270204-5B2 600 53,000 1,193 2,534 1,266 s.d. = 101204-5A2 550 76,550 1,258 2,676 1,339204-5B3 450 129,520 1,280 2,724 1,362204-5A3 450 537,940 1,202 2,555 1,277


Values)

Table 5.12 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - PG 64-22, 5.2% AC

Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles

TerminationStiffness

(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) Neat A1 800 4,990 1,356 2,893 1,442 n = 6Neat B1 800 6,420 1,205 2,572 1,277 mean = 1,651Neat B2 600 8,820 1,700 3,627 1,811 s.d. = 341Neat A2 600 17,730 1,461 3,119 1,549Neat A3 400 52,390 1,488 3,177 1,580Neat B3 350 238,480 2,109 4,498 2,249


Values)

65


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) PG 70-22 A3 1,000 7,170 1,227 2,618 1,290 n = 6PG 70-22 B2 1,000 7,490 1,363 2,911 1,445 mean = 1,630PG 70-22 B1 800 12,420 1,382 2,952 1,455 s.d. = 296PG 70-22 A1 800 13,190 1,569 3,347 1,665PG 70-22 B3 600 37,110 1,728 3,689 1,827PG 70-22 A2 500 207,260 1,987 4,240 2,095


Values)


Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) PG 76-22 B2 1,100 22,570 1,115 2,380 1,184 n = 5PG 76-22 A3 1,100 32,060 1,003 2,139 1,064 mean = 1,300PG 76-22 A1 800 45,010 1,172 2,499 1,242 s.d. = 219PG 76-22 B3 800 142,270 1,286 2,744 1,372PG 76-22 A2 600 251,940 1,543 3,291 1,639PG 76-22 B1 700 DNF 1,248 2,664 N/A


Values)

Table 5.15 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 0.25% Carbon Fiber, 5.4% AC

Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 0.25%CF A1 800 5,620 1,591 3,397 1,696 n = 50.25%CF B1 800 7,490 1,281 2,735 1,354 mean = 1,9100.25%CF A2 600 14,070 1,867 3,986 1,979 s.d. = 4260.25%CF B2 500 43,280 1,890 4,035 2,0130.25%CF B3 400 112,820 2,347 5,011 2,5060.25%CF A3 350 DNF 1,932 4,127 N/A


Values)

66

Table 5.16 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 0.75% Carbon Fiber, 5.4% AC

Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)

Initial Modulus ofElasticity

(MPa)


(MPa) 0.75%CF A1 800 7,290 1,346 2,875 1,422 n = 60.75%CF B1 700 9,970 1,531 3,268 1,621 mean = 1,9520.75%CF A2 600 22,370 1,766 3,774 1,872 s.d. = 3790.75%CF B2 500 48,300 2,099 4,482 2,2240.75%CF B3 450 64,280 2,063 4,404 2,1760.75%CF A3 400 196,030 2,259 4,825 2,396


Values)

Table 5.17 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Results - 0.50% Polypropylene Fiber, 6.0% AC

Sample Number

Micro-Strain Cycles


(MPa)


(MPa)


(MPa) 0.50%Poly. A1 800 7,440 1,254 2,678 1,323 n = 60.50%Poly. B1 700 8,380 1,417 3,027 1,493 mean = 1,6880.50%Poly. A2 600 18,390 1,694 3,616 1,806 s.d. = 3260.50%Poly. B2 500 49,640 1,722 3,679 1,8360.50%Poly. B3 450 61,260 1,389 2,968 1,4620.50%Poly. A3 400 224,780 2,075 4,430 2,210


Values)

5.3.3 Indirect Tension

Indirect tension testing was only performed on the field produce mixes. Based on the low

temperature test results, indirect tension testing was considered unnecessary for

laboratory samples. It appeared that binder content had more influence on IDT results

than did carbon fiber content. Results are shown in Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10.

67

Figure 5.9 IDT Failure Temperature vs. Percent Asphalt Content (Mathy 2002)

68

Figure 5.10 CFMA Surface Plot (Mathy 2002)


The asphalt pavement analyzer (APA) was utilized in permanent deformation testing.

Samples from the first day of production (100 series) were only tested to 8,000 cycles,

which are summarized in Table 5.18.

69

Table 5.18 APA Results - 100 Series Field Production

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Average101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 8,000 7.24 6.51 6.27 6.67 0.51102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 8,000 4.75 5.44 6.31 5.50 0.78

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 8,000 5.07 4.32 5.90 5.10 0.79104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 8,000 5.32 3.49 3.76 4.19 0.99105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 8,000 6.16 3.47 3.62 4.42 1.51

Rut Depth, mmCyclesMix Identification Stand.

Dev.

Samples from the second day of production (200 series) were tested for 20,000 cycles

with the rut depth at 8,000 cycles also noted. It was hoped that with 20,000 cycles a

comparison of the number of cycles versus a common rut depth could be achieved. This

method, rather than comparing rut depth at a common cycle count, is more realistic to

pavement designers’ applications since a pavement is considered to fail at a certain rut

depth. The length of pavement life would be correlated to the number of cycles needed

to achieve a certain rut depth. A rut depth of 7 mm in the APA was chosen for this study.

This value was selected because it is used as the failure rut depth in the basis of

establishing an empirical rut prediction model with the APA and field data (Hill 2002).

Correlations were made between test sections at WesTrack, a full-scale test track, and

APA test results of WesTrack field slabs.

Data was extrapolated from the 100 series with the least amount of rut depth (4.19 mm)

to estimate the number of cycles needed to attain a 7 mm rut depth. First a fourth degree

polynomial equation was fitted to the data (Figure 5.11). An attempt to solve the

equation and determine the cycles to reach 7 mm of rut depth found that the fitted line

sometimes does not attain an extrapolated 7 mm rut depth.

70

y = -3E-15x4 + 6E-11x3 - 4E-07x2 + 0.0016x + 0.4471R2 = 0.9952

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

Figure 5.11 First Attempt at Determining Cycles for 7 mm Rut Depth (104 Series)

It was decided that only the straight-line portion of the curve be analyzed and used for

extrapolation. A new graph (Figure 5.12) was constructed starting at the 2,500th cycle

and a linear line of best fit was calculated. From this equation it was estimated that at

least 17,279 cycles were needed to achieve a rut depth of 7 mm. To implement a factor

of safety for variation in samples and mixture type, 20,000 cycles were chosen for the

200 series in hopes of attaining a 7 mm rut depth with all mixes.

71

y = 0.0003x + 1.8164R2 = 0.9993

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

Figure 5.12 Second Attempt at Determining Cycles for 7 mm Rut Depth (104 Series) Another method was also used to verify that 20,000 cycles would be reasonable.

Regression analysis was performed on the 100 series data from 4000 cycles to 8000

cycles (to ensure the linear portion of increasing rut depth). Coefficients for the slope

and y-intercept were computed and used in estimating the number of cycles needed to

achieve 7 mm of rut depth. Results are shown in Table 5.19 and 20,000 cycles appears

sufficient.

Table 5.19 Estimated Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth (100 Series)

Mix IdentificationRut Depth at 8,000 Cycles

(mm)

Cycles to 7 mm Rut Depth

(From Regression)101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 6.67 8,622102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 5.50 11,955

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 5.10 13,489104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 4.19 17,332105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 4.42 15,303

72

Laboratory produced specimens were only tested for 8,000 cycles. Results from 200

series and laboratory testing are shown in Table 5.20 and Table 5.21, respectively.

Table 5.20 APA Results - 200 Series Field Production

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Average8,000 5.28 3.97 3.53 4.26 0.9120,000 8.12 6.55 5.68 6.78 1.248,000 6.21 4.63 7.91 6.25 1.6420,000 9.45 9.89 11.12 10.15 0.878,000 6.83 5.10 8.02 6.65 1.4720,000 10.49 7.44 12.39 10.11 2.508,000 6.78 8.12 8.49 7.80 0.9020,000 10.91 12.51 15.52 12.98 2.34204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber)

CyclesMix Identification Stand. Dev.

Rut Depth, mm

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber)

Table 5.21 APA Results - Laboratory Production

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Average

Neat (PG 64-22) 8,000 9.21 8.25 8.91 8.79 0.49PG 70-22 8,000 5.90 4.51 5.60 5.34 0.73PG76-22 8,000 3.04 2.27 2.99 2.77 0.43

0.25% Carbon Fiber 8,000 8.52 9.25 9.39 9.05 0.460.75% Carbon Fiber 8,000 7.84 6.83 7.82 7.49 0.580.50% Poly. Fiber 8,000 8.30 8.82 7.96 8.36 0.43

CyclesMix IdentificationRut Depth, mm Stand.

Dev.

5.3.5 Reflective Cracking

Reflective crack testing in the APA with the apparatus developed at MTU is intended to

give a mixtures’ relative ability to resist reflective cracking. This is a new test at MTU

and some difficulties were encountered. Determining the point at which the crack

reflected through to the top was difficult without actually being in the laboratory near the

time that it happened. Not all graphs and data were well defined when the crack reached

the surface making it difficult to determine at which cycle count the crack reflected

through. This may have occurred because the crack did not reflect directly above

existing cracks, but followed a path away from the existing cracks to the surface. The

73

sensors recording the data were set to measure above the existing crack and differences

may not have been very noticeable for the data collected in those instances.

Results are subject to interpretation of the data and are shown in Table 5.22. The cycle

count used in the table is associated with the greatest increase in depth measurement

readings (between every 10 cycles) in the range that the first crack propagated to the

surface. This criterion was used because the greatest increase in depth reading is

assumed to be close to the cycle at which the crack reached the surface. The breaking of

the test specimen resulted in a deformity, which had an immediate lack of support and a

relatively large increase in “rut” depth reading.

Table 5.22 Cycles to Achieve Reflective Crack Propagation to Surface

Mix Identification Sample Cycle CountAverage

Cycle Countfor Mixture

Increase in Depth Reading

(mm)C 9,810 0.137D 8,450 0.175D 5,520 0.290E 13,280 0.140C 10,900 0.095D 16,400 0.060C 9,380 0.200D 7,460 0.123C 4,310 0.096D 4,990 0.105C 5,880 0.121D 5,280 0.067

9,130

9,400

13,650

8,420

4,650

5,5800.50% Polypropylene Fiber

0.75%Carbon Fiber

0.25% Carbon Fiber

PG 76-22

PG 70-22

Neat, PG 64-22

Note: Increase in Depth Reading is from the maximum difference between every

10 cycles during the range of cycles that the first crack appeared on the surface.

Initial crack widths were measured prior to testing (Table 5.23) to check if there would be

a possible connection with results in cycle count. Since average crack widths were

within 2.28 mm of each other, a connection was not noticed between crack width and

cycle count.

74

Table 5.23 Existing Crack Width Measurements

Sample Identification

1st Crack Width

(mm)

Average (1st Crack, mm)

2nd Crack Width

(mm)

Average (2nd Crack,

mm)

3.70 3.664.22 4.234.19 4.254.54 4.003.85 4.354.14 4.054.10 3.704.39 3.794.15 4.224.33 4.444.32 3.763.78 3.623.99 3.763.54 4.354.17 3.623.89 3.584.71 4.004.66 3.815.07 6.255.26 5.513.42 4.133.95 4.224.16 4.284.15 4.38

0.50% Poly. C 3.69 4.18

0.50% Poly. D 4.16 4.33

0.75% CF C 4.69 3.91

0.75% CF D 5.17 5.88

0.25% CF C 3.77 4.06

0.25% CF D 4.03 3.60

PG 76-22 C 4.24 4.33

PG 76-22 D 4.05 3.69

PG 70-22 D 4.00 4.20

PG 70-22 E 4.25 3.75

Neat C 3.96 3.95

Neat D 4.37 4.13

75

Chapter 6 Analysis of Test Results

6.1 Introduction

An analysis of the results obtained from resilient modulus, four-point beam fatigue, and

asphalt pavement analyzer testing will be presented. A comparison of test results

between different HMA mixtures can be made. Analysis of the four-point beam fatigue

results was more comprehensive. A life-cycle cost analysis based upon four-point beam

fatigue and APA test data is included at the end of this chapter.

A pavement system was designed for use in analysis. An attempt was made to realize the

affects of changing HMA layer properties in the pavement system. A Layered Elastic

Analysis Program, Everstress, from the Washington State Department of

Transportation was used to analyze various pavements. The thicknesses and modulus

values of the pavement system were held constant except for the HMA layer, which had

varying modulus values depending on test results from each mixture type. A schematic

of the designed pavement system is shown with metric units in Figure 6.1 and with

English units in Figure 6.2.

76

15 cm AC Layer

25 cm Base Layer415 MPa Elastic Modulus

20 cm Subbase Layer170 MPa Elastic Modulus

Subgrade14 MPa Elastic Modulus

Load, 40 kN

Critical Tensile Strain,ε,at Bottom of AC Layer

Figure 6.1 Designed Pavement System for Analysis in Everstress (Metric Units)

6 inch AC Layer

10 inch Base Layer60,000 psi Elastic Modulus

8 inch Subbase Layer24,500 psi Elastic Modulus

Subgrade2,000 psi Elastic Modulus

Load, 9 kip

Critical Tensile Strain,ε,at Bottom of AC Layer

Figure 6.2 Designed Pavement System for Analysis in Everstress (English Units)

77

Horizontal tensile strains at the bottom of the HMA layer are considered to be the most

critical in fatigue cracking. Values at this location were obtained from Everstress and

used for further analysis with resilient modulus and four-point beam fatigue test data.

6.2 Indirect Tension for Resilient Modulus Analysis

Resilient modulus values obtained from the target test temperatures of 5°C and 25°C

were used as inputs into Everstress and the pavement system designed as illustrated

previously. Horizontal tensile strain values at the bottom of the HMA layer were

acquired from Everstress calculations. A summary is shown in Table 6.1 through Table

6.3 for the mixture types tested and the temperatures associated with each test.

Table 6.1 Resilient Modulus and Horizontal Tensile Strain Values – 100 Series

Temp.,C Mix Identification

Resilient Modulus,

psi

Resilient Modulus,

MPa

Tensile Strain at the

bottomof HMA layer

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,285,000 15,767 0.00007529102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,060,000 14,214 0.00008044

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,956,000 20,396 0.00006359104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,555,000 17,630 0.00007003105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,695,000 18,596 0.00006762

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 722,000 4,982 0.00014609102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 425,000 2,933 0.00018596

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 796,000 5,492 0.00013906104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 703,000 4,851 0.00014804105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 672,000 4,637 0.00015135

5.8

25.0

78

Table 6.2 Modulus of Elasticity and Horizontal Tensile Strain Values - 200 Series

Temp.,C Mix Identifcation

Resilient Modulus,

psi

Resilient Modulus,

MPa

Tensile Strain at the bottomof HMA layer

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,864,000 19,762 0.00006494202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,982,000 20,576 0.00006322

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,740,000 18,906 0.00006688204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 2,772,000 19,127 0.00006637

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 698,000 4,816 0.00014857202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 621,000 4,285 0.00015722

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 609,000 4,202 0.00015868204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 655,000 4,520 0.00015324

5.8

25.0

Table 6.3 Resilient Modulus and Horizontal Tensile Strain Values – Lab Mixes


Resilient Modulus,

psi

Resilient Modulus,

MPa

Tensile Strain at the bottomof HMA layer

Neat (PG64-22) 2,872,976 19,824 0.00006484PG 70-22 2,846,458 19,641 0.00006525PG 76-22 2,420,826 16,704 0.00007182

0.25% Carbon Fiber 2,851,172 19,673 0.000065170.75% Carbon Fiber 2,889,076 19,935 0.000064600.50% Poly. Fiber 2,240,197 15,457 0.00007630Neat (PG64-22) 675,282 4,659 0.00015105

PG 70-22 937,375 6,468 0.00012767PG 76-22 603,221 4,162 0.00015945

0.25% Carbon Fiber 706,587 4,875 0.000147720.75% Carbon Fiber 712,823 4,918 0.000147080.50% Poly. Fiber 466,050 3,216 0.00017902

5.0

25.8

The allowable number of load repetitions to impede fatigue cracking, Nf, can be

determined using the dynamic resilient modulus and the horizontal tensile strain values.

Since the exponent for strain is much greater than the HMA modulus exponent, more of

an effect is experienced on the strain term. Some agencies choose to just use the strain

term while others use both terms. The equations used to determine Nf are shown next,

followed by summary tables of different agencies predicted Nf from the test data.

79

Illinois Department of Transportation:

6 35 10 ( )f tN ε− −= × .0

Asphalt Institute Equation:

3.291 0.85410.0796( ) ( )f tN Eε − −=

Shell Equation:

5.671 2.36310.0685( ) ( )f tN Eε − −=

Washington Department of Transportation:

6 3log 15.947 3.291log 0.854log10 10

tf

EN ε−

= − −

Table 6.4 Allowable Number of Load Repetitions to Prevent Fatigue Cracking – 100 Series


Nf from Asphalt Instituteequation

Nf from Shell

equation

Nf from Illinois DOT

equation

Nf from WASH DOT

equation

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 10,966,847 15,583,509 11,715,427 7,983,048102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 9,637,445 13,680,131 9,606,249 7,015,342

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 15,345,423 22,100,290 19,444,802 11,170,325104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 12,652,349 18,047,605 14,558,533 9,209,968105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 13,565,584 19,405,459 16,171,284 9,874,735

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 3,310,978 5,525,917 1,603,646 2,410,145102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,352,931 4,919,595 777,520 1,712,759

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 3,583,066 5,804,077 1,859,359 2,608,205104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 3,242,617 5,459,029 1,541,107 2,360,384105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 3,133,412 5,357,185 1,442,191 2,280,891

5.8

25.0

80

Table 6.5 Allowable Number of Load Repetitions to Prevent Fatigue Cracking - 200 Series



Nf from Shell

equation


equation

Nf from WASH DOT

equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 14,712,287 21,140,058 18,257,157 10,709,449202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 15,526,423 22,376,038 19,788,211 11,302,079

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 13,868,327 19,862,361 16,714,031 10,095,109204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 14,081,807 20,182,177 17,102,301 10,250,507

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 3,224,298 5,440,500 1,524,673 2,347,049202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,957,370 5,202,588 1,286,609 2,152,745

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,916,966 5,169,857 1,251,421 2,123,334204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 3,074,562 5,304,775 1,389,484 2,238,052

5.8

25.0

Table 6.6 Allowable Number of Load Repetitions to Prevent Fatigue Cracking – Lab Mixes



equation

Nf from Shell

equation


Nf from WASH DOT

equation

Neat (PG64-22) 18,341,759 21,168,514 14,747,629 10,735,175PG 70-22 17,998,174 20,877,682 14,559,696 10,598,374PG 76-22 13,496,893 17,767,118 12,192,831 8,875,473

0.25% Carbon Fiber 18,064,537 20,941,395 14,597,955 10,626,2240.75% Carbon Fiber 18,546,948 21,334,797 14,857,635 10,815,2520.50% Poly. Fiber 11,256,319 15,141,455 10,675,307 7,770,828Neat (PG64-22) 1,450,801 5,355,789 3,140,844 2,286,301

PG 70-22 2,402,721 6,403,676 4,128,199 3,005,021PG 76-22 1,233,379 5,144,475 2,894,335 2,106,861

0.25% Carbon Fiber 1,551,144 5,460,368 3,251,628 2,366,9430.75% Carbon Fiber 1,571,481 5,481,485 3,273,767 2,383,0580.50% Poly. Fiber 871,496 4,908,851 2,464,749 1,794,154

5.0

25.8

6.3 Four-Point Beam Fatigue Analysis

Modulus of elasticity values were obtained from four-point beam fatigue testing at five

points: the initial cycle count (200 cycles), the ¼ cycle count, the ½ cycle count, the ¾

cycle count, and the terminal cycle count (# of cycles to achieve 50 percent of initial

stress). The number of cycles for each stage varied depending on the microstrain the test

was performed and the mixture that was being tested. Three beams were tested for every

81

slab of HMA that was made for a mixture. Two slabs were typically produced for each

mixture at a seven percent targeted air void content, although each were unavoidably at

slightly different air voids. At each cycle count, modulus of elasticity values from the

three beams common to one slab were plotted versus microstrain. On the same plot,

values from the other beam of the same type of mixture were also plotted. A regression

equation was developed for each slab. Values of modulus of elasticity were determined

for each slab (via the regression equation) at microstrain levels of 400, 600, 800, 1000,

and 1200. Only modulus values at 600 and 800 microstrain were used in analysis since

values at 400, 1000, and 1200 were too much of an extrapolation for some mixes and

hence unrealistic. These values were then adjusted to a common air void value for all

mixtures when possible without extreme extrapolation. When an extreme extrapolation

was existent, an average air void value was used for that mixture. This process was

intended to result in a better representation of the mixtures modulus values while taking

specimen variability into consideration.

Once the modulus of elasticity values were adjusted for specimen variability and air void

content, the values were input into the pavement system designed and used in

Everstress© previously discussed in section 6.1. Horizontal tensile strains at the bottom

of the HMA layer were computed in Everstress© and used in further analysis. An

example of the results summary using the 100 series is shown in the following tables.

82

Table 6.7 Modulus of Elasticity Values for 100 Series at 600 Microstrain

Series @ 600 Micro Strain

Initial Modulus

of Elasticity,(200 Cycles)

MPa

1/4 Cycle Count

Modulus of Elasticity,

MPa

1/2 Cycle Count


MPa

3/4 Cycle Count


MPa

Termination Modulus of Elasticity,

MPa

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,865 1,181 1,071 1,002 920

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,323 860 725 679 645

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 3,233 2,382 1,914 1,733 1,616

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,221 1,689 1,375 1,266 1,109

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 2,827 1,904 1,675 1,529 1,413

Table 6.8 Horizontal Tensile Strain Values for 100 Series at 600 Microstrain


Initial Tensile Strain

at the bottom of HMA layer

1/4 Cycle Count Tensile

Strain at the bottom of HMA layer





Terminal Tensile Strain at the bottom of HMA layer

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 0.00021928 0.00024730 0.00025207 0.00025501 0.00025839

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 0.00024115 0.00026272 0.00026570 0.00026657 0.00026732

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 0.00017854 0.00020803 0.00021747 0.00022430 0.00022892

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 0.00020680 0.00023234 0.00023892 0.00024361 0.00025043

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 0.00018876 0.00021784 0.00022657 0.00023246 0.00023731

83

Table 6.9 Allowable Load Cycles to Prevent Fatigue Cracking at 600 Microstrain – 100 Series


Initial Nf from Illinois DOT

equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf from Illinois DOT

equation


equation


equation

Terminal Nf

from Illinois DOT equation

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 474,212 330,596 312,181 301,508 289,830

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 356,540 275,734 266,560 263,959 261,743

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 878,544 555,382 486,152 443,080 416,791

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 565,351 398,656 366,617 345,848 318,354

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 743,430 483,679 429,895 398,039 374,129

Results from other mixture types and strain levels are given in Appendix E. Equations

used to calculate Nf values are given in section 6.2.

6.3.1 Implications on Pavement Design

Three-dimensional surface plots were created with four-point beam fatigue results to

show affects of different modulus of elasticity and tensile strain at the bottom of the

HMA layer combinations on allowable load cycles to prevent fatigue cracking using the

Illinois DOT equation. Surface plots were created at 600 and 800 microstrain. An

example of the process followed to create the surface plots started by performing

regression analysis on the data like shown in Table 6.10. An equation fitting the data was

created and a matrix was formed as shown in Table 6.11. Modulus of elasticity values

are placed on the left side and tensile strain values at the bottom of the HMA layer are

placed along the top. The diagonal in bold are Nf values as calculated with the Illinois

DOT equation. The rest of the matrix is Nf values as calculated from the regression

84

equation using the associated modulus and tensile values. Notice a negative value in the

upper right position of the matrix. Since it is impossible to have negative load

repetitions, the value was changed to zero in creation of surface plots. It is reasoned that

perhaps the negative value occurred because the mixture could not handle a strain level at

the associated modulus of elasticity.

Table 6.10 Data used in Regression Analysis for Surface Plots - 101 Series @ 600 Microstrain

Cycle CountModulus

of Elasticity, psi

Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer

(10-6)

Load Cycle Applications, Nf

(from Illinois DOT)

Initial 270,290 219.28 474,2121/4 Cycle Count 171,159 247.30 330,5961/2 Cycle Count 155,217 252.07 312,1813/4 Cycle Count 145,217 255.01 301,508

Terminal 133,333 258.39 289,830

Table 6.11 Surface Plot Matrix - 101 Series @ 600 Microstrain

219.280 247.300 252.070 255.010 258.390270.290 474.212 95.713 39.655 5.103 -34.620171.159 659.868 330.596 274.509 239.958 200.235155.217 697.637 368.337 312.181 277.727 238.004145.217 721.328 392.028 335.970 301.508 261.695133.333 749.484 420.183 364.125 329.573 289.830

Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer (10-6)

Mod

ulus

of

Elas

ticity

(k

si)

A surface plot was created from the data in Table 6.11 and shown in Figure 6.3. This

procedure was followed for the entire 100 production series, the 200 production series,

and the laboratory mixtures at both 600 and 800 microstrain. Remaining results are

shown in Appendix H.

85

270.

290

155.

217

133.

333

219.

280

247.

300

252.

070

255.

010

258.

3900.000

100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000800.000

Load Cycles, Nf (10^3)

Modulus of Elasticity

(ksi)Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

700-800600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100

Figure 6.3 Surface Plot - 101 Series @ 600 Microstrain

6.3.2 Possible Approach to Fatigue Analysis The same pavement design, along with the same HMA layer thickness was used in

analysis for this thesis. A thinner HMA pavement theoretically may also be used to

obtain the same pavement life with improved properties associated with the addition of

carbon fibers. Minimal investigations have been studied with four-point beam fatigue

data. A necessary pavement thickness for different mixture types at 600 and 800

microstrain to achieve the same horizontal tensile strain in the bottom of the HMA layer

was used. This was accomplished by utilizing Everstress©. The design analyzed held

every pavement design feature constant in the pavement system (e.g. sub layer

thicknesses, elastic moduli, load level) except the HMA layer thickness and its associated

properties. Everstress© analysis was then performed with differences (higher or lower)

in HMA thickness of 1 cm increments. This was continued until the horizontal tensile

strain values were in the range of the desired control group horizontal tensile strain value.

86

An interpolation was then performed to determine the thickness needed to achieve the

same horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the HMA layer. An example is shown in

Table 6.12 with the 101 series being the control group. This method seems promising

and further studies may be beneficial, but the possibility of hindering other performance

properties such as permanent deformation or thermal cracking must also be considered

when changing pavement thickness.

Table 6.12 Varying Thickness to Achieve Same Tensile Strain in Bottom of HMA Layer (100 Series @ 600 Microstrain)

Mix Identification Thickness (cm) Thickness (in.)

Tensile Strainat Bottom of HMA

Layer (10^-6)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 15.00 5.91 258.39102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 15.36 6.05 258.39

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 9.15 3.60 258.39104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 11.68 4.60 258.39105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 9.70 3.82 258.39

6.4 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Analysis

Preliminary analysis of APA rut depth data involved determining percent improvements

between mixes tested and the control mix. Since the 101, 102, 201, and 202 series did

not contain any fiber modification, a percent improvement from each was made. Percent

improvement is determined by comparing the percentage of rut depth less than the

control mix at a certain number of cycles, mainly 8,000 but 20,000 cycles were also used

for the 200 series data. Results are presented in Table 6.13 through Table 6.15.

87

Table 6.13 APA Percent Improvements - 100 Series

Sample IdentificationRut Depth,

% Improvementfrom 101 Series

Rut Depth, % Improvementfrom 102 Series

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) N/A -21.1102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 17.4 N/A

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 23.5 7.4104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 37.2 24.0105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 33.7 19.8

Table 6.14 APA Percent Improvements - 200 Series

Sample Identification

8,000 CycleRut Depth,

% Improvement

from 201 Series


% Improvement

from 202 Series


% Improvement

from 201 Series


% Improvement

from 202 Series

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) N/A 31.8 N/A 33.2202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) -46.7 N/A -49.7 N/A

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) -56.1 -6.4 -49.0 0.5204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) -83.0 -24.7 -91.4 -27.8

Table 6.15 APA Percent Improvements - Lab Mixes

Sample IdentificationRut Depth,

% Improvementfrom Neat Mix

Neat (PG 64-22) N/APG 70-22 39.2PG76-22 68.5

0.25% Carbon Fiber -3.00.75% Carbon Fiber 14.70.50% Polypropylene

Fiber 4.9

A more appropriate method of analysis is to determine the number of cycles to achieve a

certain “failure” rut depth. This approach is considered more realistic as pavements fail

as a result of a rut depth threshold being exceeded. A depth of 7 mm was chosen as

failure criteria depth as described in Chapter 5. The number of load cycles to achieve a 7

88

mm rut depth were extrapolated from regression equations when 7 mm was not attained

in the amount of load cycles tested and are shown in the following tables. An increase in

number of load cycles to the 7 mm rut depth implies a better performing mixture in this

criteria. Percent improvements based on cycles were also calculated and only compared

to the 101 series and 201 series data. Improvements increased in this method of analysis.

This may be due to the nature of permanent deformation. Deformation depths increase at

a faster rate in early stages of rutting compared to slower changes typically experienced

in the later stages. Since 8,000 cycles in the APA may be considered early in rutting for

some mixtures and possibly late in rutting for other mixtures, analysis of permanent

deformation at the number of cycles to achieve a certain rut depth takes out possible error

caused by the nature of permanent deformation.

Table 6.16 Number of Load Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth - 100 Series

Mix Identification Rut Depth at 8,000 Cycles

Extrapolated Cycles to

7 mm Rut Depth

% Improve.(Cycles)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 6.67 8,622 N/A

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 5.50 11,955 38.7

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 5.10 13,489 56.5

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 4.19 17,332 101.0

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 4.42 15,303 77.5

Table 6.17 Number of Load Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth - 200 Series

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Average201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 14,948 22,751 29,458 22,386 N/A202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 10,200 12,836 6,046 9,694 -56.7

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 8,333 17,039 6,312 10,561 -52.8204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 8,455 6,482 5,866 6,934 -69.0

Mix Identification Cycles to Attain 7 mm Rut Depth % Improve.(Cycles)

89

Table 6.18 Number of Load Cycles to Achieve 7 mm Rut Depth - Lab Mixes

Mix Identification Rut Depth at 8,000 Cycles

Cycles to 7 mm Rut Depth

% Improve.(Cycles)

Neat, PG 64-22 8.79 4,620 N/APG 70-22 5.34 11,229 143.1PG 76-22 2.77 29,198 532.0

0.25% Carbon Fiber 9.05 4,687 1.50.75% Carbon Fiber 7.49 6,874 48.8

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 8.36 5,237 13.4

Further analysis of APA rut depth data involved a life-cycle cost analysis, which is

included at the end of this chapter.

6.5 Economic Impact with CFMA Pavements

A life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was performed with both four-point beam fatigue data

and APA rut data. The pavement system shown at the beginning of this chapter was used

in the analysis. Performance periods were calculated using results from each test. A

growth factor was not used in determining these periods. Agency costs were only used in

this LCCA. User costs were not examined, although they may enhance results if they

were to be included in analysis. The economic efficiency indicator used was Equivalent

Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) in terms of dollars per lane-mile ($/lane-mile) and

computed using the equation below.

(1 )(1 ) 1

n

n

i iEUAC NPVi

+= + −

where, NPV = Net Present Value in dollars/lane-mile;

90

i = interest rate, 3.00% used; and n = years of pavement life. Net Present Value (NPV) was calculated for all mix types used. The control groups (101

series, 201 series, and Neat, PG 64-22) were assumed to cost $35 per ton of HMA.

Adjustments were made with all other mixes based on increases in optimum percent of

binder content, changes in binder type (PG 70-22 and PG 76-22 were used in laboratory

testing), and for the additions of fiber to the mixture. The base asphalt of PG 64-22 was

assumed to cost $165 per liquid ton, while PG 70-22 and PG 76-22 were assumed to cost

$255 and $345 per liquid ton, respectively. A price of $7 per pound was used for carbon

fibers and $1.87 per pound was used for polypropylene fibers.

Once the additional costs of binder and fiber adjustments were incorporated from dollars

per liquid ton into dollars per ton of HMA, the volume of HMA in one lane-mile was

calculated. A thickness of 5.91 inches (15 cm), a width of 12 feet, and a density of 145

pounds per cubic feet were used to convert the cost per ton into cost per lane-mile. Costs

per lane-mile and NPV amounts are included in tables in the following sections.

A traffic volume of 3 million ESALs over 20 years and 10 million ESALs over 20 years

were both used in analysis to obtain a range of different volumes of traffic and

subsequent affects. Traffic volumes in this range are typical for most state primary

trunkline roadways.

91

6.5.1 Life-cycle Cost Analysis – Fatigue

A LCCA was performed at both 600 and 800 microstrain. Allowable number of load

repetitions were determined from the Illinois DOT fatigue equation and used as the

ESAL value in analysis. An 18-kip load was used in Everstress© analysis on the

pavement system, so it could be converted to ESALs. The pavement system had a

weakened subgrade that was to emulate spring thaw conditions. Therefore, conditions

were assumed to be experienced for 1.5 months during a year. For ease in analysis, these

conditions were applied for the full year. Results are presented in the following Tables

6.19 through 6.30.

Table 6.19 Fatigue LCCA 100 Series @ 600 Microstrain (Traffic Volume of 3 Million ESALs)

Mix Identification

Cycles to Failure, Nf

@ Termination(ESALs/1.5

months)

3 million ESALs over 20 years

(ESALs/year)

1.5 mths per year

Years for

Mixture(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 289,830 150,000 8 15.46 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 6,477

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 261,743 150,000 8 13.96 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 7,092

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 416,791 150,000 8 22.23 38.74 $87,644 3.00% 5,459

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 318,354 150,000 8 16.98 39.21 $88,707 3.00% 6,744

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 374,129 150,000 8 19.95 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 6,044

92


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 289,830 500,000 8 4.64 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 18,545

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 261,743 500,000 8 4.19 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 20,594

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 416,791 500,000 8 6.67 38.74 $87,644 3.00% 14,697

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 318,354 500,000 8 5.09 39.21 $88,707 3.00% 19,039

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 374,129 500,000 8 5.99 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 16,607


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$per ton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 283,072 150,000 8 15.10 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 6,599

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 259,436 150,000 8 13.84 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 7,143

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 379,188 150,000 8 20.22 38.74 $87,644 3.00% 5,843

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 295,661 150,000 8 15.77 39.21 $88,707 3.00% 7,143

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 332,327 150,000 8 17.72 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 6,604

93


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ per ton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 283,072 500,000 8 4.53 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 18,958

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 259,436 500,000 8 4.15 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 20,766

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 379,188 500,000 8 6.07 38.74 $87,644 3.00% 16,016

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 295,661 500,000 8 4.73 39.21 $88,707 3.00% 20,393

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber) 332,327 500,000 8 5.32 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 18,517


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 295,247 150,000 8 15.75 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 6,383

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 343,473 150,000 8 18.32 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 5,735

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 352,359 150,000 8 18.79 41.61 $94,137 3.00% 6,626

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 353,103 150,000 8 18.83 37.15 $84,047 3.00% 5,907

94


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 295,247 500,000 8 4.72 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 18,228

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 343,473 500,000 8 5.50 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 15,993

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 352,359 500,000 8 5.64 41.61 $94,137 3.00% 18,398

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 353,103 500,000 8 5.65 37.15 $84,047 3.00% 16,394


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 286,623 150,000 8 15.29 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 6,534

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 317,517 150,000 8 16.93 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 6,089

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 323,364 150,000 8 17.25 41.61 $94,137 3.00% 7,071

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 323,520 150,000 8 17.25 37.15 $84,047 3.00% 6,311

95


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 286,623 500,000 8 4.59 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 18,739

202 (5.2% AC,0% Fiber) 317,517 500,000 8 5.08 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 17,197

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 323,364 500,000 8 5.17 41.61 $94,137 3.00% 19,914

204 (5.2% AC,0.25% Fiber) 323,520 500,000 8 5.18 37.15 $84,047 3.00% 17,772

Table 6.27 Fatigue LCCA Lab Mixes @ 600 Microstrain (Traffic Volume of 3 Million ESALs)

Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

Neat, PG 64-22(5.2% AC) 434,424 150,000 8 23.17 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 4,791

PG 70-22(5.2% AC) 471,820 150,000 8 25.16 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 5,133

PG 76-22(5.2% AC) 399,274 150,000 8 21.29 44.36 $100,358 3.00% 6,445

0.25% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)504,789 150,000 8 26.92 37.22 $84,205 3.00% 4,603

0.75% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)480,496 150,000 8 25.63 41.00 $92,757 3.00% 5,239

0.50%Poly. Fiber (6.0% AC)

440,777 150,000 8 23.51 37.44 $84,703 3.00% 5,073

96


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

Neat, PG 64-22(5.2% AC) 434,424 500,000 8 6.95 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 12,790

PG 70-22(5.2% AC) 471,820 500,000 8 7.55 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 13,466

PG 76-22(5.2% AC) 399,274 500,000 8 6.39 44.36 $100,358 3.00% 17,497

0.25% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)504,789 500,000 8 8.08 37.22 $84,205 3.00% 11,895

0.75% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)480,496 500,000 8 7.69 41.00 $92,757 3.00% 13,689


440,777 500,000 8 7.05 37.44 $84,703 3.00% 13,504


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

Neat, PG 64-22(5.2% AC) 346,018 150,000 8 18.45 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 5,650

PG 70-22(5.2% AC) 413,694 150,000 8 22.06 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 5,621

PG 76-22(5.2% AC) 364,051 150,000 8 19.42 44.36 $100,358 3.00% 6,895

0.25% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)380,394 150,000 8 20.29 37.22 $84,205 3.00% 5,601

0.75% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)372,150 150,000 8 19.85 41.00 $92,757 3.00% 6,270


357,696 150,000 8 19.08 37.44 $84,703 3.00% 5,896

97


Mix Identification



months)


(ESALs/year)

1.5 mthsperyear

Years for

Mixture(n)

$ perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

Neat, PG 64-22(5.2% AC) 346,018 500,000 8 5.54 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 15,736

PG 70-22(5.2% AC) 413,694 500,000 8 6.62 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 15,155

PG 76-22(5.2% AC) 364,051 500,000 8 5.82 44.36 $100,358 3.00% 19,035

0.25% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)380,394 500,000 8 6.09 37.22 $84,205 3.00% 15,343

0.75% Carbon Fiber

(5.4% AC)372,150 500,000 8 5.95 41.00 $92,757 3.00% 17,243


357,696 500,000 8 5.72 37.44 $84,703 3.00% 16,327

For the 100 production series, the 103 series (5.1% AC, 0.50% Carbon Fiber) had the

lowest EUAC in all of the fatigue cases analyzed. The 202 series (5.2% AC, 0% Carbon

Fiber) had the lowest EUAC for the 200 production series in every fatigue instance

investigated. In the laboratory mixes the 0.25% Carbon Fiber mixture (5.4% AC) had the

lowest EUAC in all fatigue situations except at 800 microstrain with a traffic volume of

10 million ESALs, in which the PG 70-22 (5.2% AC) had the lowest EUAC.

6.5.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis – Permanent Deformation

The life-cycle cost analysis for permanent deformation was begun by correlating ESALs

to cycles in the APA that would achieve a set failure level of rut depth, 7 mm. From

previous studies at WesTrack, an APA cycle is approximately equal to 129.9 80-kN

98

ESALs (Hill 2002). The location used in analysis was considered to be in the Midwest

where temperatures associated with rutting occur for 3 months per year. LCCA results

are shown in Tables 6.31 through 6.36.

Table 6.31 Permanent Deformation LCCA - 100 Series (Traffic Volume of 3 Million ESALs)

Mix Identification

Avg. Rut

Depth, mm

(8,000 Cycles)

Cycle Count

to 7 mm Rut

Calc.ESALs (ESALs

per3 months)


(ESALsper year)

3 mth

speryear

Years for

Mix.(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

6.67 8,622 1,119,962 150,000 4 29.87 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 4,051

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

5.50 11,955 1,552,995 150,000 4 41.41 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 3,396

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50%

Fiber)5.10 13,489 1,752,229 150,000 4 46.73 38.74 $87,644 3.00% 3,512

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50%

Fiber)4.19 17,332 2,251,399 150,000 4 60.04 39.21 $88,707 3.00% 3,205

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50%

Fiber)4.42 15,303 1,987,907 150,000 4 53.01 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 3,403

99

Table 6.32 Permanent Deformation LCCA -100 Series (Traffic Volume 10 Million ESALs)

Mix Identification

Avg. Rut

Depth, mm

(8,000 Cycles)

Cycle Countto 7 mm Rut

Calc.ESALs (ESALs

per 3 months)


(ESALsper year)

3 mth

speryear

Years for

Mix.(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-mile)

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

6.67 8,622 1,119,962 500,000 4 8.96 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 10,210

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

5.50 11,955 1,552,995 500,000 4 12.42 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 7,802

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50%

Fiber)5.10 13,489 1,752,229 500,000 4 14.02 38.74 $87,644 3.00% 7,751

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50%

Fiber)4.19 17,332 2,251,399 500,000 4 18.01 39.21 $88,707 3.00% 6,447

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50%

Fiber)4.42 15,303 1,987,907 500,000 4 15.90 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 7,181


Mix Identification

Avg. Rut

Depth, mm

(20,000 Cycles)


Calc.ESALs (ESALs

per 3 months)


(ESALsper year)

3 mth

speryear

Years for

Mix.(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-mile)

201 (5.0% AC,

0% Fiber)6.78 22,386 2,907,930 150,000 4 77.54 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 2,643

202 (5.2% AC,

0% Fiber)10.15 9,694 1,259,251 150,000 4 33.58 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 3,810

203 (5.5% AC,

0.75% Fiber)10.11 10,561 1,371,917 150,000 4 36.58 41.61 $94,137 3.00% 4,273

204 (5.2% AC,

0.25% Fiber)12.98 6,934 900,770 150,000 4 24.02 37.15 $84,047 3.00% 4,960

100


Mix Identification

Avg. Rut

Depth, mm

(20,000 Cycles)


Calc. ESALs (ESALs

per 3 months)


(ESALsper year)

3 mth

speryear

Years for

Mix.(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-

mile)

201 (5.0% AC,

0% Fiber)6.78 22,386 2,907,930 500,000 4 23.26 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 4,777

202 (5.2% AC,

0% Fiber)10.15 9,694 1,259,251 500,000 4 10.07 35.33 $79,929 3.00% 9,311

203 (5.5% AC,

0.75% Fiber)10.11 10,561 1,371,917 500,000 4 10.98 41.61 $94,137 3.00% 10,193

204 (5.2% AC,

0.25% Fiber)12.98 6,934 900,770 500,000 4 7.21 37.15 $84,047 3.00% 13,143

Table 6.35 Permanent Deformation LCCA - Lab Mixes (Traffic Volume of 3 Million ESALs)

Mix Identification

Avg. Rut

Depth, mm

(8,000 Cycles)


Calc.ESALs (ESALs

per3 months)


(ESALsper

year)

3 mth

speryear

Years for

Mix.(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-mile)

Neat (PG 64-22) 8.79 4,620 600,138 150,000 4 16.00 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 6,303

PG 70-22 5.34 11,229 1,458,652 150,000 4 38.90 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 3,941PG 76-22 2.77 29,198 3,792,841 150,000 4 101.14 44.36 $100,358 3.00% 3,170

0.25% Carbon Fiber 9.05 4,687 608,841 150,000 4 16.24 37.22 $84,205 3.00% 6,628

0.75% Carbon Fiber 7.49 6,874 892,933 150,000 4 23.81 41.00 $92,757 3.00% 5,507

0.50% Polypropylene

Fiber8.36 5,237 680,286 150,000 4 18.14 37.44 $84,703 3.00% 6,122

101

Table 6.36 Permanent Deformation LCCA - Lab Mixes (Traffic Volume of 10 Million ESALs)

Mix Identification

Avg. Rut

Depth, mm

(8,000 Cycles)


Calc.ESALs (ESALs

per3 months)


(ESALsper year)

3 mth

speryear

Years for

Mix.(n)

$perton

HMA

Present Worth(NPV)

Int. Rate

(i)

EUAC($/lane-mile)

Neat (PG 64-22) 8.79 4,620 600,138 500,000 4 4.80 35.00 $79,183 3.00% 17,955

PG 70-22 5.34 11,229 1,458,652 500,000 4 11.67 39.68 $89,771 3.00% 9,232PG 76-22 2.77 29,198 3,792,841 500,000 4 30.34 44.36 $100,358 3.00% 5,084

0.25% Carbon Fiber 9.05 4,687 608,841 500,000 4 4.87 37.22 $84,205 3.00% 18,839

0.75% Carbon Fiber 7.49 6,874 892,933 500,000 4 7.14 41.00 $92,757 3.00% 14,619

0.50% Polypropylene

Fiber8.36 5,237 680,286 500,000 4 5.44 37.44 $84,703 3.00% 17,101

Note that all cycle values in the 100 Series and lab mixes beyond 8,000 cycles are

extrapolated from regression equations. Cycle values beyond 20,000 for the 200 series

are extrapolated from regression equations as well.

The best economic value using the given criteria in analysis (in terms of equivalent

uniform annual cost) for the 100 production series was the 104 series (5.3% AC, 0.50%

Carbon Fiber). The 201 series (5.0% AC, 0% Carbon Fiber) resulted in the lowest EUAC

for the 200 production series. Pertaining to laboratory mixtures, the PG 76-22 mixture

had the lowest EUAC.

102

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Work

Results presented in this thesis are to aid in understanding the benefits of the addition of

carbon fibers to HMA pavements. Laboratory performance-based testing was designed

to realize what affect carbon fibers had on results in four areas of HMA pavement

distress: thermal cracking, fatigue cracking, permanent deformation, and reflective

cracking. Use of tests such as the indirect tension for resilient modulus, four-point beam

fatigue, asphalt pavement analyzer (APA), and a new fatigue cracking apparatus in the

APA were utilized. The following is concluded from the results and analysis:

• Asphalt binder testing (such as the bending beam rheometer, direct tensile tester,

and dynamic shear rheometer) was difficult to perform due to the irregularities in

test specimens caused by the carbon fiber.

• Asphalt content had more influence than carbon fiber content on results in the

low temperature test of the IDT.

• The addition of carbon fibers at a percentage of 0.50% combined with a 0.1%

increase in optimum asphalt binder content is economically attractive in fatigue

analysis.

• An economical analysis in permanent deformation data comparing a mixture

with 0.50% carbon fiber at a 0.1% increase in optimum asphalt binder content

versus a mixture with an increase in high temperature binder grade due to binder

modification would be of interest.

103

Modifications may be necessary in reflective crack testing and possible recommendations

are presented in the following section.

7.1 Further Recommendations in Test Methods

7.1.1 Asphalt Binder Testing

Problems were encountered when producing asphalt binder test specimens. Carbon fibers

caused deformities/irregularities in samples. In future testing with carbon modified

asphalt binder, an improved method of blending carbon fibers with the asphalt binder is

recommended. Blending was performed by hand mixing in this experiment. Perhaps

there is a better way to ensure uniformity by using a mechanical mixer without damaging

the mixer itself or the carbon fibers in the mixing process.


A wider range of microstrain values is recommended in future four-point beam fatigue

testing. This may result in more samples to produce, perhaps one more slab (three test

beams), or just more time in test duration when testing samples at a wider range of

microstrains (versus 600 to 800 microstrain used in analysis). Additional testing

performed at a wider range of microstrain for utilization in pavement analysis would

further extend the results and hence provide a wider range of pavement conditions

(microstrain of test samples). This would likely allow the conclusions of this study to be

applied more broadly.

104


APA testing was performed at a constant 60°C for all mixture types tested. Testing each

mix at the asphalt binders high temperature grading may provide more information in

carbon fiber affects. Carbon fiber would have to be added to each performance grade

used, i.e. testing a neat PG 70-22 and a carbon modified PG 70-22 at 70°C. This may

realize the carbon fiber impacts to different performance grade binders in permanent

deformation analysis.

7.1.4 Reflective Cracking

An uncertainty in reflective crack testing was load levels. A 250 lb load was used in

testing and it may have been too high after inspecting specimens upon completion of the

test. The load may have caused too much damage too soon to the surface of the test

specimen. Further studies on the affects of load levels in reflective crack testing and

optimizing the proper load to use in testing would benefit this method of testing.

Plastic strapping was used as end restraints and did not provide adequate restraint to the

specimen under the applied load. When the load was over the front end, the back end

would rise up and vice versa causing the plastic strapping to eventually break. The result

is unrealistic to field occurrences or may over exaggerate it. A different method of

restraining the ends of the specimens should be investigated.

105

Crack widths and number of existing cracks below the HMA layer may also be

investigated. It would be beneficial to optimize a range for a most favorable existing

crack width.

106

REFERENCES AASHTO Provisional Standards. April 2000 Edition. Washington D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2000. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 04.03 Road and Paving Materials; Pavement Management Technologies, Philadelphia, PA, 1994. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 04.04 Roofing, Waterproofing, and Bituminous Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001. Brown, S.F., Thom, N.H., Sanders, P.J., “A study of grid reinforced asphalt to combat reflection cracking,” 2001 Annual meeting, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 2001. Cleven, M. Aren, “Investigation of the Properties of Carbon Fiber Modified Asphalt Mixtures,” Thesis for the Degree of M. S., Michigan Technological University, February 2000. Dempsey, Barry J., Muhammad, Mukhtar T., “Interlayer Stress Absorbing Composite in AC Overlays” in Aircraft/Pavement Technology: In the Midst of Change, Seattle Washington, Frank V. Herman, Editor, pgs 244-258 (August 17-20, 1997). Dumas, Ph., Vecoven, J., “Process Reducing Reflective Cracking; Synthesis of Laboratory Tests”, Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Conference, Rigo, J.M, R. Degeimbre, and Franken, L., Editors, pgs 246-253, Liege, Belgium, March 10-12, 1993. Federal Highway Administration, “Pavement Overlay Design Procedures and Assumptions,” Vol. III: Guide for Designing an Overlay, August, 1986. Fitzgerald, Rebecca Lynn, “Novel Applications of Carbon Fiber for Hot Mix Asphalt Reinforcement and Carbon-Carbon Pre-Forms,” Thesis for the Degree of M. S., Michigan Technological University, May 2000. Hill, Daniel W., “Development of an Empirical Rut Prediction Model and a Preliminary Performance Based Specification Utilizing an Asphalt Pavement Analyzer,” Thesis for the Degree of M.S., Michigan Technological University, 2002. Huang, Yang H. Pavement Analysis and Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1993. McGennis, R.B., Anderson, R.M., Kennedy, T.W., Solaimanian, M. Background of Superpave Asphalt Mixture Design and Analysis. Lexington, Kentucky, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-95-003, November 1994.

107

Pu-Woei Chen and D.D.L. Chung, “Carbon Fiber Reinforced Concrete as an Electrical Contact Material for Smart Structures”, Smart Mater. Struct. 2, 181-188 (1993). Rigo, J.M, R. Degeimbre, and Franken, L., Editors, “Reflective Cracking in Pavements: State of the Art and Design Recommendations”, Published by E & FN Spon, Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Conference, Liege, Belgium, March 10-12, 1993. Roberts, F.L., Kandhal, P.S, Brown, E.R., Lee, D., and Thomas Kennedy. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction Second Edition. Lanham, Maryland: NAPA Research and Education Foundation, 1996. Sherman, George, “Minimizing Reflection Cracking of Pavement Overlays,” NCHRP 92, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, September, 1982. Smith, M.R., Walls III, J. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design – Interim Technical Bulletin. Washington D.C., Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079, September 1998. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing Twentieth Edition Part II Tests. Washington D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2000. Superpave Performance Graded Asphalt Binder Specification and Testing, Superpave Series No. 1 (SP-1). Asphalt Institute, 1997. Superpave Mix Design, Superpave Series No. 2 (SP-2). Asphalt Institute, 1996. Williams, Dr. R. Christopher, Lecture Notes, Advanced Bituminous Materials, Michigan Technological University, Fall 2002. Zeng-Qiang Shi and D.D.L. Chung, “Carbon Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Traffic Monitoring and Weighing in Motion”, Cem. Concr. Res. 29(3), 427-428 (1999).

108

Appendix A

Aggregate Processing, Specimen Batch Weights, and Volumetrics

A- 1

FIRST TRIAL SECOND TRIALCHAT-A , AA AB MINE CHAT CHAT-A , AA AD MINE CHAT

Mine ChatSieve Agg. Percent Cumulative Percent Sieve Agg. Percent Cumulative PercentSize Retained Retained Percent Passing Size Retained Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained (mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%4.75 199.0 37.9% 37.9% 62.1% 4.75 199.0 36.8% 36.8% 63.2%2.36 200.2 38.1% 76.0% 24.0% 2.36 210.5 38.9% 75.7% 24.3%1.18 76.1 14.5% 90.5% 9.5% 1.18 83.2 15.4% 91.1% 8.9%0.6 30.4 5.8% 96.3% 3.7% 0.6 27.3 5.0% 96.2% 3.8%0.3 11.6 2.2% 98.5% 1.5% 0.3 12.3 2.3% 98.5% 1.5%0.15 5.2 1.0% 99.5% 0.5% 0.15 4.8 0.9% 99.4% 0.6%

0.075 2.1 0.4% 99.9% 0.1% 0.075 2.3 0.4% 99.8% 0.2%pan 0.7 0.1% 100.0% pan 1.2 0.2% 100.0%

Total: 525.3 Total: 540.6LBW: 7.3 1.37% LBW: 6.2 1.13%

THIRD TRIALCHAT-A , AE AF MINE CHAT

Mine Chat AVG.Sieve Agg. Percent Cumulative Percent % PassSize Retained Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 100.0%9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 9.5 100.0%4.75 247.0 42.7% 42.7% 57.3% 4.75 60.9%2.36 216.5 37.4% 80.1% 19.9% 2.36 22.7%1.18 73.2 12.6% 92.7% 7.3% 1.18 8.6%0.6 24.6 4.2% 96.9% 3.1% 0.6 3.5%0.3 10.0 1.7% 98.7% 1.3% 0.3 1.5%0.15 4.4 0.8% 99.4% 0.6% 0.15 0.6%

0.075 2.3 0.4% 99.8% 0.2% 0.075 0.2%pan 1.0 0.2% 100.0% pan

Total: 579.0LBW: 6.8 1.16% LBW: 1.22%

A- 2

FIRST TRIAL SECOND TRIALCHAT-B , AA AB TYPE 1 CHAT CHAT B , AA AD TYPE 1 CHATSieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative Percent Sieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing Size Aggregate Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained (mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%4.75 209.6 34.3% 34.3% 65.7% 4.75 182.0 34.5% 34.5% 65.5%2.36 177.0 29.0% 63.3% 36.7% 2.36 148.3 28.1% 62.7% 37.3%1.18 90.4 14.8% 78.0% 22.0% 1.18 80.0 15.2% 77.9% 22.1%0.6 55.5 9.1% 87.1% 12.9% 0.6 47.4 9.0% 86.9% 13.1%0.3 31.7 5.2% 92.3% 7.7% 0.3 29.8 5.7% 92.5% 7.5%0.15 23.4 3.8% 96.1% 3.9% 0.15 19.2 3.6% 96.2% 3.8%

0.075 19.5 3.2% 99.3% 0.7% 0.075 16.4 3.1% 99.3% 0.7%pan 4.1 0.7% 100.0% pan 3.8 0.7% 100.0%


THIRD TRIALCHAT B , AE AF TYPE 1 CHAT Type 1 Chat AVG.Sieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing % Pass(mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 100.0%9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 9.5 100.0%4.75 177.6 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 4.75 66.0%2.36 155.6 29.1% 62.4% 37.6% 2.36 37.2%1.18 81.8 15.3% 77.7% 22.3% 1.18 22.1%0.6 49.9 9.3% 87.1% 12.9% 0.6 13.0%0.3 28.0 5.2% 92.3% 7.7% 0.3 7.6%0.15 19.9 3.7% 96.1% 3.9% 0.15 3.9%

0.075 17.0 3.2% 99.3% 0.7% 0.075 0.7%pan 4.0 0.7% 100.0% pan

Total: 533.8LBW: 34.1 6.00% LBW: 6.10%

A- 3

FIRST TRIAL SECOND TRIALSAND, 26189 A SAND, 26189 BSieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative Percent Sieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing Size Aggregate Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained (mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%9.5 4.7 0.8% 0.8% 99.2% 9.5 3.0 0.6% 0.6% 99.4%4.75 22.3 4.0% 4.8% 95.2% 4.75 20.0 3.8% 4.3% 95.7%2.36 52.1 9.2% 14.0% 86.0% 2.36 49.7 9.3% 13.7% 86.3%1.18 77.6 13.8% 27.8% 72.2% 1.18 74.9 14.1% 27.7% 72.3%0.6 86.8 15.4% 43.2% 56.8% 0.6 85.1 16.0% 43.7% 56.3%0.3 148.6 26.3% 69.5% 30.5% 0.3 131.9 24.8% 68.5% 31.5%0.15 143.3 25.4% 94.9% 5.1% 0.15 139.5 26.2% 94.6% 5.4%

0.075 27.6 4.9% 99.8% 0.2% 0.075 27.3 5.1% 99.8% 0.2%pan 1.0 0.2% 100.0% pan 1.2 0.2% 100.0%

Total: 564.0 Total: 532.6LBW: 34.1 g 5.70% LBW: 30.6 5.43%

THIRD TRIALSAND, 26189 C Sand 26189 AVGSieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing % Pass(mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 100.0%9.5 5.5 0.9% 0.9% 99.1% 9.5 99.2%4.75 21.0 3.5% 4.4% 95.6% 4.75 95.5%2.36 54.1 9.0% 13.4% 86.6% 2.36 86.3%1.18 78.6 13.1% 26.6% 73.4% 1.18 72.6%0.6 90.9 15.2% 41.7% 58.3% 0.6 57.1%0.3 153.3 25.6% 67.3% 32.7% 0.3 31.6%0.15 155.3 25.9% 93.2% 6.8% 0.15 5.7%

0.075 35.3 5.9% 99.1% 0.9% 0.075 0.4%pan 5.4 0.9% 100.0% pan

Total: 599.4LBW: 29.8 4.74% LBW: 5.29%

A- 4

FIRST TRIAL SECOND TRIAL26185, Screenings A 26185, Screenings BSieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative Percent Sieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing Size Aggregate Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained (mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%4.75 13.2 2.8% 2.8% 97.2% 4.75 12.8 3.0% 3.0% 97.0%2.36 211.1 44.9% 47.7% 52.3% 2.36 185.7 43.4% 46.4% 53.6%1.18 122.3 26.0% 73.8% 26.2% 1.18 108.0 25.2% 71.6% 28.4%0.6 54.8 11.7% 85.4% 14.6% 0.6 52.7 12.3% 83.9% 16.1%0.3 31.3 6.7% 92.1% 7.9% 0.3 31.4 7.3% 91.2% 8.8%0.15 20.4 4.3% 96.4% 3.6% 0.15 20.9 4.9% 96.1% 3.9%

0.075 16.3 3.5% 99.9% 0.1% 0.075 13.5 3.2% 99.3% 0.7%pan 0.4 0.1% 100.0% pan 3.2 0.7% 100.0%


THIRD TRIAL Screenings, 26185 AVG26185, Screenings CSieve Sieve+ Percent Cumulative Percent % Pass Size Aggregate Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained 25 100.0%

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 19 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 12.5 100.0%

12.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 9.5 100.0%9.5 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 4.75 97.2%4.75 14.0 2.7% 2.7% 97.3% 2.36 54.3%2.36 213.0 40.5% 43.1% 56.9% 1.18 28.3%1.18 140.6 26.7% 69.8% 30.2% 0.6 15.9%0.6 68.6 13.0% 82.9% 17.1% 0.3 8.7%0.3 40.0 7.6% 90.5% 9.5% 0.15 3.8%0.15 28.6 5.4% 95.9% 4.1% 0.075 0.5%

0.075 17.9 3.4% 99.3% 0.7% panpan 3.6 0.7% 100.0%

Total: 526.3 LBW: 13.71%LBW: 86.5 14.12%

A- 5

ALL MATERIAL26183, 5/8" Chips

Sieve Sieve+Coarse Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%19 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

12.5 9560.0 5.0% 5.0% 95.0%9.5 53465.0 28.1% 33.1% 66.9%4.75 107430.0 56.5% 89.6% 10.4%pan 19805 10.4% 100.0%

Total: 190260.0

ALL MATERIAL26182, 3/4" Chips

Sieve Sieve+Coarse Percent Cumulative PercentSize Aggregate Retained Percent Passing(mm) (grams) Retained

25 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%19 805.0 0.5% 0.5% 99.5%

12.5 53530.0 30.4% 30.9% 69.1%9.5 59490.0 33.8% 64.7% 35.3%4.75 55700.0 31.6% 96.3% 3.7%pan 6470 3.7% 100.0%

Total: 175995.0

A- 6

CONOCO BLENDLab. # 26182 26183 26185 26187 26188 26189 Possible PossibleAgg. 3/4" 5/8" Scrns Mine Type 1 Sand Combined Job New New

mm % Pass. Chips Chips Chat Chat Aggregate Formula Blend A Blend B19 3/4" 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 26182 = 20% 100 26182 = 20%

12.5 1/2" 75 92 100 100 100 100 95 95 93 26183 = 25% 93 26183 = 20%9.5 3/8" 39 62 100 100 100 99 84 84 78 26185 = 10% 80 26185 = 08%4.75 No. 4 4 10 98 74 100 96 64 64 52 26187 = 22% 53 26187 = 35%2.00 No. 10 3 4 56 33 74 87 40 40 33 26188 = 12% 31 26188 = 07%0.425 No. 40 2 4 24 6 22 50 16 16 13 26189 = 11% 12 26189 = 10%0.180 No. 80 2 3 18 3 9 14 8 8 6 60.075 No. 200 1.6 3.0 14.3 2.0 3.7 6.7 5.1 5.1 4.1 3.7

Asphalt Cement (PG64-28) 5.6

A

-7 LABORATORY BLEND26182 26183 26185 26187 26188 26189 New

3/4" 5/8" Scrns Mine Type 1 Sand Baghouse Combined Combined

^.45 Chips Chips Chat Chat Fines Aggregate AggregatePercent- 18 12 18 27 10 15 - (with

New Blend, Percent 20 20 10 26 9 13 2 Conoco %)4.2567 25 1" 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 1003.7622 19 3/4" 99.54% 100.00% 100.00% 100.0% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100 1003.1161 12.5 1/2" 69.12% 94.97% 100.00% 100.0% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 94 932.7541 9.5 3/8" 35.32% 66.86% 100.00% 100.0% 100.00% 99.23% 100.00% 84 802.0161 4.75 #4 3.67% 10.37% 97.18% 60.9% 65.96% 95.49% 100.00% 57 491.4717 2.36 #8 2.29% 5.14% 54.26% 22.7% 37.21% 86.29% 100.00% 34 291.0773 1.18 #16 1.98% 4.30% 28.27% 8.6% 22.11% 72.65% 100.00% 21 200.7946 0.6 #30 1.78% 3.90% 15.93% 3.5% 12.97% 57.14% 100.00% 14 140.5817 0.3 #50 1.59% 3.61% 8.73% 1.5% 7.61% 31.57% 100.00% 8 90.4258 0.15 #100 1.29% 2.09% 3.85% 0.6% 3.88% 5.74% 100.00% 3 40.3117 0.075 #200 0.31% 0.21% 0.51% 0.2% 0.71% 0.43% 100.00% 0 2

pan panLBW: - - 13.71% 1.22% 6.10% 5.29%

Aggregate Weights for Batching (4500g) - APA Specimens

26182 26183 26185 26187 26188 261893/4" 5/8" Scrns Mine Type 1 Sand Baghouse

Chips Chips Chat Chat Fines25 1" 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.019 3/4" 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

12.5 1/2" 277.9 45.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09.5 3/8" 582.1 298.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.04.75 #4 867.0 806.7 12.7 457.7 137.8 26.4 0.02.36 #8 879.4 853.7 205.8 904.0 254.3 80.2 0.01.18 #16 882.1 861.3 322.8 1069.8 315.4 160.0 0.00.6 #30 884.0 864.9 378.3 1128.7 352.5 250.8 0.00.3 #50 885.7 867.5 410.7 1152.9 374.2 400.3 0.00.15 #100 888.4 881.2 432.7 1163.2 389.3 551.4 0.00.075 #200 897.2 898.1 447.7 1167.9 402.1 582.5 0.0 SUM:pan pan 900.0 900.0 450.0 1170.0 405.0 585.0 90.0 4500

Aggregate Weights for Batching (2000g) - Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Specimens



12.5 1/2" 123.5 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09.5 3/8" 258.7 132.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.04.75 #4 385.3 358.5 5.6 203.4 61.3 11.7 0.02.36 #8 390.8 379.4 91.5 401.8 113.0 35.6 0.01.18 #16 392.1 382.8 143.5 475.5 140.2 71.1 0.00.6 #30 392.9 384.4 168.1 501.6 156.6 111.4 0.00.3 #50 393.7 385.6 182.5 512.4 166.3 177.9 0.00.15 #100 394.8 391.7 192.3 517.0 173.0 245.1 0.00.075 #200 398.7 399.1 199.0 519.1 178.7 258.9 0.0 SUM:pan pan 400.0 400.0 200.0 520.0 180.0 260.0 40.0 2000

A-8

Aggregate Weights for Batching (3000g) - IDT & Resilient Modulus Specimens



12.5 1/2" 185.3 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09.5 3/8" 388.1 198.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.04.75 #4 578.0 537.8 8.5 305.1 91.9 17.6 0.02.36 #8 586.3 569.2 137.2 602.7 169.5 53.5 0.01.18 #16 588.1 574.2 215.2 713.2 210.3 106.7 0.00.6 #30 589.3 576.6 252.2 752.4 235.0 167.2 0.00.3 #50 590.5 578.4 273.8 768.6 249.5 266.9 0.00.15 #100 592.2 587.5 288.5 775.4 259.5 367.6 0.00.075 #200 598.1 598.7 298.5 778.6 268.1 388.3 0.0 SUM:pan pan 600.0 600.0 300.0 780.0 270.0 390.0 60.0 3000

Beam Batch Weights

Gradation #1

Gradation #2

Gradation #3

Gradation #4

Gradation #5

Gradation #6

Baghouse Fines

3/4" 19.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1/2" (12.5) 513.2 84.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3/8" (9.5) 570.2 474.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.44 (4.75) 534.0 953.0 23.8 857.5 258.4 41.0

8435.4

168.7

No. 4- Material 61.9 175.0 819.8 1335.7 500.8 1047.1

2193.2 759.2 1096.6 168.7Total Weight (g) 1687.1 1687.1 843.5

26187Mine Chat

26188 Type 1

26189Sand ****Stockpile

Name26182

3/4" Chips26183

5/8" Chips26185Scrns

A-9

Strong and Weak Aggregate Blend

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sieve Size to the 0.45 Power, mm

Cum

ulat

ive

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Control PtsSeries4Rest.ZoneSeries6ConocoLab

37.525.019.012.59.54.752.360.600

0.3000.075 1.180.150

A-10

Lab Control Mix VolumetricsNmax

Sample Meas. BSG Air Voids, Nini=7 Ndes=86 Nmax=134 Specimen Est. BSG Est. BSGNumber @Nmax MTSG percent Height,mm Height, mm Height, mm Weight, g @Nini @Nmax

4.5A 2.358 2.4905 5.32 129.5 116.7 115.0 4705.8 2.05632457 2.315600274.5B 2.356 2.4905 5.40 129.6 115.9 114.2 4705.8 2.0547379 2.331821644.5E 2.364 2.4905 5.08 131.0 117.9 116.2 4707.4 2.03347002 2.292466214.8A 2.367 2.4734 4.30 127.4 114.1 112.4 4721.6 2.09723806 2.377118594.8B 2.360 2.4734 4.58 128.4 114.9 113.1 4721.6 2.08090443 2.36240615.0A 2.406 2.4620 2.27 127.5 114.5 113.0 4729.8 2.09923259 2.368603145.0B 2.410 2.4620 2.11 126.6 114.4 113.0 4730.0 2.11424544 2.36870335.0E 2.394 2.4620 2.76 128.9 115.8 114.3 4731.3 2.07709106 2.342406285.5A 2.411 2.4470 1.47 128.4 114.9 113.5 4754.3 2.09531598 2.37038395.5B 2.405 2.4470 1.72 129.2 115.2 113.6 4756.0 2.08308648 2.369144135.5C 2.402 2.4470 1.84 126.9 113.6 112.0 4757.6 2.12155488 2.40379745

A

-11 Average AverageSample Correction Est. BSG Est. BSG Est. AV Est. AV Average Average % MTSGNumber Factor @Ndes @Ndes @Ndes @Ndes VMA VMA VFA VFA @ Nini

4.5A 1.01831047 2.32365039 2.32500216 6.69944246 6.64516503 14.9123421 14.8628425 55.074512 55.2951778 84.07857194.5B 1.01036887 2.32144262 6.78808982 14.9931862 54.7255016 83.35849074.5E 1.03120386 2.32991349 6.44796282 14.6829993 56.0855197 84.19683354.8A 0.99574334 2.33173357 2.32738114 5.72759897 5.90356821 14.6163514 14.7757288 60.8137569 60.0537007 84.43077674.8B 0.99898151 2.32302872 6.07953745 14.9351063 59.2936445 84.04564765.0A 1.01578857 2.37448035 2.37265899 3.55481928 3.628798 13.5062756 13.572621 73.6802404 73.2958689 86.61155455.0B 1.01743431 2.38050699 3.31003278 13.2867468 75.0877109 87.37229275.0E 1.02202595 2.36298964 4.02154195 13.9248407 71.1196556 86.2242475.5A 1.01713482 2.38162315 2.37379646 2.67171432 2.99156264 13.7026888 13.9862862 80.5022622 78.6308937 87.09517155.5B 1.01513453 2.37159722 3.08143759 14.0659749 78.0929682 86.4165515.5C 0.99925225 2.36816901 3.221536 14.1901949 77.2974506 86.6354099

Sample Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Number at 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

4.5A 129.5 127.3 123.4 121.3 119.9 118.9 118.1 117.5 117.0 116.7 116.5 116.1 115.7 115.4 115.1 115.04.5B 129.6 127.2 122.9 120.7 119.3 118.3 117.5 116.8 116.2 115.9 115.8 115.3 115.0 114.6 114.3 114.24.5E 131.0 128.8 124.8 122.6 121.2 120.2 119.4 118.7 118.2 117.9 117.7 117.3 117.0 116.6 116.3 116.24.8A 127.4 125.2 121.2 119.1 117.6 116.5 115.7 115.0 114.4 114.1 114.0 113.5 113.2 112.8 112.6 112.44.8B 128.4 126.1 122.0 119.8 118.3 117.3 116.4 115.7 115.2 114.9 114.7 114.3 113.9 113.5 113.2 113.15.0A 127.5 125.3 121.2 119.1 117.7 116.7 115.9 115.3 114.8 114.5 114.3 113.9 113.6 113.3 113.1 113.05.0B 126.6 124.5 120.7 118.8 117.5 116.5 115.8 115.2 114.7 114.4 114.3 113.9 113.6 113.3 113.1 113.05.0E 128.9 126.6 122.6 120.5 119.1 118.1 117.3 116.6 116.1 115.8 115.7 115.3 114.9 114.6 114.4 114.35.5A 128.4 126.0 121.7 119.5 118.1 117.1 116.3 115.7 115.2 114.9 114.7 114.4 114.1 113.8 113.6 113.55.5B 129.2 126.8 122.4 120.1 118.6 117.6 116.7 116.1 115.5 115.2 115.1 114.7 114.3 114.0 113.7 113.65.5C 126.9 124.6 120.4 118.3 116.8 115.8 115.0 114.4 113.8 113.6 113.4 113.0 112.7 112.4 112.1 112.0

Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu.Sample Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density DensityNumber at 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

4.5A 2.05632 2.09186 2.15797 2.19533 2.22097 2.23965 2.25482 2.26633 2.27602 2.28187 2.28579 2.29366 2.30159 2.30757 2.31359 2.31564.5B 2.05474 2.09351 2.16675 2.20625 2.23214 2.25101 2.26633 2.27991 2.29169 2.29762 2.2996 2.30958 2.3156 2.32368 2.32978 2.331824.5E 2.03347 2.0682 2.13449 2.17279 2.19789 2.21618 2.23103 2.24418 2.25368 2.25941 2.26325 2.27097 2.27679 2.2846 2.2905 2.292474.8A 2.09724 2.13409 2.20452 2.24339 2.27201 2.29346 2.30932 2.32338 2.33556 2.3417 2.34376 2.35408 2.36032 2.36869 2.3729 2.377124.8B 2.0809 2.11886 2.19007 2.23028 2.25856 2.27782 2.29543 2.30932 2.31934 2.3254 2.32945 2.3376 2.34581 2.35408 2.36032 2.362415.0A 2.09923 2.13609 2.20835 2.24729 2.27402 2.29351 2.30934 2.32135 2.33146 2.33757 2.34166 2.34989 2.35609 2.36233 2.36651 2.36865.0B 2.11425 2.14991 2.21759 2.25306 2.27799 2.29754 2.31143 2.32347 2.3336 2.33972 2.34176 2.34999 2.35619 2.36243 2.36661 2.36875.0E 2.07709 2.11483 2.18383 2.22188 2.248 2.26704 2.2825 2.2962 2.30609 2.31206 2.31406 2.32209 2.33017 2.33627 2.34036 2.342415.5A 2.09532 2.13523 2.21067 2.25137 2.27806 2.29751 2.31332 2.32531 2.3354 2.3415 2.34558 2.35174 2.35792 2.36414 2.3683 2.370385.5B 2.08309 2.12251 2.19881 2.24092 2.26926 2.28856 2.30621 2.31813 2.33017 2.33624 2.33827 2.34642 2.35463 2.36083 2.36706 2.369145.5C 2.12155 2.16072 2.23609 2.27578 2.30501 2.32492 2.34109 2.35337 2.36578 2.36994 2.37412 2.38252 2.38887 2.39524 2.40165 2.4038

A-12

Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave.Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu.

Sample Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens.at 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

4.5 2.04818 2.08452 2.15307 2.19146 2.217 2.23561 2.25073 2.26348 2.27379 2.27963 2.28288 2.2914 2.29799 2.30529 2.31129 2.3133

4.8 2.08907 2.12647 2.19729 2.23684 2.26529 2.28564 2.30237 2.31635 2.32745 2.33355 2.3366 2.34584 2.35307 2.36138 2.36661 2.36976

5.0 2.09686 2.13361 2.20326 2.24074 2.26667 2.28603 2.30109 2.31367 2.32372 2.32978 2.3325 2.34065 2.34749 2.35368 2.35783 2.3599

5.5 2.09999 2.13949 2.21519 2.25603 2.28411 2.30366 2.32021 2.33227 2.34378 2.34923 2.35266 2.36023 2.36714 2.3734 2.379 2.38111

Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave.% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Sample Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmmat 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

4.5 0.8224 0.83699 0.86451 0.87993 0.89018 0.89766 0.90372 0.90884 0.91299 0.91533 0.91664 0.92006 0.9227 0.92563 0.92804 0.92885

4.8 0.83882 0.85383 0.88227 0.89815 0.90957 0.91774 0.92446 0.93007 0.93453 0.93698 0.93821 0.94192 0.94482 0.94816 0.95025 0.95152

5.0 0.85169 0.86662 0.89491 0.91013 0.92066 0.92852 0.93464 0.93975 0.94383 0.9463 0.9474 0.95071 0.95349 0.956 0.95769 0.95853

5.5 0.85819 0.87433 0.90527 0.92196 0.93343 0.94142 0.94818 0.95311 0.95782 0.96004 0.96145 0.96454 0.96736 0.96992 0.97221 0.97307

A-13

ASPHALT CONT. vs. AIR VOIDS

y = -3.8662x + 23.93R2 = 0.8551

012345678

4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6ASPHALT CONTENT, PERCENT

AIR

VO

IDS,

PER

CEN

T

ASPHALT CONT. vs. VMA

10

12

14

16

18

4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

ASPHALT CONTENT, PERCENT

VMA

, PER

CEN

T

ASPHALT CONT. vs. VFA

505560657075808590

4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6

ASPHALT CONTENT, PERCENT

VFA

, PER

CEN

T

A-14

Lab Volumetrics, NmaxModified Specimens Air Voids, Nini=7 Ndes=86 Nmax=134 Specimen Est. BSG Est. BSG

%AC Sample #

Measured BSG

at Nmax MTSG percent Height,mm Height, mm Height, mm Weight, g @Nini @Nmax5 0.25CF 5.0A 2.381 2.462 3.28 127.9 114.1 112.4 4620.9 2.0444853 2.326420555 0.25CF 5.0B 2.392 2.462 2.84 129.3 115.5 113.8 4693.4 2.05407838 2.3338518

5.5 0.25CF 5.5A 2.392 2.447 2.25 129.3 115.6 114.1 4731.5 2.07075294 2.346611355.5 0.25CF 5.5B 2.371 2.447 3.11 131.3 116.9 115.2 4723.9 2.03593513 2.320471216 0.25CF 6.0A 2.385 2.432 1.93 128.5 114.8 113.3 4690.0 2.06536913 2.342453086 0.25CF 6.0B 2.385 2.432 1.95 131.0 117.8 116.7 4831.2 2.08694829 2.34267546

5.5 5.5B1 2.330 2.415 3.53 131.6 119.1 117.5 4757.2 2.04561306 2.291086635.5 5.5B2 2.333 2.415 3.41 132.9 119.6 118.0 4783.9 2.03697209 2.294182986 6.0B1 2.325 2.397 3.01 134.3 120.8 119.2 4815.1 2.02888423 2.285898926 6.0B2 2.349 2.397 2.00 130.4 118.1 116.7 4780.8 2.07467919 2.31823622

6.5 6.5B1 2.338 2.379 1.73 135.0 121.6 120.0 4890.6 2.05001171 2.306263186.5 6.5B2 2.329 2.379 2.09 134.2 120.5 118.7 4803.9 2.02567333 2.290188385 0.75CF 5.0A 2.381 2.462 3.29 131.3 118.2 116.6 4806.6 2.07157768 2.332745715 0.75CF 5.0B 2.376 2.462 3.51 128.4 115.7 114.1 4687.9 2.06605216 2.32498771

5.5 0.75CF 5.5B 2.386 2.447 2.51 130.0 116.1 114.5 4729.1 2.05855802 2.337227456 0.75CF 6.0A 2.379 2.425 1.89 131.2 117.7 116.2 4810.7 2.07492502 2.342772486 0.75CF 6.0B 2.386 2.425 1.60 130.4 116.8 115.5 4798.8 2.08249049 2.35114077

A-15

Average AverageCorrection Est. BSG Est. BSG Est. AV Est. AV Average Average % MTSG % MTSG

Sample # Factor @Ndes @Ndes @Ndes @Ndes VMA VMA VFA VFA @ Nini @Nmax0.25CF 5.0A 1.02358685 2.34581409 2.35131784 4.71916789 4.49561977 14.5504838 14.3500019 67.5669349 68.6872959 85.0003358 96.72191230.25CF 5.0B 1.02492753 2.3568216 4.27207165 14.1495201 69.8076569 85.5110265 97.15795890.25CF 5.5A 1.01926586 2.36078511 2.34863272 3.52328935 4.01991325 14.4577481 14.8980858 75.6304418 73.0922698 86.254507 97.74502850.25CF 5.5B 1.02175784 2.33648034 4.51653714 15.3384234 70.5540979 85.0115522 96.8925070.25CF 6.0A 1.01814115 2.35378567 2.3580594 3.21604992 3.04032075 15.1626332 15.0085953 78.7896345 79.7526869 86.46535 98.0652910.25CF 6.0B 1.01789609 2.36233313 2.86459158 14.8545573 80.7157392 87.3477184 98.0509955.5B1 1.01704283 2.29883001 2.30027362 4.823644 4.76387571 16.7026702 16.6503616 71.1205218 71.3896007 86.1360486 96.47237455.5B2 1.01688792 2.30171722 4.70410742 16.5980531 71.6586795 85.7591328 96.58804036.0B1 1.01706151 2.29410644 2.30765824 4.29259755 3.72723245 17.3136484 16.8252015 75.2068573 77.9262699 86.0867775 96.99206566.0B2 1.01329476 2.32121004 3.16186736 16.3367547 80.6456826 87.7038609 97.99985836.5B1 1.01360989 2.3068926 2.30057625 3.02581641 3.29133463 16.8527975 17.0804571 82.0456135 80.7477059 87.348598 98.26717276.5B2 1.01696906 2.29425991 3.55685286 17.3081166 79.4497984 86.5976098 97.9056380.75CF 5.0A 1.02065105 2.34869033 2.34575135 4.60234236 4.72171605 14.4457126 14.552769 68.140427 67.5587968 85.8796888 96.70671640.75CF 5.0B 1.02179685 2.34281237 4.84108974 14.6598255 66.9771666 85.7467751 96.49330340.75CF 5.5B 1.02072356 2.35278576 2.35278576 3.85019359 3.85019359 14.7476018 14.7476018 73.8927478 73.8927478 85.8691733 97.49338450.75CF 6.0A 1.01553994 2.34885814 2.35428703 3.13987042 2.91599888 15.3402357 15.1445627 79.531798 80.7614599 86.8935766 98.11047550.75CF 6.0B 1.01494369 2.35971591 2.69212735 14.9488897 81.9911217 87.1591988 98.4031128

A-16

Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height Height HeightSample # at 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

0.25CF 5.0A 127.9 125.6 121.3 119.0 117.6 116.5 115.6 114.9 114.4 114.1 113.9 113.5 113.1 112.8 112.5 112.40.25CF 5.0B 129.3 127.0 122.8 120.5 119.0 117.9 117.0 116.3 115.8 115.5 115.3 114.9 114.5 114.2 113.9 113.80.25CF 5.5A 129.3 127.0 122.7 120.4 118.9 117.8 117.0 116.4 115.8 115.6 115.4 115.0 114.7 114.4 114.2 114.10.25CF 5.5B 131.3 128.9 124.4 122.0 120.5 119.4 118.5 117.8 117.2 116.9 116.7 116.3 115.9 115.6 115.3 115.20.25CF 6.0A 128.5 126.2 121.9 119.5 118.1 117.0 116.2 115.6 115.1 114.8 114.6 114.2 113.9 113.7 113.4 113.30.25CF 6.0B 131.0 128.6 124.3 122.1 120.7 119.7 119.0 118.4 118.0 117.8 117.7 117.4 117.2 117.0 116.8 116.75.5B1 131.6 129.6 125.8 123.8 122.4 121.4 120.6 119.9 119.4 119.1 118.9 118.5 118.2 117.9 117.6 117.55.5B2 132.9 130.7 126.7 124.5 123.0 122.0 121.1 120.4 119.9 119.6 119.4 119.0 118.6 118.3 118.1 118.06.0B1 134.3 132.1 128.0 125.8 124.3 123.2 122.4 121.7 121.1 120.8 120.7 120.2 119.9 119.6 119.3 119.26.0B2 130.4 128.4 124.6 122.5 121.2 120.2 119.4 118.8 118.3 118.1 117.9 117.6 117.3 117.0 116.8 116.76.5B1 135.0 132.9 128.9 126.6 125.2 124.1 123.2 122.5 121.9 121.6 121.5 121.0 120.7 120.3 120.1 120.06.5B2 134.2 132.0 127.9 125.7 124.1 123.0 122.1 121.4 120.8 120.5 120.3 119.9 119.5 119.1 118.8 118.70.75CF 5.0A 131.3 129.2 125.3 123.1 121.6 120.6 119.7 119.0 118.5 118.2 118.0 117.6 117.2 116.9 116.6 116.60.75CF 5.0B 128.4 126.3 122.5 120.5 119.0 118.0 117.2 116.5 116.0 115.7 115.5 115.1 114.8 114.5 114.2 114.10.75CF 5.5B 130.0 127.8 123.6 121.3 119.8 118.6 117.7 117.0 116.4 116.1 115.9 115.5 115.2 114.8 114.6 114.50.75CF 6.0A 131.2 129.0 124.9 122.6 121.1 120.0 119.2 118.6 118.0 117.7 117.6 117.2 116.8 116.6 116.3 116.20.75CF 6.0B 130.4 128.2 124.1 121.8 120.2 119.1 118.3 117.6 117.1 116.8 116.7 116.3 116.0 115.8 115.5 115.5

A-17

Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu.Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens.

Sample # at 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 1340.25CF 5.0A 2.04449 2.08192 2.15573 2.19739 2.22355 2.24455 2.26202 2.2758 2.28575 2.29176 2.29578 2.30387 2.31202 2.31817 2.32435 2.326420.25CF 5.0B 2.05408 2.09128 2.1628 2.20409 2.23187 2.25269 2.27002 2.28368 2.29354 2.2995 2.30349 2.31151 2.31958 2.32568 2.3318 2.333850.25CF 5.5A 2.07075 2.10825 2.18214 2.22382 2.25188 2.27291 2.28845 2.30024 2.31216 2.31616 2.32018 2.32825 2.33434 2.34046 2.34456 2.346610.25CF 5.5B 2.03594 2.07384 2.14886 2.19113 2.21841 2.23885 2.25585 2.26926 2.28087 2.28673 2.29065 2.29852 2.30646 2.31244 2.31846 2.320470.25CF 6.0A 2.06537 2.10301 2.17719 2.22092 2.24725 2.26838 2.28399 2.29585 2.30582 2.31185 2.31588 2.32399 2.33011 2.33421 2.34039 2.342450.25CF 6.0B 2.08695 2.1259 2.19944 2.23907 2.26504 2.28396 2.2974 2.30904 2.31687 2.3208 2.32277 2.32871 2.33268 2.33667 2.34067 2.342685.5B1 2.04561 2.07718 2.13993 2.1745 2.19937 2.21749 2.23219 2.24523 2.25463 2.26031 2.26411 2.27175 2.27752 2.28331 2.28914 2.291095.5B2 2.03697 2.07126 2.13665 2.17441 2.20092 2.21896 2.23545 2.24845 2.25783 2.26349 2.26728 2.2749 2.28258 2.28837 2.29224 2.294186.0B1 2.02888 2.06267 2.12874 2.16597 2.19211 2.21168 2.22614 2.23894 2.25003 2.25562 2.25749 2.26688 2.27255 2.27825 2.28398 2.28596.0B2 2.07468 2.107 2.17125 2.20847 2.23216 2.25073 2.26581 2.27726 2.28688 2.29076 2.29464 2.30049 2.30638 2.31229 2.31625 2.318246.5B1 2.05001 2.0824 2.14703 2.18603 2.21048 2.23007 2.24636 2.2592 2.27032 2.27592 2.27779 2.2872 2.29289 2.30051 2.30434 2.306266.5B2 2.02567 2.05943 2.12545 2.16265 2.19053 2.21012 2.22642 2.23925 2.25038 2.25598 2.25973 2.26727 2.27486 2.2825 2.28826 2.290190.75CF 5.0A 2.07158 2.10525 2.17078 2.20957 2.23683 2.25537 2.27233 2.2857 2.29534 2.30117 2.30507 2.31291 2.3208 2.32676 2.33275 2.332750.75CF 5.0B 2.06605 2.1004 2.16556 2.2015 2.22925 2.24814 2.26349 2.27709 2.28691 2.29284 2.29681 2.30479 2.31081 2.31687 2.32295 2.324990.75CF 5.5B 2.05856 2.09399 2.16515 2.2062 2.23383 2.25643 2.27368 2.28729 2.29908 2.30502 2.309 2.31699 2.32303 2.33112 2.33519 2.337230.75CF 6.0A 2.07493 2.11031 2.17958 2.22047 2.24798 2.26858 2.28381 2.29536 2.30704 2.31292 2.31488 2.32278 2.33074 2.33474 2.34076 2.342770.75CF 6.0B 2.08249 2.11823 2.18821 2.22953 2.25921 2.28007 2.29549 2.30916 2.31902 2.32497 2.32696 2.33497 2.34101 2.34505 2.35114 2.35114

A-18

Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave.Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu. Volu.

Sample Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens.at 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

0.25CF 5.0 2.04928 2.0866 2.15927 2.20074 2.22771 2.24862 2.26602 2.27974 2.28965 2.29563 2.29964 2.30769 2.3158 2.32192 2.32808 2.33014

0.25CF 5.5 2.05334 2.09105 2.1655 2.20748 2.23514 2.25588 2.27215 2.28475 2.29652 2.30144 2.30541 2.31339 2.3204 2.32645 2.33151 2.33354

0.25CF 6.0 2.07616 2.11445 2.18832 2.22999 2.25614 2.27617 2.29069 2.30244 2.31134 2.31632 2.31933 2.32635 2.3314 2.33544 2.34053 2.34256

5.5BONI 2.04129 2.07422 2.13829 2.17445 2.20015 2.21822 2.23382 2.24684 2.25623 2.2619 2.2657 2.27333 2.28005 2.28584 2.29069 2.29263

6.0BONI 2.05178 2.08483 2.15 2.18722 2.21214 2.23121 2.24598 2.2581 2.26846 2.27319 2.27607 2.28369 2.28947 2.29527 2.30012 2.30207

6.5BONI 2.03784 2.07092 2.13624 2.17434 2.20051 2.2201 2.23639 2.24922 2.26035 2.26595 2.26876 2.27724 2.28387 2.2915 2.2963 2.29823

0.75CF 5.0 2.06881 2.10283 2.16817 2.20554 2.23304 2.25176 2.26791 2.28139 2.29112 2.297 2.30094 2.30885 2.31581 2.32181 2.32785 2.32887* only one sample for 0.75CF 5.5, no need to avg

0.75CF 6.0 2.07871 2.11427 2.1839 2.225 2.25359 2.27433 2.28965 2.30226 2.31303 2.31894 2.32092 2.32888 2.33587 2.33989 2.34595 2.34696

A-19

Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave. Ave.% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Sample Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmm Gmmat 7 at 10 at 20 at 30 at 40 at 50 at 60 at 70 at 80 at 86 at 90 at 100 at 110 at 120 at 130 at 134

0.25CF 5.0 0.83236 0.84752 0.87704 0.89388 0.90484 0.91333 0.9204 0.92597 0.92999 0.93242 0.93405 0.93732 0.94062 0.9431 0.9456 0.94644

0.25CF 5.5 0.83913 0.85454 0.88496 0.90212 0.91342 0.92189 0.92854 0.93369 0.9385 0.94052 0.94214 0.9454 0.94826 0.95074 0.9528 0.95363

0.25CF 6.0 0.85368 0.86943 0.8998 0.91694 0.92769 0.93592 0.9419 0.94673 0.95039 0.95244 0.95367 0.95656 0.95863 0.9603 0.96239 0.96323

5.5BONI 0.84514 0.85877 0.8853 0.90027 0.91091 0.91839 0.92485 0.93024 0.93413 0.93647 0.93805 0.94121 0.94399 0.94639 0.94839 0.9492

6.0BONI 0.85598 0.86977 0.89695 0.91248 0.92288 0.93083 0.93699 0.94205 0.94637 0.94835 0.94955 0.95273 0.95514 0.95756 0.95958 0.9604

6.5BONI 0.85016 0.86396 0.89121 0.90711 0.91802 0.9262 0.93299 0.93835 0.94299 0.94533 0.9465 0.95004 0.9528 0.95599 0.95799 0.95879

0.75CF 5.0 0.8403 0.85411 0.88065 0.89583 0.907 0.91461 0.92117 0.92664 0.93059 0.93298 0.93458 0.93779 0.94062 0.94306 0.94551 0.94592* only one sample for 0.75CF 5.5, no need to avg

0.75CF 6.0 0.8572 0.87186 0.90058 0.91753 0.92932 0.93787 0.94419 0.94939 0.95382 0.95627 0.95708 0.96036 0.96325 0.9649 0.9674 0.96782

A-20

Air Voids vs. Asphalt Content, 0.25% Carbon Fiber

y = -1.4553x + 11.856R2 = 0.9616

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2

Asphalt Content, Percent

Air

Void

s, P

erce

nt

VMA vs. Asphalt Content, 0.25% Carbon Fiber

y = -0.8751x2 + 10.285x - 15.197

14.314.414.514.614.714.814.9

1515.1

4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2


VMA

, Per

cent

VFA vs. Asphalt Content, 0.25% Carbon Fiber

y = 11.065x + 12.984R2 = 0.9863

666870727476788082

4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2


VFA

, Per

cent

A-21

Air Voids vs. Asphalt Content, 0.50% BONI Fibers

y = -1.4725x + 12.763R2 = 0.9474

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.


Air

Void

s, P

erce

nt

7

VMA vs. Asphalt Content, 0.50% BONI Fibers

y = 0.1608x2 - 1.4999x + 20.035

16.6

16.7

16.8

16.9

17

17.1

17.2

5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7


VMA

, Per

cent

VFA vs. Asphalt Content, 0.50% BONI Fibers

y = 9.3581x + 20.539R2 = 0.9501

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7


VFA

, Per

cent

A-22

Air Voids vs. Asphalt Content, 0.75% Carbon Fiber

y = -1.8057x + 13.761R2 = 0.9996

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2


Air

Void

s, P

erce

nt

VMA vs. Asphalt Content, 0.75% Carbon Fiber

y = 0.4043x2 - 3.855x + 23.721

14.414.514.614.714.814.9

1515.115.2

4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2


VMA

, Per

cent

VFA vs. Asphalt Content, 0.75% Carbon Fiber

y = 13.203x + 1.4564R2 = 0.9995

666870727476788082

4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2


VFA

, Per

cent

A-23

Appendix B

Correction Factors and Test Specimen Air Voids

B- 1

Field Mixtures

Sample ID

Correction Factor (SSD BSG/Vol BSG)

to Achieve 7% Air Voids

101 1.030102 1.030103 1.030104 1.035105 1.032

201 1.025202 1.028203 1.026204 1.026

Lab Mixtures

Sample ID

Correction Factor (SSD BSG/Vol BSG)

to Achieve 7% Air Voids

Neat, PG 64-22 1.022PG 70-22 1.022PG 76-22 1.0220.25% CF 1.0210.75% CF 1.015

0.50% Poly. Fiber 1.021

B- 2

Field Specimens - 100 Series

SampleBinder

Content % SampleBulk Specific

Gravity

Maximum Theoretical

Specific Gravity

Air Voids, %

101-APA 5.0 D101-1 F 2.260 2.440 7.45.0 D101-1 G 2.262 2.440 7.35.0 D101-1 H 2.264 2.440 7.2

101-RESMOD 5.0 D101-2A 2.274 2.440 6.85.0 D101-2B 2.269 2.440 7.05.0 D101-2C 2.271 2.440 6.95.0 D101-2D 2.278 2.440 6.65.0 D101-2E 2.272 2.440 6.95.0 D101-2F 2.269 2.440 7.05.0 D101-2G 2.262 2.440 7.3

101-IDT 5.0 101-3MA 2.261 2.440 7.35.0 101-3MB 2.271 2.440 6.95.0 101-3MC 2.267 2.440 7.1

101-BEAMS 5.0 101-3A 2.248 2.440 7.95.0 101-3B 2.219 2.440 9.1

102-APA 5.2 D102-1 F 2.244 2.431 7.75.2 D102-1 G 2.248 2.431 7.55.2 D102-1 H 2.255 2.431 7.2


102-IDT 5.2 102-3MA 2.259 2.431 7.15.2 102-3MB 2.247 2.431 7.65.2 102-3MC 2.257 2.431 7.2

102-BEAMS 5.2 102-3A 2.226 2.431 8.45.2 102-3B 2.228 2.431 8.4

103-APA 5.1 D103-1 F 2.274 2.444 7.05.1 D103-1 G 2.288 2.444 6.45.1 D103-1 H 2.272 2.444 7.0


103-IDT 5.1 103-3MA 2.269 2.444 7.25.1 103-3MB 2.27 2.444 7.15.1 103-3MC 2.273 2.444 7.0

103-BEAMS 5.1 103-3A 2.241 2.444 8.35.1 103-3B 2.231 2.444 8.7

B- 3


SampleBinder

Content % Sample

Bulk Specific Gravity

Maximum Theoretical

Specific Gravity

Air Voids, %

104-APA 5.3 D104-1 F 2.266 2.442 7.25.3 D104-1 G 2.252 2.442 7.85.3 D104-1 H 2.229 2.442 8.7


104-IDT 5.3 104-4MA 2.260 2.442 7.55.3 104-4MB 2.263 2.442 7.35.3 104-4MC 2.257 2.442 7.6

104-BEAMS 5.3 104-4A 2.237 2.442 8.45.3 104-4B 2.260 2.442 7.5

105-APA 5.5 D105-1 F 2.261 2.440 7.35.5 D105-1 G 2.258 2.440 7.55.5 D105-1 H 2.255 2.440 7.6


105-IDT 5.5 105-3MA 2.253 2.440 7.75.5 105-3MB 2.259 2.440 7.45.5 105-3MC 2.259 2.440 7.4

105-BEAMS 5.5 105-3A 2.235 2.440 8.45.5 105-3B 2.243 2.440 8.1

B- 4


SampleBinder

Content % Sample


Maximum Theoretical

Specific Gravity

Air Voids, %

201-APA 5.0 201-1E 2.276 2.443 6.85.0 201-1F 2.275 2.443 6.95.0 201-1G 2.276 2.443 6.85.0 201-1H 2.277 2.443 6.8

201-RESMOD 5.0 201-2A 2.265 2.443 7.35.0 201-2B 2.281 2.443 6.65.0 201-2C 2.276 2.443 6.85.0 201-3D 2.271 2.443 7.05.0 201-3E 2.250 2.443 7.95.0 201-2F 2.275 2.443 6.9

201-IDT 5.0 201-2MA 2.270 2.443 7.15.0 201-2MB 2.268 2.443 7.25.0 201-2MC 2.268 2.443 7.2

201-BEAMS 5.0 201-3A 2.225 2.443 8.95.0 201-5B 2.246 2.443 8.1

202-APA 5.2 202-5A 2.258 2.419 6.75.2 202-5B 2.249 2.419 7.05.2 202-5C 2.253 2.419 6.95.2 202-2F 2.245 2.419 7.25.2 202-2G 2.243 2.419 7.35.2 202-2H 2.242 2.419 7.3

202-RESMOD 5.2 202-3A 2.250 2.419 7.05.2 202-3B 2.242 2.419 7.35.2 202-3C 2.253 2.419 6.95.2 202-3D 2.259 2.419 6.65.2 202-3E 2.257 2.419 6.75.2 202-3F 2.256 2.419 6.7

202-IDT 5.2 202-3MA 2.250 2.419 7.05.2 202-3MB 2.267 2.419 6.35.2 202-3MC 2.259 2.419 6.6

202-BEAMS 5.2 202-1A 2.217 2.419 8.45.2 202-1B 2.219 2.419 8.3

B- 5


SampleBinder

Content % Sample


Maximum Theoretical

Specific Gravity

Air Voids, %

203-APA 5.5 203-1E 2.236 2.418 7.55.5 203-1F 2.247 2.418 7.15.5 203-1G 2.248 2.418 7.05.5 203-5A 2.251 2.418 6.95.5 203-5B 2.259 2.418 6.65.5 203-5C 2.233 2.418 7.75.5 203-3G 2.248 2.418 7.05.5 203-1H 2.257 2.418 6.75.5 203-1I 2.251 2.418 6.9

203-RESMOD 5.5 203-3A 2.249 2.418 7.05.5 203-3B 2.244 2.418 7.25.5 203-3C 2.236 2.418 7.55.5 203-3D 2.252 2.418 6.95.5 203-3E 2.249 2.418 7.05.5 203-3F 2.249 2.418 7.0

203-IDT 5.5 203-3MA 2.251 2.418 6.95.5 203-3MB 2.237 2.418 7.55.5 203-3MC 2.241 2.418 7.3

203-BEAMS 5.5 203-2A 2.223 2.418 8.15.5 203-2B 2.228 2.418 7.9

204-APA 5.2 204-1E 2.266 2.431 6.85.2 204-1F 2.256 2.431 7.25.2 204-1G 2.256 2.431 7.2

204-RESMOD 5.2 204-2A 2.259 2.431 7.15.2 204-2B 2.261 2.431 7.05.2 204-2C 2.268 2.431 6.75.2 204-2D 2.250 2.431 7.45.2 204-2E 2.255 2.431 7.25.2 204-2F 2.267 2.431 6.7

204-IDT 5.2 204-2MA 2.256 2.431 7.25.2 204-2MB 2.252 2.431 7.45.2 204-2MC 2.255 2.431 7.2

204-BEAMS 5.2 204-5A 2.224 2.431 8.55.2 204-5B 2.220 2.431 8.7

B- 6

Laboratory Specimens - Fall 2002Bulk Specific Gravities %AC BSG MTSG %AVFPBF BeamsNeat Beam A 5.2 2.279 2.456 7.2Neat Beam B 5.2 2.279 2.456 7.2PG70-22A 5.2 2.276 2.456 7.3PG70-22B 5.2 2.267 2.456 7.7PG76-22A 5.2 2.283 2.456 7.0PG76-22B 5.2 2.297 2.456 6.50.25CF A 5.4 2.283 2.450 6.80.25CF B 5.4 2.283 2.450 6.80.75CF A 5.4 2.266 2.450 7.50.75 CF B 5.4 2.281 2.450 6.96B1 (0.50%BONI FIBER) 6.0 2.271 2.397 5.36B2 (0.50%BONI FIBER) 6.0 2.279 2.397 4.9Res. Mod. Pucks (~3000g)Neat A 5.2 2.307 6.1Neat B 5.2 2.290 6.7Neat C 5.2 2.303 6.2Neat D 5.2 2.305 6.1Average 2.301 2.456 6.3

PG70-22 A 5.2 2.299 6.4PG70-22 B 5.2 2.295 6.6PG70-22 C 5.2 2.291 6.7PG70-22 D 5.2 2.298 6.4Average 2.296 2.456 6.5

PG76-22 A 5.2 2.314 5.8PG76-22 B 5.2 2.300 6.3PG76-22 C 5.2 2.314 5.8PG76-22 D 5.2 2.305 6.2Average 2.308 2.456 6.0

0.25D 5.4 2.290 6.80.25E 5.4 2.287 6.90.25F 5.4 2.302 6.30.25G 5.4 2.301 6.3Average 2.295 2.450 6.6

6B4 6.0 2.241 8.86B5 6.0 2.237 8.96B6 6.0 2.243 8.76B7 6.0 2.239 8.8Average 2.240 2.397 8.8

0.75D 5.4 2.302 6.30.75E 5.4 2.306 6.10.75F 5.4 2.312 5.80.75G 5.4 2.305 6.1Average 2.306 2.450 6.1

B- 7

Bulk Specific Gravities BSG MTSG %AVAPA Pucks (~4500g)Neat A 5.2 2.288 6.8Neat B 5.2 2.283 7.0Neat C 5.2 2.296 6.5Average 2.289 2.456 6.8Neat Z 2.278 7.2

PG70-22 D 5.2 2.296 6.5PG70-22 E 5.2 2.285 7.0PG70-22 F 5.2 2.286 6.9Average 2.289 2.456 6.8

PG76-22G 5.2 2.293 6.7PG76-22 H 5.2 2.297 6.5PG76-22 I 5.2 2.296 6.5Average 2.295 2.456 6.6

0.25A 5.4 2.291 6.50.25B 5.4 2.291 6.50.25C 5.4 2.294 6.4Average 2.292 2.450 6.5

6B1 6.0 2.235 6.86B2 6.0 2.234 6.86B3 6.0 2.244 6.4Average 2.238 2.397 6.66BZ 6.0 2.244 6.4

0.75A 5.4 2.295 6.30.75B 5.4 2.284 6.80.75C 5.4 2.294 6.4Average 2.291 2.450 6.50.75Z 5.4 2.302 6.00.75Y 5.4 2.295 6.3 Reflective Crack BeamsNeat Beam C 5.2 2.266 2.456 7.7Neat Beam D 5.2 2.262 2.456 7.9PG70-22C 5.2 2.276 2.456 7.3PG70-22D 5.2 2.262 2.456 7.9PG70-22E 5.2 2.273 2.456 7.4PG76-22C 5.2 2.255 2.456 8.2PG76-22D 5.2 2.285 2.456 7.00.25CF C 5.4 2.283 2.450 6.80.25CF D 5.4 2.260 2.450 7.80.75CF C 5.4 2.247 2.450 8.30.75 CF D 5.4 2.259 2.450 7.86B3 (0.50%BONI FIBER) 6.0 2.246 2.397 6.36B4 (0.50%BONI FIBER) 6.0 2.237 2.397 6.7

B- 8

Appendix C

Asphalt Binder Test Results

C- 1

Summary of ResultsNeat (PG 64-22) Asphalt Binder

Test Property Avg. ResultRot. Vis. @ 135C 0.415Rot. Vis. @ 165C 0.130Orig. DSR @ 64C 1.31Orig. DSR @ 70C 0.61

RTFO Residue Loss 0.129RTFO DSR @ 64C 3.37RTFO DSR @ 70C 1.51PAV DSR @ 22C 5203PAV DSR @ 25C 3875BBR S @ -12C 152

BBR m-value @ -12C 0.31DTT @ -6C -----DTT @ -12C 1.21DTT @ -18C 0.45

Carbon Fiber Modified (PG 64-22)

Asphalt Binder (0.50%)

Test Property Avg. ResultRot. Vis. @ 135C 0.695Rot. Vis. @ 165C 0.305Orig. DSR @ 64C 1.80Orig. DSR @ 70C 0.88

RTFO Residue Loss 0.488RTFO DSR @ 64C 4.67RTFO DSR @ 70C 2.18PAV DSR @ 22C 6456PAV DSR @ 25C 4465BBR S @ -12C 253

BBR m-value @ -12C 0.25DTT @ -6C 1.32DTT @ -12C 0.80DTT @ -18C 0.42

C- 2

DSR

Sample IdentificationTemperature

(oC)

Phase angle

(δ)G* sin δ Pass/Fail

Control - 1 OB 64 87.9 1308.8 PassControl - 2 OB 70 89.0 610.72 Fail

Control - 1 RTFO 64 85.0 3366.1 PassControl - 2 RTFO 70 86.6 1510 FailControl - 1 PAV 22 43.0 5.20E+06 FailControl - 2 PAV 25 45.2 3.88E+06 PassControl - 3 PAV 25 45.8 3.95E+06 Pass

0.50% CF - 1 OB 64 87.1 1802.5 Pass0.50% CF - 2 OB 70 88.1 876.45 Fail

0.50% CF - 1 RTFO 64 84.0 4672.5 Pass0.50% CF - 2 RTFO 70 85.6 2177.8 Fail

0.5% CF - 1 PAV 22 42.0 7.01E+06 Fail0.5% CF - 2 PAV 25 44.5 5.19E+06 Fail0.5% CF - 3 PAV 28 47.4 3.68E+06 Fail0.5% CF - 4 PAV 25 45.5 4.46E+06 Pass0.5% CF - 5 PAV 22 41.8 6.46E+06 Fail

BBR

Sample IdentificationEstimated Stiffness

(MPa)m-value

Stand. Dev.

of Stiffness

Stand. Dev.

ofm-value

Average Stiffness

Average m-value

Control - 1 156 0.306 6.363961 0.00495 151.5 0.3095Control - 2 147 0.313

0.50% CF - 1 247 0.251 81.34853 0.027982 253 0.24950.50% CF - 2 259 0.2480.50% CF - 3 117 0.2930.50% CF - 4 108 0.302

C- 3

DTT

Sample Identification Maximum Stress

Strain @ Max

Control - 1Mean 2.3575 0.4475

Standard Deviation 0.133 0.026Coefficient of Variation 5.642 5.81

Control - 2Mean 2.8525 1.21


0.50% - 1Mean 3.0025 0.46


0.50% - 3Mean 2.7625 0.7975


0.50% - 5Mean 2.105 1.125


RTFO (Using PG 58-22 Binder)

Bottle Wt. Bottle + AC Aged Binder + Bottle Mass Loss, %Neat 1 170.218 205.137 205.049 0.252Neat 2 167.989 202.603 N/A - spill N/A

0.50% CF 1 170.458 205.362 205.284 0.2230.50% CF 2 171.818 206.841 206.758 0.237

C- 4

DSR (Using PG 58-22 Binder)MPa

Sample Identification Temperature(oC) G* sin d Pass/Fail

Control - A OB 64 558.83 FailControl - A OB 58 1156.8 Pass

Control - A RTFO 58 3262.2 PassControl - A RTFO 64 1465.2 FailControl - A PAV 19 4.78E+06 PassControl - A PAV 16 6.92E+06 Fail

0.50% CF - A OB 58 1995.9 Pass0.50% CF - A OB 64 977.88 Fail0.50% CF - B OB 58 1357.6 Pass0.50% CF - C OB 58 2502.7 Pass0.50% CF - C OB 64 1282.1 Pass

0.50% CF - A RTFO 58 6708.3 Pass0.50% CF - A RTFO 64 3152.5 Pass0.50% CF - A RTFO 70 1572.6 Fail0.50% CF - B RTFO 64 2996.9 Pass0.50% CF - B RTFO 70 1469.2 Fail

0.5% CF - A PAV 19 5.87E+06 Fail0.5% CF - A PAV 22 4.18E+06 Pass0.5% CF -B PAV 22 4.12E+06 Pass

BBR (Using PG 58-22 Binder)

Sample IdentificationEstimated Stiffness

(MPa)m-value

Stand. Dev.

of Stiffness

Stand. Dev.

ofm-value

StiffnessAverage

Control - A 230 0.283 9.899495 0.008485 237Control - B 244 0.295

0.50% CF - A 104 0.362 19.79899 0.050205 1180.50% CF - B 132 0.291

C- 5

Appendix D

Resilient Modulus

D- 1

Average Res. Mod. Values from testing on both axes

Specimen Mr ksi Temperature Mr ksi Temperature101-2A 15,193 2,202.913 5.85 4,617 669.393 25.15

101-2B 15,558 2,255.910 5.8 4,787 694.043 25.3

101-2C 16,796 2,435.420 5.45 5,070 735.150 25.4

101-2D 18,505 2,683.225 5.3 4,719 684.183 25.45

101-2E 18,639 2,702.583 4.95 5,129 743.633 25.5

101-2F 18,901 2,740.645 4.55 5,124 742.908 25.55

101-2G 17,029 2,469.205 5.2 5,421 785.973 25.6

102-2A 14,153 2,052.113 5.6 2,977 431.593 24.85

102-2B 14,265 2,068.425 5.85 3,107 450.515 25

102-2C 2,947 427.243 25.15

102-2D 2,996 434.348 25.2

102-2E 15,236 2,209.148 5.55 3,203 464.363 25.3

102-2F 15,534 2,252.430 5.45 1,208 175.088 25.3

102-2G 15,733 2,281.213 5.35 4,058 588.410 25.35

103-2A 20,999 3,044.855 5.8 5,413 784.813 25.85

103-2B 4,981 722.245 25.9

103-2C 19,370 2,808.650 5.8 4,873 706.585 25.9

103-2D 19,090 2,768.050 5.85 5,018 727.538 25.9

103-2E 20,813 3,017.885 5.75 5,669 821.933 25.9

103-2F 21,610 3,133.450 5.8 6,261 907.773 25.9

103-2G 19,608 2,843.160 5.85 6,223 902.263 25.9

18,309 2,654.805 5.45 4,870 706.078 25.1

17,852 2,588.468 5.85 4,709 682.805 25.1

17,141 2,485.373 5.85 4,045 586.525 24.9

18,138 2,630.010 5.6 4,919 713.255 24.9

17,638 2,557.510 5.9 5,033 729.713 25

17,195 2,493.203 5.95 4,820 698.828 25

17,276 2,505.020 5.9 5,553 805.185 25.05

4,298 623.138 25

21,078 3,056.238 4.6 5,026 728.770 25

20,241 2,934.945 5.05 4,432 642.640 25

19,601 2,842.073 5.3 4,437 643.293 25.1

20,085 2,912.325 5.3 4,946 717.098 25.1

18,853 2,733.613 5.55 4,655 674.903 25.1

104-2A

104-2B

104-2C

104-2D

104-2E

104-2F

104-2G

105-2A

105-2F

105-2G

105-2B

105-2C

105-2D

105-2E

D- 2


SpecimenResilient Modulus Core Temp. (°C)

Resilient Modulus Core Temp. (°C)

21,686 4.1 4,372.0 25.1

22,543 4.4 4,968.0 25.2

23,082 4.7 5,297.0 25.2

22,099 5.1 4,470.5 25.2

20,377 5.1 4,403.5 25.1

19,267 5.6 5,349.0 25.1

18,433 4.1 3,609.0 25.2

17,262 4.5 3,731.0 25.1

18,641 4.9 3,325.5 25.2

21,585 5.3 4,965.0 25.2

20,784 5.6 5,110.0 24.9

19,337 5.9 4,957.0 24.8

18,987 4.0 4,216.0 25.1

18,450 4.2 3,958.5 25.1

18,115 4.4 3,664.5 25.2

19,355 4.9 4,403.5 25.0

19,280 5.3 4,356.0 25.1

18,272 5.4 4,589.5 25.1

21,988 4.0 5,507.5 25.3

21,763 4.3 5,025.0 25.2

23,703 4.8 4,882.0 25.2

19,775 5.2 3,536.0 25.2

20,722 5.5 4,216.5 25.2

17,917 5.8 3,919.0 25.3

5°C 25°C

201-2A

201-2B

201-2C

201-3D

201-3E

201-3F

202-3A

202-3B

202-3C

202-3D

202-3E

202-3F

203-3A

203-3B

203-3C

203-3D

203-3E

203-3F

204-2E

204-2F

204-2A

204-2B

204-2C

204-2D

D- 3


Specimen4,929 4,884 25.1 20,352 5

4,735 4,627 25.3 19,618 5

5,618 25.4 19,761 5

5,087 4,458 25.5 5

6,848 6,637 25.8 19,706 5

6,444 6,135 25.8 5

6,325 6,730 25.8 19,654 5

6,571 6,350 25.8 19,752 5

4,717 4,484 25.8 18,147 5

4,148 3,873 25.8 16,445 5

4,187 4,260 25.9 16,718 5

4,027 4,019 25.8 16,698 5

5,172 5,090 25.4 19,924 5

3,962 25.7 5

4,739 5,374 25.7 19,525 5

4,685 4,152 25.7 19,647 5

5,006 5,180 25.8 20,452 5

5,106 4,924 25.8 21,108 5

4,953 4,641 25.8 18,895 5

4,242 25.8 5

3,496 3,372 25.8 16,389 5

3,146 2,939 25.8 15,366 5

3,206 3,506 25.8 15,318 5

3,445 3,037 25.8 15,281 5

0.50 % Poly. 4

0.50 % Poly. 5

0.50 % Poly. 6

0.50 % Poly. 7

0.75 % CF D

0.75 % CF E

0.75 % CF F

0.75 % CF G

0.25 % CF D

0.25 % CF E

0.25 % CF F

0.25 % CF G

PG 76-22 A

PG 76-22 B

PG 76-22 C

PG 76-22 D

PG 70-22 A

PG 70-22 B

PG 70-22 C

PG 70-22 D

Neat A

Neat B

Neat C

Neat D

25°C 5°C

Mean Resilient Modulus

Trimmed Mean Resilient Modulus

Core Temp. (°C)

Resilient Modulus

Core Temp. (°C)

D- 4

Appendix E

Four-Point Beam Fatigue

E- 1

FIELD PRODUCED - INITIAL

Sample Number Micro Strain

Modulus @ 200 Cycles

(MPa)101-3A1 800 2199101-3A2 600 2124101-3A3 700 2056101-3B1 900 1119101-3B2 1,100 1213101-3B3 600 1460

102-3A1 800 1890102-3A2 1,100 1471102-3A3 500 1966102-3B1 700 1489102-3B2 1,000 1272102-3B3 400 1855

103-3A1 700 3203103-3A2 1,100 2313103-3A3 600 3092103-3B1 1,000 2283103-3B2 400 3071103-3B3 700 2167

104-4A1 800 1895104-4A2 500 2277104-4A3 1,000 1564104-4B1 600 2908104-4B2 500 3103104-4B3 1,000 2166

105-3A1 800 2382105-3A2 600 3020105-3A3 400 2980105-3B1 700 2356105-3B2 900 1950105-3B3 500 2840

Sample Number Micro Strain201-5A1 650 1658201-5A2 850 1425201-5A3 1,000 1385201-5B1 750 1964201-5B2 950 1793201-5B3 550 2024

202-1A1 800 2220202-1A2 950 1783202-1A3 600 2144202-1B1 750 2007202-1B2 950 2239202-1B3 550 2962

E- 2

Sample Number Micro StrainModulus @ 200 Cycles

(MPa)203-2A1 750 2302203-2A2 950 1819203-2A3 550 2625203-2B1 750 2427203-2B2 1,000 2183203-2B3 500 2793

204-5A1 750 2598204-5A2 550 2676204-5A3 450 2555204-5B1 800 2152204-5B2 600 2534204-5B3 450 2724

ain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@700 Average difference**600 715 701 708700

**NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was my=-0.5447x+2444.1

600700

y(B) Microstr14091355

ade, used in analysisy(A)

21242056

101

y = -0.68x + 2532R2 = 1

y = -0.5447x + 1736.1R2 = 0.6058

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)

101 A Series101 B SeriesLinear (101 A Series)Linear (101 B Series)

E- 3

102

y = -0.825x + 2435.7R2 = 0.862

y = -0.7233x + 1995.3R2 = 1

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


103

y = -1.7486x + 4268.2R2 = 0.9099

y = -1.3133x + 3426.3R2 = 0.6416

0500

10001500

2000250030003500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


104

y = -1.8686x + 4033.7R2 = 0.9999

y = -1.4139x + 2996R2 = 0.9946

0500

10001500

2000250030003500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)

104 A Series104 B SeriesLinear (104 B Series)Linear (104 A Series)

E- 4

y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Average difference**2605 600 416 223 3192160 800

y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made, used in analysis3020 600 y=-2.225x+4258.52382 800

105

y = -2.225x + 3939.5R2 = 0.9974

y = -1.495x + 3691R2 = 0.7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


201

y = -0.5775x + 2360.1R2 = 0.9285

y = -0.8008x + 2156.7R2 = 0.9097

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 5

202

y = -1.8075x + 3758.3R2 = 0.5267

y = -0.9551x + 2797.2R2 = 0.516

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


203

y = -1.22x + 3382.7R2 = 0.9868

y = -2.015x + 3759.9R2 = 0.987

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 6


y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in analysis2676 550 y=-1.6492x+37092598 750

204

y = -1.6492x + 3487R2 = 0.9881

y = 0.0671x + 2570.5R2 = 0.028

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 7

FIELD PRODUCED - 1/4 CYCLE COUNT


Modulus @ 1/4 Cycle Count

(MPa)

101-3A1 800 1453101-3A2 600 1256101-3A3 700 1309101-3B1 900 739101-3B2 1,100 800101-3B3 600 994

102-3A1 800 1248102-3A2 1,100 1100102-3A3 500 1170102-3B1 700 935102-3B2 1,000 872102-3B3 400

103-3A1 700 2228103-3A2 1,100 1650103-3A3 600 2050103-3B1 1,000 1560103-3B2 400 2003103-3B3 700 1442

104-4A1 800 1367104-4A2 500 1543104-4A3 1,000 1167104-4B1 600 1915104-4B2 500 2200104-4B3 1,000 1538

105-3A1 800 1749105-3A2 600 1994105-3A3 400 1747105-3B1 700 1603105-3B2 900 1384105-3B3 500 1833


202-1A1 800 1470202-1A2 950 1233202-1A3 600 1427202-1B1 750 1335202-1B2 950 1546202-1B3 550 1881

E- 8

Sample Number Micro Strain Modulus @ 1/4 Cycle Count

(MPa)203-2A1 750 1582203-2A2 950 1256203-2A3 550 1677203-2B1 750 1675203-2B2 1,000 1654203-2B3 500 1785

204-5A1 750 1789204-5A2 550 1763204-5A3 450 1662204-5B1 800 1498204-5B2 600 1629204-5B3 450 1791

y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@700 Average difference**

958 600 299 394 346915 700

y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in analysis1256 600 y=-0.4245x+1558.21309 700

101

y = 0.53x + 938R2 = 1

y = -0.4245x + 1212.2R2 = 0.6436

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 9

102y = -0.1167x + 1266

R2 = 0.2235

y = -0.21x + 1082R2 = 1

0200400600800

100012001400

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)

102 A Series

102 B Series

Linear (102 ASeries)Linear (102 BSeries)

103

y = -0.9843x + 2763.4R2 = 0.7739

y = -0.7383x + 2185.2R2 = 0.5608

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 500 1,000 1,500


104

y = -1.215x + 2734.8R2 = 0.9371

y = -0.7389x + 1925.5R2 = 0.9771

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa) 104 A Series

104 B Series

Linear (104 BSeries)Linear (104 ASeries)

E- 10



105

y = -1.1225x + 2392.4R2 = 0.9998

y = 0.005x + 1827R2 = 5E-05

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


201

y = -0.2875x + 1615.6R2 = 0.6474

y = -0.4138x + 1401.5R2 = 0.907

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


E- 11

202

y = -0.8375x + 2215.5R2 = 0.3701

y = -0.5127x + 1778.3R2 = 0.5084

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000


203

y = -0.262x + 1901.2R2 = 0.8667

y = -1.0525x + 2294.4R2 = 0.9088

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


E- 12



204

y = -0.8273x + 2149.5R2 = 0.9796

y = 0.3814x + 1515.5R2 = 0.7542

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000


E- 13




(MPa)

101-3A1 800 1278101-3A2 600 1139101-3A3 700 1170101-3B1 900 652101-3B2 1,100 692101-3B3 600 911

102-3A1 800 1099102-3A2 1,100 913102-3A3 500 1077102-3B1 700 837102-3B2 1,000 759102-3B3 400

103-3A1 700 1933103-3A2 1,100 1410103-3A3 600 1808103-3B1 1,000 1353103-3B2 400 1771103-3B3 700 1265

104-4A1 800 1211104-4A2 500 1397104-4A3 1,000 1061104-4B1 600 1688104-4B2 500 1943104-4B3 1,000 1311

105-3A1 800 1541105-3A2 600 1736105-3A3 400 1613105-3B1 700 1397105-3B2 900 1214105-3B3 500 1632


202-1A1 800 1297202-1A2 950 1072202-1A3 600 1304202-1B1 750 1197202-1B2 950 1371202-1B3 550 1681

E- 14

Sample Number Micro StrainModulus @

1/2 Cycle Count (MPa)

203-2A1 750 1379203-2A2 950 1094203-2A3 550 1520203-2B1 750 1487203-2B2 1,000 1417203-2B3 500 1601

204-5A1 750 1574204-5A2 550 1589204-5A3 450 1521204-5B1 800 1315204-5B2 600 1479204-5B3 450 1597

y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@700 Average difference **

877 600 262 340 301830 700


101

y = 0.31x + 953R2 = 1

y = -0.4716x + 1160.4R2 = 0.7245

0200400600800

100012001400

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 15

102

y = -0.2733x + 1248.3R2 = 0.651

y = -0.26x + 1019R2 = 1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


103

y = -0.9421x + 2470.7R2 = 0.833

y = -0.6967x + 1950.7R2 = 0.5977

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 500 1,000 1,500


104

y = -1.1721x + 2467.8R2 = 0.9513

y = -0.6679x + 1735.1R2 = 0.9972

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 16

y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Average difference **1519 600 217 231 2241310 800


105

y = -1.045x + 2145.8R2 = 0.9949

y = -0.18x + 1738R2 = 0.1333

0

500

1000

1500

2000

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


201

y = -0.475x + 1615.6R2 = 0.9591

y = -0.3573x + 1256.1R2 = 0.8064

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


E- 17

202

y = -0.775x + 1997.6R2 = 0.3997

y = -0.6289x + 1717R2 = 0.7002

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

0 200 400 600 800 1,000


203

y = -0.368x + 1777.7R2 = 0.9813

y = -1.065x + 2129.8R2 = 0.9633

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


E- 18


y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in analysis1589 550 y=-0.8065x+21061574 750

204

y = -0.8065x + 1961R2 = 0.9999

y = 0.1407x + 1479.3R2 = 0.362

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 200 400 600 800 1,000


E- 19




(MPa)

101-3A1 800 1174101-3A2 600 1070101-3A3 700 1088101-3B1 900 600101-3B2 1,100 628101-3B3 600 851

102-3A1 800 1012102-3A2 1,100 791102-3A3 500 1023102-3B1 700 781102-3B2 1,000 693102-3B3 400

103-3A1 700 1735103-3A2 1,100 1260103-3A3 600 1648103-3B1 1,000 1228103-3B2 400 1655103-3B3 700 1165

104-4A1 800 1111104-4A2 500 1291104-4A3 1,000 941104-4B1 600 1554104-4B2 500 1746104-4B3 1,000 1186

105-3A1 800 1365105-3A2 600 1605105-3A3 400 1535105-3B1 700 1254105-3B2 900 1114105-3B3 500 1519


202-1A1 800 1205202-1A2 950 968202-1A3 600 1201202-1B1 750 1093202-1B2 950 1240202-1B3 550 1572

E- 20



(MPa)203-2A1 750 1266203-2A2 950 978203-2A3 550 1422203-2B1 750 1329203-2B2 1,000 1269203-2B3 500 1469

204-5A1 750 1425204-5A2 550 1461204-5A3 450 1389204-5B1 800 1156204-5B2 600 1373204-5B3 450 1461

y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@700 Average difference **

820 600 250 315 283773 700


101

y = 0.18x + 962R2 = 1

y = -0.4768x + 1106.3R2 = 0.7612

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 21

102

y = -0.3867x + 1251.3R2 = 0.7855

y = -0.2933x + 986.33R2 = 1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


103

y = -0.8936x + 2262.5R2 = 0.8739

y = -0.7117x + 1847.5R2 = 0.6414

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0 500 1,000 1,500


104

y = -1.0629x + 2239.3R2 = 0.9765

y = -0.6921x + 1644.9R2 = 0.9903

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


E- 22



105

y = -1.0125x + 2004.4R2 = 0.9692

y = -0.425x + 1756.7R2 = 0.4743

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Micro Strain

Initi

al M

odul

us (M

Pa)


201

y = -0.535x + 1532.9R2 = 0.9656

y = -0.2438x + 1062.5R2 = 0.7259

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


E- 23

202

y = -0.83x + 1924.2R2 = 0.4576

y = -0.6286x + 1617.1R2 = 0.6618

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

0 200 400 600 800 1,000


203

y = -0.4x + 1655.7R2 = 0.9494

y = -1.11x + 2054.5R2 = 0.9714

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


E- 24


y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in analysis1461 550 y=0.883x+1945.51425 750

204

y = -0.883x + 1874.5R2 = 0.9755

y = 0.0771x + 1380R2 = 0.1071

0200400600800

1000120014001600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000


E- 25

FIELD PRODUCED - TERMINATION



(MPa)

101-3A1 800 1,100101-3A2 600 1,021101-3A3 700 1,030101-3B1 900 564101-3B2 1,100 612101-3B3 600 730

102-3A1 800 949102-3A2 1,100 735102-3A3 500 985102-3B1 700 740102-3B2 1,000 646102-3B3 400

103-3A1 700 1,601103-3A2 1,100 1,151103-3A3 600 1,544103-3B1 1,000 1,138103-3B2 400 1,536103-3B3 700 1,083

104-4A1 800 946104-4A2 500 1,136104-4A3 1,000 781104-4B1 600 1,459104-4B2 500 1,549104-4B3 1,000 1,057

105-3A1 800 1,191105-3A2 600 1,510105-3A3 400 1,480105-3B1 700 1,178105-3B2 900 976105-3B3 500 1,420

Sample Number Micro Strain201-5A1 650 829201-5A2 850 713201-5A3 1,000 693201-5B1 750 982201-5B2 950 897201-5B3 550 1,011

E- 26



(MPa) 202-1A1 800 1,110202-1A2 950 891202-1A3 600 1,072202-1B1 750 1,004202-1B2 950 1,120202-1B3 550 1,481

203-2A1 750 1,150203-2A2 950 909203-2A3 550 1,313203-2B1 750 1,214203-2B2 1,000 1,092203-2B3 500 1,396

204-5A1 750 1,299204-5A2 550 1,339204-5A3 450 1,277204-5B1 800 1,077204-5B2 600 1,266204-5B3 450 1,362

y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@700 Average difference**

705 600 316 351 334679 700

y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in analysis1,021 600 y=-0.2611x+1195.581,030 700

101

y = -0.2611x + 861.58R2 = 0.5915

y = 0.09x + 967R2 = 1

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 500 1,000 1,500

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)

101 A SeriesTermination101 B SeriesTerminationLinear (101 B SeriesTermination)Linear (101 A SeriesTermination)

E- 27

102

y = -0.4167x + 1223R2 = 0.8554

y = -0.3133x + 959.33R2 = 1

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 500 1,000 1,500

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)102 A SeriesTermination

102 B Series Termination

Linear (102 A SeriesTermination)

Linear (102 B SeriesTermination)

103

y = -0.6633x + 1716.7R2 = 0.6481

y = -0.8829x + 2138.3R2 = 0.9088

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0 500 1,000 1,500

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)


104

y = -0.99x + 2048R2 = 0.9997

y = -0.7039x + 1494R2 = 0.9945

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

0 500 1,000 1,500

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)


E- 28



105

y = -1.11x + 1968.3R2 = 0.9973

y = -0.7225x + 1827.2R2 = 0.6729

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)


201

y = -0.285x + 1177.1R2 = 0.9256

y = -0.3989x + 1077.4R2 = 0.91

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

0 500 1,000 1,500

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)

201 A Series

201 B Series

Linear (201 B Series)

Linear (201 A Series)

E- 29

202

y = -0.9025x + 1878.5R2 = 0.5265

y = -0.4789x + 1399.5R2 = 0.5164

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)

202 A Series

202 B Series



203

y = -0.608x + 1690R2 = 0.9872

y = -1.01x + 1881.5R2 = 0.9877

0

200400

600

800

1,0001,200

1,400

1,600

0 500 1,000 1,500

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)

203 A Series

203 B Series



E- 30



204

y = 0.0343x + 1285R2 = 0.0278

y = -0.8214x + 1741.5R2 = 0.9892

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Micro Strain

Term

inal

Mod

ulus

(MPa

)


E- 31

Air Void Correction - Initial Modulus values from regression equations

%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400

microstrainy@400,8.3AV

y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,8.3%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,8.3%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,8.3%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,8.3%AV

101 slab A 7.88 2226 n/a 2117 n/a 2008 n/a 1899 n/a 1790 n/a

101 slab B 9.06 n/a 1518 n/a 1409 n/a 1300 n/a 1191 n/a 1082















at 7.955% AV 2601 at 7.955% AV 2278 at 7.955% AV 1954



at 8.595% AV 2608 at 8.595% AV 2279 at 8.595% AV 1949

1538

1456 1323 1193 1060 928

1974 1865 1756 1647

2178

2512 2221 1930 1638 1346

3585 3233 2881 2530

1492

2047 1920 1791 1664 1536

3272 2827 2382 1937

1612

3021 2437 1852 1267 683

2803 2505 2207 1910

20563375 3045 2716 2386

E-32

Air Void Correction - 1/4 Cycle Count Modulus values from regression equations

%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,8.3%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,8.3%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,8.3%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,8.3%AV

















at 7.955% AV 1704 at 7.955% AV 1572 at 7.955% AV 1441



at 8.595% AV 1735 at 8.595% AV 1570 at 8.595% AV 1404

926

860 806 752 699 645

1265 1181 1096 1011

1591

1689 1532 1375 1219 1062

2382 2184 1985 1787

1230

1427 1362 1298 1233 1169

2128 1904 1679 1455

1193

1961 1570 1178 788 396

1766 1622 1479 1336

15622224 2058 1893 1727

E-33


%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,8.3%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,8.3%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,8.3%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,8.3%AV

















at 7.955% AV 1524 at 7.955% AV 1381 at 7.955% AV 1238



at 8.595% AV 1550 at 8.595% AV 1389 at 8.595% AV 1228

13511996 1835 1674 1513

1028

1787 1416 1044 671 299

1604 1461 1317 1172

1048

1339 1250 1162 1073 985

1884 1675 1466 1257

1345

1519 1375 1233 1089 946

2104 1914 1725 1536

788

775 725 674 624 574

1166 1071 977 883

E-34


%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,8.3%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,8.3%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,8.3%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,8.3%AV

















at 7.955% AV 1403 at 7.955% AV 1252 at 7.955% AV 1101



at 8.595% AV 1381 at 8.595% AV 1204 at 8.595% AV 1028

9901696 1520 1343 1167

904

1742 1358 974 590 205

1507 1356 1205 1055

921

1220 1129 1039 948 857

1731 1529 1326 1124

1195

1411 1266 1120 974 828

1913 1733 1555 1375

716

727 679 633 586 538

1098 1002 907 812

E-35

Air Void Correction - Terminal Modulus values from regression equations

%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400

microstrainy@400,8.3%AV

y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,8.3%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,8.3%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,8.3%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,8.3%AV

















at 7.955% AV 1301 at 7.955% AV 1139 at 7.955% AV 977



at 8.595% AV 1305 at 8.595% AV 1140 at 8.595% AV 976

10301687 1523 1358 1194

807

1513 1220 925 632 339

1402 1253 1104 955

747

1023 959 896 833 769

1635 1413 1191 969

1083

1254 1109 962 816 669

1793 1616 1438 1260

763

695 645 596 546 495

972 920 868 815

E-36


Initial Modulus of Elasticity,(200 Cycles)

MPa

1/4 Cycle Count Modulus

of Elasticity,MPa

1/2 Cycle Count Modulus of Elasticity,

MPa

3/4 Cycle Count Modulus of

Elasticity, MPa


MPa

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,865 1,181 1,071 1,002 920

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,323 860 725 679 645

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

3,233 2,382 1,914 1,733 1,616

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,221 1,689 1,375 1,266 1,109

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,827 1,904 1,675 1,529 1413


Initial Tensile Strain at the bottom of HMA layer

1/4 Cycle Count Tensile Strain






Terminal Tensile Strain


101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

0.00021928 0.00024730 0.00025207 0.00025501 0.00025839

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

0.00024115 0.00026272 0.00026570 0.00026657 0.00026732

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

0.00017854 0.00020803 0.00021747 0.00022430 0.00022892

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

0.00020680 0.00023234 0.00023892 0.00024361 0.00025043

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

0.00018876 0.00021784 0.00022657 0.00023246 0.00023731


Initial Nf

from AsphaltInstitute equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf from Asphalt Institute

equation


equation


equation

Terminal Nf

from Asphalt Institute equation

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

2,013,273 2,002,111 2,043,826 2,082,425 2,144,944

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,974,107 2,151,179 2,398,219 2,509,161 2,597,561

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,475,285 1,942,806 2,023,627 1,989,652 1,974,977

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,103,105 1,811,258 1,969,476 1,982,432 2,026,945

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,311,204 2,021,360 1,981,575 1,968,585 1,967,450


Initial Nf

from Illinois DOT

equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf from Illinois DOT equation



Terminal Nf

from Illinois DOT

equation101 (5.0% AC, 0%

Fiber)474,212 330,596 312,181 301,508 289,830

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

356,540 275,734 266,560 263,959 261,743

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

878,544 555,382 486,152 443,080 416,791

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

565,351 398,656 366,617 345,848 318,354

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

743,430 483,679 429,895 398,039 374,129


Initial Nf from WASH

DOT equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf from WASH DOT equation



Terminal Nf from WASH

DOT equation

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,465,513 1,457,388 1,487,753 1,515,850 1,561,360

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,437,003 1,565,898 1,745,725 1,826,482 1,890,831

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,801,823 1,414,218 1,473,050 1,448,318 1,437,636

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,530,904 1,318,461 1,433,632 1,443,062 1,475,465

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,682,384 1,471,400 1,442,439 1,432,983 1,432,157

E- 37



MPa


of Elasticity,MPa


MPa


Elasticity, MPa


MPa

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,756 1,096 977 907 868

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,193 752 674 633 596

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,881 1,985 1,725 1,555 1,438

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,930 1,375 1,233 1,120 962

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,382 1,679 1,466 1,326 1,191



1/4 Cycle Count Tensile Strain at the bottom of HMA layer



Terminal Tensile Strain at the bottom of HMA layer

101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

0.00022341 0.00025099 0.00025606 0.00025891 0.00026043

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

0.00024678 0.00026452 0.00026669 0.00026755 0.00026811

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

0.00018732 0.00021491 0.00022461 0.00023140 0.00023625

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

0.00021689 0.00023892 0.00024504 0.00024995 0.00025668

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

0.00020164 0.00022641 0.00023508 0.00024102 0.00024687


Initial Nf

from AsphaltInstitute equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf


1/2 Cycle Count Nf


3/4 Cycle Count Nf


Terminal Nf


101 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,993,286 2,032,463 2,099,266 2,156,854 2,196,621

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,998,698 2,358,789 2,521,311 2,632,096 2,752,021

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,332,200 2,039,605 1,988,471 1,969,848 1,966,969

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,027,029 1,969,476 1,988,973 2,022,662 2,110,326

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

2,152,881 1,982,145 1,966,713 1,973,792 1,999,164


Initial Nf

from Illinois DOT

equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf


1/2 Cycle Count Nf


3/4 Cycle Count Nf


Terminal Nf

from Illinois DOT


Fiber)448,396 316,228 297,814 288,087 283,072

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

332,690 270,143 263,603 261,069 259,436

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

760,707 503,733 441,248 403,534 379,188

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

490,062 366,617 339,828 320,192 295,661

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

609,874 430,807 384,878 357,117 332,327


Initial Nf

from WASH DOT

equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf

from WASH DOT equation

1/2 Cycle Count Nf


3/4 Cycle Count Nf


Terminal Nf

from WASH DOT


Fiber)1,450,964 1,479,482 1,528,110 1,570,029 1,598,977

102 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber)

1,454,903 1,717,023 1,835,327 1,915,970 2,003,266

103 (5.1% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,697,668 1,484,681 1,447,458 1,433,902 1,431,807

104 (5.3% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,475,526 1,433,632 1,447,824 1,472,347 1,536,160

105 (5.5% AC, 0.50% Fiber)

1,567,137 1,442,854 1,431,620 1,436,773 1,455,242

E- 38



MPa


of Elasticity,MPa


MPa


Elasticity, MPa


MPa

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,920 1,362 1,250 1,129 959

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,505 1,622 1,461 1,356 1,253

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,601 1,704 1,524 1,403 1,301

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 2,608 1,735 1,550 1,381 1,305








201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 0.00021725 0.00023948 0.00024430 0.00024956 0.00025680

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 0.00019788 0.00022868 0.00023529 0.00023973 0.00024417

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 0.00019506 0.00022543 0.00023267 0.00023773 0.00024210

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 0.00019486 0.00022422 0.00023160 0.00023867 0.00024193


Initial Nf from Asphalt Institute

equation


equation


equation


equation

Terminal Nf from Asphalt Institute

equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,024,959 1,970,280 1,985,514 2,019,234 2,112,710

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,194,066 1,975,544 1,966,672 1,970,943 1,984,927

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,227,495 1,985,426 1,968,242 1,967,934 1,976,835

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 2,229,904 1,990,028 1,969,665 1,968,938 1,976,223


Initial Nf from Illinois DOT equation


equation


equation


equation

Terminal Nf from Illinois DOT equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 487,630 364,051 342,925 321,696 295,247

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 645,304 418,105 383,848 362,913 343,473

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 673,698 436,450 396,962 372,150 352,359

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 675,775 443,554 402,489 367,770 353,103


Initial Nf from WASH DOT equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf from WASH DOT

equation


equation


equation

Terminal Nf from WASH DOT equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,474,019 1,434,217 1,445,306 1,469,852 1,537,895

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,597,117 1,438,049 1,431,591 1,434,700 1,444,879

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 1,621,450 1,445,242 1,432,733 1,432,509 1,438,989

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 1,623,204 1,448,592 1,433,769 1,433,240 1,438,543

E- 39

Series @800 Micro Strain


MPa


of Elasticity,MPa


MPa


Elasticity, MPa


MPa

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,791 1,298 1,162 1,039 896

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,207 1,479 1,317 1,205 1,104

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,278 1,572 1,381 1,252 1,139

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 2,279 1,570 1,389 1,204 1,140









201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 0.00022207 0.00024223 0.00024813 0.00025344 0.00025935

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 0.00020727 0.00023453 0.00024141 0.00024626 0.00025065

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 0.00020494 0.00023070 0.00023867 0.00024422 0.00024913

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 0.00020491 0.00023078 0.00023833 0.00024630 0.00024909



equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf


1/2 Cycle Count Nf



equation


equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,999,164 1,977,240 2,007,773 2,060,380 2,167,302

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 2,098,754 1,967,046 1,974,769 1,995,492 2,028,910

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 2,120,195 1,971,197 1,968,938 1,984,943 2,015,491

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 2,120,422 1,971,091 1,968,463 1,995,840 2,015,046


Initial Nf from Illinois DOT equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf


1/2 Cycle Count Nf



Terminal Nf from Illinois DOT

equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 456,563 351,792 327,290 307,146 286,623

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 561,514 387,592 355,389 334,802 317,517

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 580,885 407,218 367,770 343,262 323,364

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 581,140 406,795 369,346 334,639 323,520


Initial Nf from WASH DOT equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf


1/2 Cycle Count Nf



Terminal Nf from WASH DOT

equation

201 (5.0% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,455,242 1,439,284 1,461,509 1,499,803 1,577,635

202 (5.2% AC, 0% Fiber) 1,527,737 1,431,863 1,437,485 1,452,570 1,476,895

203 (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber) 1,543,344 1,434,885 1,433,240 1,444,891 1,467,127

204 (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber) 1,543,509 1,434,808 1,432,895 1,452,823 1,466,803

E- 40

LAB PRODUCED – INITIAL



(MPa)

Neat A1 800 2,893Neat A2 600 3,119Neat A3 400 3,177Neat B1 800 2,572Neat B2 600 3,627Neat B3 350 4,498

PG 70-22 A1 800 3,347PG 70-22 A2 500 4,240PG 70-22 A3 1,000 2,618PG 70-22 B1 800 2,952PG 70-22 B2 1,000 2,911PG 70-22 B3 600 3,689


0.25%CF A1 800 3,3970.25%CF A2 600 3,9860.25%CF A3 350 4,1270.25%CF B1 800 2,7350.25%CF B2 500 4,0350.25%CF B3 400 5,011


0.50%Poly. A1 800 2,6780.50%Poly. A2 600 3,6160.50%Poly. A3 400 4,4300.50%Poly. B1 700 3,0270.50%Poly. B2 500 3,6790.50%Poly. B3 450 2,968

E- 41

*In the Neat, PG 64-22 analysis, only the differences in the 800 and 600 microstrain modulus values were used Neat, PG 64-22y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Difference**

3,627 600 -508 321 -1872,572 800


Neat, PG 64-22: Microstrain vs. ModulusInitial

y = -4.2474x + 6043.3R2 = 0.9859

y = -0.71x + 3489R2 = 0.8955

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

Neat ANeat BLinear (Neat B)Linear (Neat A)

PG 70-22: Microstrain vs. ModulusInitial

y = -1.945x + 4740R2 = 0.7894

y = -3.2229x + 5872.6R2 = 0.9968

01,0002,000

3,0004,0005,000

0 500 1,000 1,500

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

PG 70-22 APG 70-22 BLinear (PG 70-22 B)Linear (PG 70-22 A)

E- 42

PG 76-22: Microstrain vs. ModulusInitial

y = -1.2133x + 3714.7R2 = 1

y = -2.2168x + 4490.4R2 = 0.8961

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Microstrain

Mod

ulus


0.25% Carbon Fibery(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Average Difference**

3748 600 238 725 4812672 800

y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in3,986 600 y=-5.3769x+7454.93,397 800

0.25% Carbon Fiber: Microstrain vs. ModulusInitial

y = -5.3769x + 6973.9R2 = 0.9609

y = -2.945x + 5753R2 = 1

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

0.25%CF A0.25%CF BLinear (0.25%CF B)Linear (0.25%CF A)

E- 43

0.75% Carbon Fiber: Microstrain vs. ModulusInitial

y = -4.98x + 6790.3R2 = 0.94

y = -4.875x + 6749.7R2 = 0.998

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

0.75% CF A0.75% CF BLinear (0.75% CF B)Linear (0.75% CF A)

0.50% Poly. Fiber: Microstrain vs. ModulusInitial

y = -3.26x + 5309R2 = 1

y = -4.38x + 6202.7R2 = 0.9983

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

0.50% BONI A0.50% BONI BLinear (0.50% BONI B)Linear (0.50% BONI A)

E- 44

LAB PRODUCED – ¼ CYCLE COUNT


1/4 Cycle CountModulus of Elasticity

(MPa)



PG 76-22 A1 800 1,574PG 76-22 A2 600 2,001PG 76-22 A3 1,100 1,379PG 76-22 B1 700PG 76-22 B2 1,100 1,500PG 76-22 B3 800 1,579

0.25%CF A1 800 2,3920.25%CF A2 600 2,7860.25%CF A3 3500.25%CF B1 800 1,8950.25%CF B2 500 2,8660.25%CF B3 400 4,036


0.50%Poly. A1 800 1,9220.50%Poly. A2 600 2,5050.50%Poly. A3 400 3,1340.50%Poly. B1 700 2,1550.50%Poly. B2 500 2,5180.50%Poly. B3 450 2,104

E- 45

Neat, PG 64-22y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Difference**

2,615 600 -501 203 -2981,794 800


*In the Neat, PG 64-22 analysis, only the differences in the 800 and 600 microstrain modulus values were used

Neat, PG 64-22 (1/4 Cycle Count)

y = -3.2484x + 4453.9R2 = 0.9833

y = -1.1575x + 2884.8R2 = 0.9246

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa


PG 70-22 (1/4 Cycle Count)

y = -1.1175x + 3029R2 = 0.8198

y = -1.5203x + 3400.9R2 = 0.9994

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

(MPa

)


E- 46


y = -0.2633x + 1789.7R2 = 1y = -1.1971x + 2648.9

R2 = 0.8968

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa



2770 600 16 595 3051797 800

y(A) **NOTE: A line parallel at this distance was made and used in analysis2,786 600 y=4.8642x+5993.72,392 800

0.25% Carbon Fiber (1/4 Cycle Count)

y = -1.97x + 3968R2 = 1

y = -4.8642x + 5688.7R2 = 0.8921

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa

0.25% Carbon Fiber A

0.25% Carbon Fiber B

Linear (0.25% CarbonFiber A)Linear (0.25% CarbonFiber B)

E- 47


y = -4.12x + 5318R2 = 0.98

y = -3.9975x + 5219.2R2 = 0.9894

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa 0.75% Carbon Fiber A


Linear (0.75% CarbonFiber B)Linear (0.75% CarbonFiber A)

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber (1/4 Cycle Count)

y = -1.815x + 3425.5R2 = 1

y = -3.03x + 4338.3R2 = 0.9995

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa

0.50% Poly. A0.50% Poly. BLinear (0.50% Poly. B)Linear (0.50% Poly. A)

E- 48

LAB PRODUCED – ½ CYCLE COUNT



(MPa)






0.50%BONI A1 800 1,6530.50%BONI A2 600 2,1610.50%BONI A3 400 2,7580.50%BONI B1 700 1,8490.50%BONI B2 500 2,1810.50%BONI B3 450 1,832

E- 49

Neat, PG 64-22y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Difference**

2272 600 -429 172 -2571572 800




y = -3.2498x + 4189.7R2 = 0.9986

y = -1.015x + 2521.3R2 = 0.9195

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa



y = -0.9625x + 2622R2 = 0.7305

y = -1.3879x + 3051.1R2 = 0.9976

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 500 1,000 1,500

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa


E- 50


y = -0.4333x + 1815.7R2 = 1y = -1.315x + 2603.5

R2 = 0.8765

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa



2408 600 -9 495 2431545 800



y = -1.795x + 3476R2 = 1

y = -4.3115x + 4994.5R2 = 0.8828

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa



Linear (0.25% CarbonFiber A)Linear (0.25% CarbonFiber B)

E- 51


y = -3.49x + 4572.2R2 = 0.9856

y = -3.0125x + 4200.5R2 = 0.9993

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa




0.50% Polypropylene (1/2 Cycle Count)

y = -1.66x + 3011R2 = 1

y = -2.7625x + 3848.2R2 = 0.9978

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa


E- 52

LAB PRODUCED – ¾ CYCLE COUNT



(MPa)







E- 53

Neat, PG 64-22y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Average Difference**

2025 600 -341 176 -1651388 800




y = -2.5854x + 3499.2R2 = 0.987

y = -0.895x + 2260.3R2 = 0.9651

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa



y = -0.97x + 2473.3R2 = 0.7732

y = -1.4516x + 2968.2R2 = 0.9914

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 500 1,000 1,500

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa


E- 54


y = -0.56x + 1855R2 = 1

y = -1.2929x + 2496.1R2 = 0.8402

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0 500 1,000 1,500

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa



2096 600 73 446 2591393 800



y = -3.515x + 4204.5R2 = 0.9108

y = -1.65x + 3158R2 = 1

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa




E- 55


y = -3.1686x + 4094.4R2 = 0.9612

y = -2.6825x + 3738.8R2 = 0.9998

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa




0.50% Polypropylene Fiber (3/4 Cycle Count)

y = -1.71x + 2835R2 = 1

y = -2.6225x + 3555.8R2 = 0.9993

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

of E

last

icity

, MPa


E- 56

LAB PRODUCED – TERMINATION



(MPa)







E- 57

Neat, PG 64-22y(B) Microstrain y(A-B)@600 y(A-B)@800 Average Difference**

1811 600 -262 165 -971277 800



Neat, PG 64-22: Microstrain vs. Modulus(Terminal)

y = -2.1433x + 3029.2R2 = 0.9854

y = -0.345x + 1730.7R2 = 0.9082

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Term

inat

ion

Mod

ulus

of

Ela

stic

ity, M

Pa


PG 70-22: Microstrain vs. Modulus(Terminal)

y = -0.955x + 2339.7R2 = 0.7696

y = -1.5961x + 2907R2 = 0.9943

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 500 1,000 1,500

Microstrain

Mod

ulus


E- 58

PG 76-22: Microstrain vs. Modulus(Terminal)

y = -0.6267x + 1873.3R2 = 1

y = -1.1061x + 2236.7R2 = 0.8941

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0 500 1,000 1,500

Microstrain

Mod

ulus



1867 600 112 374 2431322 800


0.25% Carbon Fiber: Microstrain vs. Modulus(Terminal)

y = -2.7223x + 3500.3R2 = 0.9613

y = -1.415x + 2828R2 = 1

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus




E- 59

0.75% Carbon Fiber: Microstrain vs. Modulus(Terminal)

y = -2.4471x + 3352.9R2 = 0.933

y = -2.435x + 3357.7R2 = 0.9981

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus




0.50% Polypropylene Fiber: Microstrain vs. Modulus (Terminal)

y = -1.715x + 2693.5R2 = 1

y = -2.2175x + 3110.2R2 = 0.9974

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Microstrain

Mod

ulus

0.50% BONI Fiber A

0.50% BONI Fiber B

Linear (0.50% BONIFiber B)Linear (0.50% BONIFiber A)

E- 60

Air Void Correction - Initial Modulus values from regression equations

%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400

microstrainy@400,?%AV

y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,?%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,?%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,?%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,?%AV

Neat slab A 7.20 4157 n/a 3308 n/a 2458 n/a 1609 n/a 759 n/a

Neat slab B 7.21 n/a 4344 n/a 3495 n/a 2645 n/a 1796 n/a 946

at 7.205%AV at 7.205%AV at 7.205%AV at 7.205%AV at 7.205%AV

PG 70-22 A 7.34 4583 n/a 3939 n/a 3294 n/a 2650 n/a 2005 n/a

PG 70-22 B 7.69 n/a 3962 n/a 3573 n/a 3184 n/a 2795 n/a 2406


PG 76-22 A 7.05 3604 n/a 3160 n/a 2717 n/a 2274 n/a 1830 n/a

PG 76-22 B 6.49 n/a 3229 n/a 2987 n/a 2744 n/a 2501 n/a 2259


0.25%CF A 6.81 5304 n/a 4229 n/a 3153 n/a 2078 n/a 1003 n/a

0.25%CF B 6.82 n/a 4823 n/a 3748 n/a 2672 n/a 1597 n/a 522


0.75%CF A 7.51 4800 n/a 3825 n/a 2850 n/a 1875 n/a 900 n/a

0.75%CF B 6.90 n/a 4798 n/a 3802 n/a 2806 n/a 1810 n/a 814


0.50%Poly. A 5.27 4451 n/a 3575 n/a 2699 n/a 1823 n/a 947 n/a

0.50%Poly. B 4.93 n/a 4005 n/a 3353 n/a 2701 n/a 2049 n/a 1397

at 5.1% AV at 5.1% AV at 5.1% AV at 5.1% AV at 5.1% AV

858

4228 3464 2700 1936 1172

4799 3814 2828 1843

2045

5064 3989 2913 1838 763

3417 3074 2731 2388

853

4264 3751 3237 2725 2211

4251 3402 2552 1703

E-61


%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,?%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,?%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,?%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,?%AV




PG 70-22 A 7.34 2793 n/a 2489 n/a 2185 n/a 1881 n/a 1577 n/a

PG 70-22 B 7.69 n/a 2582 n/a 2359 n/a 2135 n/a 1912 n/a 1688


PG 76-22 A 7.05 2170 n/a 1931 n/a 1691 n/a 1452 n/a 1212 n/a

PG 76-22 B 6.49 n/a 1684 n/a 1632 n/a 1579 n/a 1526 n/a 1474


0.25%CF A 6.81 4048 n/a 3075 n/a 2102 n/a 1130 n/a 157 n/a

0.25%CF B 6.82 n/a 3743 n/a 2770 n/a 1797 n/a 824 n/a -148


0.75%CF A 7.51 3620 n/a 2821 n/a 2021 n/a 1222 n/a 422 n/a

0.75%CF B 6.90 n/a 3670 n/a 2846 n/a 2022 n/a 1198 n/a 374





407

2684 2422 2159 1897 1624

3006 2356 1706 1057

1343

3896 2923 1950 977

1927 1782 1635 1489

398

2913 2429 1944 1460 975

3645 2833 2021 1210

E-62


%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,?%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,?%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,?%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,?%AV




PG 70-22 A 7.34 2496 n/a 2218 n/a 1941 n/a 1663 n/a 1386 n/a

PG 70-22 B 7.69 n/a 2237 n/a 2045 n/a 1852 n/a 1660 n/a 1467


PG 76-22 A 7.05 2078 n/a 1815 n/a 1552 n/a 1289 n/a 1026 n/a

PG 76-22 B 6.49 n/a 1642 n/a 1556 n/a 1469 n/a 1382 n/a 1296


0.25%CF A 6.81 3513 n/a 2651 n/a 1788 n/a 926 n/a 64 n/a

0.25%CF B 6.82 n/a 3270 n/a 2408 n/a 1545 n/a 683 n/a -179


0.75%CF A 7.51 2996 n/a 2393 n/a 1791 n/a 1188 n/a 586 n/a

0.75%CF B 6.90 n/a 3176 n/a 2478 n/a 1780 n/a 1082 n/a 384





487

2545 2103 1661 1219 786

3085 2435 1786 1136

1161

3392 2530 1667 805

1860 1686 1511 1336

162

2363 2129 1895 1661 1428

2762 2112 1462 812

E-63


%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,?%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,?%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,?%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,?%AV




PG 70-22 A 7.34 2388 n/a 2097 n/a 1807 n/a 1517 n/a 1226 n/a

PG 70-22 B 7.69 n/a 2085 n/a 1891 n/a 1697 n/a 1503 n/a 1309


PG 76-22 A 7.05 1979 n/a 1720 n/a 1462 n/a 1203 n/a 945 n/a

PG 76-22 B 6.49 n/a 1631 n/a 1519 n/a 1407 n/a 1295 n/a 1183


0.25%CF A 6.81 3058 n/a 2355 n/a 1652 n/a 949 n/a 246 n/a

0.25%CF B 6.82 n/a 2799 n/a 2096 n/a 1393 n/a 690 n/a -14


0.75%CF A 7.51 2666 n/a 2129 n/a 1593 n/a 1056 n/a 520 n/a

0.75%CF B 6.90 n/a 2827 n/a 2193 n/a 1560 n/a 926 n/a 292





408

2329 1896 1463 1029 596

2745 2160 1577 992

1064

2929 2226 1523 820

1805 1620 1435 1249

315

2232 1991 1750 1510 1269

2383 1866 1349 832

E-64

Air Void Correction - Terminal Modulus values from regression equations

%AVy1@400

microstrainy2@400


y1@600microstrain

y2@600microstrain

y@600,?%AV

y1@800microstrain

y2@800microstrain

y@800,?%AV

y1@1000microstrain

y2@1000microstrain

y@1000,?%AV

y1@1200microstrain

y2@1200microstrain

y@1200,?%AV




PG 70-22 A 7.34 2269 n/a 1949 n/a 1630 n/a 1311 n/a 992 n/a

PG 70-22 B 7.69 n/a 1958 n/a 1767 n/a 1576 n/a 1385 n/a 1194


PG 76-22 A 7.05 1794 n/a 1573 n/a 1352 n/a 1131 n/a 909 n/a

PG 76-22 B 6.49 n/a 1623 n/a 1497 n/a 1372 n/a 1247 n/a 1121


0.25%CF A 6.81 2654 n/a 2110 n/a 1565 n/a 1021 n/a 477 n/a

0.25%CF B 6.82 n/a 2411 n/a 1867 n/a 1322 n/a 778 n/a 234


0.75%CF A 7.51 2384 n/a 1897 n/a 1410 n/a 923 n/a 436 n/a

0.75%CF B 6.90 n/a 2374 n/a 1885 n/a 1395 n/a 906 n/a 416





426

2116 1723 1329 936 543

2379 1891 1403 915

1015

2533 1989 1444 900 356

1709 1535 1362 1189

409

2109 1855 1602 1349 1096

2124 1695 1267 838

E-65



MPa


of Elasticity,MPa


MPa


Elasticity, MPa


MPa

Neat, PG 64-22 3,402 2,356 2,112 1,866 1,695

PG 70-22 3,751 2,422 2,129 1,991 1,855

PG 76-22 3,074 1,782 1,686 1,620 1,535

0.25% Carbon Fiber 3,989 2,923 2,530 2,226 1,989

0.75% Carbon Fiber 3,814 2,833 2,435 2,160 1,891

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 3,464 2,429 2,103 1,896 1,723









Neat, PG 64-22 0.00017466 0.00020246 0.00021046 0.00021924 0.00022578

PG 70-22 0.00016724 0.00020040 0.00020988 0.00021469 0.00021965

PG 76-22 0.00018239 0.00022241 0.00022614 0.00022876 0.00023222

0.25% Carbon Fiber 0.00016259 0.00018622 0.00019714 0.00020664 0.00021476

0.75% Carbon Fiber 0.00016598 0.00018860 0.00020000 0.00020884 0.00021832

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 0.00017328 0.00020019 0.00021077 0.00021813 0.00022469



equation

1/4 Cycle Count Nf from Asphalt

Institute equation


Institute equation


Institute equation


equation

Neat, PG 64-22 2,547,595 2,144,322 2,072,290 2,013,560 1,984,268

PG 70-22 2,703,685 2,166,008 2,076,928 2,041,224 2,011,347

PG 76-22 2,409,000 1,997,700 1,982,886 1,975,352 1,968,693

0.25% Carbon Fiber 2,814,767 2,348,636 2,202,529 2,104,423 2,040,786

0.75% Carbon Fiber 2,732,672 2,313,470 2,170,353 2,085,258 2,018,547

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 2,574,955 2,168,144 2,069,811 2,019,779 1,988,110



equation


equation


equation


equation


equation

Neat, PG 64-22 938,404 602,493 536,366 474,472 434,424

PG 70-22 1,068,931 621,265 540,825 505,283 471,820

PG 76-22 824,075 454,472 432,352 417,667 399,274

0.25% Carbon Fiber 1,163,291 774,268 652,598 566,666 504,789

0.75% Carbon Fiber 1,093,460 745,324 625,000 548,945 480,496



Initial Nf from WASH DOT

equation


equation


equation


equation


equation

Neat, PG 64-22 1,854,460 1,560,907 1,508,473 1,465,722 1,444,399

PG 70-22 1,968,081 1,576,693 1,511,849 1,485,859 1,464,111

PG 76-22 1,753,572 1,454,176 1,443,394 1,437,909 1,433,062

0.25% Carbon Fiber 2,048,941 1,709,632 1,603,277 1,531,864 1,485,540

0.75% Carbon Fiber 1,989,182 1,684,034 1,579,855 1,517,913 1,469,352


E-66



MPa


of Elasticity,MPa


MPa


Elasticity, MPa


MPa

Neat, PG 64-22 2,552 1,706 1,462 1,349 1,267

PG 70-22 3,237 2,159 1,895 1,750 1,602

PG 76-22 2,731 1,635 1,511 1,435 1,362

0.25% Carbon Fiber 2,913 1,950 1,667 1,523 1,444

0.75% Carbon Fiber 2,828 2,021 1,786 1,577 1,403











Neat, PG 64-22 0.00019649 0.00022535 0.00023525 0.00024003 0.00024357

PG 70-22 0.00017845 0.00020887 0.00021817 0.00022364 0.00022949

PG 76-22 0.00019138 0.00022816 0.00023321 0.00023638 0.00023948

0.25% Carbon Fiber 0.00018648 0.00021616 0.00022689 0.00023271 0.00023600

0.75% Carbon Fiber 0.00018873 0.00021363 0.00022226 0.00023050 0.00023773

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber 0.00019224 0.00021638 0.00022712 0.00023520 0.00024089



equation


equation


equation


equation


equation

Neat, PG 64-22 2,210,195 1,985,756 1,966,623 1,971,542 1,982,166

PG 70-22 2,476,780 2,085,097 2,019,470 1,992,362 1,973,490

PG 76-22 2,274,835 1,976,878 1,967,625 1,966,916 1,970,280

0.25% Carbon Fiber 2,344,729 2,031,679 1,980,473 1,968,231 1,966,828

0.75% Carbon Fiber 2,311,715 2,048,416 1,998,310 1,971,478 1,967,934




equation


equation



equation


equationNeat, PG 64-22 659,096 436,915 384,044 361,554 346,018

PG 70-22 879,874 548,709 481,487 447,014 413,694

PG 76-22 713,313 420,970 394,211 378,563 364,051

0.25% Carbon Fiber 771,033 495,044 428,079 396,757 380,394

0.75% Carbon Fiber 743,785 512,842 455,393 408,279 372,150



Initial Nf from WASH DOT

equation


equation



equation


equationNeat, PG 64-22 1,608,858 1,445,482 1,431,555 1,435,136 1,442,869

PG 70-22 1,802,911 1,517,795 1,470,024 1,450,291 1,436,553

PG 76-22 1,655,910 1,439,020 1,432,285 1,431,768 1,434,217

0.25% Carbon Fiber 1,706,788 1,478,911 1,441,637 1,432,726 1,431,704

0.75% Carbon Fiber 1,682,756 1,491,094 1,454,621 1,435,089 1,432,509


E-67

Appendix F

Asphalt Pavement Analyzer

F- 1

*Regression was performed on the linear part of the rut curve. Approximately the last 4000 APA load cycles were chosen for use in analysis to determine cycles at 7

mm depth.

SUMMARY OUTPUT 101-1Rut Depth Cycles

Regression Statistics 7 8622Multiple R 0.994899934R Square 0.989825878Adjusted R Square 0.989823334Standard Error 0.045862625Observations 4001

ANOVAdf SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 818.3349226 818.3349226 389057.0264 0Residual 3999 8.411418208 0.00210338Total 4000 826.7463408

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-valueIntercept 3.624037163 0.003835738 944.8082142 0X Variable 1 0.000391565 6.27764E-07 623.7443598 0

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%3.61651698 3.631557346 3.61651698 3.631557346

0.000390334 0.000392795 0.000390334 0.000392795

SUMMARY OUTPUT 102-1Rut Depth Cycle Count

Regression Statistics 7 11955Multiple R 0.997641539R Square 0.99528864Adjusted R Square 0.995287462Standard Error 0.029147076Observations 4001




Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%2.611217248 2.620775852 2.611217248 2.6207758520.000365917 0.000367481 0.000365917 0.000367481

F- 2


Regression Statistics 6.6733 12535.00017Multiple R 0.999085209 7 13489R Square 0.998171255Adjusted R Square 0.998170798Standard Error 0.016932986Observations 4001





SUMMARY OUTPUT 104-1

Rut Depth Cycle CountRegression Statistics 5.5089 12350

Multiple R 0.99931607 7 17332R Square 0.998632607Adjusted R Square 0.998632265Standard Error 0.012794679Observations 4001





F- 3


Regression Statistics 5.5089 10968Multiple R 0.996697409 7 15303R Square 0.993405725Adjusted R Square 0.993404076Standard Error 0.032369905Observations 4001





SUMMARY OUTPUT: MIDDLE 201-1

MIDDLE

Regression Statistics Rut DepthCycles from Regression

Cycles from Testing

Multiple R 0.993154744 6.5547 19774 20000R Square 0.986356345 7 22751 N/AAdjusted R Square 0.986072103Standard Error 0.025906345Observations 50


Regression 1 2.328931123 2.328931123 3470.118958 1.99645E-46Residual 48 0.032214658 0.000671139Total 49 2.361145781

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-valueIntercept 3.597438487 0.044706329 80.46821431 7.30191E-53

15000 0.000149555 2.5388E-06 58.90771561 1.99645E-46Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

3.50755044 3.687326534 3.50755044 3.6873265340.00014445 0.00015466 0.00014445 0.00015466

F- 4

SUMMARY OUTPUT: RIGHT 201-1RIGHT

Regression Statistics Rut DepthCycles from Regression

Cycles from Testing

Multiple R 0.996994027 5.6813 19777 20000R Square 0.99399709 7 29458 N/AAdjusted R Square 0.99387203Standard Error 0.015589927Observations 50





2.933459478 3.041645185 2.933459478 3.0416451850.000133135 0.000139279 0.000133135 0.000139279

SUMMARY OUTPUT Neat, Unmodified

Rut DepthCycles from Regression

Cycles from Testing

Regression Statistics 8.78963 7804 8000Multiple R 0.997103218 7 4575 4620R Square 0.994214826Adjusted R Square 0.994094302Standard Error 0.049815097Observations 50





4.389021675 4.53992021 4.389021675 4.539920210.000541968 0.000566507 0.000541968 0.000566507

F- 5

SUMMARY OUTPUT PG 70-22


Cycles from Testing

Regression Statistics 5.33991 7732 8000Multiple R 0.991806718 7 11229 N/AR Square 0.983680565Adjusted R Square 0.983340577Standard Error 0.072049456Observations 50





1.559971273 1.778221521 1.559971273 1.7782215210.000456997 0.000492489 0.000456997 0.000492489

SUMMARY OUTPUT PG 76-22


Cycles from Testing

Regression Statistics 2.76569 7863 8000Multiple R 0.997374184 7 29198 N/AR Square 0.994755263Adjusted R Square 0.994645997Standard Error 0.016979793Observations 50





1.179498631 1.230933359 1.179498631 1.2309333590.000194282 0.000202646 0.000194282 0.000202646

F- 6

SUMMARY OUTPUT 0.25% Carbon Fiber


Cycles from Testing






3.991505843 4.08232643 3.991505843 4.082326430.00062925 0.00064402 0.00062925 0.00064402

SUMMARY OUTPUT 0.75% Carbon Fiber


Cycles from Testing






3.69368844 3.773961711 3.69368844 3.7739617110.000468205 0.000481259 0.000468205 0.000481259

F- 7

SUMMARY OUTPUT 0.50% Polypropylene Fiber

rut depthregression

cycles

approximate cycles

from valuesRegression Statistics 8.36032 7919 8000Multiple R 0.998678239 7 5314 5237R Square 0.997358225Adjusted R Square 0.997303188Standard Error 0.031669779Observations 50





4.176818248 4.272751478 4.176818248 4.2727514780.000514447 0.000530047 0.000514447 0.000530047

F- 8

Appendix G

Reflective Crack Test Graphs

G-1

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

PG64-22 CPG 64-22 D

G-2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

PG 70-22 DPG 70-22 E

G-3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

PG 76-22 CPG 76-22 D

G-4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

0.25% Carbon Fiber C0.25% Carbon Fiber D

G-5

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

0.75% Carbon Fiber C0.75% Carbon Fiber D

G-6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Stroke Count

Rut

Dep

th (m

m)

0.50% Poly. C0.50% Poly. D

G-7

Appendix H

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Surface Plots

H- 1

Life-Cycle Cost Calculations – Cost of Each HMA Mixture ($/ton) and Resulting EUAC ($/lane-mile)

GIVENS/ASSUMPTIONS:

• Control Mix = $35/ton HMA • PG 64-22 = $165/liquid ton • PG 70-22 = $255/liquid ton • PG 76-22 = $345/liquid ton • Carbon fiber = $7.00/pound • Polypropylene fiber = $1.87/pound • Density of HMA = 145lb/ft3 • 15 cm (approximately 5.91” lift = 12ft x 5.91”/12ft x 5,280ft = 31,205 ft3

101 Series (5.0% AC, No Fiber):

Control Mix $165 0.05 $8.25 /

1liquid ton ton HMA for AC

liquid ton ton HMA × =

3

3

$35 1 145 31, 2052000

$79,183/ton HMA lb ftton HMA lb ft lane mile

lane mile × × × =

−−


$165 0.052 . $8.58 / $8.25 ( ). 1

$0.33liq ton ton HMA for AC Control Mixliq ton ton HMA

× = − = +

3

3

$35.33 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

103 Series (5.1% AC, 0.50% Carbon Fiber):

$165 0.051 . $8.42 / $8.25 ( ). 1


× = − = +

( )0.051 2000 $7.00 0.50% /$3.57ton AC lb CF ton HMA for Carbon Fiberton lb

× × × = +

3

3

$38.74 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

H- 2


$165 0.053 . $8.75 / $8.25 ( ). 1


× = − = +


× × × = +

3

3

$39.21 1 145 31, 2052000

$88,707 /ton HMA lb ftton HMA lb ft lane mile


−−


$165 0.055 . $9.08 / $8.25 ( ). 1


× = − = +


× × × = +

3

3

$39.68 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

201 Series (5.0% AC, No Fiber): Control Mix

$165 0.05 $8.25 /

1liquid ton ton HMA for AC


3

3

$35 1 145 31, 2052000



−−


$165 0.052 . $8.58 / $8.25 ( ). 1


× = − = +

3

3

$35.33 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

H- 3

203 Series (5.5% AC, 0.75% Fiber):

$165 0.055 . $9.08 / $8.25 ( ). 1


× = − = +


× × × = +

3

3

$41.61 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

204 Series (5.2% AC, 0.25% Fiber):

$165 0.052 . $8.58 / $8.25 ( ). 1


× = − = +


× × × = +

3

3

$37.15 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

Lab Mixes Neat, PG 64-22 (5.2% AC, No Fiber):

Control Mix

$165 0.052 $8.58 /1liquid ton ton HMA for AC


3

3

$35.00 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

PG 70-22 (5.2% AC, No Fiber):

$255 0.052 . $13.26 / $8.58 ( ). 1


× = − = +

3

3

$39.68 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

H- 4

PG 76-22 (5.2% AC, No Fiber):

$345 0.052 . $17.94 / $8.58 ( ). 1


× = − = +

3

3

$44.36 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

0.25% Carbon Fiber (5.4% AC, 0.25% CF):

$165 0.054 . $8.91/ $8.58 ( ). 1


× = − = +


× × × = +

3

3

$37.22 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

0.75% Carbon Fiber (5.4% AC, 0.75% CF):

$165 0.054 . $8.91/ $8.58 ( ). 1


× = − = +


× × × = +

3

3

$41.00 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

0.50% Polypropylene Fiber (6.0% AC, 0.50% Poly. Fiber):

$165 0.060 . $9.90 / $8.58 ( ). 1


× = − = +

( )0.060 2000 $1.87 0.50% . / .$1.12ton AC lb Poly Fiber ton HMA for Poly Fiberton lb

× × × = +

3

3

$37.44 1 145 31, 2052000



−−

H- 5

101-600

Cycle Count


(10-6)

Load Cycle Applications, Nf

(from Illinois DOT)

Calculcated Value from

RegressionSurface Initial 270,290 219.28 474,212

Plot 1/4 Cycle Count 171,159 247.30 330,5961/2 Cycle Count 155,217 252.07 312,1813/4 Cycle Count 145,217 255.01 301,508

Terminal 133,333 258.39 289,830

Initial 270.290 219.28 474.212 425.0134901/4 Cycle Count 171.159 247.30 330.596 330.5679261/2 Cycle Count 155.217 252.07 312.181 312.2783483/4 Cycle Count 145.217 255.01 301.508 301.417984

Terminal 133.333 258.39 289.830 289.850207

219.280 247.300 252.070 255.010 258.390474.212 95.713 39.655 5.103 -34.620659.868 330.596 274.509 239.958 200.235697.637 368.337 312.181 277.727 238.004721.328 392.028 335.970 301.508 261.695749.484 420.183 364.125 329.573 289.830

219.280 247.300 252.070 255.010 258.390474.212 95.713 39.655 5.103 0.000659.868 330.596 274.509 239.958 200.235697.637 368.337 312.181 277.727 238.004721.328 392.028 335.970 301.508 261.695749.484 420.183 364.125 329.573 289.830

270.

2898

551

155.

2173

913

133.

3333

333

219.

280

247.

300

252.

070

255.

010

258.

390

0100200300400500600700800


Modulus of

Elasticity (ksi) Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

700-800600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100


psi

270.290171.159155.217145.217133.333

270.290171.159155.217145.217133.333

H- 6

101-600SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression StatisticsMultiple R 0.999989589R Square 0.999979178Adjusted R Square 0.999937533Standard Error 0.136837843Observations 4


Regression 2 899.2357395 449.6178697 24012.1543 0.004563152Residual 1 0.018724595 0.018724595Total 3 899.2544641

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-valueIntercept 3642.419264 407.5525706 8.937299201 0.070936735

270.2898551 -2.369146645 0.401996753 -5.893447209 0.107002484219.28 -11.75232338 1.36955768 -8.581108739 0.073855395

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%-1536.004954 8820.843482 -1536.004954 8820.843482-7.476977814 2.738684525 -7.476977814 2.738684525-29.15412911 5.649482351 -29.15412911 5.649482351






254.4927536 -1.169467038 0.140983059 -8.295089102 0.076378007223.41 -7.602799166 0.492208076 -15.44631129 0.041157566


-2.960818977 0.621884902 -2.960818977 0.621884902-13.85686896 -1.348729371 -13.85686896 -1.348729371

H- 7

101-800

Tensile Strain

at Bottom of HMA Layer

(10-6)

Load Cycle Applications,

Nf (from Illinois

DOT)


RegressionSurface Initial 254,493 223.41 448,396Plot 1/4 Cycle Count 158,841 250.99 316,228

1/2 Cycle Count 141,594 256.06 297,8143/4 Cycle Count 131,449 258.91 288,087Terminal 125,797 260.43 283,072

Initial 254.493 223.41 448.396 414.0447031/4 Cycle Count 158.841 250.99 316.228 316.2215671/2 Cycle Count 141.594 256.06 297.814 297.8444443/4 Cycle Count 131.449 258.91 288.087 288.040625Terminal 125.797 260.43 283.072 283.094401

223.410 250.990 256.060 258.910 260.430448.396 204.360 165.813 144.145 132.589525.907 316.228 277.675 256.007 244.451546.076 336.391 297.814 276.176 264.620557.940 348.255 309.709 288.087 276.484564.550 354.865 316.319 294.651 283.072

254.

493

141.

594

125.

797

223.

410

250.

990

256.

060

258.

910

260.

430

0.000

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000


Modulus of

Elasticity Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

254.493158.841141.594131.449125.797

H- 8

102-600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)Calculcated Value from Regression

Surface Initial 191,739 241.15 356,540Plot 1/4 Cycle Count 124,638 262.72 275,734



241.150 262.720 265.700 266.570 267.320356.540 268.440 257.165 253.873 251.035357.340 275.734 264.447 261.156 258.318359.463 277.847 266.560 263.279 260.441360.187 278.570 267.295 263.959 261.165360.722 279.105 267.829 264.538 261.743

191.

739

105.

072

93.4

7824

1.15

0

262.

720

265.

700

266.

570

267.

320

0.00050.000100.000150.000200.000250.000300.000350.000400.000



(ksi)Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

350-400300-350250-300200-250150-200100-15050-1000-50


psi

191.739124.638105.07298.40693.478

H- 9






191.7391304 -0.108534886 0.10731221 -1.011393629 0.496393877241.15 -3.783796272 0.727804347 -5.19891958 0.120974835







172.8985507 -0.0268408 0.005763506 -4.657026076 0.134656169246.78 -3.150184571 0.035434923 -88.90056107 0.00716073


-0.100072778 0.046391179 -0.100072778 0.046391179-3.600426033 -2.699943108 -3.600426033 -2.699943108

H- 10

102-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois





246.780 264.520 266.690 267.550 268.110332.690 268.427 261.591 258.882 257.117326.026 270.143 263.306 260.597 258.833326.330 270.446 263.603 260.900 259.136326.489 270.605 263.769 261.069 259.296326.633 270.749 263.913 261.204 259.436

172.

899

97.6

81

86.3

7724

6.78

0

264.

520

266.

690

267.

550

268.

110

0.000

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000



(ksi)Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

300-350250-300200-250150-200100-15050-1000-50


psi

172.899108.98697.68191.73986.377

H- 11

103-600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois





178.540 208.030 217.470 224.300 228.920878.544 602.720 559.071 527.490 506.128691.754 555.382 511.748 480.167 458.805665.729 529.372 486.152 454.142 432.780655.664 519.307 475.658 443.080 422.715649.158 512.801 469.152 437.571 416.791

468.

551

277.

391

234.

203

178.

540

208.

030

217.

470

224.

300

228.

920

0.000100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000800.000900.000

Load Applications,

Nf (10^3)


(ksi)Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

800-900700-800600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100


psi

468.551345.217277.391251.159234.203

H- 12






468.5507246 0.383699097 0.085005637 4.513807664 0.138796523178.54 -4.623841763 0.457148699 -10.11452459 0.062737261






Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-valueIntercept -2149.312748 105.7528361 -20.32392538 0.031298421

417.5362319 3.598350482 0.097316116 36.97589512 0.017212961187.32 7.528179387 0.362108787 20.78982797 0.030598112

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%-3493.024178 -805.6013187 -3493.024178 -805.60131872.361837291 4.834863673 2.361837291 4.8348636732.927170714 12.12918806 2.927170714 12.12918806

H- 13

103-800


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois





187.320 214.910 224.610 231.400 236.250760.707 971.010 1044.033 1095.150 1131.661296.043 503.733 576.769 627.886 664.397160.453 368.156 441.248 492.296 528.80771.798 279.501 352.524 403.534 440.15210.783 218.485 291.509 342.625 379.188

417.

536

225.

362

187.

320

214.

910

224.

610

231.

400

236.

250

0.000

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1,000.000

1,200.000

Load Applications,

Nf (10^3)

Modulus of


(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200


psi

417.536287.681250.000225.362208.406

H- 14

104-600


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois





206.800 232.340 238.920 243.610 250.430565.351 414.944 392.088 375.796 352.106487.375 398.656 375.802 359.511 335.820477.763 389.046 366.617 349.898 326.208474.426 385.709 362.853 345.848 322.871469.620 380.903 358.047 341.755 318.354

321.

884

199.

275

160.

725

206.

800

232.

340

238.

920

243.

610

250.

430

0.000

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000



(ksi)Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100


psi

321.884244.783199.275183.478160.725

H- 15






321.884058 0.211224799 0.069856483 3.023696451 0.203334853206.8 -3.473645574 0.325305413 -10.67810567 0.059445788







279.7101449 -10.03999106 8.749105527 -1.147544859 0.456330316216.89 -37.80585175 29.46707822 -1.282986099 0.421488664


H- 16

104-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





216.890 238.920 245.040 249.950 256.680490.062 -441.691 -673.063 -858.690 -1113.123

1198.736 366.617 134.501 -51.125 -305.5591405.356 572.493 339.828 155.495 -98.9391569.779 736.916 505.544 320.192 65.4841799.680 966.818 735.446 549.819 295.661

216.890 238.920 245.040 249.950 256.680490.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1198.736 366.617 134.501 0.000 0.0001405.356 572.493 339.828 155.495 0.0001569.779 736.916 505.544 320.192 65.4841799.680 966.818 735.446 549.819 295.661

279.

710

162.

319

216.

890

245.

040

256.

680

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.0001,800.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1600-18001400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

279.710199.275178.696162.319139.420

279.710199.275178.696162.319139.420

H- 17

105-600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)


RegressionSurface Initial 409,710 188.76 743,430Plot 1/4 Cycle Cou 275,942 217.84 483,679

1/2 Cycle Cou 242,754 226.57 429,8953/4 Cycle Cou 221,594 232.46 398,039Terminal 204,783 237.31 374,129

Initial 409.710 188.76 743.430 747.7295681/4 Cycle Cou 275.942 217.84 483.679 483.683351/2 Cycle Cou 242.754 226.57 429.895 429.8732793/4 Cycle Cou 221.594 232.46 398.039 398.069706Terminal 204.783 237.31 374.129 374.116078

188.760 217.840 226.570 232.460 237.310743.430 972.304 1039.723 1085.209 1122.664259.109 483.679 551.102 596.588 634.043137.880 362.455 429.895 475.360 512.81460.590 285.165 352.583 398.039 435.525-0.818 223.756 291.175 336.661 374.129

188.760 217.840 226.570 232.460 237.310743.430 972.304 1039.723 1085.209 1122.664259.109 483.679 551.102 596.588 634.043137.880 362.455 429.895 475.360 512.81460.590 285.165 352.583 398.039 435.5250.000 223.756 291.175 336.661 374.129

409.

710

221.

594

188.

760

226.

570

237.

310

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200


psi

409.710275.942242.754221.594204.783

409.710275.942242.754221.594204.783

H- 18






409.7101449 3.652744563 0.036058351 101.3009332 0.006284237188.76 7.722645806 0.131995954 58.50668569 0.010880086







345.2173913 4.790879011 0.291188352 16.45285254 0.038646039201.64 11.74275427 1.007152616 11.65935934 0.05446831

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%-7189.880114 402.6275718 -7189.880114 402.62757181.090996049 8.490761974 1.090996049 8.490761974

-1.054278252 24.53978679 -1.054278252 24.53978679

H- 19

105-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





201.640 226.410 235.080 241.020 246.870609.874 918.945 1020.755 1090.507 1159.202139.963 430.807 532.641 602.393 671.088-7.929 282.939 384.878 454.501 523.196

-105.135 185.733 287.542 357.117 425.989-198.870 91.998 193.808 263.560 332.327

201.640 226.410 235.080 241.020 246.870609.874 918.945 1020.755 1090.507 1159.202139.963 430.807 532.641 602.393 671.0880.000 282.939 384.878 454.501 523.1960.000 185.733 287.542 357.117 425.9890.000 91.998 193.808 263.560 332.327

345.

217

192.

174

201.

640

226.

410

235.

080

241.

020

246.

870

0.000

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1,000.000

1,200.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

345.217243.333212.464192.174172.609

345.217243.333212.464192.174172.609

H- 20

201-600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





217.250 239.480 244.300 249.560 256.800487.630 -343.030 -503.987 -679.638 -921.408

1105.612 364.051 202.313 26.662 -215.1081247.379 505.037 342.925 168.429 -73.3411400.534 658.193 497.235 321.696 79.8141615.708 873.367 712.409 536.758 295.247

217.250 239.480 244.300 249.560 256.800487.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1105.612 364.051 202.313 26.662 0.0001247.379 505.037 342.925 168.429 0.0001400.534 658.193 497.235 321.696 79.8141615.708 873.367 712.409 536.758 295.247

278.

261

163.

623

217.

250

239.

480

244.

300

249.

560

256.

800

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.0001,800.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1600-18001400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

278.261197.391181.159163.623138.986

278.261197.391181.159163.623138.986

H- 21






278.2608696 -8.733772568 7.651033302 -1.14151543 0.457992023217.25 -33.39368612 25.7830953 -1.295177547 0.418572754







278.2608696 -8.733772568 7.651033302 -1.14151543 0.457992023217.25 -33.39368612 25.7830953 -1.295177547 0.418572754


H- 22

201-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)


RegressionSurface Initial 278,261 217.25 487,630Plot 1/4 Cycle Cou 197,391 239.48 364,051



217.250 239.480 244.300 249.560 256.800487.630 -343.028 -503.986 -679.637 -921.407

1105.610 364.051 202.310 26.660 -215.1111247.375 505.033 342.925 168.425 -73.3451400.533 658.191 497.233 321.696 79.8121615.712 873.371 712.413 536.762 295.247

217.250 239.480 244.300 249.560 256.800487.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

1105.610 364.051 202.310 26.660 0.0001247.375 505.033 342.925 168.425 0.0001400.533 658.191 497.233 321.696 79.8121615.712 873.371 712.413 536.762 295.247

278.

261

163.

623

217.

250

244.

300

256.

800

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.0001,800.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1600-18001400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200


psi

278.261197.391181.159163.623138.986

278.261197.391181.159163.623138.986

H- 23

202-600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





197.880 228.680 235.290 239.730 244.170645.304 1026.138 1102.709 1154.142 1205.57661.319 418.105 494.682 546.116 597.550-49.544 307.248 383.848 435.253 486.686-121.846 234.946 311.517 362.913 414.384-192.771 164.021 240.592 292.026 343.473

197.880 228.680 235.290 239.730 244.170645.304 1026.138 1102.709 1154.142 1205.57661.319 418.105 494.682 546.116 597.5500.000 307.248 383.848 435.253 486.6860.000 234.946 311.517 362.913 414.3840.000 164.021 240.592 292.026 343.473

363.

043

196.

522

197.

880

228.

680

235.

290

239.

730

244.

170

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.000


Modulus of

Elasticity Tensile Strain (10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

363.043235.072211.739196.522181.594

363.043235.072211.739196.522181.594

H- 24






363.0434783 4.751282032 0.107508853 44.19433288 0.014402552197.88 11.58414491 0.371397019 31.19073205 0.020403554







319.8550725 8.552173492 1.591809309 5.372611811 0.117152928207.27 24.47601833 5.366662453 4.560752337 0.137412044


H- 25

202-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





207.270 234.530 241.410 246.260 250.650561.514 1289.926 1458.321 1577.030 1684.479-279.607 387.592 556.005 674.713 782.163-480.397 186.819 355.389 473.923 581.373-619.215 48.002 216.397 334.802 442.555-744.399 -77.182 91.213 209.921 317.517

207.270 234.530 241.410 246.260 250.650561.514 1289.926 1458.321 1577.030 1684.4790.000 387.592 556.005 674.713 782.1630.000 186.819 355.389 473.923 581.3730.000 48.002 216.397 334.802 442.5550.000 0.000 91.213 209.921 317.517

319.

855

174.

638

207.

270

241.

410

250.

650

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.0001,800.000


Modulus of


1600-18001400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

319.855214.348190.870174.638160.000

319.855214.348190.870174.638160.000

H- 26

203-600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





195.060 225.430 232.670 237.730 242.100673.698 976.867 1045.781 1093.945 1135.541147.380 436.450 505.374 553.538 595.13438.937 328.016 396.962 445.095 486.691-33.964 255.115 324.030 372.150 413.790-95.413 193.667 262.581 310.745 352.359

195.060 225.430 232.670 237.730 242.100673.698 976.867 1045.781 1093.945 1135.541147.380 436.450 505.374 553.538 595.13438.937 328.016 396.962 445.095 486.6910.000 255.115 324.030 372.150 413.7900.000 193.667 262.581 310.745 352.359

376.

957

203.

333

195.

060

232.

670

242.

100

0.000200.000400.000

600.000

800.000

1,000.000

1,200.000


Modulus of


1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

376.957246.957220.870203.333188.551

376.957246.957220.870203.333188.551

H- 27






376.9565217 4.156979037 0.09312425 44.63906039 0.014259111195.06 9.518579413 0.326557764 29.14822568 0.02183221







330.1449275 11.27101432 1.471007321 7.662106204 0.082619796204.94 33.6199271 4.948970802 6.793316922 0.09304444


H- 28

203-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





204.940 236.130 244.830 250.780 249.130580.885 1746.989 2039.482 2239.521 2184.048-668.840 379.766 672.259 872.298 816.825

-1000.436 48.169 340.703 540.701 485.228-1224.223 -175.617 116.876 317.023 261.442-1162.151 -113.545 178.948 378.987 323.364

204.940 236.130 244.830 250.780 249.130580.885 1746.989 2039.482 2239.521 2184.0480.000 379.766 672.259 872.298 816.8250.000 48.169 340.703 540.701 485.2280.000 0.000 116.876 317.023 261.4420.000 0.000 178.948 378.987 323.364

330.

145

159.

565

204.

940

244.

830

249.

130

0.000

500.000

1,000.000

1,500.000

2,000.000

2,500.000


Modulus of

Elasticity (ksi) Tensile

Strain (10^-6)

2000-25001500-20001000-1500500-10000-500

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

330.145208.841179.420159.565165.072

330.145208.841179.420159.565165.072

H- 29

204-600 Cycle Count

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





194.860 224.220 231.600 238.670 241.930675.775 691.186 703.747 715.779 721.328393.250 443.554 455.781 467.813 473.362340.703 390.673 402.489 415.266 420.815292.701 342.670 355.231 367.770 372.812271.114 321.083 333.644 345.677 353.103

377.

971

200.

145

194.

860

231.

600

241.

930

0.000100.000200.000300.000400.000500.000600.000700.000800.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

700-800600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

377.971251.449224.638200.145189.130

H- 30






377.9710145 1.959868523 0.315327568 6.215341507 0.101556817196.43 1.701964843 1.056589844 1.61080939 0.353691722







330.2898551 5.873710161 0.514326362 11.42020047 0.055603238204.91 15.435983 1.749712324 8.822011932 0.071855943


H- 31

204-800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





204.910 230.780 238.330 246.300 249.090581.140 1010.356 1126.897 1249.922 1292.9897.482 406.795 523.352 646.377 689.444

-146.597 252.732 369.346 492.299 535.365-304.080 95.249 211.790 334.639 377.882-358.561 40.768 157.310 280.334 323.520

204.910 230.780 238.330 246.300 249.090581.140 1010.356 1126.897 1249.922 1292.9897.482 406.795 523.352 646.377 689.4440.000 252.732 369.346 492.299 535.3650.000 95.249 211.790 334.639 377.8820.000 40.768 157.310 280.334 323.520

330.

290

165.

217

204.

910

238.

330

249.

090

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.000

Load Cyces, Nf (10^3)

Modulus of

Elasticit Tensile Strain (10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

330.290227.536201.304174.493165.217

330.290227.536201.304174.493165.217

H- 32

Series @ 600

Micro Strain

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)

PG 64-22 Initial 493,043 174.66 938,404Surface 1/4 Cycle Count 341,449 202.46 602,493Plot 1/2 Cycle Count 306,087 210.46 536,366

3/4 Cycle Count 270,435 219.24 474,472Terminal 245,652 225.78 434,424

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)

Calculcated Value from Regression


174.660 202.460 210.460 219.240 225.780938.404 1117.017 1170.898 1230.033 1274.081415.258 602.493 656.377 715.512 759.560295.237 482.475 536.366 595.491 639.539174.232 361.469 415.350 474.472 518.53390.116 277.354 331.235 390.370 434.424

493.

043

270.

435

174.

660

210.

460

225.

780

02004006008001,0001,2001,400


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

493.

043

270.

435

174.

660

210.

460

225.

780

02004006008001,0001,2001,400


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

493.043341.449306.087270.435245.652

H- 33

64-22 @ 600SUMMARY OUTPUT





493.0434783 3.394072874 0.007495786 452.7974411 0.001405968174.66 6.735164425 0.030804216 218.644239 0.002911649







369.8550725 4.402931488 0.030938993 142.3101115 0.004473395196.49 10.38540061 0.108256593 95.93319278 0.006635834


H- 34

Series @ 800

Micro Strain

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)

PG 64-22 Initial 369,855 196.49 659,096Surface 1/4 Cycle Count 247,246 225.35 436,915Plot 1/2 Cycle Count 211,884 235.25 384,044

3/4 Cycle Count 195,507 240.03 361,554Terminal 183,623 243.57 346,018

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)



196.490 225.350 235.250 240.030 243.570659.096 976.754 1079.570 1129.212 1165.976137.194 436.915 539.732 589.374 626.139-18.504 281.219 384.044 433.676 470.441-90.610 209.113 311.928 361.554 398.335-142.935 156.788 259.604 309.246 346.018

196.490 225.350 235.250 240.030 243.570659.096 976.754 1079.570 1129.212 1165.976137.194 436.915 539.732 589.374 626.1390.000 281.219 384.044 433.676 470.4410.000 209.113 311.928 361.554 398.3350.000 156.788 259.604 309.246 346.018

369.

855

195.

507

196.

490

225.

350

235.

250

240.

030

243.

570

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

369.855247.246211.884195.507183.623

369.855247.246211.884195.507183.623

H- 35

PG 70-22@ 600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)


Surface Initial 543,623 167.24 1,068,931Plot 1/4 Cycle Count 351,014 200.40 621,265


Initial 543.623 167.24 1,068.931 1054.0221521/4 Cycle Count 351.014 200.40 621.265 621.26679151/2 Cycle Count 308.551 209.88 540.825 540.81329723/4 Cycle Count 288.551 214.69 505.283 505.298947Terminal 268.841 219.65 471.820 471.8138992

167.240 200.400 209.880 214.690 219.6501,068.931 1282.614 1347.966 1381.125 1415.317392.672 621.265 686.617 719.775 753.968246.870 475.463 540.825 573.973 608.165178.197 406.790 472.142 505.283 539.492110.520 339.113 404.465 437.623 471.820

543.

623

288.

551

167.

240

200.

400

209.

880

214.

690

219.

650

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

543.623351.014308.551288.551268.841

H- 36






543.6231884 3.433636841 0.011909923 288.3005188 0.002208172167.24 6.893635472 0.05101703 135.1242009 0.004711282







469.1304348 3.419978512 0.009976589 342.8003754 0.00185711178.45 6.840688406 0.039148537 174.7367581 0.003643268

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%-2093.670369 -1806.750467 -2093.670369 -1806.750467

3.29321447 3.546742553 3.29321447 3.5467425536.343261213 7.338115598 6.343261213 7.338115598

H- 37

PG 70-22@ 800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





178.450 208.870 218.170 223.640 229.490879.874 1083.020 1146.639 1184.057 1224.075340.617 548.709 612.329 649.747 689.765209.765 417.859 481.487 518.896 558.914137.896 345.990 409.608 447.014 487.04564.540 272.634 336.252 373.671 413.694

469.

130

253.

623

178.

450

218.

170

229.

490

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

469.130312.899274.638253.623232.174

H- 38

PG 76-22 @ 600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)


Surface Initial 445,507 182.39 824,075Plot 1/4 Cycle Cou 258,261 222.41 454,472



182.390 222.410 226.140 228.760 232.220824.075 1133.177 1161.533 1181.450 1207.752150.234 454.472 482.818 502.735 529.03899.803 404.032 432.352 452.305 478.60765.133 369.362 397.717 417.667 443.93720.480 324.709 353.064 372.981 399.274

445.

507

222.

464

182.

390

226.

140

232.

220

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.000


Modulus of

Elasticity (ksi)

Tensile Strain (10^-

6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200


psi

445.507258.261244.348234.783222.464

H- 39






445.5072464 3.62472 0.164485014 22.03677956 0.028869161182.39 7.601925589 0.600404072 12.66134915 0.050176404

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%-4408.5574 63.74727185 -4408.5574 63.74727185

1.534748687 5.714691313 1.534748687 5.714691313-0.026898792 15.23074997 -0.026898792 15.23074997




Regression 2 1779.836994 889.9184969 9021618.661 0.00023542Residual 1 9.86429E-05 9.86429E-05Total 3 1779.837092


395.7971014 4.249407198 0.034158005 124.4044333 0.00511723191.38 9.82450567 0.119480105 82.22712611 0.007741829


H- 40

PG 76-22@ 800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)


Surface Initial 395,797 191.38 713,313Plot 1/4 Cycle Cou 236,957 228.16 420,970



191.380 228.160 233.210 236.380 239.480713.313 1095.947 1145.561 1176.705 1207.16159.624 420.970 470.583 501.727 532.182-16.742 344.603 394.211 425.360 455.816-63.547 297.798 347.412 378.563 409.011-108.505 252.840 302.454 333.598 364.051

191.380 228.160 233.210 236.380 239.480713.313 1095.947 1145.561 1176.705 1207.16159.624 420.970 470.583 501.727 532.1820.000 344.603 394.211 425.360 455.8160.000 297.798 347.412 378.563 409.0110.000 252.840 302.454 333.598 364.051

395.

797

207.

971

191.

380

233.

210

239.

480

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200


psi

395.797236.957218.986207.971197.391

395.797236.957218.986207.971197.391

H- 41

0.25% CF@600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





162.590 186.220 197.140 206.640 214.7601,163.291 1327.343 1409.678 1481.307 1542.530596.080 774.268 856.582 928.210 989.434392.174 570.340 652.598 724.304 785.527234.443 412.609 494.944 566.666 627.796111.474 289.641 371.976 443.604 504.789

578.

116

288.

261

162.

590

197.

140

214.

760

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.000


Modulus of

Elasticity (ksi)

Tensile Strain (10^-

6)

1400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

578.116423.623366.667322.609288.261

H- 42

0.25% CF @ 600SUMMARY OUTPUT





578.115942 3.580074469 0.027208598 131.5787926 0.004838223162.59 7.539836785 0.129294596 58.31517355 0.01091581







422.173913 3.668476581 0.030691046 119.529213 0.005325936186.48 7.779969007 0.113730085 68.40730831 0.009305649


H- 43

0.25% CF @ 800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





186.480 216.160 226.890 232.710 236.000771.033 1007.038 1090.517 1135.797 1161.393264.137 495.044 578.525 623.805 649.401113.676 344.586 428.079 473.344 498.94037.117 268.026 351.505 396.757 422.381-4.885 226.025 309.504 354.783 380.394

186.480 216.160 226.890 232.710 236.000771.033 1007.038 1090.517 1135.797 1161.393264.137 495.044 578.525 623.805 649.401113.676 344.586 428.079 473.344 498.94037.117 268.026 351.505 396.757 422.3810.000 226.025 309.504 354.783 380.394

422.

174

220.

725

186.

480

216.

160

226.

890

232.

710

236.

000

0.000

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1,000.000

1,200.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

422.174282.609241.594220.725209.275

422.174282.609241.594220.725209.275

H- 44

0.75% CF @ 600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





165.980 188.600 200.000 208.840 218.3201,093.460 1245.954 1328.778 1393.003 1461.878580.977 745.324 828.142 892.367 961.242377.866 542.206 625.000 689.255 758.130237.521 401.861 484.685 548.945 617.785100.243 264.584 347.408 411.633 480.496

552.

754

313.

043

165.

980

200.

000

218.

320

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.0001,600.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1400-16001200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

552.754410.580352.899313.043274.058

H- 45






552.7536232 3.521294121 0.009214571 382.1441304 0.001665912165.98 7.265267119 0.042406404 171.3247619 0.003715823

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%-2220.069103 -1921.300003 -2220.069103 -1921.300003

3.4042124 3.638375842 3.4042124 3.6383758426.726444972 7.804089266 6.726444972 7.804089266






409.8550725 3.603587891 0.077490052 46.50387777 0.013687497188.73 7.551828222 0.288068058 26.2154307 0.024272394


H- 46

0.75% CF @ 800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





188.730 213.630 222.260 230.500 237.730743.785 934.329 999.501 1061.728 1116.328324.825 512.842 578.038 640.265 694.865202.094 390.135 455.393 517.534 572.13492.942 280.983 346.155 408.279 462.9822.069 190.110 255.282 317.509 372.150

409.

855

228.

551

188.

730

213.

630

222.

260

230.

500

237.

730

0.000

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1,000.000

1,200.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

409.855292.899258.841228.551203.333

H- 47

0.50% Poly.

@600

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





173.280 200.190 210.770 218.130 224.690961.003 1133.563 1205.113 1254.888 1299.251441.231 623.222 694.768 744.543 788.906280.486 462.473 534.003 583.797 628.161178.417 360.404 431.954 481.752 526.09293.111 275.098 346.648 396.423 440.777

502.

029

304.

783

249.

710

173.

280

200.

190

210.

770

218.

130

224.

690

0.000200.000400.000600.000800.0001,000.0001,200.0001,400.000


Modulus of


(10^-6)

1200-14001000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

502.029352.029304.783274.783249.710

H- 48

0.50% Poly. @ 600SUMMARY OUTPUT





502.0289855 3.402300042 0.012211005 278.6257131 0.002284847173.28 6.762791913 0.05112907 132.2690186 0.004812976


0.50% Poly. @ 800SUMMARY OUTPUT





391.3043478 3.731322256 0.113411883 32.90062859 0.01934382192.24 8.022980178 0.412986671 19.42672909 0.032741403


H- 49

0.50% Poly.

@800

Tensile Strain


(10-6)


Nf (from Illinois

DOT)





192.240 216.380 227.120 235.200 240.890703.783 902.379 988.545 1053.371 1099.022299.881 493.536 579.722 644.548 690.199146.842 340.517 426.780 491.510 537.16039.770 233.444 319.611 384.289 430.088-32.694 160.981 247.148 311.973 357.696

192.240 216.380 227.120 235.200 240.890703.783 902.379 988.545 1053.371 1099.022299.881 493.536 579.722 644.548 690.199146.842 340.517 426.780 491.510 537.16039.770 233.444 319.611 384.289 430.0880.000 160.981 247.148 311.973 357.696

391.

3043

478

240.

7246

377

192.

6086

957

192.

24

216.

38

227.

12

235.

2

240.

89

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200



(ksi)Tensile Strain

(10^-6)

1000-1200800-1000600-800400-600200-4000-200

Modulus of

Elasticity, psi

391.304281.739240.725212.029192.609

391.304281.739240.725212.029192.609

H- 50

Appendix I

Determinations of Various HMA Layer Thicknesses to Achieve Equivalent Tensile Strain

I- 1

101 Series @ 600 Microstrain (All Terminal Values)

Thickness, cm

Tensile Strain

@ Bottom of HMA Layer

(10^-6)15 258.3914 258.9013 259.8712 261.4111 263.5410 266.299 269.6487

Thickness of 101 Series to achieve same tensile strain

N/A

102 Series @ 600 Microstrain

15 267.32 9.619804

y = -0.5003x + 143.36R2 = 0.9327

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00

Log Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer (10^-6)

Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1Linear (Series1)


15 258.39


15 260.43


Thickness, cm

Tensile Strain@ Bottom of HMA Layer

(10^-6)15 260.4314 260.7513 261.5112 262.8111 264.6610 267.109 270.1087


N/A


15 268.11 9.601238

y = -0.5742x + 163.55R2 = 0.92

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

I- 2


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)17 222.9616 242.0015 267.321413121110987

101 Series @ 600 Microstrain Thickness of 102 Series to achieve same tensile strain

15 258.39 15.356128

N/A

y = -0.0448x + 26.932R2 = 0.9934

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

100 1000


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)


15 267.32


15 268.11


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)17 229.8416 246.2515 260.431413121110987


15 260.43 15.016921

N/A

y = -0.0653x + 32.023R2 = 0.9982

6789

101112131415161718

100 1000


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 3


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 228.9214 231.5513 234.9012 239.1011 244.2310 250.379 257.558 265.727 274.71


15 258.39 9.153573


15 267.32 7.641724

y = -0.1693x + 52.899R2 = 0.9658

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 236.2514 238.4313 241.2712 244.9011 249.4010 254.839 261.188 268.427 276.35


15 260.43 9.439182


15 268.11 7.960014

y = -0.1926x + 59.598R2 = 0.9634

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

I- 4


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 250.4314 251.6013 253.3212 255.7011 258.7910 262.629 267.188 272.39


15 258.39 11.675889


15 267.32 8.953132

y = -0.3049x + 90.459R2 = 0.9531

789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 256.6814 257.3413 258.4812 260.2111 262.5710 265.569 269.198 273.39

101 Series @ 800 Microstrain Thickness of 104 Series �to achieve same tensile strain

15 260.43 12.478279


15 268.11 9.446983

y = -0.3947x + 115.27R2 = 0.9388

789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 5


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 237.3114 239.4113 242.1812 245.7311 250.1310 255.459 261.688 268.78


15 258.39 9.701277


15 267.32 7.775076

y = -0.2157x + 65.436R2 = 0.965

789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 246.8714 248.3113 250.3312 253.0511 256.5210 260.789 265.838 271.58


15 260.43 10.477911


15 268.11 8.386647

y = -0.2723x + 81.393R2 = 0.9576

789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 6

100 Series Comparison - 600 Microstrain



Layer (10^-6)101 15.00 5.91 258.39102 15.36 6.05 258.39103 9.15 3.60 258.39104 11.68 4.60 258.39105 9.70 3.82 258.39

Thickness (cm) Thickness (in.)101 9.62 3.79 267.32102 15.00 5.91 267.32103 7.64 3.01 267.32104 8.95 3.52 267.32105 7.78 3.06 267.32

100 Series @ 800 microstrain



Layer (10^-6)101 15.00 5.91 260.43102 15.02 5.91 260.43103 9.44 3.72 260.43104 12.48 4.91 260.43105 10.48 4.13 260.43

Thickness (cm) Thickness (in.)101 9.60 3.78 268.11102 15.00 5.91 268.11103 7.96 3.13 268.11104 9.45 3.72 268.11105 8.39 3.30 268.11

I- 7


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)17 192.5716 220.1715 256.801413121110


N/A


15 244.17 15.359147

y = -0.0309x + 22.904R2 = 0.9935

9101112131415161718

100 1000


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


15 256.80


15 259.35


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)17 197.4116 224.0215 259.351413121110

Thickness of 201 Series �to achieve same tensile strain

N/A


15 250.65 15.233135

y = -0.0321x + 23.279R2 = 0.9934

9101112131415161718

100 1000


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 8


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 244.1714 245.8113 248.0512 251.0111 254.7610 259.33


15 256.80 10.48852

N/A

y = -0.3211x + 92.947R2 = 0.9689

910111213141516

100.00 1000.00Log Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer

(10^-6)

Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


15 244.17


15 250.65


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 250.6514 251.8013 253.5012 255.8611 258.9210 262.73


15 259.35 10.999675

N/A

y = -0.3995x + 114.61R2 = 0.9602

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

100 1000


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

I- 9


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 242.1014 243.8813 246.2812 249.4311 253.3910 258.19


15 256.80 10.0936


15 244.17 13.92049

y = -0.303x + 87.904R2 = 0.9707

910111213141516

100.00 1000.00Log Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA

Layer (10^-6)

Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 249.1314 250.0413 252.2312 254.7411 257.9710 261.96


15 259.35 10.623995


15 250.65 13.863005

y = -0.3723x + 107.18R2 = 0.962

910111213141516

100 1000Log Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer

(10^-6)

Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 10


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 241.9314 243.7213 246.1312 249.3011 253.2710 258.09


15 256.80 10.06744


15 244.17 13.877911

y = -0.3017x + 87.544R2 = 0.9708

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

100 1000


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)


Thickness, cm


(10^-6)15 249.0914 250.3613 252.1912 254.7011 257.9410 261.94


15 259.35 10.614725


15 250.65 13.890275

y = -0.3765x + 108.26R2 = 0.9627

910111213141516

100 1000Log Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer

(10^-6)

Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 11




Layer (10^-6)

201 15.00 5.91 256.80202 10.49 4.13 256.80203 10.09 3.97 256.80204 10.07 3.96 256.80

Thickness (cm) Thickness (in.)201 15.36 6.05 244.17202 15.00 5.91 244.17203 13.92 5.48 244.17204 13.88 5.46 244.17




Layer (10^-6)201 15.00 5.91 259.35202 11.00 4.33 259.35203 10.62 4.18 259.35204 10.61 4.18 259.35

Thickness (cm) Thickness (in.)201 15.23 6.00 250.65202 15.00 5.91 250.65203 13.86 5.46 250.65204 13.89 5.47 250.65

I- 12

PG70-22 @ 600 Microstrain (All Terminal Values)

Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 219.6514 222.8113 226.7312 231.581110987

Neat, PG 64-22 @ 600 Microstrain Thickness of PG70-22 to achieve same tensile strain

15 225.78 13.344312

y = -0.2496x + 69.699R2 = 0.991

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00

Tensile Strain at Bottom of HMA Layer (10^-6)

Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 229.4914 232.0813 235.3912 239.5511 244.6410 250.72987


15 243.57 11.356616

y = -0.2312x + 67.67R2 = 0.9775

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 13


Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)17 161.3916 191.8315 232.221413121110987


15 225.78 15.129582

y = -0.0281x + 21.474R2 = 0.9935

6789

101112131415161718

100 150 200 250


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

234.64237.77241.72


Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 239.4814 241.4413 244.0412 247.411110987


15 243.57 13.322248

y = -0.3736x + 104.32R2 = 0.9859

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 14

0.25% CF @ 600 Microstrain (All Terminal Values)

Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 214.7614 218.1713 222.3812 227.541110987

Neat, PG 64-22 @ 600 Microstrain Thickness of 0.25% CF to achieve same tensile strain

15 225.78 12.32926

y = -0.233x + 64.936R2 = 0.9916

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 236.0014 238.1913 241.0512 244.701110987


15 243.57 12.26863

y = -0.341x + 95.326R2 = 0.9874

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 15


Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 218.3214 221.5413 225.5512 230.481110987


15 225.78 13.055056

y = -0.2448x + 68.326R2 = 0.9912

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)


Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 237.7314 239.8113 242.5412 246.061110987


15 243.57 12.785437

y = -0.3559x + 99.472R2 = 0.9867

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 16

0.50% Poly. @ 600 Microstrain (All Terminal Values)

Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 224.6914 227.5613 231.18121110987

Neat, PG 64-22 @ 600 Microstrain Thickness of 0.50% Poly. to achieve same tensile strain

15 225.78 14.622696

y = -0.3068x + 83.892R2 = 0.9956

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

0.50% Poly. @ 800 Microstrain (All Terminal Values)

Thickness (cm)


(10^-6)15 240.8914 242.7613 245.25121110987

Neat, PG 64-22 @ 800 Microstrain Thickness of 0.50% Poly. to achieve same tensile strain

15 243.57 13.739508

y = -0.4556x + 124.71R2 = 0.9933

6789

10111213141516

100.00 1000.00


Thic

knes

s of

HM

A L

ayer

(cm

)

Series1

Linear(Series1)

I- 17

Lab @ 600 Microstrain


Tensile Strainat Bottom of

HMALayer (10^-6)

Neat, PG 64-22 15.00 5.91 225.78PG 70-22 13.34 5.25 225.78PG 76-22 15.13 5.96 225.78

0.25% Carbon Fiber 12.33 4.85 225.78

0.75% Carbon Fiber 13.06 5.14 225.78

0.50%Polypropylene Fiber 14.62 5.76 225.78

Lab @ 800 Microstrain



Layer (10^-6)

Neat, PG 64-22 15.00 5.91 243.57PG 70-22 11.36 4.47 243.57PG 76-22 13.32 5.24 243.57

0.25% Carbon Fiber 12.27 4.83 243.57

0.75% Carbon Fiber 12.79 5.03 243.57

0.50%Polypropylene Fiber 13.74 5.41 243.57

I- 18

Documents

THE PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE AND LIFE-CYCLE COST …