(https://pavementinteractive.

org/)

REFERENCE DESK  APPS  VIDEOS TRAINING ARTICLES

(HTTPS://PA (HTTPS://PA (HTTPS://PA
VEMENTINT VEMENTINT VEMENTINT
ERACTIVE.O ERACTIVE.O ERACTIVE.O
RG/VIDEOS/ RG/TRAINI RG/ARTICLE
) NG/) S/)

Pavement Interactive (https://pavementinteractive.org) > Reference Desk

(https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/) > Testing
(https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/) > Binder Tests
(https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/binder-tests/) > Direct Tension Tester

Direct Tension Tester

Overview

The Direct Tension Tester (DTT) test (see Figure 1, 2) provides a measure of low
temperature stiffness and relaxation properties of asphalt binders. These parameters give
an indication of an asphalt binder’s ability to resist low temperature cracking. The DTT is
used in combination with the BBR to determine an asphalt binder’s low temperature PG
grade determination. As with other Superpave binder tests, the actual temperatures
anticipated in the area where the asphalt binder will be placed determine the test
temperatures used.

(http://www.pavementinteractive.org/w
p-
content/uploads/2011/04/DirectTension
.jpg)

Figure 1: Direct Tension Tester.

 (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/w
p-
content/uploads/2011/04/Dtt_machine.j
pg)

Figure 2: Direct tension tester.

The basic DTT test measures the stress and strain at failure of a specimen of asphalt binder
pulled apart at a constant rate of elongation. Test temperatures are such that the failure
will be from brittle or brittle-ductile fracture. The test is of little use at temperatures where
the specimen fails by ductile failure (stretches without breaking). DTT tests are conducted
on PAV aged asphalt binder samples. The test is largely software controlled.

The standard DTT test is:

AASHTO T 314: Determining the Fracture Properties of Asphalt Binder in Direct

Tension (DT)

The Superpave PG binder specification involving the DTT is:

AASHTO PP 42: Determination of Low-Temperature Performance Grade (PG) of

Asphalt Binders

Background

As surrounding temperatures drop, pavements contract and build up internal stresses. If

this contraction occurs fast enough the pavement may crack because it does not have time
to relax these stresses. This type of crack, typically called a “thermal crack” (because of its
cause) or “transverse crack” (because of its direction) (Figure 3) can result from either of
two related mechanisms:

1. Single thermal cycle below the critical temperature. A single severe drop in
temperature that causes stress to quickly build up to a critical point that causes
cracking. This is called “single-event low temperature cracking” and the particular
temperature associated with these critical stresses is called the “critical temperature”.
 2. Thermal cycling above the critical temperature. Repeated thermal contraction and
expansion that occurs above the critical temperature can cause stresses to build up
and eventually cause cracking.

(http://www.pavementinterac
tive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/The
rmal_crack1.jpg)

Figure 3: Thermal crack.

In both cases, the failure mechanism is essentially the same: thermal shrinkage initiates
and propagates flaws or cracks in the asphalt binder portion of the HMA (Anderson and
Dongre, 1995[1]). Ideally, an elaborate set of fracture mechanics tests would be used to fully
characterize the nature of both crack initiation and propagation in an asphalt binder.
However, these tests were deemed too sophisticated for routine specification testing and a
simpler test was needed to indicate a threshold value stress or strain at which failure
occurs due to rupture or excessive elongation. This threshold value represents a
combination of crack initiation and propagation phases and can be determined using a
constant rate of elongation tension test (Anderson and Dongre, 1995[1]).

The DTT is a test designed to measure asphalt binder low temperature fracture properties.
In combination with the BBR, which is used to characterize the stress relaxation properties
of an asphalt binder, these tests can give a good idea of whether or not an asphalt binder
will crack at low temperatures.

DTT Logic

The DTT test is used to determine an asphalt binder’s failure stress and strain at low
temperatures. These data, in combination with BBR data, are used to determine a critical
cracking temperature of a pavement using the tested asphalt binder.
Testing Apparatus Development

Key choices when originally selecting the testing apparatus for the DTT, were based on the
following ideas (Anderson and Dongre, 1995[1]):

Sensitive testing apparatus. At low temperatures, asphalt binders are generally

weak materials often requiring a strain of less than 1.0 percent and a stress less than
145 psi (1.0 MPa) to cause failure. These values are quite low and require a fairly
sensitive testing apparatus capable of measuring strains on the order of 0.0008 to
0.008 inches (20 to 200 μm).
Non-contact sample elongation measurement. Because failure was defined at
such a low strain (1.0 percent). In most strain tests, elongation measurement is made
with a strain gauge in contact with the sample. However, because of the low strain
measurements required (failure is defined to occur at 1.0 percent strain), it was felt
that contacting the sample would unduly affect results. When failure strains were less
than about 3.0 percent, contact measurement errors became large (Anderson and
Dongre, 1995[1]). Thus, a non-contact laser measurement technique was selected.
Assisted gripping system. Gripping the sample at each end in order to elongate it
presented problems because many gripping methods either slipped, loaded the
sample eccentrically or fractured the cold asphalt binder sample. This led to the use
of end inserts (Figure 4) that are molded with the sample.
Sample length adequate for handling and testing. Long asphalt binder samples
tend to break during handling while short ones do not offer an adequate section of
constant tensile strain in the middle of the sample. A compromise between these two
criteria led to an asphalt binder sample size of about 40 mm long by 6 mm thick.

Effective Gage Length Determination

In order to measure strain, the sample length before elongation must be compared to the
sample length after elongation. Since only the center necked down portion of the sample is
under nearly constant strain, measurements should be taken on that portion only.
Therefore, if the entire 1.57 inch (40 mm) sample length is used as the “before”
measurement, the actual strain occurring in the 0.71 inch (18 mm) center section (Figure 3,
“top dimensions”) is underestimated. However, it is not possible to establish reliable
reference points for the laser measurement system to only measure the 0.71 inch (18 mm)
center section. Therefore, an effective gage length of 1.33 inch (33.8 mm) is used as the
“before” measurement since it results in a close approximation of the actual strain in the
center 0.71 inch (18 mm) section.

Sample Aging

Because low temperature cracking is a phenomenon found mostly in older pavements, the
test is run on the long-term aged residue from the PAV.

Superceded Reporting Method

This section briefly describes the original reporting method for the DTT. This method has been
superceded.
Originally, the DTT was only used if the asphalt binder did not pass the BBR test (e.g., creep
stiffness was > 43,511 psi (300 MPa).

The idea was that a high creep stiffness BBR test value implies that the asphalt binder will
possess high thermal stresses in cold weather as a result of shrinkage. The assumption is
that the asphalt binder would crack because of these high thermal stresses. However,
some asphalt binders (especially those modified with elastomers) may be able to stretch
far enough without breaking that they can absorb these high thermal stresses without
cracking. The DTT identifies these asphalt binders by measuring the strain at failure.
Therefore, if the strain at failure is 1.0 percent or greater, the asphalt binder will likely
absorb higher thermal stresses without cracking and the allowable creep stiffness
specification could be raised to 600 MPa. The minimum m-value of 0.300 still had to be
met.

Test Description

The following description is a brief summary of the test. It is not a complete procedure and
should not be used to perform the test. The complete DTT test procedure can be found in:

AASHTO T 314: Determining the Fracture Properties of Asphalt Binder in Direct Tension
(DT)

Summary

A sample of asphalt binder is molded into a necked shape for mounting on a pulling device.
This sample is then pulled apart at a constant strain rate of 3 percent per minute until it
fails at which point the strain at failure is recorded. The DTT test is done on 6 samples.
Figure 5 shows the major DTT equipment.
 (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Dtt_apparatus.jpg)

Figure 5: DTT equipment.

Approximate Test Time

About 4 hours including sample preparation time.

Basic Procedure

1. Heat long term aged (PAV) asphalt binder until fluid to pour. During heating the
sample should be covered and occasionally stirred to ensure homogeneity.

Heating time should be minimized to avoid oxidative hardening and volatile loss that
will further harden the sample. (AASHTO, 2000c[2]).

2. Pour the heated sample into two DTT molds (Figure 6), making sure to overpour so
that there is excess along the top of the mold (Video 1). This overpouring will ensure
enough asphalt binder to completely fill the mold. Sample preparation is critical and
is the largest source of test variation.
 (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Molds.jpg)

Figure 6: DTT molds assembled (left) and disassembled

(middle and right).

Pouring asphalt binder

 Video 1: Pouring asphalt binder into a DTT sample mold.

Testing should be done as quickly as possible to minimize the effect of steric

hardening that occurs during the test. Steric hardening can increase asphalt binder
stiffness.

3. Allow molds to cool for 30 – 60 minutes at room temperature, then trim the top of
sample flush with mold using a hot spatula (Video 2).

Cutting the excess from a DTT

Video 2: Cutting the excess from a DTT sample mold.

Do not quench (quick or rapid cooling) the samples to assist cooling.

4. To demold samples, cool mold in an ice bath or freezer at 23°F ( -5°C) for 5 to 10
minutes; just long enough that the beam can be easily removed from the mold
without damaging it.
 Excessive cooling may cause unwanted hardening of the beam, which could cause
increased test data variability (AASHTO, 2000c[2]).

5. Mount the sample in the loading frame of the DTT (Figure 7). Match the holes on the
end tabs of the sample with the loading pins on the load frame.

(http://www.pavementinteractive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Mounted_sample.jpg)

Figure 7: Mounted sample.

6. Remove the slack between the sample and the loading pins. Ideally this can be done
automatically by the testing apparatus.
7. Start the test when the load reaches 0.45 lb (2 N). Set the strain rate to 3
percent/minute (this is often done automatically by the testing software).
8. Test a total of 6 samples as described in steps 1 through 7.
9. Failure identification. Failure of the sample can occur by two means: fracture (breaks
apart in 2 pieces) or unrestrained flow without fracture. In the case of fracture, failure
strain is defined as the strain at the moment of fracture. in the case of flow without
fracture, failure strain is defined as the strain corresponding to the maximum stress
observed. The test should not be continued past 10 percent strain; if the sample has
not failed by 10 percent strain, record failure strain as “greater than 10 percent”.
10. Failure location. Ideally failure should occur in the gage section (the 18 mm long
section of constant cross-sectional area). If failure occurs in the throat section, note
and record this occurrence. The location of failure and its repeatability is highly
dependent on sample preparation, straightness and proper mounting.
Results

Parameters Measured

1. Failure stress.
2. Failure strain.
The rate of elongation and peak load are also reported.

Specifications

The performance graded asphalt binder specification involving the BBR is:

AASHTO PP 42: Determination of Low-Temperature Performance Grade (PG) of

Asphalt Binders
This procedure combines BBR and DTT test results to determine the low temperature
asphalt binder grade by the following steps:

1. Calculate the stiffness master curve from BBR test data.

2. Create the creep compliance curve by taking the inverse of the stiffness master curve.
3. Convert the creep compliance curve to a relaxation modulus. This is a fairly involved
and numerically complex conversion.
4. Calculate the thermal stress. This is also a fairly involved and numerically complex
conversion.
5. Multiply the calculated thermal stress by a “pavement constant” (chosen through
research as 18). This pavement constant converts the laboratory-determined thermal
stress to an equivalent field cracking temperature.
6. Compare this calculated thermal stress to the failure stress from the DTT.
When initially grading an asphalt binder, two DTT test temperatures are used
and a curve is drawn between these two temperatures (with just two points the
curve is really just a line). The point at which this DTT curve intersects the BBR
thermally induced stress curve (Figure 8) is defined as the critical cracking
temperature of a pavement that uses the tested asphalt binder.
When prequalifying an asphalt binder for a specific PG grade, only one DDT test
temperature is needed. If the DTT determined failure stress is above the BBR
thermally induced stress curve then the binder passes the low temperature
prequalification.
Figure 9 shows an actual plot of this data.
 (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Low_temp_graph1.jpg)

Figure 9: Plot of thermal stress vs. DTT results.

Superceeded Specifications

This section shows the original performance graded asphalt binder specifications for the DTT.
These specifications have been superceded.

Material of Concern Value Specification HMA Distress

PAV residue Failure strain ≥ 1.0% at 1.0 mm/min (0.039 inch/min) Low temperature cracking

Typical Values

Figure 10 shows a typical DTT output graph.

 (http://www.pavementinteractive.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Output1.jpg)

Figure 10. Typical DTT graph output.

Calculations (Interactive Equation)

DTT software performs the necessary calculations automatically. The DTT software uses
the following equations:

Failure Stress

Where:

σf = failure stress (MPa)

Pf = failure load (N)

A = Original cross-sectional area (m2)

Failure Strain

Where:

εf = failure strain (mm/mm)

δf = elongation at failure (mm)

Le = effective gage length (mm)

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)

1. Anderson, D.A. and Dongre, R. (1995). The SHRP Direct Tension Specification Test – Its
Development and Use. Physical Properties of Asphalt Cement Binders, J.C. Hardin, Ed.
ASTM Special Technical Publication 1241. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 51-66.↵
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
(2000c). AASHTO Provisional Standards, April 2000 Edition. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.↵

Search here...

(https://pavexpress.com/?
utm_campaign=sidebar&utm_medium=ads&utm_source=pavement_interactive&utm_
content=advertising)
 (https://rxpave.com)

RELATED TOPICS

Asphalt Binder and Characterization (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-

desk/testing/binder-tests/asphalt-binder-and-characterization/)
Bending Beam Rheometer (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/testing/binder-tests/bending-beam-rheometer/)
Ductility (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/binder-
tests/ductility/)
Dynamic Shear Rheometer (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/testing/binder-tests/dynamic-shear-rheometer/)
Penetration Test (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/binder-
tests/penetration-test/)
Pressure Aging Vessel (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/testing/binder-tests/pressure-aging-vessel/)
 Rolling Thin-Film Oven (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/testing/binder-tests/rolling-thin-film-oven/)
Rotational Viscometer (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-
desk/testing/binder-tests/rotational-viscometer/)
Softening Point (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/binder-
tests/softening-point/)
Spot Test (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/binder-
tests/spot-test/)
Thin-Film Oven (https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/binder-
tests/thin-film-oven/)

REFERENCE DESK

History (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-types-and-
history/pavement-history/)

Materials (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/materials)

Testing (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/)

Construction (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/construction/)

QC & QA (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/qc-qa/)

Design (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design)

Maintenance and Rehabilitation (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-

desk/maintenance-and-rehabilitation/)

Pavement Management (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-

management/)

TOOLS

Apps (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/apps/)

Videos (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/videos/)

Training (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/training/)

Articles (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/articles/)

Glossary (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/glossary/)

Advertise with Us (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/advertise-with-us/)

Survey (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/pavement-interactive-survey/)

SUPPORT
Edit Profile (https://www.pavementinteractive.org/membership-account/)

Email Us (mailto:web@pavementinteractive.org?subject=Pavement Interactive support)

Privacy Policy (https://www.headlight.com/privacy/)

Terms of Use (https://www.headlight.com/terms-of-use/)

Pavement Interactive was developed by the Pavement

Tools Consortium, a partnership between several state
DOTs, the FHWA, and the University of Washington, as
part of their effort to further develop and use
computer-based pavement tools.