A Dissipated Energy Approach To Fatigue Evaluation PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]
On: 26 February 2013, At: 01:15

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Road Materials and Pavement Design

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20
A Dissipated Energy Approach to Fatigue Evaluation

a b a a
Shihui Shen , Gordon D. Airey , Samuel H. Carpenter & Hai Huang
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 North
Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA E-mail:
b
Nottingham Centre for Pavement Engineering, School of Civil Engineering University of
Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
Version of record first published: 19 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Shihui Shen , Gordon D. Airey , Samuel H. Carpenter & Hai Huang (2006): A Dissipated Energy
Approach to Fatigue Evaluation, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 7:1, 47-69
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2006.9690026
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
A Dissipated Energy Approach to Fatigue
Evaluation
Shihui Shen* — Gordon D. Airey** — Samuel H. Carpenter*

Hai Huang*
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 01:15 26 February 2013
* Department of Civil Engineering

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
205 North Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801
USA
sshen2@uiuc.edu
** Nottingham Centre for Pavement Engineering
School of Civil Engineering
University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham, NG7 2RD
UK
ABSTRACT. The fatigue behaviour of bituminous binders and/or bitumen-filler mastics has been
postulated as having a strong correlation with the fatigue behaviour of asphalt mixtures. The
binder is one of the major factors controlling fatigue of the asphalt mixture and is considered
as the leading media of energy dissipation. It is verified in this paper that the application of
the Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change (RDEC) approach in terms of the fatigue
characteristics of bituminous binders and mastics produces a unique energy parameter,
known as the Plateau Value (PV), similar to the PV previously identified for asphalt mixtures.
The relationship between PV and fatigue life (Nf) is found to be unique for asphalt mixtures
and binders (mastics). This suggests the RDEC approach is a fundamental approach for
fatigue analysis of HMA. Furthermore, the two PV-Nf curves for asphalt mixtures and binders
are strongly related, which provides a new way to explain mixture fatigue behaviour from a
binder’s rheological characteristics.
KEYWORDS: Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change (RDEC), Dynamic Shear Rheometer, Plateau
Value (PV), Fatigue, Asphalt Mixtures, Bitumen-filler Mastics, Bituminous Binders.
Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 7 – No. 1/2006, pages 47 to 69

48 Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 7 – No. 1/2006
1. Introduction
In terms of fatigue relationships for asphalt materials, the most common and
classical model is the phenomenological model, which correlates fatigue life with
initial strain or stress level. In this model the fatigue failure criteria is usually
associated with a 50 percent reduction in initial stiffness or complete fracture of the
specimen. However, this phenomenological model does have some limitations:
– Damage evolution is not taken into consideration and hence the model can only
be applied to a given set of loading conditions;
– The resulting fatigue relationship is dependent on material type, mode of
loading (controlled stress or strain), loading (test) conditions and test method (four-
point bending beam, two-point cantilever etc.);

– The fatigue behavior at low strain/damage levels cannot be represented clearly
and hence this model has difficulty investigating the fatigue endurance limit concept
and healing phenomenon.
Recent fatigue research supports the use of dissipated energy as a more
fundamental material property to represent a material’s damage tendency when
experiencing outside work such as heat, repeated load, etc. This approach has been
broadly used in the fatigue analysis of rubber-like materials, plastics, polymeric
matrix composites and metals (Shivakumar and Crews, 1987; Kausch and Jud, 1982;
Baek and Srinivasa, 2003; Turner and Kolednik, 1994), all of which exhibit
viscoelastic behaviour at high temperatures. It has also been successfully used in
earthquake studies (Erberik and Sucuoglu, 2002; Erberik and Sucuoglu, 2004) to
evaluate the energy dissipation and low-cycle fatigue characteristics of structural
systems to assess their damage under seismic excitation.
The dissipated energy approach has been used for fatigue analysis in pavement
engineering over the last few decades. Various representations and applications of
the dissipated energy concepts have been proposed. (Van Dijk, 1975; Van Dijk and
Vesser, 1977) was one of the earliest researchers who did an extended study on the
fatigue of bitumen and asphalt-aggregate mixtures based on dissipated energy
concepts. He found that loading mode, temperature, frequency of loading and rest
periods do not significantly affect the total dissipated energy. This work was later
investigated during the SHRP study (SHRP, 1994; Fakhri, 1997), who found that the
uniqueness of the relationship between the cumulative dissipated energy and the
number of loading cycles to failure was mixture and temperature dependent.
(Baburamani and Porter, 1996) showed a good correlation between initial dissipated
energy and fatigue life. (Pronk and Hopman, 1991) suggested that the dissipated
energy per cycle/period is responsible for fatigue damage. (Tayebali et al., 1992)
established a relationship between the stiffness ratio (the ratio of the stiffness at load
cycle (i) to the initial stiffness) and the dissipated energy ratio (the ratio of
cumulative dissipated energy up to load cycle (i) to the cumulative dissipated energy
up to fatigue life), but not necessarily between cumulative dissipated energy and
fatigue life.
A Dissipated Energy Approach to Fatigue Evaluation 49
One big disadvantage of these dissipated energy approaches is that the energy –
fatigue life relationship is either material dependent, or loading mode dependent, or
both. For different mixture types or different loading modes, the relationship must
be generated individually since the relationship in itself does not include the material
and load information. These dissipated energy approaches assume that all the
dissipated energy represents damage done to the material. In fact, a crack will only
grow when there is a difference in energy dissipation from one cycle to another.
Such change can be considered as the amount of damage done to the sample.
Research done by (Ghuzlan, 2001; Carpenter et al., 2000, 2003) suggested that
the Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change (RDEC), previously termed the Dissipated
Energy Ratio (DER) should be a better approach for asphalt mixture fatigue
behavioural analysis. This ratio (RDEC), based on a change in DE between load

cycles, provides a true indication of the damage being done to the mixture from one
cycle to another as a function of how much dissipated energy was involved in the
previous cycle, thus presenting a fundamental mechanistic picture of how damage
accumulates in the material during fatigue tests. According to the research, the
energy parameter, Plateau Value (PV), which is obtained using this approach
represents a comprehensive material and load related parameter that can be uniquely
related to the number of loading cycles to failure, regardless of material type,
loading mode, test condition, etc.
The binder is one of the major components controlling fatigue of the asphalt
mixture and is considered as the leading media of energy dissipation. It is postulated
and verified in this paper that the application of the RDEC approach in a bituminous
binder and bitumen-filler mastic can also produce a unique energy parameter, PV,
similar to asphalt mixtures. Furthermore, the two PVs should be strongly related,
providing a new means to understand asphalt mixture fatigue behaviour as a
function of the bituminous binder’s rheological characteristics.
The objective of this paper is to provide a review and explanation of the
mechanical feasibility of the RDEC approach and to apply it to evaluate the fatigue
properties of viscoelastic materials (asphalt mixtures as well as bituminous binders
and bitumen-filler mastics). Although different laboratory tests were performed on
the mixtures and binders, the research results showed that by using the RDEC
approach, a similar unique relationship between PV and fatigue life can be achieved,
which is independent of material type and loading mode.
2. Dissipated energy concepts
Dissipated Energy is the energy being input into the material from outside work
(here we only consider loading effects), which is physically defined as the area
under the stress-strain curve. The energy dissipated during each loading cycle
captures the effects not only of the imposed strain but also of the dynamic mixture
properties, which makes it key in the development of surrogate models for fatigue
life prediction (SHRP, 1994).
With regard to previous dissipated energy studies in the pavement area, as
mentioned above, the total dissipated energy up to the number of cycles to failure
and other cumulative dissipated energy representations were predominantly used as
the energy parameter relating to fatigue failure. However, the relationships
established based on these approaches were either material or loading mode
dependent, or both. They assumed that all the dissipated energy represents damage
done to the material (SHRP, 1994; Van Dijk, 1975, Pronk et al., 1990). In reality,
only a portion of the total energy is responsible for the microcrack extension and the
structural damage of the materials. Although cumulative dissipated energy indirectly
recognizes the fact that not all dissipated energy is inducing damage, it cannot
directly determine the value of the damage being done to the material (Ghuzlan,
2001). This requires an improved energy parameter to describe the progression of
fatigue damage.
The dissipated energy approach has been extensively studied in metals and
various elastic-plastic materials. A broad literature review in these areas provides an
insightful understanding of the mechanism of dissipated energy as well as guidance
for its application in asphalt material. (Shivakumar and Crews, 1987) studied the
energy dissipation associated with crack extension in an elastic-plastic material and
stated that crack extension involves energy dissipation through the creation of new
crack surfaces and by yielding. He showed the total dissipated energy consisted of
three components:
– the crack separation energy (the energy spent in the actual creation of new
surface due to micro-separation processes),
– the plastic dissipated energy, and
– the residual strain energy.
If crack growth occurs, it will cause, besides a change in separation energy, a
change in the residual elastic energy. However, the plastic energy dissipation before
the crack extends may influence the crack initiation but does not contribute to the
crack extension (Turner and Kolednik, 1994).
(Manfredi, 2001) evaluated the seismic energy demand of structure damage. It is
experimentally demonstrated that in many situations plastic cycles with low
amplitude do not influence the damage. Another consideration is the damping
influence on energy dissipation. Viscoelastic materials have a capacity to both store
and dissipate mechanical energy (Lazan, 1968). When sustaining external loading,
part of the dissipated mechanical energy can be converted into thermal energy
through viscoelastic damping therefore reducing the material’s fatigue damage (Hil,
1992). As a source of released energy, this part of dissipated energy will not create
fatigue crack extension and should be eliminated from the total dissipated energy
calculation for predicting fatigue failure.
Similarly, in the HMA pavement area, (Lytton and Robert, 2000) introduced
“dissipated pseudo-strain energy” in fracture and healing of asphalt-aggregate
mixtures. According to his study, the microfracture and healing of asphalt-aggregate
mixtures is governed by the energy balance per unit of crack area between the
“dissipated pseudo-strain energy” and the “energy stored on the surface”. The crack
will grow when the dissipated pseudo-strain energy released exceeds the stored
surface energy of the newly created crack.
Based on these observations, a rationale on how dissipated energy relates to
fatigue damage of asphalt materials can be established. In general, energy dissipated
in a cycle depends on the energy dissipated in the previous cycles, or in other words,
it is history (path) dependent. Only the relative amount of energy dissipation created
by each additional load cycle, while excluding the energy dissipated through its
passive behaviours, such as plasticity deformation and thermal energy, will produce
further crack extension. This has a direct impact on damage accumulation. The
lower amount of relative energy dissipation could be found either in high fatigue
resistance material, or under low external loading amplitude, or both. Such relative
dissipated energy represents the total effect of fatigue damage without requiring
consideration of material type, loading modes and severity separately, and can
therefore be uniquely used to predict fatigue failure.
This concept was applied and verified by (Ghuzelan, 2001; Ghuzlan and
Carpenter, 2000) and later refined by Carpenter et al., 2003), building on the work
done by (Carpenter and Jansen, 1997) and other researchers (SHRP, 1994; Pronk
and Hopman, 1991). A ratio of dissipated energy change (previously called
dissipated energy ratio (DER)) was developed to describe asphalt mixture’s fatigue
damage. This ratio can be represented as:
(DEn+1 − DEn ) [1]

RDEC =
DEn
where:
– RDEC = the Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change
– DEn = the dissipated energy produced in load cycle n, and
– DEn+1 = the dissipated energy produced in load cycle n+1
RDEC eliminates the dissipated energy that does not produce crack extension
damage. This provides a true indication of the damage being done to the mixture
from one cycle to another by comparing the previous cycle’s energy level and
determining how much of it caused damage.
As introduced by (Carpenter et al., 2000, 2003), the RDEC develops a plateau
after the initial unstable period which then increases dramatically giving a sign of
true fatigue failure. The damage curve represented by RDEC versus loading cycles
then can be distinctively divided into three stages as shown in Figure 1.
PV, the constant value of RDEC in stage II (Plateau Stage), is significant for
evaluating HMA’s fatigue behaviour because it represents a period where there is a
relatively constant percent of input energy being turned into damage. In practical
usage, the PV is defined as the RDEC value at the 50% stiffness reduction point.
Because of testing noise, there is a wide distribution of recorded dissipated energy
(DE) points which makes the actual data points unusable. A curve fitting procedure
must be used to obtain the best fit equation for the DE-LC (loading cycle) data in
order to calculate RDEC as well as PV. Generally, a good curve fitting (high R^2
value, correct curve trend…) is achieved using a power law relationship. The PV is a
function of load/strain input and mixture type, which includes the effects of extrinsic
load inputs and intrinsic material fatigue resistance. For any one mixture the plateau
value is a function of the load inputs, and for similar load inputs, the plateau value is
different for different mixtures (Ghuzlan, 2001). PV has also been defined as a
damage index and found to have a unique relationship with fatigue life for different
mixtures, loading modes and loading levels (Ghuzlan and Carpenter, 2000; Ghuzlan,
2001).
Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change
III
I
II
Plateau Plateau Stage

Value
Load Repetitions
Figure 1. Typical Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change Plot with Three Behaviour
Zones (Carpentier et al., 2003)
In summary, the main advantages of the RDEC approach are:

– It provides a new means of defining a true fatigue failure point which is
directly related to the increase in damage.
– The unique fatigue relationship (PV-Nf) that it presents is independent of
mixture type (bitumen grade, aggregate type, gradation, etc.), mode of loading
(controlled strain or stress) and loading (test) conditions. It is therefore a

fundamental relationship.
– The uniqueness of the PV-Nf relationship provides a way to study both fatigue
endurance limit and healing, both of which have a great influence on asphalt
material fatigue behaviour.
3. Application to asphalt mixtures
3.1. Laboratory test and materials

Standard four-point bending beam fatigue tests (Aashto, 2003) were performed
in the laboratory to evaluate the energy related fatigue behaviour of asphalt
mixtures. The original data sets were analysed by using the RDEC approach and
were compared with conventional strain versus fatigue life data. Except where
specifically indicated, tests were run at standard test conditions of 10Hz frequency,
20ºC temperature, haversine wave shape, controlled strain/stress loading modes and
with/without rest periods.
In this research, a 50% initial stiffness reduction point was consistently used as
the fatigue failure point because it represents a value that relates to field failure in
asphalt pavements (Tayebali et al., 1993) and it has been validated to be strongly
related to true failure according to the dissipated energy analysis conducted by
(Ghuzlan, 2001). Using the 50% stiffness failure criterion is simply a proportional
shift from the true failure point and used for the purposes of reducing test time in the
laboratory.
Table 1. Tested Mixture Information
Mixture Mixtur Bitumen Bit. Avg. Air Testing

Agg.
Source e ID Type content Voids Gmm mode
Type
and Grade (%) (%)
Polymer SBS
2N90 5.9 7.18 dolomite 2.527
PG70-22
limestone
3N90T Neat PG64- 4.06 6.7 2.510 Control
IDOT 03 and RAP
22 strain
8N70 Neat PG64- 5.9 7.5 limestone 2.496

22
FAA Little Control
FAA Neat PG68- 5.25 5.8 limestone 2.478
Rock stress
22
Mixture /strain
A wide variety of asphalt concrete mixtures were tested and the test results
analysed to examine and validate the concept introduced in this paper. These
mixtures were from an Illinois project and a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
project. Mixtures varied as a function of different bitumen types (neat and modified
bitumen), bitumen content, air voids, gradation, aggregate types, etc. The detailed
information on the mixtures is given in Table 1.
3.2. Test Results
The classical Wöhler curve (Wöhler, 1960) of strain/stress versus fatigue life has
been extensively used as a traditional fatigue data representation approach in
pavement design for decades. However, a major disadvantage of this approach is
that it is both material and loading mode dependent. The linear relationship between
strain/stress and fatigue life is therefore not fundamentally material property based.
It varies with different material types and is not the same for controlled strain and
controlled stress loading modes.
Figure 2 gives examples of this fatigue representation for mixtures tested in this
study. For the purpose of comparing test modes, the controlled stress mode tests
were plotted in terms of initial strain. As shown in the figure, the six curves, which
represent the six combinations of material and loading mode, are different from each
other with each having its own unique linear relationship.
1000000
Nf @ 50% stiffness reduction
100000
10000
1000
100
0.0001 0.001 Strain 0.01
3N90T 8N70
2N90 FAA con-stress no rest
FAA con-stress 0.4sec rest FAA con-strain 0.5Hz
Figure 2. Traditional fatigue curves for asphalt mixtures

The RDEC approach has the capability to capture a material’s fundamental

property which is directly related to fatigue life. This approach was used to analyse
the same six asphalt mixture groups as shown in Figure 2 with the results plotted in
Figure 3. By visual observation, these regression curves appear to be more similar to
each other than those in Figure 2.
1.E-02
1.E-03
Plateau Value
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
3N90T 8N70
2N90 FAA con-stress no rest
FAA con-stress 0.4sec rest FAA con-strain 0.5Hz
Figure 3. RDEC Approach Based Fatigue Damage Curves for Asphalt Mixtures
The extension of the general statistical test for the equality of two regression
lines to more regression lines, as introduced by (Neter and Wasserman, 1974;
Motulsky and Christopoulos, 2003) was used to determine whether the regression
lines from different mixture-test condition combinations shown in Figure 3 are the
same or not. The detailed procedure is explained as follows:
1) Hypothesis: Ho: two or more lines are the same. Ha: any one of the lines is
different.
2) Fit the full, or unrestricted model (i.e. fit each data set separately) to get the
total sum-of-squares error, SSE(F) =SSE1 + SSE2 +SSE3+…… and the total degrees
of freedom, df(F)=df1+df2+df3+……
3) Fit the reduced or restricted model (combine each data set into one big data
set) under the Ho hypothesis that all lines are the same, and obtain the sum of
squares error SSE(R) and degrees of freedom df(R) for the reduced model.
4) Calculate the F* statistic by using the equation:
SSE ( R ) − SSE ( F ) SSE ( F ) [2]

F* = ÷
df ( R ) − df ( F ) df ( F )
5) Obtain the p-value by using excel internal function F probability distribution

for two data sets (FDIST):
p − value = FDIST ( F *, df1 , df 2 ) [3]
where:
df1 = df(R) - df(F), and
df2 = df(F).
6) Reject Ho if p-value <= α to conclude at least one line is different. Otherwise,

Ho hypothesis that all lines are the same is to be accepted.
It is worth noting that the p-value, the level of significance, is defined as the
probability of obtaining a value of the test statistic that is as likely or more likely to
reject Ho as the actual observed value of the test statistic. This probability is
computed assuming that the null hypothesis is true. Thus, if the level of significance
(p-value) is a small value, then the sample data fail to support Ho and the decision is
to reject Ho (Ott and Lyman, 2001). To determine the rejection region, the value of
type I error, α, should be pre-set to satisfy the research requirement. A traditional
threshold of α = 0.05 will be used in this paper.
Table 2. Comparison of equality of PV-Nf curves for asphalt mixtures
SSE df
Reduced (Combined) Model (R) 0.18609 20
Full (Separate) Model (F) 0.08253 10
F* 1.254684
p-value 0.363346
This approach was used to compare the equality of the six regression curves
shown in Figure 3 and the statistical results are recorded in Table 2. Because p-
value = 0.36 is greater than α = 0.05, we fail to reject the Ho hypothesis and
conclude that the six regression lines are statistically the same. They can be pooled
into one curve with R-square of 0.988. This indicates that irrespective of what
mixture types are tested as well as under different testing conditions (conventional
or polymeric binder, controlled stress or strain loading modes, different loading
frequencies, with or without rest periods), the damage parameter PV is always
uniquely related to fatigue life at 50% stiffness reduction. Unlike the load dependent
strain/stress relationship, the PV has included both material properties and loading
conditions and is therefore a more fundamental energy parameter to represent HMA

fatigue behaviour.
Using the same statistic approach to test the equality of the traditional fatigue
curves shown in Figure 2, a p-value of 1.95E-5 was obtained, which indicates the
null hypothesis must be rejected and there is significant difference among the
curves.
4. Application to Binders and Bitumen-Filler Mastics
4.1. Testing Materials

The binder and bitumen-filler mastic testing was undertaken on a European

standard 50 penetration grade bitumen and two types of filler (limestone and cement).
Each type of filler was added to the bitumen at three proportions by mass (for
limestone: 35%, 50% and 65%; cement: 20%, 35%, and 50%) to obtain six bitumen-
filler mastic combinations. The material properties are shown in Tables 3 to 5.
Table 3. Bitumen grade
Bitumen Penetration Softening Point Penetration Index

(dmm) (°C)
Nynas 50 Pen 50 50.2 -1.15
Table 4. Bulk density from Rigden’s Test (Rigden, 1947)
Filler Dry Density Bulk Density

Limestone 2.74 g/ml 1.92 g/ml
Cement 3.18 g/ml 1.95 g/ml
Table 5. Tested binder information
Testing Binder 30 29 28 27 26 25 24
ID
type and % of Pure 35% 50% 65% 35% 50% 20%
filler in bitumen Bitumen limestone limestone limestone cement cement cement
(by mass)
4.2. Laboratory tests
Although at present no predominant test method has emerged among researchers

to evaluate the fatigue characteristics of bitumen, oscillatory shear testing has been
considered as a useful technique and has been extensively used as it allows the strain
amplitude and the time scale (loading frequency) to be varied independently
(Giacomin and Dealy, 1993). It also meets the need to simulate the nature of traffic
loading in the application of asphalt pavements and allows the evaluation of stress-
strain loops and energy dissipation very effectively (Bahia et al., 1999).
In this study the Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) is used for the purpose of
conducting binder fatigue tests and performing both traditional strain/stress based
and dissipated energy based analysis. The spindle’s rotation supplies shear force to
the bitumen between the spindle and the bottom plate, as shown in Figure 4. The
DSR has the ability to determine and record the binder’s complex modulus (G*) and
phase angle at temperatures and frequencies using either controlled stress or
controlled strain loading modes. Therefore the dissipated energy at each loading
cycle can be obtained by using the following equations:
Controlled strain test: DE i = πε 2 G i* Sin δ i [4]
Controlled stress test: DE = π σ Sinδ

2
[5]
i * i
Gi
where:
DEi = the dissipated energy at cycle i;
σ, ε = the controlled stress or strain;
δi = the phase angle at cycle i;
Gi* = the complex modulus at cycle i.
It is very important to distinguish plastic flow from true fatigue failure. Anderson
et al. (2001) found that during DSR testing if G* is lower than a certain value, the
bitumen binder would more likely fail in plastic flow instead of true fatigue failure.
In this study, temperature sweep tests, suggested by Anderson, were performed at
temperatures from 10 to 25°C with a fixed frequency of 20Hz and 1.5% strain level
in order to determine a fatigue failure range. According to the test results shown in
Figure 5, the test temperature should not exceed 12°C to ensure a high complex
modulus value (G* > 50MPa) and thereby ensure a workable fatigue condition. At
low temperatures, the complex modulus of some mastics with 50% cement reached
as high as 120MPa at the frequency of 20Hz, which is too stiff to be handled by the
DSR machine.
Figure 4. DSR testing geometry schematic
9000 90
8000 80
7000 70
6000 60 G*(Mpa)
Nf
5000 50
4000 Fatigue Fatigue + Flow 40
3000 30
2000 20
1000 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T(C)
Pure 50 pen Binder, 20Hz, 1.5% controlled strain level Nf G*
Figure 5. Number of cycles at failure versus temperature
The Gemini 200 Dynamic Shear Rheometer made by Bohlin Instruments (shown
in Figure 6) was used with 8mm parallel plates to conduct the binder and mastic
fatigue testing. Compared to previous generation DSRs, this latest model has an
extended torque range which can apply high torques up to 200mNm without
compliance effects. The bituminous binder and mastics could therefore achieve true
fatigue failure without developing plastic flow.
Based on the description above, the testing conditions in this study were set at a
frequency of 20Hz, 12ºC temperature using both controlled strain and controlled
stress loading modes.
Figure 6. Gemini 200 dynamic shear rheometer
4.3. Strain/Stress Levels
Bahia et al. (1999) studied the binder’s linear and non-linear viscoelastic
properties and their effect on mixture response. He found that the fatigue
performance of binders at various strain levels in the linear and non-linear range has
a significant effect on mixture performance. Strain domains within binders are much
higher than mixture bulk strain. Binder films can be performing in the non-linear
region and reach strain levels as high as 10 to 100 times the bulk strain of the total
mixture. This agrees with Soenen’s findings (Soenen, 1999). In terms of this
research, it is reasonable to perform binder fatigue tests under large strain levels that
are beyond the binder’s Linear Visco-Elastic (LVE) limit (Airey et al., 2002, 2003).
In order to relate a binder’s fatigue behaviour to mixture behaviour using the
same RDEC approach and comparing their relationship, the binder’s strain levels
were set according to the corresponding mixture’s testing strain levels, in the non-
linear range. With mixture’s typical strain range from 30 to 1000 microstrain in a
conventional pavement structure, the binder’s range is between 0.3% and 10%. In
addition, the non-linear strain limit for the 50 penetration grade bitumen at 12°C and
20Hz is approximately 1% strain. Based on these considerations and the machine

capability, the strain levels used in this research were chosen as 0.5% (linear region
for comparison purposes), 1%, 1.5%, 3% and 5%.
For the controlled stress tests, the stress levels were chosen to achieve an initial
strain which was comparable to the controlled strain tests.
4.4. Failure criteria
For the controlled strain tests, although there are several fatigue failure criteria
for binders such as maximum phase angle (Kim et al., 2002), Rowe’s Criteria,
(Rowe, 1996) based on changes in dissipated energy including dissipated energy

ratio or damage accumulation ratio, 50% stiffness reduction criteria, etc., no single
criteria has been universally accepted so far. In this study, the traditional 50%
stiffness reduction approach is used to be comparable with asphalt mixture fatigue
tests.
For the controlled stress tests, the typical fracture failure point was used as this
can be easily identified during the test.
4.5. Results based on binder and mastics testing
Using the traditional fatigue data representation approach in both loading modes,
the strain (or initial strain for the controlled stress tests) levels showed power-law
relationships with fatigue live (Figure 7), irrespective of whether the strain levels
were in the linear or non-linear region. This finding was also shown in Soenen’s
binder test results (Soenen and Eckmann et al., 2000). However, just as with the
traditional fatigue curve for mixtures, this relationship is material dependent and
must be treated differently for different loading modes.
Figure 8 shows a typical variation of the dissipated energy and complex modulus
plotted versus the number of cycles during a controlled strain fatigue test. Both
dissipated energy and complex modulus show the same trend with increasing load
cycles. Visually, they can be divided into three parts. In the first stage (I), the
dissipated energy and complex modulus experience an unstable stage, either slightly
increasing or decreasing. In the second stage (II), the dissipated energy and complex
modulus decrease at an almost constant rate. This stage corresponds to damage
accumulation inside the sample. In the final stage (III), the dissipated energy and
modulus drop dramatically, which may indicate a true failure. Such finding is
similar to the results reported by (Anderson et al., 2001).
Applying the RDEC approach to the binder and mastics, a similar energy
dissipation scenario to that seen for the mixtures was found as shown in Figures 9
and 10. The RDEC approach for the bituminous binder and bitumen-filler mastics
also generated a Plateau Stage followed by a sharp increase. Such dramatic change
in RDEC is considered due to the propagation of cracks in binder and mastics, and
represents true failure. These results indicate that the binder and mastics have
similar fatigue behaviour to that of the asphalt mixtures, which supports the theory
that the energy dissipation in the binder (and/or bitumen-filler mastics) may be one
of the major factors governing the fatigue behaviour of the asphalt mixtures.
10000000
Nf, number of cycles to failure
1000000
100000
10000
1000
0.001 0.01 0.1
Strain
30 29 28 27 26 25 24 stress 29 stress 28 stress 30
Figure 7. Traditional fatigue curves for binder and mastics
A big advantage of the RDEC approach is that the unique relationship between
PV and fatigue life is neither material nor loading mode dependent. This concept
was verified to be true in both the bituminous binder and mastics. The PV in the
bitumen binder and mastics is defined as the ratio of dissipated energy change
(RDEC) value at the 50% modulus reduction point, in the same manner as for HMA.
Figure 11 shows the same fatigue test results as shown in Figure 7 but using the
RDEC approach. The linear curves of PV versus Nf using a log-log co-ordinate
system include pure binder and mastics with different filler types and contents, both
under controlled stress and controlled strain loading modes. Unlike the data in
Figure 7, these regression lines are very close to each other and appear to follow the
same trend line. This was verified using the statistic test, mentioned above, to test
the equality of the regression lines shown in Figure 11. A p-value of 0.6918 was
obtained which indicates that there is no significant difference among the regression
lines and they can be pooled into one unique curve with an R-square of 0.9819.
DE
G*
1.E+08 2.00E+04
8.E+07 G* 1.60E+04
I
II 50% complex DE
6.E+07 1.20E+04
modulus
reduction
4.E+07 8.00E+03
III
2.E+07 4.00E+03
0.E+00 0.00E+00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Loading Cycles
50 Pen Bitumen with 65% limestone, 1% Controlled strain
Figure 8. Dissipated energy and G* vs. loading cycles for mastic 2710
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
RDEC
0.0003 Failure Point

0.0002 Plateau Stage
0.0001
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
loading cycles
50Pen Pure Bitumen, 15% Controlled Strain
Figure 9. Ratio of dissipated energy change curve for binder 3015

0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
RDEC
Failure Point
0.0002
0.0001 Plateau Stage

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
loading cycles
50 Pen Bitumen with 65% limestone, 1% Controlled Strain

Figure 10. Ratio of dissipated energy change curve for mastic 2710
1.E-02
1.E-03
Plateau Value (PV)
1.E-04
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Fatigue Life (Nf)
30 29 28 27 26 25 24 29stress 28stress 30stress
Figure 11. Energy approach based fatigue damage curves for binder and mastics
5. Relationship between mixture and binder (mastic) fatigue behaviour
The fatigue performance of asphalt concrete mixtures has been investigated for
many years. Although it is recognized that fatigue damage is mainly caused by
cracking or damage within the bituminous binder, very few studies have used binder
tests to evaluate the fatigue of binders and relate them to mixture fatigue behaviour
(Pell, 1967; Bahia et al., 1999). Too many factors such as the role of binder
composition, rheological properties, testing control conditions (strain/stress levels,
temperatures, and frequencies) are confounded by different testing methods, making
it extremely complicated to compare or correlate binder and/or mastic properties
with mixture fatigue properties.
Energy dissipation is a material’s fundamental property. It is postulated that

similar classes of viscoelastic materials should share similar rules of energy
dissipation to maintain energy balance and damage development when subjected to
external work. Especially given the bituminous binder’s function within an asphalt
mixture, the fatigue behaviour in respect to energy dissipation should be strongly
related. By plotting the pooled binder (mastic) and mixture fatigue data (as shown
separately in Figures 3 and 11) onto a single log-log damage curve PV-Nf chart, two
linear curves can be produced that are almost parallel with a shift between them as
shown in Figure 12.
1.E-03
Binder (Mastic):
Plateau Value (PV)
-0.9598
1.E-04 y = 1.7663x
2
R = 0.9819
1.E-05
-1.101
1.E-06 Mix: y = 0.5787x
2
R = 0.988
1.E-07
1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Binder: con-strain Binder: con-stress Mixture
Figure 12. PV-Nf curves for both binder (mastics) and mixtures
Although further testing and investigation is required to understand this

relationship, one possibility is that the slope of a mixture’s fatigue damage curve is
basically due to the effect of the binder and its energy dissipation characteristics
This assumption is conceptually similar to that found by Pell and Cooper (1975) and
Rowe (1993). Both of them suggested that the binder has a significant influence on
the slope parameter of the asphalt mixture fatigue curve. The shift of the two curves
is related to the effect of aggregate. Because of the existence of an aggregate
structure, there are more surfaces and voids, resulting in increased discontinuity
within binder films. The interaction between the binder film and the aggregate
provides more sources of energy dissipation, which may make the mixture’s
integrity inferior to that of a binder. For the same energy plateau level it is easier to
create crack extensions in a mixture, not only within the binder itself, but also on the
surface of the binder and aggregate, thereby developing a shorter fatigue life.
6. Conclusions
The RDEC approach is a fundamental material and load related approach based
on classical energy balance theory, which can be used to evaluate the fatigue
behaviour of viscoelastic materials such as bituminous binders and HMA asphalt
mixtures. The constant value of PV is a unique parameter for damage and fatigue
failure regardless of test parameters such as material type, loading mode, etc. Such
uniqueness is applicable for asphalt mixtures, bituminous binders and bitumen-filler
mastics.
The binder’s energy based fatigue damage curve (PV versus Nf) in this study
was found to be almost parallel to the fatigue damage curve of a range of asphalt
mixtures, thereby demonstrating a strong relationship between the binder and HMA
mixture’s fatigue behaviour. The slope and the relative position of the two curves
are significant in understanding the effect of binder properties, aggregate type and
properties and binder-aggregate interaction on the mixture’s fatigue behaviour. The
Plateau Value, which represents the stable Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change, is a
fundamental parameter for fatigue damage analysis, irrespective of the bituminous
binder and/or asphalt mixture. The uniqueness of this relationship provides a
meaningful approach for future asphalt mixture fatigue property analysis, as well as
helping to construct a mixture fatigue damage model according to binder’s damage
properties.
The uniqueness of the relationship between Plateau Value and fatigue life, and
the strong correlation of binder and mixture energy based fatigue damage curves
suggests a new way to construct an asphalt mixture fatigue damage model according
to a binder damage property. Further laboratory tests and theoretical evaluation are
needed to understand the role of the binder/aggregate interaction in the mixture’s
fatigue performance.
7. Bibliography
Airey G.D., Rahimzadeh B. and Collop A.C., “Linear Viscoelastic Limits of Bituminous
Binders”, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Technologists, Vol. 71, 2002, p. 89-115.
Airey G.D., Rahimzadeh B. and Collop A.C., “Linear Viscoelastic Performance of Asphaltic
Materials”, International Journal of Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 4, No. 3,
2003, p. 269-292.
AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, 23rd Edition, Part 2B, T321-03, “Determining the Fatigue Life of
Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending”,
Washington D.C., 2003.
Anderson D.A., LeHir Y.M., Marasteanu M.O., Planche J.P. and Martin D., “Evaluation of
Fatigue Criteria for Asphalt Binders” Journal of Transportation Board (TRB), No. 1766,
2001, p. 48-56.
Baburamani P.S. and Porter D.W., “Dissipated Energy Approach to Fatigue Characterisation
of Asphalt Mixes”, Proceeding combined 18th ARRB TR Conference Transit New Zealand
Symposium, 1996, p. 327-347.
Baek S., Srinivasa A.R., “A variational procedure utilizing the assumption of maximum
dissipation rate for gradient-dependent elastic-plastic materials”, International Journal of
Non-Linear Mechanics, Vol. 38, 2003, p. 659-662.
Bahia H.U., Zhai H., Bonnetti K., Kose S., “Non-Linear Viscoelastic and Fatigue Properties of
Asphalt Binders”, Journal of AAPT, Vol. 68, 1999, p. 1-34.
Carpenter S.H., Ghuzlan K., Shen Shihui “A Fatigue Endurance Limit for Highway and
Airport Pavement”, Journal of Transportation Research Record, No. 3428, 2003, p.131-
138.
Dijk W. (van), “Practical Fatigue Characterization of Bituminous Mixes”, Proceedings of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Phoenix, Arizona, 1975, p. 38.
Dijk W. (van), Vesser W., “The Energy Approach to Fatigue for Pavement Design”, Annual
meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT), San Antonio,
Texas, 1977, p. 1-40.
Erberik M.A., Sucuoglu H., “Energy-based Low-cycle fatigue characteristics of degrading
structures”, Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
London, UK, 2002.
Erberik M.A., Sucuoglu H., “Seismic energy dissipation in deteriorating systems through low-
cycle fatigue”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33,
2004, p. 49-67.
Fakhri M., Characterisation of Asphalt Pavement Materials, PHD Thesis, the University of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1997.
Ghuzlan K.A., Carpenter S.H., “Energy-Derived, Damage Failure Criterion for Fatigue
Testing”, Journal of Transportation Research Record, No. 1723, 2000, p. 141-149.
Ghuzlan K.A., Fatigue Damage Analysis in Asphalt Concrete Mixtures Based Upon
Dissipated Energy Concepts, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL, 2001.
Giacomin A.J., Dealy J.M., “Large-amplitude oscillatory shear”, Techniques in Rheological
Measurement, E.A.A. Collyer, ed., Chapman and Hall, London & New York, 1993, p. 99-
121.
Griffith AA., “The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids”, Philos Trans Roy Soc London
A, Vol. 221, 1920, p. 163-198.
Kausch H.H., Jud K., “Molecular aspects of crack formation and healing in glassy polymers”,
Plastics and Rubber Processing and Applications, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1982, p. 265-268.
Kim Y.-R., Little D.N., Lytton R.L., “Use of Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (Dma) To
Evaluate The Fatigue And Healing Potential Of Asphalt Binders In Sand Asphalt
Mixtures”, Journal of AAPT, 2002.
Lazan B.J., Damping of Materials and Members in Structural Mechanics, Oxford: Pergamon,
1968.
Lytton R.L., “Characterizing Asphalt Pavement for Performance”, Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1723, Part I, Washington D.C, 2000.
Manfredi G., “Evaluation of seismic energy demand”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 30, 2001, p. 485-499.
Motulsky H., Christopoulos A., Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Linear and
Nonlinear Regression, A Practical Guide to Curve Fitting, GraphPad Software Inc., San
Diego, CA, 2003.
Neter John, Wasserman William, Applied Linear Statistical Models, Regression, Analysis of
Variance, and Experimental Designs, Homewood, Illinois, 1974.
Ott R. Lyman, An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, Michael
Longnecker, Texas A&M University, 5th ed., 2001.
Pell P.S., “Fatigue Characteristics of Bitumen and Bituminous Mixes”, Proceedings of
International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, 1967.
Pell P.S., Cooper K.E., “The Effect of Testing and Mix Variables on the Fatigue Performance
of Bitumenous Materials”, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 44, 1975, p. 1-37.
Pronk A.C., Hopman P.C., “Energy Dissipation: The Leading Factor of Fatigue”, Proceedings
of the conference the United States Strategic Highway Research Program, London, 1991,
p. 255-267.
Rigden P.J., “The use of Fillers in Bituminous Road Surfacings-A Study of Filler-Binder
Systems in Relation to Filler Characteristics”, J. Soc. Che. Ind., 1947, p. 66-299.
Rowe G.M., “Performance of Asphalt Mixtures in the Trapezoidal Fatigue Test”, Proceedings
of Associations of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 62, 1993, p. 344-384.
Rowe G.M., Application of the Dissipated Energy Concept to Failure Cracking in Asphalt
Pavement, PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 1996.
Shivakumar K.N., Crews J.H.J., “Energy dissipation associated with crack extension in an
elastic-plastic material”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 28, (Issue 3), 1987,
p. 319-330.
SHRP, A-404, Fatigue Response of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixes, Strategic Highway Research
Program, National Research Council, 1994.
Soenen H., “Fatigue Behavior of Bituminous Materials: From Binders to Mix”, Untitled
Journal, Preprint, 1999.
Soenen H., Eckmann B., “Fatigue Testing of Bituminous Binders with a Dynamic Shear
Rheometer”, Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Book 1, 2000, p. 827-834.
Tayebali A.A., Rowe G.M., Sousa J.B., “Fatigue Response of Asphalt Aggregate Mixtures”,
Proceedings of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 62, 1992, p. 385-421.

Tayebali A.A., Deacon J.A., Coplantz J.S., Monismith C.L., “Modeling Fatigue Response of
Asphalt-Aggregate Mixtures”, Proceedings of Associations of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, 1993, p. 385-421.
Turner C.E., Kolednik O., “A micro and macro approach to the energy dissipation rate model
of stable ductile crack growth”, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials &
Structures, Vol. 17, No. 9, 1994, p. 1089-1107.
Wöhler A., “Versuche uber die Festigkeit der Eisenbahnwagenachsen, English summary”
(1867), Journal of Engineering, Vol. 4, 1860, p. 160-161.
Received: 15 November 2004

Accepted: 15 December 2005

A Dissipated Energy Approach To Fatigue Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Dissipated Energy Approach To Fatigue Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]

On: 26 February 2013, At: 01:15

Road Materials and Pavement Design

A Dissipated Energy Approach to Fatigue Evaluation

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2006.9690026

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Shihui Shen* — Gordon D. Airey** — Samuel H. Carpenter*

* Department of Civil Engineering

Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 7 – No. 1/2006, pages 47 to 69

point bending beam, two-point cantilever etc.);

behavioural analysis. This ratio (RDEC), based on a change in DE between load

2. Dissipated energy concepts

(DEn+1 − DEn ) [1]

Plateau Plateau Stage

In summary, the main advantages of the RDEC approach are:

(controlled strain or stress) and loading (test) conditions. It is therefore a

3. Application to asphalt mixtures

3.1. Laboratory test and materials

Table 1. Tested Mixture Information

Mixture Mixtur Bitumen Bit. Avg. Air Testing

8N70 Neat PG64- 5.9 7.5 limestone 2.496

3.2. Test Results

Figure 2. Traditional fatigue curves for asphalt mixtures

The RDEC approach has the capability to capture a material’s fundamental

SSE ( R ) − SSE ( F ) SSE ( F ) [2]

5) Obtain the p-value by using excel internal function F probability distribution

p − value = FDIST ( F *, df1 , df 2 ) [3]

6) Reject Ho if p-value <= α to conclude at least one line is different. Otherwise,

Table 2. Comparison of equality of PV-Nf curves for asphalt mixtures

conditions and is therefore a more fundamental energy parameter to represent HMA

4. Application to Binders and Bitumen-Filler Mastics

4.1. Testing Materials

The binder and bitumen-filler mastic testing was undertaken on a European

Table 3. Bitumen grade

Bitumen Penetration Softening Point Penetration Index

Table 4. Bulk density from Rigden’s Test (Rigden, 1947)

Filler Dry Density Bulk Density

Table 5. Tested binder information

4.2. Laboratory tests

Although at present no predominant test method has emerged among researchers

Controlled strain test: DE i = πε 2 G i* Sin δ i [4]

Controlled stress test: DE = π σ Sinδ

Figure 4. DSR testing geometry schematic

Pure 50 pen Binder, 20Hz, 1.5% controlled strain level Nf G*

Figure 5. Number of cycles at failure versus temperature

Figure 6. Gemini 200 dynamic shear rheometer

4.3. Strain/Stress Levels

20Hz is approximately 1% strain. Based on these considerations and the machine

4.4. Failure criteria

(Rowe, 1996) based on changes in dissipated energy including dissipated energy

4.5. Results based on binder and mastics testing

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 stress 29 stress 28 stress 30

Figure 7. Traditional fatigue curves for binder and mastics

50 Pen Bitumen with 65% limestone, 1% Controlled strain

0.0003 Failure Point

50Pen Pure Bitumen, 15% Controlled Strain

Figure 9. Ratio of dissipated energy change curve for binder 3015

0.0001 Plateau Stage

50 Pen Bitumen with 65% limestone, 1% Controlled Strain

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 29stress 28stress 30stress

5. Relationship between mixture and binder (mastic) fatigue behaviour