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

net/publication/261628079

Refining HMA Beam Fatigue Testing Conditions

Article in Advances in Civil Engineering · November 2012

DOI: 10.1520/ACEM20120018

CITATIONS READS
10 3,266

4 authors, including:

Michael Mamlouk Mena Souliman

Arizona State University University of Texas at Tyler
74 PUBLICATIONS 1,246 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 789 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Waleed Zeiada
University of Sharjah
121 PUBLICATIONS 1,201 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Waleed Zeiada on 30 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Refining HMA Beam Fatigue Testing Conditions

Micheal Sobhi Mamlouk1, Mena Ibrahim Souliman2,

Waleed Abdelaziz Zeiada3,4, Kamil Elias Kaloush5

ABSTRACT: The beam fatigue test of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) has been used for nearly a half

century. However, several conflicting results have been recently reported. This study attempts

to refine test conditions such as waveform type (haversine vs. sinusoidal), incorporating rest

periods between loading cycles, and the effect of rest period on the healing of the HMA to

minimize (eliminate) gross errors in the data analysis of the fatigue test results. In the deflection-

controlled haversine test (ASTM D-7460) permanent deformations lead to a new equilibrium

neutral position of the beam and the force output follows a sinusoidal waveform. This tends to

bend the beam in both directions similar to the deflection-controlled sinusoidal test. This would

produce erroneous fatigue results since the test assumptions do not match the actual test

conditions. In contrast, the deflection-controlled sinusoidal test (AASHTO T-321) is more

consistent than the deflection-controlled haversine test (ASTM D-7460). When tests, with and

without rest periods, are compared for healing studies, it is even more important to use a

deflection-controlled sinusoidal test in order to obtain a fair comparison and accurate healing

results. Since neither the haversine waveform nor the sinusoidal waveform in the lab exactly

simulates field conditions, it is important to use a sinusoidal waveform in order to obtain

consistent results. It is recommended that ASTM changes the ASTM D-7460 designation and

test procedure to require a deflection-controlled sinusoidal waveform instead of haversine.

Implementing the recommended test conditions is a crucial step in studying the concept of HMA

healing and, as a result, estimating the endurance limit which plays an important role in

designing sustainable pavements.

 2

KEYWORDS: Fatigue, Healing, Sinusoidal, Haversine, Deflection-controlled, Force-

controlled, Rest period.
_________________________________________________________________________
1
Professor, Arizona State University, Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable
Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306, Telephone: (480)-965-2892
E-mail: mamlouk@asu.edu
2
Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, 1664 N. Virginia St. /SEM320, Reno, NV 89557, Telephone: (775) 784-1435
E-mail: msouliman@unr.edu
3
Graduate Research Associate, Arizona State University, Department of Civil, Environmental
and Sustainable Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306,
E-mail: wzeiada@asu.edu
4
Assistant Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
5
Associate Professor, Arizona State University, Department of Civil, Environmental and
Sustainable Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306, Telephone: (480)-965-5509
E-mail: kaloush@asu.edu
 3

Introduction

Beam fatigue (four point bending) testing of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in the laboratory (Figure 1)

has been used for several decades by many researchers to simulate field conditions. It is

anticipated that the test will gain wider acceptance since it forms the foundation of the fatigue

analysis used in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide [1]. In this test, a HMA

beam is subjected to repeated bending until it fails. The stiffness ratio is calculated by dividing

the current stiffness, at a given level of repetitions (cycles), by the initial stiffness. The number

of loading cycles at failure is recorded and plotted against the strain value. Normally 8 to 12

specimens are tested at different strain or stress levels to establish the fatigue relationship at a

specific temperature. Since the stiffness of HMA is largely affected by temperature, the test is

typically performed at several temperatures to evaluate the effect of stiffness on the fatigue life.

Historically, haversine and sinusoidal waveforms have been used in the beam fatigue test

on HMA. Most researchers [8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14], especially in the U.S., have been applying a

haversine waveform under either controlled deflection (strain) or controlled force (stress) mode

for several decades. Also, the literature indicates that most researchers have run the beam

fatigue test without a rest period between load cycles.

With the advanced computer and equipment technology that has been developed in recent

years, researchers have been able to examine the pulse shapes in more detail. Therefore, recent

literature has emerged to show erroneous results, such as inconsistent waveforms or unexpected

fatigue results. Pronk et al [1, 2] showed that beam fatigue tests with a constant haversine

deflection on HMA would immediately change into tests with constant sinusoidal deflections

performed on a bent beam. They even went one step further and concluded that it is not possible

to carry out fatigue bending tests where both a haversine stress (force) oscillating signal and a
 4

haversine strain (displacement) oscillating signal are maintained throughout the test because of

the viscoelastic (viscous part) character of asphalt. This implies that a haversine test in a HMA

beam would result in erroneous fatigue results since a haversine force does not have the same

effect on fatigue as a sinusoidal force with the same peak-to-peak value. The haversine force

results in tension at the bottom of the beam and compression at the top, whereas the sinusoidal

force results in reversible tension and compression at the top and bottom of the beam with half of

the stress magnitude as that produced by the haversine force. Also, tension reduces the fatigue

life of the beam, while compression may tend to heal fatigue cracks.

Pronk’s claim is rather serious because it affects a well-established standardized test

procedure (ASTM D-7460) that has been used by many researchers throughout the last five

decades. Although not explicitly discussed in their papers, the results of other researchers [3, 4]

imply that when a haversine deflection-controlled test is run on a HMA beam the wave pulse

changes to sinusoidal, which support Pronk’s claim. Therefore, it is important to verify Pronk’s

claim under different conditions. Also, it is important to verify this claim for tests with and

without rest periods between loading cycles and investigate the effect of the waveform on

healing. Proper test conditions for the beam fatigue test are needed that would ensure accurate

fatigue results and confirm the healing that could happen to the HMA during the rest periods,

which would play an important role in designing sustainable pavements.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to enhance conditions for deflection-controlled beam fatigue

testing of HMA. Issues studied include the applied pulse shape (haversine versus sinusoidal), the

incorporation of rest periods between loading cycles, and the effect of rest period on the healing

of the HMA.
 5

Background

Types of Beam Fatigue Test

Deflection-controlled beam fatigue tests can be performed using either a haversine waveform

(ASTM D-7460) or a sinusoidal waveform (AASHTO T-321). Figure 2 shows the input

haversine and sinusoidal waveforms in the beam fatigue test without rest periods. The haversine

waveform tends to bend the beam downward in one direction, whereas the sinusoidal waveform

tends to bend the beam upward and downward with half of the magnitude of the haversine in

each direction. In the last several years, researchers have also started performing the beam

fatigue test with rest periods between loading applications to evaluate the healing effect that may

occur during the rest period. From this, estimates of the presence of an endurance limit have

been investigated [5, 6, 7].

Rest Period and Healing Concept

Although the continuous loading cycles without rest periods do not accurately simulate actual

traffic loading, it has been the most dominant procedure due to testing time constraints. Some

researchers, however, introduce a rest period after each loading cycle in order to simulate traffic

loading in the field [8, 9, 10]. A typical loading pulse is 0.1 second and typical rest periods

range from 0.1 – 19 seconds. Introducing rest periods during the fatigue test allows the HMA

material to heal some of micro cracks caused by the load due to the viscous nature of the

material. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the stiffness ratio (current stiffness/initial stiffness)

versus loading cycles with and without rest period. The difference between the two curves can

be used as a measure of healing.

Several researchers have studied the significance of rest periods between load

applications during fatigue testing of HMA. Researchers showed a general enhancement of the
 6

fatigue life when introducing rest periods [8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Some researchers reported an

increase in fatigue life as much as 25 times [15]. The optimum rest period would be different

based on mixture properties (aggregate gradation, binder content, binder grade, mixture

volumetric, etc.) and test conditions (mode of loading, temperature, frequency, stress or strain

levels, etc). Other researchers [19] stated that fatigue life can be explained by other phenomena:

nonlinearity, heating, thixotropy and fatigue. Analysis reported by Benedetto [19] showed that

the two reversible effects (heating and thixotropy) are very important and can not be ignored

when interpreting fatigue tests. Nonlinearity was also shown to be reversible. Heating is due to

the viscous dissipated energy that heats the specimen.

Experimental Tests

Deflection-controlled haversine and sinusoidal flexural fatigue tests were performed on HMA

beams according to ASTM D-7460 and AASHTO T-321, respectively, using two IPC machines

(Figure 1). Tests with and without rest periods were performed on a densely-graded base mix

with a nominal maximum size aggregate of 3/4 inch and a PG 64-22 binder [16]. The haversine

and sinusoidal waveforms had the same strain pulse of 0.1 seconds. Two strain levels of 400 and

800 microstrains and three test temperatures of 4, 21 and 38oC (40, 70 and 100F) were used.

Fatigue Tests without Rest Periods

In this part of the study, deflection-controlled haversine (ASTM D-7460) and sinusoidal

(AASHTO T-321) flexural fatigue tests were performed. The shape of the force pulses was

examined for both haversine and sinusoidal waveforms during the test. Figure 4 shows an

example of several cycles of input deflection and the resulting force response during the test

without rest period. For the sinusoidal test, both the deformation input and the resulting force

follow sinusoidal waveforms. For the haversine test, however, the deflection input remains as
 7

haversine, while the force output follows a sine waveform. This means that although the input

deflection tries to bend the beam in one direction, the beam actually bends in both directions.

This also implies that the stress output, and the resulting strain, are sinusoidal. In other words,

the deformation input follows a haversine waveform, while the strain follows a sinusoidal

waveform.

Figure 5 shows an example of the force output versus time for haversine and sinusoidal

tests with the same input peak-to-peak deflection using the same strain level and test

temperature. The figure shows that although the input waveforms are different, the force outputs

are almost the same for the two tests. This also definitely confirms Pronk’s claim that it is not

possible to carry out fatigue bending tests where both a haversine stress (force) oscillating signal

and a haversine strain (displacement) oscillating signal are maintained throughout the test.

Figure 6 illustrates what happens (hypothetically) to the HMA beam during the sinusoidal

deflection-controlled test and the haversine deflection-controlled test. In the sinusoidal test

(Figure 6 (a)), the deflection input is sinusoidal, which bends the beam in both directions. The

neutral position of the beam does not change during the test and remains in the original position

half way between the two extreme positions. In the haversine test (Figure 6 (b)), the deflection

input is haversine, which bends the beam with the same peak-to-peak mgnitude as the sinusoidal

test except in one direction only. Because of the viscous response of the material, creep

(permanent deformation) occurs in the beam and the neutral position of the beam shifts dowward

after a few loading cycles. The neutral position is located half way between the extreme

positions and the haversine deflection is changed to a sinusoidal deflection performed on a bent

beam.
 8

Figure 7 illustrates the deflection input and the stress and strain outputs that occur in the

HMA beam during the tset. Since the neutral position of the beam does not change in the

sinusoidal test, both strain and stress developed are sinusoidal causing alternating tension and

compression in the beam as shown in Figure 7 (a). In the haversine test, the deflection input

remains haversine throughout the test. The developed strain and stress pulses start as haversine

causing strain and stress in one direction (compression at the top of the beam and tension at the

bottom without reversal). Because of the shifted posion of the beam, the developed strain and

stress pulses immediately change to sinusoidal causing alternating tension and compression with

half of the magnitude of the stress applied at the beginning of the test as shown in Figure 7 (b).

At the end of the test, when the load is removed, the beam remains in the bent position showing

permanenet deformation. This observation also confirms the conclusions of Pronk’s et. al [1, 2].

Note that the strain always lags behind the stress in both the sinusoidal and haversine tests.

Currently, the literature incorrectly uses the terms “strain-controlled” and “deflection-

controlled” for beam fatigue tests on HMA interchangeably. Since the loading machine controls

the deflection, not the strain, the so-called haversine strain-controlled test is technically a

haversine “deflection-controlled” test. This is esecially important when testing a viscoelastic

material such as HMA, since the deflection remains haversine while the strain changes to

sinusoidal. If the test is run on an elastic material such as a portland cement concrete, a

deflection-controlled test would be the same as a strain-controlled test because the deflection

matches the strain.

Fatigue Tests with Rest Periods

In this part of the study, deflection-controlled haversine and sinusoidal flexure fatigue tests were

performed with rest periods of either 5 or 10 seconds using the same HMA materials and other
 9

conditions as the test without rest period. The shapes of the force and deflection pulses were

examined for both haversine and sinusoidal waveforms during the test. Figure 8 shows an

example of several cycles of input deflection and the resulting force response during the

sinusoidal and haversine tests with rest period. For the sinusoidal test, both the deflection input

and resulting force output are sinusoidal. For the haversine test, the force reverses direction at

the end of the pulse for a short period of time because of the creep. During the rest period,

however, the forces (stresses) are mostly recovered and force (stresses) waveform changes to be

close to haversine with a small negative value depending on the duration of the rest period.

Comparing the sinusoidal test without rest period (Figure 4 (a)) to the sinusoidal test with

rest period (Figure 8 (a)), the deflection and force (stress) waveforms maintain a sinusoidal

pattern. This means that the stress and strain conditions will be the same in both tests with and

without rest period. This condition would produce a fair comparison in the fatigue and healing

analysis. On the other hand, comparing the haversine test without rest period (Figure 4 (b)) to

the haversine test with rest period (Figure 8 (b)) shows that the haversine test does not produce

consistent results. The test without rest period produces sinusoidal forces (stresses), whereas the

test with rest period produces almost haversine forces (stresses). As discussed earlier, haversine

forces result in tension at the bottom of the beam and compression at the top, whereas sinusoidal

forces result in reversible tension and compression at the top and bottom of the beam. Also,

alternating tensile and compressive stresses are equal to about half of the stress magnitude

produced by haversine forces even though both tests run under the same deformation waveform

and peak-to-peak value. Moreover, tensile stresses reduce the fatigue life of the beam, while

compressive stresses may actually heal micro cracks and prolong the fatigue life of the specimen.
 10

This implies that the haversine test with a rest period is more harmful to the beam than

the haversine test without rest period. Although the rest period helps in the healing process, the

haversine force bends the beam in one direction with almost double the magnitude of the case

without rest period. This produces too much tension at the bottom of the beam. Therefore, a

totally unfair comparison could result when comparing the tests with and without rest period in

the healing analysis as discussed in the next section.

Consequences of Using Haversine Waveform

As discussed earlier, the use of a haversine deflection-controlled fatigue test without rest period

(ASTM D-7460) produces inconsistent waveforms, which might produce erroneous fatigue

results. A more serious effect happens during the healing analysis when the results of the test

with rest period are compared to those of tests without rest period. Figure 9 shows examples of

fatigue test results using haversine deflection control with and without rest periods. Figure 9 (a)

shows that the test with a rest period, in some cases, resulted in faster damage (smaller stress

ratios) and lower fatigue life than the test without rest period, producing “negative healing.”

This, of course, is completely opposite to the main hypothesis of healing, which is based on the

premise that it is the rest period that “heals” the damage in the HMA and extends its fatigue life.

In other cases, beams subjected to rest periods started in the proper trend, where they had less

damage than beams without rest periods. However, these beams failed during the test as shown

in Figure 9 (b and c), which is opposite to what is expected.

Figure 10 shows examples of fatigue test results using sinusoidal deflection control.

Unlike the case of haversine waveforms, the figure shows that there is always less damage for

the test with a rest period as compared to the test without a rest period (positive healing). The
 11

figure also shows that the test with rest period results in a longer fatigue life than the test without

rest period as expected.

Simulation of Field Condition

In the field, strain signals at the bottom of the asphalt layer may appear to look more like a

haversine than sinusoidal when a wheel load passes [17, 18]. Therefore, using a haversine

waveform in lab tests may initially appear to be more realistic. Based on the results of this study,

however, it is hard to simulate the field condition in the lab since the beam fatigue test with a

constant haversine deformation waveform will immediately change into a test with a sinusoidal

stress waveform. It is also important to note that only the asphalt mixture is tested in the lab

without consideration of the bottom foundation layers (base, subbase or subgrade). Hot-mix

asphalt is a viscoelastic material and in contrast with the road there is no ‘elastic’ foundation

support layer in the lab fatigue test to push the specimen back to its original position after the

load is removed [2]. Since neither the haversine waveform nor the sinusoidal waveform exactly

simulates the field condition, it is important to use sinusoidal waveforms to obtain consistent and

more accurate fatigue results as discussed in this paper.

Summary and Conclusions

Deflection-controlled haversine and sinusoidal flexure beam fatigue test protocols are defined in

ASTM D-7460 and AASHTO T-321, respectively. This study attempts to optimize the test

conditions such as waveform type (haversine vs. sinusoidal), incorporating rest periods between

loading cycles, and the effect of rest period on the healing of the HMA. The following

conclusions have been developed.

1. In the deflection-controlled haversine test (ASTM D-7460), permanent deformations lead

to a new equilibrium neutral position of the beam after only a few cycles due to the
 12

viscoelastic character of asphalt. Although the deflection input remains haversine, the

resulting stresses and strains follow a sinusoidal waveform, which bends the beam in both

directions very similar to a deflection-controlled sinusoidal test. Haversine strain and

stress signals cannot be maintained throughout the test.

2. The deflection-controlled haversine test produces erroneous fatigue results since the test

assumptions do not match the actual test conditions. The test calculations assume tension

at the bottom of the beam and compression at the top, while actually alternating tension

and compression at the top and bottom of the beam are developed with only half of the

stress magnitude. In addition to the incorrect stress magnitude, tension and compression

do not have the same effect on fatigue since tension reduces fatigue life and compression

may actually enhance the fatigue life of the specimen.

3. The deflection-controlled sinusoidal test (AASHTO T-321) is more consistent than the

deflection-controlled haversine test (ASTM D-7460) since it produces the intended stress

and strain waveform that is anticipated.

4. For studies dealing with healing and endurance limit of HMA, when tests with and

without rest periods are compared, it is even more important to use a deflection-

controlled sinusoidal test (AASHTO T-321) in order to obtain a fair comparison and

accurate fatigue and healing results.

5. Since neither the haversine waveform nor the sinusoidal waveform in the lab exactly

simulates field conditions, it is important to use a sinusoidal waveform in order to obtain

consistent results.

6. In the beam fatigue test on a viscoelstic material such as HMA, the loading machine

controls the deflection, not the strain. Because of the permanent deformation that occurs
 13

in the material, the strain does not match the deflection. Therefore, care should be taken

when referring to tests on viscoelastic materials. For example, the so-called haversine

"strain-controlled" test on HMA is technically a haversine “deflection-controlled" test.

Consideration of all of these conclusions leads the authors to strongly recommend that

the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) changes the ASTM D-7460 designation

and test procedure to eliminate the deflection-controlled haversine waveform and replace it with

the deflection-controlled sinusoidal waveform. This change would ensure consistent and more

accurate fatigue test results which will have a considerable impact upon designing more

sustainable pavements.

Acknowledgement

The paper was prepared as a part of the NCHRP Project 9-44A, which is funded by the National

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Dr. Matthew Witczak’s general overview

guidance and valuable input to the manuscript are acknowledged and greatly appreciated.

References

1. Pronk A.C. Comparison of 2 and 4 point fatigue tests and healing in 4 point dynamic

bending test based on the dissipated energy concept”, 8th International Conference on

Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, Washington, USA, 1997.

2. Pronk A.C., “Haversine Fatigue Testing in Controlled Deflection Mode: Is It Possible?”

Presented at the Transportation Research Board meeting, 2010.

3. Al-Khateeb, G., and Shenoy, A. A Distinctive Fatigue Failure Criterion, Journal of the

Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT), Vol. 73, 2004, pp. 585-622.
 14

4. Al-Khateeb, G., and Shenoy A. A Simple Quantitative Method for Identification of

Failure due to Fatigue Damage, International Journal of Damage Mechanics, (IJDM),

Vol. 20, 2011, pp. 3-21.

5. NCHRP Project 944-A, Validating an Endurance Limit for HMA Pavements: Laboratory

Experiment and Algorithm Development, Quarterly Progress Report, Arizona State

University, Tempe, Arizona, June, 2010.

6. Carpenter, S.H., and Shen, S., Application of the Dissipated Energy Concept in Fatigue

Endurance Limit Testing, Journal of Transportation Research Record No. 1929,

Transportation Research Board, 2005, pp. 165-173.

7. Prowell, B., E. R. Brown, R. M. Anderson, J. S. Daniel, A. K. Swamy, H. Von Quintus,

S. Shen, S. H. Carpenter, S. Bhattacharjee, and S. Maghsoodloo. Validating the Fatigue

Endurance Limit for Hot Mix Asphalt, Final NCHRP Report 646, NCHRP 9-38 Project,

National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2010.

8. Castro, M. and Sanchez, J.A., Fatigue and healing of asphalt mixtures: Discriminate

analysis of fatigue curves. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No.

2, 2006, pp. 168-174.

9. Monismith, C L, Secor, K E and Blackmer, W., Asphalt mixture behaviour in repeated

flexure”, Proceedings of Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 30, 1961,

pp.188-222.

10. Bonnaure, F., Huibers, A., and Boonders, A. A Laboratory Investigation of the Influence

of Rest Periods on the Fatigue Characteristics of Bituminous Mixes. Journal of the

Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Kansas City, Missouri, Vol.51, 1982,

pp.104-128.
 15

11. Bazin, P., and Saunier, J. Deformability, Fatigue and Healing Properties of Asphalt

Mixes. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Structural Design of Asphalt

Pavements, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967, pp. 553-569.

12. Raithby, K.D. and A.B. Sterling, The Effect of Rest Periods on the Fatigue Performance

of Hot-Rolled Asphalt under Reversed Axial Loading, Proceedings. The Association of

Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT), Vol. 39, 1970, pp. 134-147.

13. Kim, Y. R., Little, D. N., and Benson, F., Chemical and Mechanical Evaluation on

Healing Mechanism of Asphalt Concrete. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving

Technologists (AAPT), Vol. 59, 1990, pp. 240-276.

14. Jacobs, M. M. J., Crack Growth in Asphaltic Mixes. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of

Technology, the Netherlands, 1995

15. Raithby, K.D. and A.B. Sterling., Some effects of loading history on the fatigue

performance of rolled asphalt. Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Report

No. LR 496, Crowthorne, U.K., 1972.

16. Abojaradeh, M. A., “Predictive Fatigue Models for Arizona Asphalt Concrete Mixtures,”

A Dissertation presented at Arizona State University, Dec. 2003.

17. Al-Qadi, I.L., Yoo, P.J., Elseifi, M.A., and Janajreh, I., Effects of tire configurations on

pavement damage, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT),

Vol. 74, 2005, pp. 921–962.

18. Priest, A. L., Timm, D. H., Solaimanian, M., Gibson, N., and Marasteanu, M., A full-

scale pavement structural study for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design, Journal of

the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT), 2005, pp 519-556.

 16

19. H.Di Benedetto, Q.Nguyen, C.Sauzéat Nonlinearity, Heating, Fatigue and Thixotropy

during Cyclic Loading of Asphalt Mixtures, Road Materials and Pavement Design, VOL

12/1, 2011, pp.129-158.

 17

Fig. 1. Beam Fatigue Apparatus.

 18

Fig. 2. Haversine and Sinusoidal Input Waveforms without Rest Periods.

 19

Fig. 3. Number of Cycles vs. Stiffness Ratio with and without Rest Periods.
 20

Force and Deflection vs. Time (3 consecutive cycles)

(70F, 800 ms, 0 sec RP, Strain-Controlled, Sinusoidal)

0.6 0.15
Force-
0.4 0.1
Output

Deflection, mm
0.2 0.05
Force, kN

0 0
-0.2 -0.05
-0.4 Deflection- -0.1
Input
-0.6 -0.15
1498.9 1499 1499.1 1499.2 1499.3 1499.4
Time

(a) Sinusoidal
(70F, 800 ms, 0 sec RP, Strain Controlled)
0.6 0.3
Deflection-
0.4 Input 0.2

Deflection, mm
0.2 0.1
Force, kN

0 0

-0.2 Force- -0.1

Output
-0.4 -0.2

-0.6 -0.3
1498.8 1499 1499.2 1499.4 1499.6 1499.8
Time, sec

(b) Haversine

Fig. 4. Force and Deflection vs. Time for Sinusoidal and Haversine Deflection Controlled Tests
without Rest Periods (800 microstrains, 21oC).
 21
Force vs. Time (3 consecutive cycles)
(70F, 400 ms, 0 sec RP, Strain-Controlled, Haversine vs Sinusoidal)
0.8

0.4
Force, kN

Haversine
0

-0.4

Sinusidal
-0.8
1498.9 1499 1499.1 1499.2 1499.3 1499.4
Time

Fig. 5. Force vs. Time for Haversine and Sinusoidal Deflection-Controlled Tests without Rest
Periods (400 microstrains, 21oC).
 22

Fig. 6. Neutral and Extreme Positions Using Sinusoidal and Haversine Waveform Deflection-
Controlled Test on HMA.
 23

Fig. 7. Stresses, Strains and Deflections versus Time for Sinusoidal and Haversine Deflection-
Controlled Tests.
 Force and Deflection vs. Time (3 consecutive cycles) 24
(70F, 800 ms, 5 sec RP, Strain-Controlled, Sinusoidal)

1.2 0.15
Force-
Deflection-
0.8 Output 0.1
Input

Deflection, mm
0.4 0.05
Force, kN

0 0

-0.4 -0.05

-0.8 -0.1
-1.2 -0.15
1499.0 1499.1 1504.1 1504.2 1509.2 1509.3

5 Sec. RP Time 5 Sec. RP

(a) Sinusoidal
(70F, 800 ms, 5 sec RP, Strain Controlled)
1 0.3
0.8
0.2
0.6

Deflection, mm
0.4
0.1
Force, kN

0.2
0 0
-0.2
Deflection- -0.1
-0.4
Input
-0.6
Force- -0.2
-0.8 Output
-1 -0.3
1498.8 1499.1 1499.4 1499.7 1500 1500.3
Time, sec

(b) Haversine
Fig. 8. Force and Deflection vs. Time for a Deflection Controlled Test with Sinusoidal and
Haversine Pulses with Rest Periods (800 microstrains, 21oC, 5 sec. Rest period).
 25
Two Rest Period Levels Comparison
(at 400 ms, 40F)

0.8

Stiffness Ratio
0.6
Without rest period, 2 replicates

0.4

0.2
With 10 sec. rest period, 2 replicates

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Cycles
Two Rest Period Levels Comparison
(a) 400 microstrains, 4C
(800 ms, 70F)
1

0.8
Stiffness Ratio

0.6 Without rest period, 2 replicates

0.4

0.2
With 10 sec. rest period, 2 replicates

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Cycles
Two Rest Period Levels Comparison
(b) 800 microstrains,
(800 ms, 100F)21C

1.2

1 Without rest period, 2 replicates

Stiffness Ratio

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
With 10 sec. rest period, 2 replicates
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Cycles

(c) 800 microstrains, 38C

Fig. 9. Examples of Beam Fatigue Test Results Using Haversine Deflection-Control with and
without Rest Periods.
 Sample 94439 26
(at 800 ms, 70F, 0RP)

0.8
Stiffness Ratio
0.6 With 5 sec. rest period
0.4

0.2 Without rest period

0
0 5000 10000 15000
Cycles
Two (a)
Rest
800Perod Comparison
microstrains, 21C
(800 ms, 100F, Strain-Controlled, Sinusoidal)
1.2
With 5 sec. rest period
1
Stiffness Ratio

0.8

0.6

0.4
Without rest period
0.2

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Cycles
(b) 800 microstrains, 38C

Fig. 10. Examples of Beam Fatigue Test Results Using Sinusoidal Deflection-Control with and
without Rest Periods.

View publication stats