Reducing inconsistency of HMA flexure fatigue testing

Michael Mamlouk, Mena I. Souliman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Beam fatigue testing of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in the laboratory has been used for several decades by many researchers around the world. A total of two standard procedures are currently available: one that controls constant haversine deflection and another that controls constant sinusoidal deflection. The literature shows a large variability in shift factors between laboratory and field fatigue results. Also, recent literature shows inconsistent waveforms when a haversine deflection is used, which could be one of the reasons causing this large variability. The paper examines the results of the standard procedures and provides a rational explanation of the differences between them.Because of the inconsistency of the ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, it incorrectly produces a larger number of cycles to failure than the AASHTO test, with ratios of approximately 10, which varies depending on the stiffness ofthe material. Also, specimens tested according to ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, with twice the input tensile strain of specimens tested accordingtoAASHTO flexural fatigue test standard at the same temperature, produced approximately the same number of cycles to failure. An approximate method is recommended to correct old ASTM flexural fatigue test standard results by assuming that the obtained number of cycles to failure corresponds to approximately 55-65% of the tensile strain that was inputted to the machine. More studies need to be conducted to verify the results using other materials and test conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number04015133
JournalJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering
Volume28
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

asphalt
Fatigue testing
Asphalt
Fatigue of materials
Tensile strain
Stiffness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Building and Construction
  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Mechanics of Materials

Cite this

Reducing inconsistency of HMA flexure fatigue testing. / Mamlouk, Michael; Souliman, Mena I.

In: Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2, 04015133, 01.02.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{06b2a871e4e14defb1a38cd6cb5152b0,
title = "Reducing inconsistency of HMA flexure fatigue testing",
abstract = "Beam fatigue testing of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in the laboratory has been used for several decades by many researchers around the world. A total of two standard procedures are currently available: one that controls constant haversine deflection and another that controls constant sinusoidal deflection. The literature shows a large variability in shift factors between laboratory and field fatigue results. Also, recent literature shows inconsistent waveforms when a haversine deflection is used, which could be one of the reasons causing this large variability. The paper examines the results of the standard procedures and provides a rational explanation of the differences between them.Because of the inconsistency of the ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, it incorrectly produces a larger number of cycles to failure than the AASHTO test, with ratios of approximately 10, which varies depending on the stiffness ofthe material. Also, specimens tested according to ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, with twice the input tensile strain of specimens tested accordingtoAASHTO flexural fatigue test standard at the same temperature, produced approximately the same number of cycles to failure. An approximate method is recommended to correct old ASTM flexural fatigue test standard results by assuming that the obtained number of cycles to failure corresponds to approximately 55-65{\%} of the tensile strain that was inputted to the machine. More studies need to be conducted to verify the results using other materials and test conditions.",
author = "Michael Mamlouk and Souliman, {Mena I.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001422",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
journal = "Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering",
issn = "0899-1561",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reducing inconsistency of HMA flexure fatigue testing

AU - Mamlouk, Michael

AU - Souliman, Mena I.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Beam fatigue testing of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in the laboratory has been used for several decades by many researchers around the world. A total of two standard procedures are currently available: one that controls constant haversine deflection and another that controls constant sinusoidal deflection. The literature shows a large variability in shift factors between laboratory and field fatigue results. Also, recent literature shows inconsistent waveforms when a haversine deflection is used, which could be one of the reasons causing this large variability. The paper examines the results of the standard procedures and provides a rational explanation of the differences between them.Because of the inconsistency of the ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, it incorrectly produces a larger number of cycles to failure than the AASHTO test, with ratios of approximately 10, which varies depending on the stiffness ofthe material. Also, specimens tested according to ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, with twice the input tensile strain of specimens tested accordingtoAASHTO flexural fatigue test standard at the same temperature, produced approximately the same number of cycles to failure. An approximate method is recommended to correct old ASTM flexural fatigue test standard results by assuming that the obtained number of cycles to failure corresponds to approximately 55-65% of the tensile strain that was inputted to the machine. More studies need to be conducted to verify the results using other materials and test conditions.

AB - Beam fatigue testing of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) in the laboratory has been used for several decades by many researchers around the world. A total of two standard procedures are currently available: one that controls constant haversine deflection and another that controls constant sinusoidal deflection. The literature shows a large variability in shift factors between laboratory and field fatigue results. Also, recent literature shows inconsistent waveforms when a haversine deflection is used, which could be one of the reasons causing this large variability. The paper examines the results of the standard procedures and provides a rational explanation of the differences between them.Because of the inconsistency of the ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, it incorrectly produces a larger number of cycles to failure than the AASHTO test, with ratios of approximately 10, which varies depending on the stiffness ofthe material. Also, specimens tested according to ASTM flexural fatigue test standard, with twice the input tensile strain of specimens tested accordingtoAASHTO flexural fatigue test standard at the same temperature, produced approximately the same number of cycles to failure. An approximate method is recommended to correct old ASTM flexural fatigue test standard results by assuming that the obtained number of cycles to failure corresponds to approximately 55-65% of the tensile strain that was inputted to the machine. More studies need to be conducted to verify the results using other materials and test conditions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955468801&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955468801&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001422

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001422

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84955468801

VL - 28

JO - Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering

JF - Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering

SN - 0899-1561

IS - 2

M1 - 04015133

ER -