Skip to main content
Log in

Fracture failure in crack interaction of asphalt binder by using a phase field approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fracture failure in crack interaction of asphalt binder has always been one serious problem in the pavement industry. In the state of the art research of asphalt cracking, single mode cracking has been studied by many researchers but there lacks theoretical and experimental research on the crack interaction of asphalt binder, which is more reasonable and realistic. The traditional way is to use the Griffith’s theory which is complex and complicated. In this paper, the phase field method (PFM) is presented for modeling, which describes the whole cracking system using a phase-field variable that assumes negative one in the void region (crack) and positive one in the solid region (intact). The fracture toughness is then considered as a material property and modeled as the surface energy stored in the diffuse interface between the intact solid and crack void. The non-conserved Allen–Cahn equation is adopted as the system governing equation to evolve the phase field variable to account for the growth of cracks. The energy based formulation of the phase-field method handles the competition between the growth of surface energy and release of elastic energy of crack interaction in a natural way: the crack propagation is a result of the energy minimization in the direction of the steepest descent. Both the linear elasticity and phase-field equation are solved in a unified finite element frame work, which is implemented in the commercial software COMSOL. Two cracking experiments, namely, direct tension test and double edge notch tension test are then performed for validation. It is discovered that the critical load of crack interaction by PFM agrees very well with both experiment results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peterson C, Buttlar W, Braham A (2009) Mixed-mode cracking in asphalt concrete. Advn Test Charact Bitum Mater 2:785–795

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dave EV, Song SH, Buttlar WG, Paulino GH (2007) Reflective and thermal cracking modeling of asphalt concrete overlays. Advn Test Charact Bitum Mater 2:1241–1252

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ponniah JE, Cullen RA, Hesp SA (1996) Fracture energy specifications for modified asphalts. Proc ACS Div Fuel Chem 4:1317–1321

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braham A, Buttlar W (2009) Mode II cracking in asphalt concrete. In: Scarpas T, Al-Qadi IL (eds) Advanced testing and characterization of bitumious materials—loizos, Part I, Taylor & Francis Group, London

  5. Griffith AA (1921) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 221:163–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmed S, Dave E, Buttlar W, Behnia B (2012) Compact tension test for fracture characterization of thin bonded asphalt overlay systems at low temperature. Mater Struct 45(8):1207–1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Isacsson U, Zeng H (1998) Low-temperature cracking of polymer-modified asphalt. Mater Struct 31(1):58–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lefeuvre Y, de La Roche C, Piau J (2005) Asphalt material fatigue test under cyclic loading: the lengthening of samples as a way to characterize the material damage experiments and modeling. Mater Struct 38(1):115–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ho S, Zanzotto L (2005) The low temperature properties of conventional and modified asphalt binders evaluated by the failure energy and secant modulus from direct tension tests. Mater Struct 38(1):137–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim H, Wagoner M, Buttlar W (2009) Micromechanical fracture modeling of asphalt concrete using a single-edge notched beam test. Mater Struct 42(5):677–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cahn JW, Hilliard JE (1958) Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial free energy. J Chem Phys 28:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karma A, Kessler DA, Levine H (2001) Phase-field model of mode III dynamic fracture. Phys Rev Lett 87:045501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacqmin D (1999) Calculation of two-phase Navier–Stokes flow using phase-field modeling. J Comput Phys 155:96–127

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Kim JS, Johnson WC (2004) Efficient phase-field simulation of quantum dot formation in a strained heteroepitaxial film. Superlattices Microstruct 36:293–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuhn C, Muller R (2010) A continuum phase field model for fracture. Eng Fract Mech 77:3625–3634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eastgate LO, Sethna JP, Rauscher M, Cretegny T, Chen CS, Myers CR (2002) Fracture in mode I using a conserved phase-field model. Phys Rev E 65:036117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schanzel L, Hofacker M, Mieche C (2011) Phase field modeling of crack propagation at large strains with application to rubbery polymers. Proc Appl Math Mech 11:429–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Song YC, Soh AK, Ni Y (2007) Phase field simulation of crack tip domain switching in ferroelectrics. J Phys D Appl Phys 40:1175–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yue P, Zhou C, Feng J (2010) Sharp-interface limit of the Cahn–Hilliard model for moving contact lines. J Fluid Mech 645:279–294

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Yue P, Feng J, Liu C, Shen J (2004) A diffuse-interface method for simulating two-phase flows of complex fluids. J Fluid Mech 515:293–317

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Harvey JAF, Cebon D (2005) Fracture tests on bitumen films. J Mater Civ Eng 17:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Cristini V (2008) Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth - I. Model and numerical method. J Theor Biol 255:257–274

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Tian W, Chau K, Chen Y (2001) J-integral analysis of the interaction between an interface crack and parallel subinterface cracks in dissimilar anisotropic materials. Int J Fract 111:305–325

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhao L, Chen Y (1996) The J integral analysis of an interface main crack interacting with near tip subinterface microcracks. Int J Fract 80:25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hou Y, Wang L, Yue P, Pauli T, Sun W (2013) Modeling Mode I cracking failure in asphalt binder by using nonconserved phase-field model. J Mater Civ Eng 26(4):684–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Spatschek R, Muller-Gugenberger C, Brener E, Nestler B (2007) Phase field modeling of fracture and stress-induced phase transitions. Phys Rev E 75:06611

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Gross D, Seelig T (2006) Fracture Mechanics with an introduction to micromechanics. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Lam KY, Phua SP (1991) Multiple crack interaction and its effect on stress intensity factor. Eng Fract Mech 40:585–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marasteanu M, Zofka A, Turos M, Li X, Velasquez R, Li X, Buttlar W, Paulino G, Braham A, Dave E, Ojo J, Bahia H, Williams C, Bausano J, Gallistel A and McGraw J (2007) Investigation of Low temperature cracking in asphalt pavements. Natl Pooled Fund Study 776 Final Report, Report No. MN/RC 2007-43

Download references

Acknowledgments

The paper presented here was performed under the Asphalt Research Consortium Project. The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to FHWA for funding and the project panel for advising.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Hou.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

The classic fracture mechanics is the traditional method to calculate the critical load that causing failure in pure Mode I case. For a single mode I crack, the Griffith criterion reads [27]

$$K_{I} \ge K_{\text{Ic}}$$
(26)

where K I is the mode I stress intensity factor and K Ic is the mode I fracture toughness which is a material parameter of asphalt binder. For the direct tension test specimen, the stress intensity factor is related to the tensile load as [22]

$$K_{I} = \sigma \sqrt {\pi a} \sqrt {\frac{2b}{\pi a}{ \tan }\frac{\pi a}{2b}} D_{I} (\frac{a}{b})$$
(27)

where a is the crack length, b is the specimen width (c.f. Fig. 7), and

$$D_{I} = \frac{{0.752 + 2.02\frac{a}{b} + 0.37(1 - { \sin }\frac{\pi a}{2b})^{3} }}{{{ \cos }\frac{\pi a}{2b}}}$$
(28)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hou, Y., Wang, L., Yue, P. et al. Fracture failure in crack interaction of asphalt binder by using a phase field approach. Mater Struct 48, 2997–3008 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0372-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0372-x

Keywords

Navigation