Comparison between 2PB and 4PB Methodologies Based on the Dissipated Energy Approach
Two and four point bending tests are among the most common methodologies adopted in Europe and United States for the fatigue characterization of asphalt mixes. Both tests tend to simulate the flexural stresses generated by traffic applying uniaxial rather than triaxial loading. The main differences between these procedures are: the direction of load application, the constrains and the volume of material subjected to fatigue.
In this study, based on Fatigue data, the Elletipi horizontal two point bending (2PB) and a traditional four point bending (4PB) results are compared. The peculiarity of the 2PB flexural device is the horizontal position of the trapezoidal specimen during the test.
All tests were performed in strain controlled conditions at different temperatures. The research focuses on the influence of the loading waveform by comparing the effects of sinusoidal and haversine loads of equivalent strain amplitudes. The Ratio of Dissipated Energy Change (RDEC) approach, based on the energy balance classical theory, was the application of choice for the analysis of results. Finally, the influence of specimen volume on fatigue resistance was assessed performing horizontal 2PB tests on trapezoidal specimens of different thickness.
KeywordsAsphalt Mixture Asphalt Concrete Transportation Research Record Stiffness Reduction Fatigue Endurance Limit
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.SHRP A-404, Fatigue Response of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixes. National Research Council, Washington, DC (1994)Google Scholar
- 2.Carpenter, S., Shen, S.: Dissipated Energy Approach to study Hot-Mix Asphalt Healing in Fatigue. Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 1970, pp. 178–185 (2006)Google Scholar
- 3.Shen, S., Airey, G.D., Carpenter, S.: A dissipated Energy Approach to fatigue evaluation. Road Materials and Pavement Design 7(1) (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Bhasin, A., Castelo Branco, V.T.F., Masad, E., Little, D.N.: Quantitative Comparison of Energy Methods to Characterize Fatigue in Asphalt Materials. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering © ASCE (February 2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Shen, S., Carpenter, S.H.: Application of the Dissipated Energy Concept in Fatigue Endurance Limit Testing, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1929,165–173 (2005)Google Scholar
- 6.Pettinari, M.: Performance evaluation of low environmental impact asphalt concretes using the Mechanistic Empirical design method based on laboratory fatigue and permanent deformation models, Ph.D thesis. University of Bologna (2011)Google Scholar
- 7.NCHRP report 646, Validating the Fatigue Endurance Limit for Hot Mix Asphalt, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Pronk, A.C., Poot, M.R., Jacobs, M.M.J., Gelpke, R.F.: Haversine Fatigue Testing in Controlled Deflection Mode: Is It Possible? In: Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, No 10-0485, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
- 9.ASTM D7460, Standard Test Method for Determining Fatigue Failure of Compacted Asphalt Concrete Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending, ASTM InternationalGoogle Scholar
- 10.Molenaar, A.A.A.: Predicting of fatigue cracking in Asphalt Pavements. Do we follow the right approach? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2001,155–162 (2007)Google Scholar