An illustration of Energy Ratio being the key factor in predicting cracking performance by experimental method

March 25, 2011 Yaming han

ABSTRACT In order to accurately predict the top-down cracking performance which is proved very common at AC pavements, the Energy Ratio is introduced now days. As an engineering graduate student, i am attracted by Energy Ratio for its critical and reasonable role in pavement design. Besides, I think the ER conception can also be used in geotech area like on rock base in future. Simply, analysis about an experimental method developed by FDOT to identify the important role of ER in predicting the cracking performance in Florida will be illustrated step by step in this paper. Basing on the principle of a single variable, this method used pavement sections with different binders in the upper two lifts, one is PG67-22, and the other is PG76-22, at the same time making sure that all other important factors like bond strength are almost same or similar in these two sections. This method focuses on finding the relationship between the difference of ER and that of cracking performance in two sections. Finally, the result will give people valid explanation that ER can accurately predict the AC cracking performance. KEY WORDS: Energy Ratio; Top-down Cracking; Bond Strength

OBJECTIVE The general goal of this paper is to make sure that the Energy Ratio is the critical factor in predicting the cracking performance by analyzing the experiment data and comparing with the difference of FDOTs test result. EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND MECHANISM The whole test is held on NCAT Test Track. In this test, two test sections N1and N2 have almost same properties but binder used in the top two lifts where the N1 used PG67-22 while the N2 used PG76-22. The modified binder (PG-76-22) can reduce the energy dissipation without change the threshold of a particular mixture. Though the air voids in the bottom two lifts of N2 is approximately 2% fewer, this is not a notable difference, and air void content is not a significant factor in top-down cracking prediction by itself.

A complete test period includes the section building in first year and the section trafficking 16hours per day, 5 days per week, with five triple-trailer (12kip steer, 40 kip tandem, five 20kip singles) vehicles for two years. Response data was recorded weekly basis and detailed maps were created once cracking initiated. During this test cycle, recorded data and detailed maps could give us clear view on the process of cracking initiation and propagation, as well as some reconstruction and response of the new built part.

Determination of energy ratio by top-down cracking model. As we have learned on prior class, the energy ratio is given by:

In this equation, Mr is resilient modulus; 6 is tensile strength; D1 and m are power function parameters; St is tensile strength and DCSEf is dissipated creep strain energy. All of these parameters can be obtained by three mixture test in this model.

Measurement of strain and temperature in the test process. In order to collect stain, asphalt strain gauges are embedded at the bottom of the HMA. Mid-depth pavement temperature is also recorded since it has been shown to be a primary factor in flexible pavement response. Coring and bond strength testing. To address these two issues, a series of cores were extracted from both sections. Basing the cracks and their distribution, we can make sure that the cracking is top-down cracking. The cores were load into a shear test collar with the interface between lifts 1 and 2 acting as the shear interface to test the bond strength. The collar was loaded into a Marshall device and a shear force was applied at a rate 2 inches/minute until a maximum load was reached. Bond shear strength was calculated by dividing the maximum load by the area of the core.

RESULET Figure 3 clearly shows the ER data for mixtures tested during the design phase in addition to material sampled from the hopper during paving and compacted in the laboratory. As we said before, this test is to prove the energy ratio to be the indicator of cracking performance of the sections with two different binders. Now, in this figure we can see the result clearly.

The energy ratio of N2 mixture is about 2.4 times higher than those of the N1 mixture. The factor was closer to 3 for lift one and 1.25 for lift two. Therefore, we can certainly expect that N2 is better than N1 in terms of top-down cracking based on the ER data. The recorded data of this test tell us that the measured mid-depth pavement temperatures and in-situ strain response under the single axles during the experiment are nearly equal between the two section form the beginning of the experiment through the first observed cracking in N1. A group of cores are obtained without any destroy during the cutting and extraction. The test results of those particular cores confirm the cracking was top-down in nature, aside from surface observations and investigation of the in situ strain. Besides, the test also finds that the cracking in these cores originated at the surface, reached the first interface and worked to debond the surface lift from the underlying lift., which is contrast to the theory that a bonding problem allow cracks to originate at the interface. At last, bond strength testing tell us that the two sections have approximately the same levels of bond strength between the upper layers and bond strength cannot be a contributing factor to the differences in cracking performance.

CONCLUSION This experiment introduces two full-scale test sections aimed at validating the energy ratio to be the primary factor in predicting cracking performance. Section N2 is designed with nearly twice energy ratio to section N1. Based upon the response of this experiment, the following conclusion can be given: Both sections initially have almost same properties and similar response as measured by embedded strain gauges. Experiment result confirmed those small differences in as-built properties did not take an important part in resulting structural response. Additional interface shear test can also confirm that difference in interface bond strength which is considered to be a potential confusing factor in predicting cracking performance does not have much influence on the whole test. Both in situ and laboratory test data and pictures clearly tell us the cracking is top-down cracking. Because of the difference of bind types used in the two test section, the energy ratios of them are also not same. Basing on what we know before, we can finally conclude that the energy ratio has the potential to reliably evaluate the top-down cracking performance of asphalt mixture. REFERANCES Wang, J, B. Brigisson and R. Roque. Windows-Based Top-Down Cracking Design Tool for Florida: Using Energy Ratio Concept. Transportation Research Record; Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.2037 Birgisson, B. R. Roque, B. Sangpetngam, Z. Zhang. Hot Mix Asphalt Fracture Mechanics: A Fundamental Crack Growth Law for Asphalt Mixture. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 71, 2002, pp. 816-827 Roque,R, B.Birgisson, C. Drakos, and B. Dietrich. Development and Field Evaluation of Energy-Based Criteria for Top-Down Cracking Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. Vol. 73, 2004, pp.229-260