DAIMI(c) Henrik Bærbak Christensen1 Test Doubles: Stubs, Spies, Mocks, etc.
04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
Transcript of 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
1/31
Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt
Concrete
Donald W. Christensen1, Jr., Terhi Pellinen
2, and Ramon F.
Bonaquist
3
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present a new, rational andeffective model for estimating the modulus of asphalt concrete
using binder modulus and volumetric composition. The model is
based upon an existing version of the law of mixtures, called theHirsch model, which combines series and parallel elements of
phases. In applying the Hirsch model to asphalt concrete, the
relative proportion of material in parallel arrangement, called the
contact volume, is not constant but varies with time andtemperature. Several versions of the Hirsch model were evaluated,
included ones using mastic as the binder, and one in which the
effect of film thickness on asphalt binder modulus wasincorporated into the equation. The most effective model was the
simplest, in which the modulus of the asphalt concrete is directly
estimated from binder modulus, VMA, and VFA. Models arepresented for both dynamic complex shear modulus (|G*|), and
dynamic complex extensional modulus (|E*|). Semi-empirical
equations are also presented for estimating phase angle in shear
loading and in extensional loading. The proposed model was
verified by comparing predicted modulus and phase angles tovalues reported in the literature for a range of mixtures.
Key Words: Superpave, asphalt concrete, dynamic modulus,
shear modulus, models, law of mixtures.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe in detail the
development and use of a new model for predicting the modulus of
asphalt concrete, which is based upon an existing model for
1Senior Engineer and 3Chief Operating Officer, Advanced Asphalt Technologies LLC, Sterling VA2Assistant Professor, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN
The oral presentation was made by Dr. Christensen
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
2/31
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
3/31
literature. This paper is based upon appendices to NCHRP Project
9-25 and Project 9-31 Interim Reports, but has been edited for
publication as a research paper (2, 3).
Background
The proposed method for estimating HMAC modulus is based
upon a widely used model for predicting properties of composite
materialsthe law of mixtures. As generally formulated, the lawof mixtures represents the mechanical response of two separate
phases in parallel (4):
Ec= v1E1+ v2E2 (1)
WhereErefers to the modulus, or some other material property, v
refers to the volume fraction of a given phase, the subscript crefersto the composite, and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to different
phases present in the composite. A less common form of the lawof mixtures can be derived for phases in series (4):
1/Ec= v1/E1+ v2/E2 (2)
Where the variables are as defined above. In the early 1960s, T. J.
Hirsch developed a variation of the law of mixtures for modelingthe mechanical behavior of asphalt concrete (5). The Hirsch model
combines parallel and series arrangement of the phases (4):
1/Ec= v1s/E1+ v2s/E2+ (v1p+v2p)2/(v1pE1+v2pE2) (3)
Where v1sand v2srefer to the volume fractions of phases 1 and 2,
respectively, in series arrangement, and v1pand v2prefer to the
volume fractions of phases 1 and 2, respectively, in parallel
arrangement. An equivalent expression for the Hirsch model canbe formulated if it is assumed that the relative proportions of phase
1 and phase 2 are the same in the series and parallel portion of the
model:
( )
+
+
+=
22112
2
1
1 111
EvEvx
E
v
E
vx
Ec (4)
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
4/31
Wherexis the ratio of phases in parallel arrangement to the total
volume. Whenx= 1, the Hirsch model produces results identical
to completely parallel phases (Equation 1), whereas whenx= 0, itrepresents a pure series arrangement (Equation 2). This model is
therefore quite flexible, and can be used to represent a wide rangeof composite behavior. Hirsch found that for several portlandcement concrete mixtures,xhad a value of about 0.5. These three
composite models are shown in Figure 1.
V1 V2
V1
V2
V
V
VV
1s
2s
1p 2p
(a) Parallel phases (b) Series phases (c) Hirsch model
Figure 1. Schematic representation of composite models for
parallel, series, and Hirsch (combination) arrangement of
phases.
Equation 3 is the basis for the proposed equation developed by
the research team for predicting asphalt concrete modulus from
binder modulus and volumetric properties. Asphalt concrete tendsto behave like a series composite at high temperature, but more
like a parallel composite at low temperature, and so the Hirschmodel should be appropriate for estimating the modulus of asphalt
concrete. However, for this model to be useful in modeling the
modulus of asphalt concrete, the relative proportions of the seriesand parallel phases must be time and temperature dependent. The
aggregate phase in the parallel portion of the model is important in
characterizing the behavior and performance of HMAC, as itrepresents that portion of the aggregate particles in intimate contact
with each other; this portion of the aggregate is therefore called the
aggregate contact volume,Pc. In general, as the aggregate contactvolume increases, so will the modulus, strength, and resistance to
permanent deformation. High values ofPcindicate a very
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
5/31
effective structure producing good strengths and stiffness, typical
at low temperature. Low values ofPctend to occur at high
temperatures, and indicate mixtures with low strength andstiffness.
Various modifications of the Hirsch model were devised andevaluated in developing the final version. Four of the mostimportant are shown in Figure 2. In many of the early
formulations of the model, it was assumed that the binder in
asphalt concrete was the mastic (mineral filler plus binder) ratherthan binder alone. In Figure 2(a), the bulk of the aggregate is in a
series arrangement with a parallel combination of the aggregate
contact volume and mastic. Better results were obtained with thearrangement shown in 2(b), where the aggregate contact volume is
combined in parallel with a series arrangement of the bulk
aggregate and mastic. In this figure, Vcrefers to the aggregate
contact volume, Va refers to the aggregate volume exclusive ofthe contact volume, Vmis the mastic volume, and Vvis the air void
volume. For the configuration shown in 2(a), the appropriate
equation for dynamic modulus would be as follows:
( )1
2'1'
+
+=
VmEmPcEa
Va
Ea
VaEc (5)
Where:
Ec = composite (asphalt concrete) modulusVa = volume fraction of aggregate, excluding contact
volume and mineral filler
Ea = aggregate modulusPc = aggregate contact volume, as volume fraction
Vm = volume fraction of masticEm = mastic modulus
For the configuration shown in Figure 2(b), the equation for thecomposite modulus is given by the following equation:
( )1
2 '1
++=
Em
Vm
Ea
VaVcVcEaEc (6)
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
6/31
Va
VmVc Vv
Va
VmVc
Vv
(a) Series Version (b) Parallel Version
VcVv Va,
VmVap VvpVmp
Vas
Vms Vvs
(c) Dispersed Version (d) Alternate Version
Figure 2. Schematic representation of four alternate versions
of modified Hirsch model.
Where the variables are as defined previously. The arrangement in
2(b) can in fact be generalized by using an exponent mrather than
1 in the series portion of the model:
( ) ( ) mmmm VmEmEaVaVcVcEaEc 111 '1 ++= (7)The exponent mcan take any value from 1 to 1, though in this
case meaningful models would result only for values between 1and about 0.2. For the case of perfect spheres of aggregates
within the mastic matrix, m= -0.5; this arrangement is shown in
Figure 2(c). Thus, Equation 7 represents a very flexible form ofthe Hirsch model.
In order to use the models represented in Figures 2(a), (b) and
(c), the modulus of the mastic must be estimated. The NCHRP 9-
25 research team has evaluated two approaches to calculating themodulus of the mastic based upon the binder modulus and the
volume fractions of binder and mineral filler. The first is a version
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
7/31
of the Einstein equation developed by Shashidhar and his
associates (6)
( )Eb
VfCVf
AVfEm
+
+=
''11
'1 (8)
Where:A = KE-1
KE = generalized Einstein coefficient
Vf = volume fraction filler in mastic = Vf/Vm
C = (1-Vfmax)/Vfmax2
Vfmax = maximum volume fraction of filler in mastic
The Einstein equation is rational in form and appears to bereasonably accurate. However, the predictions are quite sensitive
to the maximum volume fraction of filler (Vfmax). As the volume
fraction of filler in the mastic approaches this maximum, the
predicted modulus of the mastic becomes extremely high; whenVf= Vfmax, the predicted value ofEmis infinite. In reality, the
binder would most likely never actually incorporate this amount of
filler, as this represents a hypothetical maximum, at which the airvoid content of the mastic would be exactly zero. Instead, a certain
amount of excess filler would occur throughout the mix as free
filler. However, this is difficult to account for within theframework of a relatively simple method for predicting mixture
modulus.
An alternative approach involves the use of the generalized lawof mixtures:
( ) nnn EbVbEaVfEm 1'' += (9)
Where:Vb = volume fraction binder in mastic = Vb/Vm
Eb = modulus of binder
n = exponent with values from 1 to +1
For dispersed systems, nwill range from slightly less than 0 toabout 0.5. A preliminary evaluation based upon typical binder-
filler systems has indicated that the predictions of Equation 9 are
of the same magnitude as those of Equation 8 when n= -0.2.Equation 9, because of its relative simplicity and robustness, is
attractive for use in the various models. Results using this
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
8/31
equation compared favorably with those produced using the
Einstein equation. Therefore much of the analyses of the variousforms of the Hirsch model therefore used Equation 9 for estimating
mastic modulus.
Preliminary analyses showed that these three versions of theHirsch model did not exhibit good accuracy. The version of themodel that was found to exhibit consistently good accuracy is
shown in Figure 2(d). This alternate formulation of the Hirsch
model is very similar to the original model. The only difference inthis version is that the series and parallel sub-units of the model are
combined in parallel, rather than in series. This in effect places
more emphasis on the parallel sub-unit of the model. This versionof the Hirsch model produced the best results, and has the
additional advantages of being relatively simple and very similar to
the original version of the model as formulated by Hirsch.
Mathematically, it can be expressed using the following equation:
( ) ( )
12
2 ''
'
++++
++=
VmsEm
VvsVms
Ea
sVaVvsVmssVa
VmpEmpEaVaEc
(10)
Where the variables are as defined previously, but the addition of
the subscriptspandsdenote parallel and series phases,
respectively (see Figure 2(d)). As with the standard version of the
Hirsch model, this alternate formulation can be stated in somewhatsimpler terms by using the contact volumePcto represent the
proportion of parallel to total phase volume:
( ) ( ) ( )
12
'1'
++++=
VmEm
VvVm
Ea
VaPcVmEmEaVaPcEc (11)
Various types of functions where used to describe the
contact factor for use in Equation 11. Eventually, the researchteam found that the following equation for the contact factor
provided the best results:
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
9/31
1
1
'
'
2
0
P
P
VMA
EmVFMP
VMA
EmVFMP
Pc
+
+
= (12)
Where VFMis the fraction of aggregate voids filled with mastic,VMA is voids in the mineral aggregate, exclusive of mineral filler,
andP0,P1, andP2are empirically determined constants. Equation
12 is in fact a type of logistic function, which produces a sigmoidalresponse in log-log space typical of the behavior of many
viscoelastic materials. The first constant in Equation 12,P0, is
directly related to the contact factor at high temperatures and/or
low frequencies;P1is an exponent related to the rate of change ofthe contact factor with respect to the binder modulus Em;P2is
related to the location of the contact factor, which is directly
related to the overall stiffness of the asphalt concrete mixture.As will be discussed later in this paper, preliminary analysis of
the mastic version of the Hirsch model demonstrated that it was
accurate, but also seemed to indicate that it was not necessary toconsider the stiffening effects of mastic. Instead, a simpler version
of this model, which treats asphalt concrete as a simple three-phase
system of aggregate, asphalt binder, and air voids, seemed
appropriate:
( ) ( ) ( )
12
1
++++=
VbEb
VvVb
Ea
VaPcVbEbVaEaPcEc
(13)WhereEbrepresents the binder modulus, and Vbrepresents the
effective binder volume. Note that the aggregate volumes in
Equation 13 now represent true aggregate volume including the
volume of mineral filler. The corresponding equation for thecontact factor is identical to Equation 12, except that true VMAis
substituted for VMA (voids plus binder volume plus mineral filler
volume).A final modification of the Hirsch model was devised to
determine if film thickness could be incorporated into theexpression for modulus. The equation for this version of the
Hirsch model is essentially identical to Equation 13, but theeffective binder modulus,Eb, is substituted for the true bindermodulus:
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
10/31
( ) ( ) ( )
12
'1'
++++=
VbEb
VvVb
Ea
VaPcVbEbVaEaPcEc
(14)
The effective binder modulus is calculated by assuming thatthe binder modulus at the aggregate surface is equivalent to the
glassy modulus, but then decreases to the normal binder modulusvalue over a certain characteristic distance, tT, representing the
transition zone between the aggregate and binder. If the binder
film thickness is called tF, the equation for effective bindermodulus is then given using the following equation:
( ) EbtEtt
EbEtEb
TgTF
gF
+=' (15)
WhereEgis the glassy modulus of asphalt cement binder, assumedto be 1 GPa (145,000psi).
The reader should keep in mind that the above functions for the
Hirsch model, though stated in terms of the extensional modulus E,can be just as easily formulated in terms of the shear modulus G.
Furthermore, the modulus values used in any of these equations
can be determined from creep, stress relaxation, or dynamicmodulus tests. The Hirsch model is a rational, though semi-
empirical method of predicting asphalt concrete modulusthat is,
its structure is logical and based upon the law of mixtures, but itsuse in practice requires calibration with measured data. It should
not be confused with a constitutive equation, which rigorously
delineates the relationships among stress, strain, and material
properties (such as modulus) in two or three dimensions. TheHirsch model can however be used to estimate modulus values that
are used in various such constitutive equations.
Data used in Refining the Hirsch Model
In order to evaluate the various versions of the Hirsch model,and refine the most promising of these models it was necessary to
establish a database of modulus values for a wide range of
mixtures. Such a data set was created, based upon dynamic
modulus measurements made at Advanced Asphalt Technologies,
LLC, (AAT) and at the Arizona State University (ASU) as part ofNCHRP Project 9-19 (4). The AAT data set consists of dynamic
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
11/31
shear modulus and phase angle data collected using the SST, using
the frequency sweep tests. The ASU data set consists of dynamiccompression modulus and phase angle data. The mixtures tested
were the same for both data sets, and originated from FHWAs
Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) project, the MnROADProject, and the WesTrack Project; Pellinen has thoroughlysummarized these projects and the materials used in both data sets
(1). Inclusion of both shear and compression data allowed the
research team to develop versions of the Hirsch model for bothcases, which is essential since the relationship between |G*| and
|E*| for asphalt concrete mixtures is not at all straightforward nor
well documented.A summary of the database is given as Table 1. The database
includes results from testing on 18 mixtures using eight different
binders and 5 different aggregate sizes and gradations. A total of
206 observations are included in the dataset for each type ofmeasurement (shear and compression). A wide range of
volumetric compositions is also represented, although one
shortcoming in this data is the lack of mixtures with low air voidsand low VFA. The data set is however extensive, and suitable for
initial development of the Hirsch model. It is possible that larger
and more robust data sets could be used in the future to furtherrefine this method for estimating asphalt concrete modulus.
Method of Analysis
The general approach used in evaluating the various versions
of the Hirsch model, and refinement of the most promising wasnon-linear least squares (7). Christensen has presented a detailed
description of the use of this technique in analyzing IDT creep data
(8). In general terms, this procedure uses an iterative, numerical
procedure to calculate the values for parameters in a function sothat the sum of the square of the error terms is minimized.
Graphical techniques were used to identify and eliminate several
records that were clearly outliers, and to determine if otherpotential predictor variables existed which were not included in the
model. All of the outliers eliminated from the data were high-
temperature measurements made using the SST at very low stresslevels. These measurements were considered to be unreliable,
since the very low stress levels used were difficult to measure and
appeared to be quite noisy.
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
12/31
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
13/31
Figure 2(d), and represented in its basic form in Equation 10. The
three versions of this model are called here the mastic version(Equation 11), the simple version (Equation 13), and the transition
zone version (Equations 14 and 15). In all cases, Equation 12 was
used to characterize the contact factorPc.Model for |G*|The results of the non-linear least squaresanalyses of these three models for dynamic complex shear
modulus (|G*| as measured using the SST) are summarized in
Table 2. The value for parameterP0could not be determinedreliably using the least-squares procedure, probably because the
database did not include enough values at high temperatures and
low frequencies. However, it is important to include at least anestimate for this parameter, since it represents the limiting asphalt
concrete modulus at high temperatures and/or low frequencies.
Comparing model predictions with published master curves for
asphalt concrete, it was estimated that an appropriate value for thisconstant is about 3.
All three versions of the Hirsch model exhibited identical r2
values of 96.8 percent, suggesting that the more complex versionsof the model, intended to account for mineral-filler effects and the
effect of film thickness, are no more effective than the model
treating asphalt concrete as a simple three-phase system. For themastic model, the law of mixtures exponent for the mastic, n
(Equation 9) has an unrealistic value of 6.9, and a standard error
of 281 percent, indicating that this parameter does not contributesignificantly to the accuracy of the model. For the transition zone
model, similar problems are observed in the estimate of thetransition zone thickness; tTis estimated at only 0.03 microns, and
has a huge standard error of estimate of almost 4,000 percent. It is
therefore concluded that the most effective version of the Hirsch
model is the relative simple version represented by Equation 13,which can be given in terms of the complex shear modulus, |G*|,
VFA, and VMA:
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
14/31
Table 2. Summary of Least-Squares Estimation of Parameters
for |G*| Hirsch Model.
Mastic Model
Equation(s
):
11 & 12
Parameter Estimat
e
Std.
Error
Ea, lb/in2 635,000 7.2 %
P0 3 N/A
P1 0.678 2.4 %
P2 396 10.4 %
n(Eqn. 9) 6.9 281%
tT, microns N/A N/A
r2 96.8 % N/A
Simple Model
Equation(s
):13 & 12
Parameter Estimat
e
Std.
Error
Ea, lb/in2 601,000 7.1 %
P0 3 N/A
P1 0.678 2.4 %
P2 396 6.9 %
n(Eqn. 9) N/A N/A
tT, microns N/A N/A
r2 96.8 % N/A
Transition Zone Model
Equation(s
):14, 15 & 12
Parameter Estimate Std.
Error
Ea, lb/in2 601,000 7.2 %
P0 3 N/A
P1 0.678 2.4 %
P2 452 8.7 %
n(Eqn. 9) N/A N/A
tT, microns 0.03 3,760 %
r2 96.8 % N/A
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
15/31
( )
( )
1
*000,601
1001
1
000,10*1001000,601*
+
+
+=
binder
bindermix
GVFA
VMAVMA
Pc
VMAVFAGVMAPcG
(16)
Where |G*|mixis the complex shear modulus for the mixture, and
|G*|binderis the complex shear modulus for the binder, both in unitsof lb/in
2, and VFA and VMA are both given as percentages. The
binder modulus can either be determined experimentally using the
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) or similar device, or can beestimated from one of several available mathematical models. It
should be at the same temperature and loading time selected for the
mixture modulus, and in consistent units. The contact factor isgiven by the following function:
678.0
678.0
*396
*3
+
+
=
VMA
GVFA
VMA
GVFA
Pc
binder
binder
(17)
Figure 3 shows the |G*| values predicted using Equations 16
and 17 versus measured values. There is generally good
agreement.
Model for |E*|Non-linear least squares analysis was alsoperformed using the |E*| data gathered by Pellinen at Arizona State
University as part of NCHRP Project 9-19 (1). In the initial
calibration of the model for |E*|, performed during Phase I ofNCHRP Project 9-25, the data set used coincided with that
developed for the |G*| model. However, subsequent evaluation of
the model showed that results at extreme high and lowtemperatures were not always accurate. Therefore, as part of Phase
I of NCHRP Project 9-31, an expanded data set was created, which
included additional data at 9 and 54C. This resulted in asomewhat greater range of values for both |E*| and phase angle in
the data set. Furthermore, in the expanded data set replicatemeasurements were averaged, partly because of the greatlyexpanded size of the resulting data set, but also to minimize
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
16/31
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1000 10000 100000 1000000
Measured |G*|, psi
Predicted|G*|,psi
Figure 3. Predicted Versus Measured Shear Complex
Modulus (r2= 96.8 percent); Solid Line Represents Equality.
variability due to experimental error. It was felt that this approachwould provide a better estimate of the accuracy of the model. The
final values for the Hirsch model parameters for dynamic complex
modulus in extension were estimated to be as follows:
Ea: 4,230,000 psi (6.5 %) P0: 649 (9.0 %) P1: 19.7 (20.7 %) P2: .575 (3.0 %)
The r2value for the |E*| data (98.2 %) is slightly higher thanfor shear data. Also, note the much higher value forEa, which is
expected as compression moduli for most materials, includingasphalt concrete, are almost always much higher than shear
moduli. The other parameters are similar to the values determined
for the shear model. The predicted and measured values for |E*|
are shown in Figure 4; residuals as a function of predicted |E*| areshown in Figure 5. Applying appropriate rounding to the
coefficients listed above, the pertinent equation for compression
modulus is as follows:
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
17/31
( )
( )
1
*3000,200,4
10011
000,10*31001000,200,4*
+
+
+=
binder
bindermix
GVFA
VMAVMAPc
VMAVFAGVMAPcE
(18)
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Measured |E*|, psi
Predicted|E*|,psi
Figure 4. Predicted and Measured values for Complex
Modulus in Compression (r2= 98.2 percent); Solid Line
Represents Equality.
Note that the binder shear modulus in Equation 18 is multiplied
by 3 as an estimate of the extensional modulus: |E*|binder
3|G*|binder. This is based on an assumption of incompressibility,
that is, that Poissons ratio is 0.5. The following function is usedfor estimating the contact volume for use in conjunction with
Equation 18:
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
18/31
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Predicted |E*|, psi
Residual(Log|
E*|)
Figure 5. Residuals (Predicted-Measured) Values of Log |E*|
for Hirsch Model.
58.0
58.0
*3650
*320
+
+
=
VMA
GVFA
VMA
GVFA
Pc
binder
binder
(19)
Prediction of Phase Angle As discussed previously, in addition
to a need for estimating modulus in shear and compression, there is
also a need to estimate the phase angle from compositional data.
For example, the fatigue models developed during the StrategicHighway Research Program (SHRP) used the loss modulus as a
predictor variable, which is a function of both the complexmodulus and the phase angle (9). The research team found a good
empirical relationship between the log of the contact factorPc
(Equation 12) and the phase angle. Plots showing these
relationships, which includes the empirically determined equationsfor phase angle as a function of log (Pc), are shown in Figures 6
and 7. The following function can be used to estimate phase angle
usingPcas determined from shear data (r2= 82.9 %):
( ) 6.9log39log5.9 2 += PcPc (20)
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
19/31
y = -9.4633x2- 38.834x + 9.6031
R2= 0.8294
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Log (Pc)
PhaseAngle,
Degrees
Figure 6. Phase Angle as a Function of Log (Pc), Shear Data.
y = -20.56x2- 54.619x
R2= 0.8906
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Log (Pc)
Pha
seAngle,Degrees
Figure 7. Phase Angle as a Function of Log (Pc), Compression
Data.
The corresponding function for estimating from compression
data is given by the following Equation (r2
= 89 percent):
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
20/31
( ) PcPc log55log21 2 = (21)
These relationships, though not highly accurate, are useful for
estimating phase angle from asphalt concrete volumetric
composition. It should be kept in mind that the measurement ofphase angle is particularly difficult, so the amount of scatter in
Figures 6 and 7 is not surprising. There are two significantdifferences in these plots. The phase angle in shear (Figure 6) has
a value of 9.6 whenPcis zero; this indicates that in shear
measurements, the phase angle is about 10 degrees even at verylow temperatures and high frequencies. For the extensional data,
this is not truethe phase angle is zero whenPcis zero. It ispossible that the non-zero phase angle whenPcis zero for shear
data is an artifact, caused by friction in the horizontal bearing usedin the SST system (there are no bearings in the compression tests,
outside of those inherent in the actuators). The other significantdifference is that for the compression data, there is a clear
maximum in phase angle, whereas the shear data shows nomaximum. In general, it appears that the phase angle data in
extension are somewhat more reasonable than that determined in
shear.
Verification of the Model
In order to verify the final version of the Hirsch model in asindependent a manner as possible within the limited time available
during the initial phases of NCHRP Projects 9-25 and 9-31, the
models for shear modulus (Equations 16, 17 and 20) were used toestimate shear modulus for data as reported by Alavi andMonismith in research related to the original SHRP program (10).
These measurements were made using a cylindrical shear test, a
completely different technique than that upon which the model wasdeveloped. Alavi and Monismith used one aggregate (19-mm
nominal maximum size) and one binder, but a range of asphalt and
air void contents. Binder modulus values were estimated using themodel developed by Christensen and Anderson for SHRP binders
(11). Some volumetric information was estimated because of the
limited data reported by Alavi and Monismith. The predicted and
measured values of shear modulus are shown in Figure 8; theagreement is good, though the Hirsch model appears to slightly
under-predict modulus values at higher levels. In Figure 9,
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
21/31
predicted and measured phase angles are plotted for these same
data. The agreement here is not as good, especially at higher phaseangles. In Alavi and Monismiths data, the phase angle value, after
peaking, decreases to very low values. In the SST shear data, on
the other hand, the phase angle increases at a decreasing rate to amaximum value without any subsequent decrease. The researchteam believes this is an inherent difference in the measurement
methods. Phase angle predictions using the Hirsch model are
probably most accurate at low temperatures and/or highfrequencies.
As a second verification of the model, the complex modulus in
compression (|E*|) was predicted using both the Hirsch model andusing Andrei and Witczaks equation, and compared to the
measured values reported by Alavi and Monismith (12, ,10). This
comparison is shown graphically in Figure 10. The values for the
Hirsch model are in excellent agreement, whereas Andrei andWitczaks equation slightly under-predicts at higher modulus
values. Although this comparison is too limited to make broad
generalizations, it suggests that the Hirsch model is in generalagreement with Andrei and Witczaks equation, and is at least as
accurate. Hirsch model predictions for |E*| are probably in better
agreement with Alavi and Monismiths data, compared to the |G*|predictions, because the experimental technique used by Alavi and
Monismith for the shear measurements was substantially different
than that used by AAT in making the SST measurements. Incontrast, Pellinens compression moduli were probably determined
using methods giving results comparable to Alavi andMonismiths.
Another comparison useful for verification of the Hirsch model
is shown in Figure 11, which is a master curve for mixture V0W1from Alavi and Monismiths study (10). This figure shows
predicted and measured values for |E*| and phase angle as a
function of reduced frequency at 40C. This figure confirms that
the frequency dependence and general shape of the functions forcomplex modulus and phase angle as predicted by the Hirsch
model are reasonable and in good agreement with experimental
values. However, it appears that the phase angle predictions do notvary quite as strongly with frequency as the measured values.
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
22/31
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10 100 1000 10000
Predicted |G*|, MPa
Measured|G*|,MPa
Figure 8. Measured Complex Shear Modulus and ValuesPredicted Using the Hirsch Model; Solid Line Represents
Equality (data from Refereence 10).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Predicted Phase Angle, Degrees
Measur
edPhaseAngle,
Degrees
Figure 9. Measured Phase Angle s and Values Predicted Using
the Hirsch Model; Solid Line Represents Equality (data from
Reference 10).
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
23/31
100
1000
10000
100000
100 1000 10000 100000
Measured |E*|, MPa
Predicted|E*|,
MP
a
Witczak Model
Hirsch Model
Equality
Figure 10. Predicted and Measured |E*| Values; Solid LineRepresents Equality (data from Reference 10).
A more thorough verification of the Hirsch model wasperformed using data from a recent sensitivity study by Witczak
and his associates (13). In this study, |E*| measurements were
made on a range of mix variations based upon an ArizonaDepartment of Transportation mixture. This asphalt concrete used
a 25-mm nominal maximum aggregate size blend with an PG 64-
22 asphalt. The basic mix design was varied using four different
target air void levels (1.5, 4, 7 and 10 percent) and four binder
content levels (3.9, 4.55, 5.2, and 5.9 percent). In addition tomeasured |E*| values, modulus values were also predicted using
Witczaks equation. In Figure 12, |E*| values predicted using theHirsch model are compared to measured values reported by
Witczak and his team. The standard error in this case is 41 %,
which is slightly better than the standard error for Witczaks model(45 percent), but about double that for the experimental error for
these data (20 percent). Although not as good as actual
measurements, the accuracy of the model predictions is probably
suitable for many practical design and analysis applications.Estimated modulus values in fact are probably similar in reliability
to measured values when only limited replicate tests can beperformed, or when laboratory personnel are not experienced inmaking modulus measurements on asphalt concrete specimens.
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
24/31
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
25/31
10
100
1000
10000
10 100 1000 10000
Measured |E*|, ksi
Predicted|E*|,
ksi
Figure 12. Predicted and Measured Dynamic Modulus Values
Using Data from NCHRP 9-19 Sensitivity Study; Solid Line
Represents Equality (13).
10
100
1000
10000
10 100 1000 10000
Predicted |E*| (ksi), Witczak Model
Predicted|E*|(ksi),HirschModel
Figure 13. Dynamic Modulus Values Predicted Using the
Hirsch Model and Using Witczaks Equation, NCHRP 9-19
Sensitivity Data; Solid Line Represents Equality (13).
A final verification of the Hirsch model was done usingbending beam data and mixture creep compliance data published
as part of the SHRP project (14). Mixture creep compliance values
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
26/31
were determined on a range of field cores using the indirect tensile
creep tests. Using reported binder creep modulus values asdetermined using the bending beam rheometer, and reported
volumetric composition, the Hirsch model was used to predict
creep modulus values, which were compared to values reported byLytton and associates. The results of this comparison are shown inFigure 14. The Hirsch model appears to under-predict the modulus
values at high stiffness levels, but at this point the mixture creep
modulus is very high, in the range of 2 to 6 millionpsi, andapproaching the glassy limit. At values below about 2 millionpsi,
the predicted values are in reasonably good agreement with the
measured values. Comparison of Figure 14 with Figure 12 showthat these comparisons are in agreement; the under-prediction seen
with the Hirsch model at very high modulus values is probably a
function of the estimated constant glassy modulus value
(4,200,000psi). From a practical perspective, once an asphaltconcrete mixture is exhibiting modulus values in this range, it will
be extremely stiff and brittle, and would be probably subject to
high levels of thermal cracking and fatigue cracking if used in apavement in this condition. This discrepancy should therefore not
be considered a significant problem.
100
1000
10000
100 1000 10000
Measured Creep Modulus, ksi
PredictedCreepModulus,
ksi 5 seconds
100 seconds
equality
Figure 14. Predicted Creep Modulus Values Compared with
Measured Values, Using SHRP A-005 Low-Temperature Data;Solid Line Represents Equality (14).
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
27/31
Comparison of |E*| and |G*| Values
A final important comparison can be made between themeasured moduli in shear and compression for the entire data set
used to develop the Hirsch model. Recall that the shear moduli
were measured at AAT using the SST frequency sweep procedure,while the compression moduli were determined entirelyindependently at Arizona State University, though the same
materials were used. This allows a direct comparison of
independently determined modulus values. A plot of |G*| versus|E*| for these data is shown in Figure 15. Two important
observations can be made concerning this figure. First, the R2
value for this relationship, 92.9 %, is actually lower than the valuesfor the predicted and measured moduli for both shear and
compression data. This indicates that there is a large amount of
noise in the modulus measurements. Because of the relatively
poor precision of modulus determinations on asphalt concrete, it ispossible that modulus predictions using the Hirsch model (or other
similarly accurate procedure) might be nearly as accurate as
independent modulus measurements made on the same mixture.Thus for many practical applications, using modulus values
predicted using an accurate model is probably just as effective as
using measured values, and of course much less time consumingand expensive.
A second important observation concerning Figure 15 is the
relationship between |G*| and |E*|. Paving engineers might betempted to try to convert compression moduli to shear moduli
using the simple relationship G=E/(1+), where is Poissonsratio. If a value of 0.4 is assumed for , this suggests that |G*| |E*|/2.8. The line representing this equation is included on Figure
15, and clearly shows that this approximation is not at all accurate.
Although the SST is certainly a far from ideal test system, theagreement between SST-based predictions and Alavi and
Monismiths data (Figure 5) suggests that the relationship shown
in Figure 15 is for the most part real. The inaccuracy of simple
conversions between shear and compression moduli is probablydue to several factors, including non-linearity. However, non-
linearity is generally not significant at low temperatures and high
frequencies, but as seen in Figure 15, the simple conversion is notaccurate even at high modulus values. This discrepancy is
probably caused in large part by anisotropy in the mechanical
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
28/31
y = 0.0603x1.0887
R2= 0.9291
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Measured |E*|, psi
Measured|G*|,psi
|G*| = | E*|/2.8
Figure 15. Comparison of Measured Modulus in Shear (|G*|)and Compression (|E*|), for ALF, MnROAD, and WesTrack
Data.
behavior of asphalt concrete. Other researchers have found similardiscrepancies between HMAC modulus values made using
different loading geometries (9) Therefore, engineers should use
caution in selecting modulus test data or predicted modulus valuesfor use in pavement design and analysis. For example, Bonnaures
fatigue equations were developed on the basis of flexural modulus
data (15, 16); for best accuracy, the modulus values used in
conjunction with his fatigue equation should therefore be valuesbased on flexural measurements, or if these are not available,
extensional data. Engineers should not rely on conversions
between shear, compression, and flexural data based upon linearelastic theory and assumptions of homogeneity and anisotropy.
Although not as elegant, empirically determined relationships such
as that illustrated here and reported by other researchers are likelyto be more reliable.
Conclusions
A relatively simple version of the Hirsch model forcomposite behavior has been developed for estimating the
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
29/31
complex modulus and phase angle of asphalt concrete in
shear and compression.
The Hirsch model is both simpler and more rational thanexisting models for predicting modulus, and requires as
input only asphalt concrete volumetric composition andSHRP binder data, and so is ideal for use in examining therelationships among HMAC volumetrics, modulus, and
related aspects of pavement performance
The model appears to be in good agreement with Andreiand Witczaks model, and is of similar accuracy.
Modulus values predicted using the Hirsch model arepotentially nearly as accurate as measured modulus values.For many pavement design and analysis procedures,
predicted modulus values can be effectively used, and can
be determined much more quickly and cheaply. Using
predicted modulus values should be considered whenreliable measurements by experienced lab personnel are not
available.
The relationship among modulus values determined usingdifferent test methods are complex and cannot be
accurately predicted using simple linear elastic theory and
assumptions of homogeneity and anisotropy. Engineers
should be careful to select the appropriate modulus valuefor their intended purpose, whether that value is measured
or predicted using one of the available models.
References
1. T. K. Pellinen,Investigation of the Use of Dynamic Modulus asan Indicator of Hot-Mix Asphalt Performance, A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Arizona State University, May
2001, 803 pp.2. D. W. Christensen,NCHRP Project 9-25: Requirements for
Voids in Mineral Aggregate for Superpave Mixtures, Interim
Report to the National Cooperative Highway ResearchProgram, Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC, September
2001.3. D. W. Christensen,NCHRP Project 9-31: Air Void
Requirements for Superpave Mix Design, Interim Report to the
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
30/31
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Advanced
Asphalt Technologies, LLC, April 2002.4. R. Nichols, Composite Construction Materials Handbook,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976, pp. 259-262.
5. T. J. Hirsch,Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute,Vol. 59, 1962, p. 427.6. N. Shashidhar, S. P. Needham, B. H. Chollar, and P. Romero,
Prediction of the Performance of Mineral Fillers in SMA,
Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,Vol. 68, 1999, p. 222.
7. S. C. Chapra and R. P. Canale, Numerical Methods for
Engineers, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1988, 812 pp.8. D. W. Christensen, Analysis of Creep Data from Indirect
Tension Test on Asphalt Concrete,Journal of the Association
of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 67, 1998, pp. 458-489.
9. A. A. Tayebali, J. A. Deacon, and C. L. Monismith,Development and Evaluation of Surrogate Fatigue Models for
SHRP A-003A Abridged Mix Design Procedure,Journal of
the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 64,1995, pp. 340-364.
10. S. H. Alavi and C. L. Monismith, Time and Temperature
Dependent Properties of Asphalt Concrete Mixes Tested asHollow Cylinders and Subjected to Dynamic Axial and Shear
Loads,Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 63, 1994, pp. 152-175.11. D. W. Christensen and D. A. Anderson, Interpretation of
Dynamic Mechanical Test Data for Paving Grade Asphalt,Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
Vol. 61, 1992, pp. 67-98
12. D. Andrei, Witczak, M.W., and Mirza, W., Development of a
Revised Predictive Model for the Dynamic (Complex) Modulusof Asphalt Mixtures, NCHRP 1-37A Inter Team Technical
Report, University of Maryland, March 1999.
13. M. W. Witczak, M. Bari, and M. M. Quayum, Sensitivity of
Simple Performance Test Dynamic Modulus |E*|, NCHRP 9-19Subtask C4b Report, Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,December 2001.
14. R. L. Lytton, J. Uzan, E. G. Fernando, R. Roque, D. Hiltunen,
and S. M. Stoffels,Development and Validation of
-
8/13/2019 04-Christensen1-Hirsch Model for Estimating the Modulus of Asphalt-DM
31/31
Performance Prediction Models and Specifications for AsphaltBinders and Paving Mixes, Report SHRP-A-357, Washington,D.C.: Strategic Highway Research Program, 1993.
15. F. P. Bonnaure, A. H. J. J. Huibers, and A. Boonders, A
Laboratory Investigation of the Influence of Rest Periods onthe Fatigue Characteristics of Bituminous Mixes,Proceedings, the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
Vol. 51, 1980, p. 104.
16. F. Bonnaure, G. Gest, G. Gravois, and P. Uge, A New Methodof Predicting the Stiffness of Asphalt Paving Mixtures,
Proceedings, the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
Vol. 46, 1977, p. 64.