Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt M

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt Mixture: A Review

To cite this article: H R Radeef et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 682 012069
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 124.13.92.251 on 15/03/2021 at 06:00

4th National Conference on Wind & Earthquake Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 682 (2021) 012069 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/682/1/012069
Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt Mixture: A

Review
H R Radeef 1,2, N Abdul Hassan*1, A R Zainal Abidin1, M Z H Mahmud1, M K

I Mohd Satar1, M N Mohd Warid1, Z H Al Saffar1,3
1
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, 81310, Johor,
Malaysia
2
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf
Governorate, Iraq
3
Building and Construction Eng. Technical College of Mosul, Northern Technical College
of Mosul, Northern Technical University, 41002, Iraq
Corresponding author: hnorhidayah@utm.my
Abstract. One of the most common pavement distresses is related to surface cracking.
Therefore, identifying and characterizing fracture properties of asphalt mixtures are
significant towards a better pavement design. This study reviews four experimental methods
used to determine the fracture energy in asphalt mixture. These methods include circular
bending test (SCB), disc shape compact tension test, single-edge notched beam, and indirect
tensile test. Each experimental method has its characteristics and advantages. These
experimental methods are reviewed on the basis of their features, efficiency, and parameters
measured. The coefficient of variation (COV) for the fracture tests reflects the result
reliability of the test methods. Results with low COV value reflect low variance in the
fracture test, whereas high COV indicates high variance. The review indicates that the SCB
test is commonly used for determining the fracture energy in asphalt mixtures due to its
simplicity and data reliability.
1. Introduction
Cracking issue in asphalt pavement is a major distress that can reduce its service life. Cracking
initiation in asphalt mixture is mainly due to traffic loading (fatigue) and temperature impact
particularly in cold weather, thereby leading to severe oxidation and moisture damage. To further
investigate the cracking problem in asphalt mixture, researchers have performed numerous
experimental tests on fracture mechanic particularly for crack resistance [1-3]. One of the most
significant parameters in fracture mechanics for the evaluation of crack potential relies on fracture
energy [4]. With the advancement of fracture mechanics, several laboratory tests on fracture energy
of asphalt mixture have been developed, and then recognized as a standard procedure. However, no
advanced experiments or single-fracture parameter is able to characterize asphalt mixture
mechanism [5]. Providing standard testing procedures for the cracking assessment related to the
mechanical parameters of a fracture obtained in the laboratory is challenging; this approach can
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
reflect the in-service pavement quality [6]. The design of the test methods specifically dedicated to
cracking properties has only begun in recent years when the existing asphalt mixtures have proven
more susceptible to cracking than those mixtures optimized for better rutting resistance. Currently,
several methods are commonly used to measure the cracking potential in asphalt mixture specified
on the fracture energy (Gf). i.e., semi-circular bending test (SCB), disc-shape compact tension test
(DCT), single-edge notched beam, and indirect tensile test (IDT). Therefore, this review could
assist researchers and practitioners in the selection and improvement of the current applied methods
for crack assessment.
2. Fracture energy
Fracture energy is an important material property. It is a measurement of material potential
resistance against breakage. Fracture energy reflects the energy required to form a new fracture
surface [7]. Moreover, it is measured by the ratio of work of fracture to the crack ligament area
(thickness and ligament length of the specimen), where the work of fracture represents the area
under the load– displacement curve (Figure. 1).
Wf
Figure 1. Load-Displacement Curve of Fracture Test
According to RILEM TC 50-FMC [8], the fracture energy Gf is calculated using Equations 1 - 3.
(1)
Where;
Gf = fracture energy (J/m2), and
Wf = work of fracture (J),
(2)
Where;
P = applied load (N),
u = load line displacement (m), and
ALig = ligament area (m2)
(3)
Where;
r = specimen radius (m),
2
a = notch length (m), and

t = specimen thickness (m).
3. Semi-Circular Bending Test

The SCB test, as shown in Figure 2, consists of a half-disk of compacted asphalt mixture with an
initial notch (a) that is located at the center of the semicircular specimen. The figure also shows the
stress distribution within the specimen under the applied loads. The fracture area of the SCB
specimen is considered to have small fracture surface and short cracking path compared with IDT
and DCT tests. This test method can either be performed using laboratory or cored field specimens.
The specimen needs to be cut into two equal sections to produce two semicircular specimens. The
top of the specimen is loaded vertically, and it is supported symmetrically by two rollers. Through
the test, the crack notch starts to initiate in the tension zone and leads to a fracture of the specimen.
Linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) and metal button on the test specimen can be used
to measure the load point displacement. Furthermore, a clip-on gage (sensor gage) can be fixed at
the bottom of the specimen to measure the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). The
advantages of this test are as follows: the tests can be carried out on any loading devices typical in a
compressive load strength of 10 kN. Initially, the SCB specimen geometry was used to evaluate the
fractures of pre cracking rock materials with a sharp crack tip [9]. Subsequently, the SCB test was
used by many researchers to investigate the fracture parameters of asphalt mixtures [10]. Its
performance parameters, such as the fracture energy, peak load, and flexibility index are directly
related to the fracture resistance of asphalt mixtures. These parameters were implemented by the
Louisiana Department of Transportation, and then used by many highway departments [11].
F = APPLIED FORCE
D = SPECIMENDAIMETER
S = SPAN BETWEEN ROLLER
b = SPECIMENTHICKNESS
a = NOTCH DEPTH
Figure 2. Semi-circular Bending Specimen

In a study performed by Li and Marasteanu [12], the SCB test was used to evaluate the fracture
characteristics of different types of asphalt mixtures. The fracture energy according to the RILEM
TC 50-FMC standard was used for evaluating the asphalt mixtures. The study evaluated the impact
of different parameters including air voids, binder modification, binder type, test temperature,
loading rates, and aggregate gradation. The study concluded that the SCB represents a repeatable
fracture test for asphalt materials at low temperature. However, due to the fluctuation in the SCB
fracture energy results, the coefficient of variation (COV) was higher than other alternative test
methods. This finding is clearly shown in the result obtained by many researchers [13–18]. Despite
3
the high COV, the test method is considered the most suitable for asphalt mixture specimens due to
the simplicity of the testing machine and sampling [19]. The test method has been standardized and
available as ASTM D8044-16 2016, [20].
4. Disk-shaped Compact Tension

The DCT is specified in ASTM D7313-13 [21]. The test method has been designed to determine the
fracture energy of asphalt mixtures. Figure 3 shows the specimen geometry and the stress
distribution of the DCT test. The fracture area of DCT is considered large and has longer crack path
than that of the SCB test. The specimens of DCT can be fabricated from the laboratory-produced
cylindrical specimen as well as specimens of standard cylindrical field cores. The test device
applies tension force through the drilled holes, and the crack along the center of the specimen is
propagated due to the tension force. The main geometric feature in DCT is the long crack path of the
DCT specimen, which provides adequate time to analyze the crack propagation of asphalt mixtures
in low-temperature testing condition [22]. The DCT test is favored over the SCB test, which has a
short crack path, due to this feature. The disadvantage of DCT is the failure within the loading hole,
thereby leading to the change in the initial notch length. Thus, the center of the specimen is
increased. Wagoner [23] changed the position of the loading holes and proposed a new geometry by
increasing the distance between the initial crack and holes. This approach prevents the failure of the
loading holes under the applied loads. Past and recent works [22], [24–27] on the DCT specimen
geometry have provided accurate and reliable load–CMOD curves and fracture energy values for
asphalt mixtures at different test temperatures due to large fracture area compared with SCB test.
This finding is supported by many researchers [23], [28–31] on the basis of the COV calculated on
the fracture energy results.
Figure 3. Disk-shaped Compact Tension Specimen
5. Single-edge Notched Beam

The SENB test is performed in accordance with ASTM E399 specification [32]. It can be carried
out by applying three-point bending load on a beam specimen under various notch levels and
temperatures. Figure 4 shows the setup of the three-point bending test and the stress distribution of
the fracture region. The bearing span (S) is approximately 20 cm. Orginally, Majidizade et al. [33]
effectively performed the SENB test in evaluating the fracture properties of asphalt mixtures.
4
Subsequently, a similar test was conducted by Little and Mahboub [34] in evaluating the impact of
notch length and shape on the fracture energy of the binder samples. Mahboub [35] utilized SENB
test in measuring the J-integral fracture energy of asphalt mixture. The test conducted by Mahboub
[35] involved some modifications from ASTM E399 specification to suite the characteristics of
asphalt mixture. In this study, electronic crack opening sensor was used to measure the crack length
of the sample as the test was performed. Then, the SENB was applied on the asphalt mixture by
different research works, such as Hoare [36], Petersen [37], and Chailleux, [38], to obtain the
fracture properties. The SENB system was used to characterize fracture properties on various types
of asphalt mixtures (modified and unmodified) under low temperature. The test method was widely
used for determining the fracture energy of different types of asphalt mixture, loading rate,
temperature, and sample dimension [39–41]. Furthermore, the results obtained by Petersen [37],
Kim, [42], and Ding [39] showed that the COV of SENB fracture energy results is less than the SCB
test results. The length of the crack path is significant for testing inhomogeneous ductile materials,
such as the asphalt mixture [39].
Figure 4. Single-Edge Notched Beam Specimen
6. Indirect Tensile Strength

The IDT is by far the most standard procedure generally used by most highway departments to
determine the tensile strength of asphalt mixtures [43]. Figure 5 shows the loading frame and
specimen geometry of the IDT, where the load is vertically applied at a constant rate. The figure
illustrates that the tensile stress is directly proportional to the loading axis and eventually causes the
specimen to break or crack in the vertical cross section. In addition, the white zone in the fracture
area of the IDT exhibits large deformation during the test [44]. This deformation can cause high
fluctuation in the IDT results and significantly affect the amount of energy needed to create the
fracture. The fracture energy is the result of energy consumed in the plastic deformation and the
energy consumed for creating a new fracture area, which can be determined using the vertical force
and deformation [45], [46]. On the basis of the conceptual elasticity theory, the asphalt mixture
specimen is considered homogeneous, isotropic and linear elastic. This theory applies a set of equal
and diagonal loads (F) to develop a constant internal stress along the loaded diameter of the asphalt
mixture specimen. The indirect tension test configuration has been designed with several good
5
features on the basis of this theory. First, the use of compressive loading apparatus for determining
the tensile strength of materials is more convenient than the direct tensile loading test. Then, the
deformation of the specimen can be easily measured in one to three directions by using either one or
two LVDTs in each direction. The apparatus can also be used with any existing loading frame, such
as Marshall, unconfined, hydraulic system, and triaxle, which is available in most HMA testing
laboratories. The simplicity and widespread availability of the IDT test equipment persuaded the
researchers to develop other HMA tests with similar configurations, such as resilient modulus, IDT
creep compliance, and IDT-repeated load fatigue test. The result has also shown that the triaxle
shear strength of HMA can be correlated to its strength by applying the time–temperature
superposition principles, and the results can be used to estimate the mixture cohesion [47,48]. Other
researchers also indicate that the results from IDT strength test, IDT resilient modulus test, and IDT
creep compliance tests can be used to estimate the dissipated creep strain energy of HMA and as an
indicator for the top-down cracking potential of asphalt pavements.
Figure 5. Indirect Tensile Loading Specimen
7. Comparison of Test Methods

The experimental fracture test, SCB, DCT, SENB, and IDT, several advantages, and disadvantages
of each test method are reviewed. Each method has its preferred features and dimension that lead to
different fracture energy results. The benefit of using SCB test method is its simplicity in
conducting the test for samples prepared in the laboratory or extracted from the site. However, the
disadvantage of this test is the stress complexity due to the curvature shape of the specimen. The
SENB can conduct a mixed-mode fracture test (tensile and shear modes), the outcome of which is
reflected in a simple stress distribution. The disadvantage of this test is its inability to conduct field
core samples. The advantage of using DCT test is that it has a large sample, which provides long
crack ligament that allows full characterization of crack propagation. However, this test requires
complicated sample preparation along with the equipment setup particularly in highway
laboratories. IDT has high fracture area and availability of test equipment in the highway
laboratories. However, the disadvantage of IDT is its high deformation under the loading plate
during the test, thereby leading to high variation in the test results. Table 1 illustrates the significant
6
advantages and disadvantages related to each test method, depending on the discussed literature
review.
Table 1. Methods of determining fracture parameters
Specimen Geometry Advantages Disadvantages References
Semicircular Bending -Used by many -Complicated stress [13], [36],
researchers -Reliable test distribution [41-43]
result -Short crack length
-Ability to investigate -Constraint for crack
mixed-mode fracture propagation to the top
-Easy to fabricate from -Low-fracture surface
field cores area
-Standard ASTM test
method for HMA
Single-edge Notched -Ability to investigate -Unsuitable for field cores [34], [36],
Beam mixed-mode fracture -Constraint for crack [44,45]
-Simple specimen propagation to the top
geometry
-High fracture surface area
Disk-shaped Compact -Suitable for field cores -Failure around the loading [22], [44],
Tension -High fracture surface area holes [52]
-Standard ASTM test -Complicated stress
method for HMA distribution
-Requiring specific
laboratory equipment’s
-Crack path deviation
Indirect Tensile -Suitable for field cores -Crack path deviation [15], [44],
Strength -Standard ASTM test -Complicated stress [53], [54]
method distribution
for HMA -High deformation under
-High-fracture surface area the loading plate
The variations of fracture energy are due to different specimen dimensions that affect the total
energy consumed by the specimen weight and plastic deformation as a result of shape design in
addition to the stress distribution throughout the specimen. Moreover, Figure 6 shows the COV of
each test methods conducted by different researchers. The plot indicates that the least coefficient of
7
variation in the data (fracture energy) analyzed is found for DCT method that shows better
consistency in the results obtained compared with other test methods.
Figure 6. COV with replicates per test of fracture energy results obtained from different test
methods
8. Conclusion
This review has concluded that the ITD test produces higher fracture energy than DCT, SENB, and
SCB. The ITD test specimen preparation is the simplest among other methods given that the
preparation does not require any cutting or gluing process. On the contrary, the DCT test has the
lowest COV value for the fracture energy result followed by SENB, SCB, and ITD accordingly.
The SCB fracture test is the most practical method due to the sensitivity of performance indicators
under various test parameters in addition to the simplicity of the specimen preparation. In summary,
fracture energy can be characterized by one of these test methods with different parameters and test
limitations.
References
[1] Mihai Marasteanu, Mugurel Turos, Debaroti Ghosh J and Lorrany Matias de Oliveira T Y
2019 Investigation of Cracking Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures and Binders (Minnesota
Department of Transportation).
[2] Teshale E, Moon K, Turos M, Clyne T and Marasteanu M 2012 Low Temperature Fracture
Properties of Polyphosphoric Acid Modified Asphalt Mixtures J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24
1089–96.
[3] Lambert Y, Saillard P and Bathias C 1988 Application of the J Concept to Fatigue Crack
Growth in Large-Scale Yielding Astm Stp 969 pp 318–29.
[4] Birgisson B, Montepara A, Romeo E and Tebaldi G 2011 Characterisation of asphalt
mixture cracking behaviour using the three-point bending beam test Int. J. Pavement Eng.
8
[5] Wagoner M P, Buttlar W G, Paulino G H and Blankenship P 2005 Investigation of the

fracture resistance of hot-mix asphalt concrete using a disk-shaped compact tension test
Transp. Res. Rec. 183–92.
[6] Zhang Z, Roque R and Birgisson B 2001 Evaluation of laboratory-measured crack growth
rate for asphalt mixtures Transp. Res. Rec.
[7] Jensen J L, Nakatani M, Quenneville P and Walford B 2011 A simple unified model for
withdrawal of lag screws and glued-in rods Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 69 537–44.
[8] RILEM Technical Committee 50-FMC 1985 Determination of the Fracture Energy of
Mortar and Concrete by Means of Three-point Bend Tests on Notched Beams Mater. Struct.
No. 106, J.
[9] Lim I L, Johnston I W, Choi S K and Boland J N 1994 Fracture testing of a soft rock with
semi-circular specimens under three-point bending. Part 1-mode I Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci.
[10] Molenaar A A A, Scarpas A, Liu X and Erkens S M J G 2002 Semi-circular bending test;
simple but useful? Asph. Paving Technol. Assoc. Asph. Paving Technol. Tech. Sess. 71
794–815.
[11] Zhou F, Im S, Sun L and Scullion T 2017 Development of an IDEAL cracking test for
asphalt mix design and QC/QA Road Mater. Pavement Des. 18 405–27.
[12] Li X J and Marasteanu M O 2010 Using Semi Circular Bending Test to Evaluate Low
Temperature Fracture Resistance for Asphalt Concrete Exp. Mech.
[13] Liu J and Li P 2012 Low Temperature Performance of Sasobit-Modified Warm-Mix Asphalt
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
[14] Doll B, Ozer H, Rivera-Perez J J, Al-Qadi I L and Lambros J 2017 Investigation of
viscoelastic fracture fields in asphalt mixtures using digital image correlation Int. J. Fract.
[15] Falchetto A C, Moon K H, Wang D, Riccardi C and Wistuba M P 2018 Comparison of
low-temperature fracture and strength properties of asphalt mixture obtained from IDT and
SCB under different testing configurations Road Mater. Pavement Des. 19 591–604.
[16] Nsengiyumva G, You T and Kim Y R 2017 Experimental-statistical investigation of testing
variables of a semicircular bending (SCB) fracture test repeatability for bituminous mixtures
J. Test. Eval. 45 1691–701.
[17] Romeo E, Birgisson B, Montepara A and Tebaldi G 2010 The effect of polymer
modification on hot mix asphalt fracture at tensile loading conditions Int. J. Pavement Eng.
[18] Nsengiyumva G and Kim Y R 2019 Effect of Testing Configuration in Semi-Circular
Bending Fracture of Asphalt Mixtures: Experiments and Statistical Analyses Transp. Res.
Rec. 2673 320–8.
[19] Mohammad L N, Kim M and Elseifi M 2012 Characterization of asphalt mixture’s fracture
resistance using the semi-circular bending (SCB) test RILEM Bookseries.
[20] ASTM D8044-16 2016 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Asphalt Mixture Cracking
Resistance using the Semi-Circular Bend Test (SCB) at Intermediate Temperatures ASTM
Int. West Conshohocken,
[21] ASTM D7313 2013 Standard Test Method for Determining Fracture Energy of
Asphalt-Aggregate Mixtures Using the Disk-Shaped Compact Tension Geometry Road
Paving Mater. Veh. Syst.
[22] Stewart C M, Reyes J G and Garcia V M 2017 Comparison of fracture test standards for a
super pave dense-graded hot mix asphalt Eng. Fract. Mech. 169 262–75.
[23] Wagoner M P, Buttlar W G and Paulino G H 2005 Disk-shaped compact tension test for
asphalt concrete fracture Exp. Mech. 45 270–7.
9
[24] Kim S, Guarin A, Roque R and Birgisson B 2008 Laboratory evaluation for rutting
performance based on the dasr porosity of asphalt mixture Road Mater. Pavement Des.
[25] Kim M, Buttlar W G, Baek J and Al-Qadi I L 2009 Field and Laboratory Evaluation of
Fracture Resistance of Illinois Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlay Mixtures Transp. Res. Rec. 2127
146–54.
[26] Hill B and Buttlar W G 2016 Evaluation of polymer modification in asphalt mixtures
through digital image correlation and performance space diagrams Constr. Build. Mater.
[27] Ziari H, Moniri A, Bahri P and Saghafi Y 2019 The effect of rejuvenators on the aging
resistance of recycled asphalt mixtures Constr. Build. Mater. 224 89–98.
[28] Saha G and Biligiri K P 2018 Comprehensive fatigue mechanism of asphalt mixtures:
Synergistic study of crack initiation and propagation J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 1–11.
[29] Batioja-Alvarez D, Lee J and Haddock J E 2019 Understanding the Illinois Flexibility Index
Test (I-FIT) using Indiana Asphalt Mixtures Transp. Res. Rec. 2673 337–46.
[30] Zhu Y, Dave E V., Rahbar-Rastegar R, Daniel J S and Zofka A 2017 Comprehensive
evaluation of low-temperature fracture indices for asphalt mixtures Road Mater. Pavement
Des. 18 467–90.
[31] Dave E V, Oshone M, Schokker A J and Bennett C E 2019 Disc Shaped Compact Tension
(DCT) Specifications Development for Asphalt Pavement.
[32] ASTM E399 2002 Standard Test Method for Plane-strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic
Materials Annu. B. ASTM Stand. 03.01.
[33] Majidzadeh K, Kauffmann E M and Ramsamooj D V 1971 Application of fracture
mechanics in the analysis of pavement fatigue Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists
Proc p p.227-46, volume: 40.
[34] Little D N and Mahboub K 1985 Engineering Properties of First Generation Plasticized
Sulfur Binders and Low Temperature Fracture Evaluation of Plasticized Sulfur Paving
Mixtures. Transp. Res. Rec. 103–11.
[35] Mahboub K 1990 Elasto-plastic fracture characterization of paving materials at low
temperatures J. Test. Eval. 18 210–8.
[36] Hoare T R and Hesp S A M 2000 Low-Temperature Fracture Testing of Asphalt Binders:
Regular and Modified Systems Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board.
[37] Petersen D, Link R, Wagoner M, Buttlar W and Paulino G 2005 Development of a
Single-Edge Notched Beam Test for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures J. Test. Eval. 33 12579.
[38] Chailleux E and Hamon D 2006 Determination of the low temperature bitumen cracking
properties: fracture mechanics principle applied to a three points bending test using a non
homogeneous geometry ICAP Proc.
[39] Ding B, Zou X, Peng Z and Liu X 2018 Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Asphalt
Mixtures Using the Single-Edge Notched Beams Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
[40] Sudarsanan N, Karpurapu R and Amirthalingam V 2019 Investigations on fracture
characteristics of geosynthetic reinforced asphalt concrete beams using single edge notch
beam tests Geotext. Geomembranes 47 642–52.
[41] Velasquez R 2012 Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements
National Pooled Fund Study – Phase II Task 3- Develop Low Temperature Specification for
Asphalt Mixtures Subtask 3 - Development of the Single - Edge Notched Beam ( SENB )
Test.
[42] Kim M O and Bordelon A 2015 Determination of total fracture energy for fiber-reinforced
concrete Am. Concr. Institute, ACI Spec. Publ. -Janua 55–69.
10
[43] Huang B, Shu X and Tang Y 2005 Comparison of Semi-Circular Bending and indirect
Tensile strength tests for HMA mixtures Geotechnical Special Publication.
[44] Stempihar J 2013 Development of the C* Fracture Test for Asphalt Concrete Mixture
(ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY).
[45] Bahia H, Hanz A, Kanitpong K and Wen H 2007 Test Method to Determine Aggregate /
Asphalt Adhesion Properities and Potential Moisture Damage WHRP 07-02 145.
[46] Krcmarik M Characteristics and prediction of the low temperature indirect tensile strengths
of Michigan asphalt mixtures.
[47] Pellinen T, Xiao S, Carpenter S, Masad E and Di Benedetto H 2005 Relationship between
triaxial shear strength and indirect tensile strength of hot mix asphalt Asph. Paving Technol.
Assoc. Asph. Paving Technol. Tech. Sess. 74 347–79.
[48] Zeinali A, Mahboub K C and Blankenship P B 2014 Development of the indirect ring
tension fracture test for hot mix asphalt Asphalt Paving Technology: Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions.
[49] Venudharan V and Biligiri K P 2019 Investigation of Cracking Performance of
Asphalt-Rubber Gap-Graded Mixtures: Statistical Overview on Materials’ Interface J. Test.
Eval.
[50] Aragão F T S and Kim Y R 2012 Mode I Fracture Characterization of Bituminous Paving
Mixtures at Intermediate Service Temperatures Exp. Mech.
[51] Mubaraki M, Osman S A and Sallam H E M 2019 Effect of rap content on flexural behavior
and fracture toughness of flexible pavement Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 16 1–15.
[52] Li X, Buttlar W G, Braham A F, Braham A F and Marasteanu M O 2008 Effect of factors
affecting fracture energy of asphalt concrete at low temperature Road Mater. Pavement Des.
9 397–416.
[53] Birgisson B, Montepara A, Romeo E, Roque R, Roncella R and Tebaldi G 2007
Determination of fundamental tensile failure limits of mixtures Asphalt Paving Technology:
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions.
[54] Stewart C M and Garcia E 2019 Fatigue crack growth of a hot mix asphalt using digital
image correlation Int. J. Fatigue 120 254–66.
Acknowledgments
Authors wishing to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and Malaysian Ministry of High
Education for providing the research funds (Vote no.: Q.J130000.2451.09G26,
Q.J130000.2451.09G20 and Q.J130000.2651.17J68) and laboratory facilities.
11

Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt Mixture: A Review

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 124.13.92.251 on 15/03/2021 at 06:00

Determining Fracture Energy in Asphalt Mixture: A

H R Radeef 1,2, N Abdul Hassan*1, A R Zainal Abidin1, M Z H Mahmud1, M K

Figure 1. Load-Displacement Curve of Fracture Test

a = notch length (m), and

3. Semi-Circular Bending Test

Figure 2. Semi-circular Bending Specimen

4. Disk-shaped Compact Tension

Figure 3. Disk-shaped Compact Tension Specimen

5. Single-edge Notched Beam

Figure 4. Single-Edge Notched Beam Specimen

6. Indirect Tensile Strength

Figure 5. Indirect Tensile Loading Specimen

7. Comparison of Test Methods

[5] Wagoner M P, Buttlar W G, Paulino G H and Blankenship P 2005 Investigation of the

You might also like