Hot Mix Asphalt Time-Temperature

Shifting and Fitting Techniques: A

Comparative Study

Prof. Saad A. Abo-Qudais Esraa I. Alrashydah

aboqdais@just.edu.jo esraa.alrashaydh@yahoo.com

Jordan University of Science and Technology Department of civil engineering

Jordan-Irbid
SUMMARY
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: 5 15
Temperature oC
The main objectives of this study were: 25 45
-To determine the relative accuracy of 60 Master Curve
different temperature shifting techniques; 1.E+01

(Numerical, log-linear, WLF, MK, and

Arrhenius).
-To compare the relative accuracy for two

Creep Compliance (1/Kpa)

different fitting functions; (Sigmoidal
fitting function and Prony series) used to 1.E+00
construct creep compliance master curve.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE:
Using different temperature shifting
techniques and different fitting functions 1.E-01
1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08
helps in prediction of asphalt mixes
mechanical viscoelastic characteristics over
a wide range of temperature and loading
times which are beneficial in clarifying the
overall performance of asphalt pavement 1.E-02
and superior prediction of HMA Reduced time (seconds)
mechanical behavior.
What is Time-Temperature Superposition (TTS)
(TTS) is a tool that can be used to identify the HMA
characteristics over a range of temperatures and times.

Creep Stress is
Tests constant TTS

=

.
Time =

Temperature oC 5 15 25 45 60
1.E+01
Creep Compliance (1/Kpa)

1.E+00
1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04

1.E-01 The long term pavement life can be

Predicted with the short time data
1.E-02 sets of asphalt mixture
Time (seconds)
Research Approach
Material Used

Asphalt Cement (PG 64-22) Aggregate Superpave Mid Limit Gradation

Asphalt Modified by Unmodified Asphalt

2% Elvaloy RET

HMA Specimen Preparation

Dynamic Creep Testing

Master Curve Modeling

Fitting Functions

Sigmodal Fitting Function Prony Series Fitting Function

Temperature shifting Functions

Log-Linear Modified Kaelble William Landel Ferry Numerical Arrhenius

Graphical and Statistical comparisons among different Temperature shifting methods

HMA Specimens Testing Method

Accumulated micro strain

Set up parameters
Pulse width 100 ms
Rest period 400 ms
Contact stress 7 Kpa No. of cycles
Deviator stress 100 Kpa
Results of Graphical and Statistical Comparisons among Different Temperature
Shifting Techniques

Log-Linear WLF
Modified kaeble Arrhinus The combination of Sigmoidal fitting
6 function with WLF shifting technique
4 found to have the best correlation between
Shift factor

measured and predicted shift factors data.

2
0
-6 -4 -2 -2 0 2 4 6 WLF was found to be the best fit
technique to predict the shift factor,
-4
followed by log-linear, MK, and
-6 Arrhenius techniques, respectively.
Numerical shift factor

Temperature
Testing condition No of samples R2 SER ri (%) MNE AGD
shifting Method
log-linear 40 0.95 0.21 31.25 32.17 1.63
WLF 40 0.98 0.12 50.00 11.70 1.31
4.9% air voids level MK 40 0.95 0.21 31.25 32.19 1.63
Arrhenius 40 0.93 0.25 18.75 38.07 1.72

As Prony series fitting function was used, Arrhenius method found to be the best
shifting technique
 Results of Graphical and Statistical Comparisons among Different Fitting
Functions

measured creep compliance measured creep compliance

sigmoidal Creep Compliance Prony Creep Compliance
2
2
Creep Compliance (1/Kpa)

Creep Compliance (1/Kpa)

1 1

0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Log Reduced Time (seconds) Log Reduced Time (seconds)

No of
Testing condition Fitting Function R2 SER ri (%) MNE AGD
samples
Sigmoidal
60 0.99 0.049 92.7 6.799 1.043
Unmodified Function
Prony Series 60 0.98 0.118 62.8 15.69 1.07

Sigmoidal fitting function has the highest correlation among the measured and
the predicted creep compliance data set than that of Prony series fitting function.
Results of Multivariable Models for Sigmoidal Parameters

5 15 25 45 60 Master Curve

=+ _ 1.E+01
+

Creep Compliance (1/Kpa)

+
1.E+00
y : response D (t)

, , , : sigmoidal function
coefficients (fit parameters) 1.E-01
1.E-02 1.E+02 1.E+06
Xr: reduced time

1.E-02
Ref.: (Fonesca and Witczak
,1996; katicha, 2007) Reduced time (seconds)
Sigmoidal Parameters Multivariable Regression Models R2

= 18778.627+949.988(air voids level)+3285.552(asphalt 0.363

modification)-3251.099(aging condition)-13.543e(air voids level)

= 0.015-0.003(air voids level)-0.002(asphalt 0.333

modification)+0.002(aging condition)+8.2E-6e(air voids level)

= 0.359+0.007(air voids level)-0.055(asphalt modification)- 0.528

0.011(aging condition)-9.89E-6e(air voids level)

= 12.492+0.214(air voids level)+0.698(asphalt modification)- 0.587

0.138(aging condition)-0.003e(air voids level)

+ = 18778.642+949.985(air voids level)+3285.550(asphalt 0.363

modification)-3251.097(aging condition)-13.543e(air voids level)

Recommendations
Construct a creep compliance master curve using different fitting methods
such as (Pure Power Law (PPL), Generalized Power Law (GPL), Modified
Power Law (MPL), Modified Power Law Series (MPLS), Standard Sigmoid
(SS), and Generalized Logistic Sigmoid (GLS)) and compare their results with
the results obtained by Sigmoidal fitting function.

Substitute the Sigmoidal models parameters obtained using regression models

in the Sigmoidal function to predict creep compliance values and compare it
with the measured values and the values obtained using the master curves.