Modification of Dynamic Modulus Predictive Models for Asphalt ...

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: States in the United States Allowing Using of RAS [7].......................................... 11
Figure 2: Stress and Strain of Typical Viscoelastic Material under Sinusoidal Loading ....... 21
Figure 3: Master Curve Construction ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 4: Schematic Representation of Hirsch Model and Four Modified Versions [10] ...... 28
Figure 5: Master Curve Comparison for Cell 21 [29] ............................................................. 31
Figure 6: Master Curve Comparison for Cell 33 [29] ............................................................. 32
Figure 7: Master Curve Comparison for Cell 34 [29] ............................................................. 32
Figure 8: Master Curve Comparison for Cell 35 [29] ............................................................. 33
Figure 9: Summary of Percent Error in Dynamic Moduli for Witczak’s Prediction [30] ...... 34
Figure 10: Summary of Percent Error in Dynamic Moduli for Hirsch’s Prediction [30] ....... 34
Figure 11: Predicted and Measured E* Values [10] ............................................................... 35
Figure 12: Measured Values vs. Predicted Values of Dynamic Modulus on log-log Scale
(RTFO Condition, Viscosity from Brookfield Test) [31] ................................................. 36
Figure 13: Measured Values vs. Predicted Values of Dynamic Modulus on log-log Scale
(RTFO Condition, Viscosity from DSR Test) [31] .......................................................... 36
Figure 14: Measured Values vs. Predicted Values of Dynamic Modulus on log-log Scale
(Mix/Laydown condition) [31] ......................................................................................... 37
Figure 15: Comparison of Values Using the Witczak Predictive Equation [32] .................... 38
Figure 16: Comparison of Values Using the Hirsch Model [32] ............................................ 38
Figure 17: Comparison of Values Using the Witczak Predictive Equation [32] .................... 39
Figure 18: Comparison of Values Using the Hirsch Model [32] ............................................ 39
Figure 19: Plan View of MnROAD Test Cells [35] ............................................................... 44
Figure 20: Aggregate Gradation 0.45 Power Chart for Minnesota Demonstration Project
Gradations ......................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 21: RAS Content and Virgin Binder Replacement for Iowa Demonstration Project
Test Sections ..................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 22: Plan View of Iowa Demonstration Project Test Sections [35] .............................. 47
Figure 23: Aggregate Gradation 0.45 Power Chart for Iowa Demonstration Project ............ 48
Figure 24: Plan View of Missouri Demonstration Project Test Sections [35] ....................... 49
Figure 25: Aggregate Gradation 0.45 Power Chart for Missouri Demonstration Project ...... 50
Figure 26: Plan View of Indiana Demonstration Project Test Sections [35] .......................... 51
Figure 27: Aggregate Gradation 0.45 Power Chart for Indiana Demonstration Project ........ 52
Figure 28: Universal Testing Machine and Environmental Chamber .................................... 54
Figure 29: AR1500 Dynamic Shear Rheometer ..................................................................... 55
Figure 30: Lab Tested vs. Witczak Model (1999) Predicted E* Values on Normal Scale ..... 59
Figure 31: Lab Tested vs. Witczak Model (1999) Predicted E* Values on Logarithm Scale 59
Figure 32: Lab Tested vs. Witczak Model (2006) Predicted E* Values on Normal Scale ..... 60
Figure 33: Lab Tested vs. Witczak Model (2006) Predicted E* Values on Logarithm Scale 61
Figure 34: Lab Tested vs. Hirsch Model Predicted E* Values on Normal Scale ................... 62
Figure 35: Lab Tested vs. Hirsch Model Predicted E* Values on Logarithm Scale .............. 62
Figure 36: VTS Curves of Recovered Asphalt Binder ........................................................... 71
Figure 37: Lab Tested G* Values of Asphalt Binder Recovered from Iowa 0% RAS Mix ... 72
v