Materials and Structures

, 52:26 | Cite as

Relationship between laboratory and full-scale fatigue performance of asphalt mixtures containing recycled materials

  • Wei Cao
  • Louay N. MohammadEmail author
  • Peyman Barghabany
  • Samuel B. CooperIII
Original Article


Use of recycled materials in asphalt mixtures is an important sustainability practice, and yet the oxidized asphalts introduced may compromise the cracking performance of pavement. This study evaluated the fatigue crack resistance of ten asphalt mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement or recycled asphalt shingles. The materials were acquired from the full-scale test lanes constructed at the Federal Highway Administration Accelerated Loading Facility in McLean, Virginia. Three simple performance tests were employed given their simple testing procedures and analysis approaches: semi-circular bend, indirect tension, and Texas overlay tests. The test data were analyzed to obtain the corresponding fatigue parameters following the latest test standards and relevant literature. A new parameter named corrected crack progression rate (CCPR) was proposed for the Texas overlay test considering the viscoelastic nature of asphalt mixtures. Statistical comparison was performed on the laboratory results to assess the potential of each parameter in discriminating mixtures. This study further investigated the relationship between the laboratory results and fatigue performance of the full-scale lanes. It was found that the proposed CCPR parameter for the Texas overlay test provided the strongest correlation with field performance. Additionally, the fatigue life parameter determined from the same laboratory test, although relatively more variable, demonstrated the highest potential in detecting differences in mixture compositions.


Fatigue cracking Semi-circular bend Indirect tension Texas overlay Field performance 



The research presented herein is part of Transportation Pooled Fund TPF-5(294) “Develop Mix Design and Analysis Procedures for Asphalt Mixtures Containing High-RAP and/or RAS Contents.” The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Federal Highway Administration and the Louisiana Transportation Research Center. The assistance of Dr. Jack Youtcheff, Dr. Nelson Gibson, and Mr. Xinjun Li in obtaining field data of ALF test lanes is greatly appreciated.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hansen KR, Copeland A (2017) Asphalt pavement industry survey on recycled materials and warm-mix asphalt usage: 2016. National Asphalt Pavement Association, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Song W, Huang B, Shu X (2018) Influence of warm-mix asphalt technology and rejuvenator on performance of asphalt mixtures containing 50% reclaimed asphalt pavement. J Clean Prod 192:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xiao F, Su N, Yao S, Amirkhanian S, Wang J (2019) Performance grades, environmental and economic investigations of reclaimed asphalt pavement materials. J Clean Prod 211:1299–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daly WH (2017) Relationship between chemical makeup of binders and engineering performance: a synthesis of highway practice. NCHRP Synthesis 511, Transportation Research Board, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petersen JC, Harnsberger PM, Robertson RE (1996) Factors affecting the kinetics and mechanisms of asphalt oxidation and the relative effects of oxidation products on age hardening. Am Chem Soc Div Fuel Chem Preprints 41(4):1232–1244Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cao W, Barghabany P, Mohammad L, Cooper SB III, Balamurugan S (2019) Chemical and rheological evaluation of asphalts incorporating RAP/RAS binders and warm-mix technologies in relation to crack resistance. Constr Build Mater 198:256–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams RC, Cascione A, Haugen DS, Buttlar WG, Bentsen RA, Behnke J (2011) Characterization of hot mix asphalt containing post-consumer recycled asphalt shingles and fractionated reclaimed asphalt pavement. Final Report, Iowa State University, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou F, Li H, Hu S, Lee R, Scullion T, Claros G, Epps J, Button J (2013) Evaluation of use of recycled asphalt shingles in HMA. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 82:367–402Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shu X, Huang B, Vukosavljevic D (2008) Laboratory evaluation of fatigue characteristics of recycled asphalt mixture. Constr Build Mater 22:1323–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loria L, Hajj EY, Sebaaly PE, Barton M, Kass S, Liske T (2011) Performance evaluation of asphalt mixtures with high recycled asphalt pavement content. Transp Res Rec 2208:72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tapsoba N, Sauzeat C, Di Benedetto H, Baaj H, Ech M (2012) Low-temperature cracking of recycled asphalt mixtures. In: Proceedings of the 7th RILEM international conference on cracking in pavements, Springer, Netherlands, pp 1261–1270Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniel JD, Gibson N, Tarbox S, Copeland A, Andriescu A (2013) Effect of long term aging on RAP mixtures: laboratory evaluation of plant produced mixtures. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 82:327–365Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sabouri M, Bennert T, Daniel JS, Kim YR (2015) A comprehensive evaluation of the fatigue behaviour of plant-produced RAP mixtures. Road Mater Pavement Des 16(s2):29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao S, Huang B, Shu X, Jia X, Woods M (2012) Laboratory performance evaluation of warm-mix asphalt containing high percentages of reclaimed asphalt pavement. Transp Res Rec 2294:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tran N, Xie Z, Julian G, Taylor A, Willis R, Robbins M, Buchanan S (2016) Effect of recycling agent on the performance of high-RAP and high-RAS mixtures: field and lab experiments. J Mater Civil Eng 04016178Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mogawer WS, Austerman A, Roque R, Underwood S, Mohammad L, Zou J (2015) Ageing and rejuvenators: evaluating their impact on high RAP mixtures fatigue cracking characteristics using advanced mechanistic models and testing methods. Road Mater Pavement Des 16(s2):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li X, Gibson N (2016) Comparison of asphalt mixture performance tester fatigue characteristics with full scale pavement cracking for recycled and warm mix asphalts. Transp Res Rec 2576:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    AASHTO (2015) Standard practice for mixture conditioning of hot mix asphalt. AASHTO R30, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    AASHTO (2017) Standard method of test for determining the dynamic modulus and flow number for asphalt mixtures using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT). AASHTO T 378, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM (2016) Standard test method for evaluation of asphalt mixture cracking resistance using the semi-circular bend test (SCB) at intermediate temperatures. ASTM D8044, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim YR, Seo Y, King M, Momen M (2004) Dynamic modulus testing of asphalt concrete in indirect tension mode. Transp Res Rec 1891:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roque R, Buttlar WG (1992) The development of a measurement and analysis system to accurately determine asphalt concrete properties using the indirect tensile mode. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 61:304–332Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buttlar WG, Roque R (1994) Development and evaluation of the Strategic Highway Research Program measurement and analysis system for indirect tensile testing of asphalt mixtures at low temperatures. Transp Res Rec 1454:163–171Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    TxDOT (2017) Test procedure for overlay test. Tex-248-F, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang Z, Roque R, Birgisson B, Sangpetgnam B (2001) Identification and verification of a suitable crack growth law for asphalt mixtures. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 70:206–241Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou F, Hu S, Chen DH, Scullion T (2007) Overlay tester: simple performance test for fatigue cracking. Transp Res Rec 2001:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garcia V, Miramontes A, Garibay J, Abdallah I, Nazarian S (2017) Improved overlay tester for fatigue cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures. Report No. TxDOT 0-6815-1. Center for Transportation Infrastructure Systems, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TXGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walubita LF, Faruk AN, Das G, Tanvir HA, Zhang J, Scullion T (2012) The overlay tester: a sensitivity study to improve repeatability and minimize variability in the test results. Report No. FHWA/TX-12/0-6607-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eslaminia M, Thirunavukkarasu S, Guddati MN, Kim YR (2012). Accelerated pavement performance modeling using layered viscoelastic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 7th RILEM international conference on cracking in pavements, Springer, Netherlands, pp 497–506Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park HJ, Eslaminia M, Kim YR (2014) Mechanistic evaluation of cracking in in-service asphalt pavements. Mater Struct 47(8):1339–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cao W, Norouzi A, Kim YR (2016) Application of viscoelastic continuum damage approach to predict fatigue performance of Binzhou perpetual pavements. J Traffic Transp Eng 3(2):104–115Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang YD, Keshavarzi B, Kim YR (2018) Fatigue performance prediction of asphalt pavements with FlexPAVE™, the S-VECD model, and DR failure criterion. Transp Res Rec. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    West RC, Winkle CV, Maghsoodloo S, Dixon S (2017) Relationships between simple asphalt mixture cracking tests using Ndesign specimens and fatigue cracking at FHWA’s accelerated loading facility. Road Mater Pavement Des 18(s4):428–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pelinen TK, Christensen DW, Rowe GM, Sharrok M (2004) Fatigue-transfer functions: how do they compare? Transp Res Rec 1896:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Cao
    • 1
  • Louay N. Mohammad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peyman Barghabany
    • 1
  • Samuel B. CooperIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Louisiana Transportation Research CenterLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations