Evaluation of fatigue life of asphalt binders using the time sweep and linear amplitude sweep tests: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asphalt binders play a crucial role in the fatigue cracking resistance of asphalt pavement, making the characterization of their fatigue life increasingly important. To evaluate the fatigue life of asphalt binders, two tests have been developed: the time sweep (TS) and the linear amplitude sweep (LAS), both conducted using the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR). Similar to asphalt mixtures, predicting the fatigue life of asphalt binders necessitates the predefinition of fatigue failure criterion and/or fatigue failure definition (failure point). Phenomenological and dissipated energy-based failure criteria are commonly employed to analyze TS test results, while the viscoelastic continuum damage (VECD) model is primarily used to predict fatigue life through the LAS test. Given that the fatigue test temperature significantly impacts the fatigue life of asphalt binders, various methods have been proposed in the literature for selecting the fatigue test temperature. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the fatigue life evaluation of asphalt binders using both TS and LAS tests. It summarizes the different fatigue failure criteria and fatigue failure definitions employed and discusses the selection of fatigue test temperatures. Furthermore, the paper examines the influence of fatigue test conditions, binder chemical composition and/or penetration grade, and bitumen modification on the fatigue life of asphalt binders. Based on the current review, it is recommended to utilize the LAS test on PAV-aged bitumen under strain-controlled conditions to evaluate the fatigue life of asphalt binders. The most relevant failure definition is the peak in stored pseudo-strain energy based on the simplified viscoelastic continuum damage model (S-VECD). Additionally, the authors propose conducting the fatigue test at an intermediate reference temperature for each country or region, depending on its climate zone. • LAS test is now the preferred method for assessing asphalt binders fatigue life. • The VECD concept is extensively used to analyze LAS test data. • The G R approach has become the most favored method for analyzing the LAS test. • Fatigue test temperature significantly impacts the fatigue life of asphalt binders. • Softer binders and polymer-modified binders demonstrate higher fatigue resistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".