1,018
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Predicting the master curves of bituminous mastics with micromechanical modelling

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 86-98 | Received 31 Mar 2021, Accepted 03 Nov 2021, Published online: 14 Dec 2021

Figures & data

Figure 1. The representative volume element used for the model with ϕ= 30%, loaded uniaxially.

Figure 1. The representative volume element used for the model with ϕ= 30%, loaded uniaxially.

Figure 2. The response surface for the calculated complex modulus as a function of radial frequency and volume fraction.

Figure 2. The response surface for the calculated complex modulus as a function of radial frequency and volume fraction.

Figure 3. Master curves built for bitumen and mastics showing the complex modulus and the phase angle at a reference temperature Tref=20C.

Figure 3. Master curves built for bitumen and mastics showing the complex modulus and the phase angle at a reference temperature Tref=20∘C.

Table 1. Williams–Landel–Ferry constants.

Figure 4. The size distribution of the quartz filler as well as the simplified size distributions used in the model, d denotes the particle diameter.

Figure 4. The size distribution of the quartz filler as well as the simplified size distributions used in the model, d denotes the particle diameter.

Figure 5. The calibrated model G(ω) compared to model before calibration and the experimental values for (a) ϕ = 30%, (b) ϕ = 50%, at reference temperature Tref=20C.

Figure 5. The calibrated model G∗(ω) compared to model before calibration and the experimental values for (a) ϕ = 30%, (b) ϕ = 50%, at reference temperature Tref=20∘C.

Figure 6. ν(ω) for the bitumen and calculated ν(ω) for the mastics obtained from FE simulations at a reference temperature Tref=20C.

Figure 6. ν∗(ω) for the bitumen and calculated ν∗(ω) for the mastics obtained from FE simulations at a reference temperature Tref=20∘C.

Figure 7. Equality plots for the measured DSR results as compared to the calibrated modelling results for (a) BQ30 and (b) BQ50.

Figure 7. Equality plots for the measured DSR results as compared to the calibrated modelling results for (a) BQ30 and (b) BQ50.

Figure 8. Comparison of the stiffness ratio obtained using the developed model, the generalised self-consistent scheme (GSCS), and the GSCS with limit values for (a) ϕ = 30%, (b) ϕ = 50%, at a reference temperatureTref=20C.

Figure 8. Comparison of the stiffness ratio obtained using the developed model, the generalised self-consistent scheme (GSCS), and the GSCS with limit values for (a) ϕ = 30%, (b) ϕ = 50%, at a reference temperatureTref=20∘C.

Figure 9. The maximum shear strain distribution within the micromechanical model at z=L/2 for applied effective shear strains 0.2% and 0.34% and for three filler volume fractions, ϕ= 10%, 30% and 50% at reference temperature Tref=5C and ω=10 rad/s.

Figure 9. The maximum shear strain distribution within the micromechanical model at z=L/2 for applied effective shear strains 0.2% and 0.34% and for three filler volume fractions, ϕ= 10%, 30% and 50% at reference temperature Tref=5∘C and ω=10 rad/s.

Figure 10. (a) Volume exceeding the linear-viscoelastic limit for two applied shear strains and (b) the corresponding element representation of said volume at reference temperature Tref=5C.

Figure 10. (a) Volume exceeding the linear-viscoelastic limit for two applied shear strains and (b) the corresponding element representation of said volume at reference temperature Tref=5∘C.