You are on page 1of 11

Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete:

Performance Tests and Pavement Design Consideration


Kamil E. Kaloush, PhD, P.E., Associate Professor
Department of Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering,
Arizona State University
Po Box 875306, Tempe, Arizona, 85287-5306, USA. Tel (480)-965-5509;
E-Mail: kaloush@asu.edu;

Abstract
Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete (FRAC) mixtures continue to receive great attention from many
transportation agencies world-wide because of their ability to improve pavement performance
compared to conventional designs. A number of studies reported on the unique properties and
characteristics of FRAC in terms of improved rutting and fatigue cracking. Several agencies in the
U.S. and countries around the world have used, or are in the process of using FRAC mixtures in
new pavement designs and rehabilitation programs. This paper highlights findings from several
research studies conducted at Arizona State University. The engineering properties of FRAC
mixtures are discussed along with a demonstration on how to use them in current pavement design
procedures.
Introduction
Modifiers in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) have been used to mitigate both traffic and environmentally
induced pavement distresses. These include modifies for rutting resistance by increasing the
stiffness of the asphalt binders, and reduce cracking by eliminating, delaying or inhibiting crack
propagation. Other benefits is to reduce or lessen the drain down of the binder for certain mixtures.
There are many types of modifiers and examples include: polymers (plastomers and elastomers),
fillers, and fibers. Fibers have been used to improve the performance of asphalt mixtures against
pavement distresses [1, 2]. Early uses were in the 1960s with the use of asbestos and polyester;
others over the years included polypropylene, glass, carbon, coconut, cellulose and very recently
aramid (or Kevlar), in addition to more than thirty recycled waste fibers that have been and
continue to be introduced into the market. Early research work in Arizona, USA looked into the
benefits of using tire fibers with and without crumb rubber content.
There are several research studies reporting on experiments using synthetic fibers in asphalt
concrete in the literature. Bueno et al studied the addition of randomly distributed synthetic fibers
on the mechanical response of a cold-mixed, densely graded asphalt mixture using the Marshall
test, as well as static and cyclic triaxial tests [1]. The results showed that the addition of fibers
caused small variations in the mixtures triaxial shear strength parameters. Lee et al evaluated the
influence of recycled carpet fibers on the fatigue cracking resistance of asphalt concrete using
fracture energy [2]. It was found that the increase in fracture energy represents a potential for
improving the asphalt mixtures fatigue life. A research study by Fitzgerald reported that the
addition of carbon fibers to an asphalt mixture may have beneficial properties ranging from
improved mechanical properties to reduced electrical resistance using the electric resistivity testing
methodology [3]. Cleven subjected carbon fiber-reinforced asphalt mixtures to mechanical testing,
which included diametral resilient modulus, repeated load permanent deformation, flexural beam
fatigue tests and indirect tensile strength tests [4]. The modified asphalt mixtures were observed to
be stiffer, more resistant to permanent deformation, and had higher tensile strength at low
temperatures. However, the carbon fiber modified samples showed no improvement in fatigue
behavior as measured by the four point beam test or cold temperature creep compliance test.
Jahromi and Khodai also investigated the characteristics and properties of the carbon fiberreinforced asphalt mixtures through various laboratory tests [5]. They reported that the addition of

carbon fibers showed an increase in the mixs stability, decrease in flow value, and an increase in
voids in the mix. They also found that the addition of fibers improved the fatigue life and
permanent deformation of the mixtures.
Mahrez and Karim utilized glass fibers in a Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) mixture. They found that
the use of glass fiber in asphalt mixtures showed variable Marshall Stability results, and that the
addition of glass fibers actually decreased the mixtures stability and stiffness [6]. In a different
study by Mahrez and Karim in 2007, they used the wheel tracking test to characterize the creep and
rutting resistance of glass fiber reinforced asphalt mixtures [7]. They reported that the inclusion of
glass fibers resulted in higher resilient modulus, higher resistance to permanent strain and rutting.
Putman and Amirkhanian studied the feasibility of utilizing waste tire and carpet fibers in SMA
mixtures [8]. The study compared the performance of SMA mixtures containing waste tire and
carpet fibers with mixes made with commonly used cellulose and other polyester fibers. No
significant difference in permanent deformation or moisture susceptibility was found in mixtures
containing waste fibers compared to cellulose or polyester. However, they reported that the tire,
carpet, and polyester fibers significantly improved the toughness of the mixtures compared to the
cellulose fibers.
Chowdhury et al evaluated two types of recycled tire fibers to determine whether they can be used
in different types of asphalt mixtures as a replacement of the currently used cellulose or mineral
fibers [9]. The researchers tested three different types of mixtures: SMA, Permeable Friction
Course (PFC), and Coarse Mix High Binder (CMHB) mixtures with two different types of recycled
tire fibers, one cellulose fiber, and a control mix with no fibers. The laboratory tests used to
evaluate the mixtures were: drain-down, dynamic modulus, indirect tensile strength, and Hamburg
wheel tracking tests. Mixtures containing tire fibers, in most cases, outperformed the mixtures
containing cellulose fiber and mixtures with no fiber. The drain-down test results clearly revealed
that the recycled tire fiber can be used in SMA and PFC mixtures as a replacement for cellulose
fibers to prevent asphalt drain-down during construction. Wu et al examined the dynamic
characteristics of three fiber-modified asphalt mixtures: cellulose, polyester and mineral fibers at
dosages of 0.3%, 0.3%, and 0.4% respectively [10]. The experimental results showed that fibermodified asphalt mixtures had higher dynamic modulus compared with the control mixture.
Since 2006, Arizona State University (ASU) has been engaged in a research program to evaluate
the performance benefits of synthetic fibers. The fibers are a proprietary blend of collated fibrillated
polypropylene and aramid providing a three dimensional reinforcement to the HMA. The
polypropylene fibers are chemically inert, non-corrosive, and non-absorbent; whereas the aramid
fibers have a high tensile strength, non-corrosive and have resistance to high temperatures. The
physical characteristics of the fibers have been reported in other publications [11]. The performance
of the Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete (FRAC) mixtures at ASU is assessed using advanced
material characterization tests to assess their performance for permanent deformation and cracking.
Since the polypropylene fibers play a role in binder modification, conventional consistency binder
tests are also run to assess the degree of binder properties modification at different temperatures.
This paper reports on some of the test results and findings of the FRAC mixture compared to
control or conventional mixtures.
Binder Characteristics
Figure 1 shows a comparison of typical viscosity-temperature susceptibility plots for a control PG
70-10 binder and one that is modified with polypropylene (PP) fibers at the rate of 0.5 kg per ton of
asphalt mixture [12]. These plots were derived from conventional binder consistency tests
including: penetration AASHTO T49-93, softening point AASHTO T53-92, and rotational
viscosities at a range of temperatures AASHTO TP48. It is observed that the PP fibers improve the
temperature susceptibility of the virgin binder especially at high temperatures. In fact, the small, or
no-change, in viscosity at lower temperature is an advantage for the binder in keeping it on the
softer side to resist thermal cracking.

Figure 1. Viscosity-Temperature Susceptibility of the Polypropylene Modified Binder.


Asphalt Mixture Rutting Evaluation
One test to evaluate rutting of the asphalt mixture is by conducting the Flow Number (FN) test [13].
In this test, a repeated dynamic load is applied on cylindrical specimens for several thousand
repetitions, and the cumulative permanent deformation, including the beginning of the tertiary stage
(FN) as a function of the number of loading cycles over the test period is recorded. Figure 2
presents FN test results conducted at 54.4 C. The FN (inflection point in the axial strain slope)
values of the FRAC mixture was found to be 10 to 15 times higher than the control mixture. It can
be also observed that the control mix has higher strain slopes compared to the fiber-reinforced
mixture. Lower values of strain slope during the tertiary stage means more energy is stored in the
sample, and that the mix has higher potential to resist shear failure and further development of
permanent deformation.

Figure 2. Flow Number Test Results of Asphalt Mixtures.

Fatigue Cracking Evaluation


Four point bending fatigue tests are common laboratory tests according to AASHTO T321-03.
Each beam is subjected to a different controlled strain rate at a range of temperatures. A 50%
reduction in initial stiffness is used as the criteria to determine the number of cycles until failure
(Nf). Initial stiffness is recorded as the stiffness of the beam at 50 loading cycles in accordance
with SHRP M-009 [14-16]. As an example, Figure 3 presents a fatigue comparison between the
FRAC and control mixture at 4.4C. The FRAC mixture shows substantial performance
improvement over the control mixture at 400 and 600 microstrain levels, 2 million versus 3.2
million cycles and 42,000 versus 280,000 cycles, respectively. At the 800 microstrain level, no
difference in performance is observed. It is important to note that this comparison is valid since the
initial stiffness of the beam samples for both mixtures analyzed was approximately 2,800 MPa.
Another fatigue analysis for a different project is shown in Figure 4. It can be observed that the
FRAC mixture has a higher fatigue life when compared with the control.

Figure 3 Fatigue life comparison at 4.4 C.

Figure 4 Comparison of Conventional, ARAC and ARFC at Control Strain and 70 F.

Indirect Tensile Strength Testing


One commonly used parameter to evaluate asphalt mixtures is tensile strength which can be used to
quantify the effects of moisture and to determine the fracture resistance of an asphalt mixture.
Typically, the tensile strength can be accurately determined from an indirect tensile strength test
(IDT) carried out in accordance with AASHTO TP9-02 [17]. The test is conducted by applying a
constant rate of vertical deformation (2.0 in/min, 50.8 mm/min) until the specimen fails. Energy
until failure and total fracture energy are also calculated as the area under the stress-strain plot.
Table 1 shows typical IDT test results comparing FRAC and a control mixture. It is worth
mentioning that the mixture used in this project was an open graded mix. The FRAC mixture shows
higher indirect tensile strength, energy at fracture and total energy than the control mixture.
Depending on the test temperature, the increase in tensile strength ranges from 5 to 31%; whereas
the energy at fracture range is between 15 and 200%. The contribution of the fibers is evident in the
post peak strength of the material as indicated by the total energy. This improvement ranges from
19 to 45%. Although the specimen cracks, the fibers hold the specimen together which, in turn;
requires more energy to completely fail the mixture. This is also demonstrated in the flexural
strength test that follows.
Table 1 Indirect Tensile Strength Test Results
Mixture

Temperature,
C

Indirect Tensile
Strength, kPa

Energy at
Failure, J

Total Energy,
J

21.1
10
0
21.1
10
0

521.2
1077.7
1876.8
397.1
951.7
1785.7

7.2
16.8
22.6
5.5
8.3
19.8

28.8
53.6
60.2
19.8
37.2
50.6

FRAC

Laboratory
Control Mix

Flexural Strength Test


As mentioned above, fibers contribute to the improvement of the load carrying capacity after the
formation of the first crack in the mix. This contribution by means of bridging cracks and pull-out
can be noticed by looking at the post peak region of the mechanical response of mixes (loaddeformation). Under tensile stress, fibers adsorb energy preventing a dramatic propagation of
cracks. Flexural strength tests are conducted to evaluate residual strength and energy characteristics
of the different mixtures as shown in Figure 5. Results of flexural strength tests performed on
rectangular prismatic beams of conventional and FRAC asphalt mixtures are shown below. The
flexural strength of the asphalt beams is defined as the flexural stress applied on the beam at the
moment of failure. The following equation is used to assess the flexural strength:
FS

3 F( peak) L
2bd2

(1)

Where,
F(peak) = peak load
L = length of the support span
b = width of the beam
d = thickness of the beam
Figure 5 Flexural Strength Test Set-up.

As mentioned before, unlike conventional mixes, FRAC specimens do not break soon after
initiation of the first crack. The fibers have the effect of increasing the work fracture which is
referred to as toughness and is represented by the area under the load- deflection curve. In order to
include the improvement in the material toughness imparted by the fibers the energy or work of
fracture after the peak load should be included when estimating the residual strength. Banthia and
Trottier presented a residual strength analysis approach on steel-fiber reinforced concrete that
accounts for the toughness improvement imparted by the fibers [18]. The same approach is used to
estimate the residual strength of asphalt mixes by using the following equation:

RS

E( post,0.25) L

0.25 b d

peak

(2)

where,
E (post 0.25) = post peak energy up to 0.25 in displacement (lb-in)
peak = deflection at the peak load
L = length of the support span
b = width of the beam
d = thickness of the beam
The arbitrary deflection value of 0.25 in for calculation of post peak energy is selected where every
test reaches this point. Once the residual strength is estimated, it is added to the flexural strength for
accounting for the improvement in toughness due to the use of fibers.
Figure 6 shows a typical load-deflection curve obtained from cyclic load test. Loading for both
monotonic and cyclic load tests is controlled at a constant deflection rate of 0.025 in/min. For
cyclic tests unloading is under load control at a rate of 10 lb/sec.
Force vs De fle ction-FEC20
300

250

Force, Lbs

200

150
100

50

0
0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

De fl e cti on, i n

Figure 6 Typical Load-Deflection Results for Cyclic Load Test


A comparison of load-displacement curves is presented in Figure 7, where a control, FRAC mix
with 1 lb/tom (~0.5 kg/ton) and 2 lbs/ton (~1 kg/ton) are compared. The enhancement imparted by
fibers in the post peak region is noticeable. The results also suggest that a dosage of 1 lb/ton (0.5
kg/ton) provides optimum results for the condition of this test.

Comparative Plot
250
Control
1 lb/Ton

Force (lb)

200

Peak =176 lb

2 lb/Ton
Peak = 170 lb

150
Peak = 111 lb
100

50

0
0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

Deflection (in)

Figure 7 Comparison of Control and FRAC Mixtures in Cyclic Load Tests.


C* Fracture Tests
Taking a fracture mechanics approach, a recent development of a C* Fracture Test for asphalt
mixture was developed at ASU [19]. Specimens approximately 38-mm thick are cut from
compacted gyratory specimens. A right-angle wedge is cut into the specimens to accommodate the
loading device as shown in Figure 8. The tests can be conducted at a range of temperatures and
loading rates. Once load and crack length versus time data are collected, results are analyzed and
the C*-integral is plotted as a function of the crack growth rate. Even though the analysis is
straightforward, a simple visual observation and assessment of the crack length versus time for two
different mixture types can be ample in terms of comparing the mixtures. In Figure 7, it is
observed that the FRAC mixture sample (left) will take 5.95 minutes to reach a crack length of 100
mm (4 in) compared to a control mixture (right) that will take only 3.50 minutes to reach this crack
length under the specified test conditions. What is also interesting is the severity of the crack after
the test. The FRAC mixtures cracks are very tight compared to more open cracks or sample splits
that are observed in control mixtures.

Figure 8 Typical C* Fracture Test Setup and Crack Length versus Time Comparison. .
Dynamic Modulus Characteristics and Impact on Pavement Design
The dynamic modulus testing program follows AASHTO TP 62-07. Table 2 shows typical dynamic
modulus values for FRAC and control mixtures at different test temperatures and frequencies. The
modular ratio vary depending on test frequency and temperature, but an average modular value of
1.44 is calculated as an advantage for the FRAC mixtture. In the absence of any other specific
dynamic modulus test data, these approximation of modular ratios can be used as input to

determine the pavement performance using the AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design
Guide, DARWin-ME [20]. Previous studies have shown that the performance of the FRAC mixture
will be better in terms or rutting and fatigue cracking [11]. Or an alternative design strategy would
be to reduce the asphalt mixture layer thickness by 30 to 40%.
Table 2 Typical Dynamic Modulus Values for Conventional and FRAC Mixtures.

For AASHTO 1993 pavement design analysis with structural layer coefficient (a1) consideration,
the a1 value for the fiber-reinforced mixture can be increased (by extrapolation) up to 0.53 [21].
Reminder that the layer coefficient is dependent on the resilient modulus value, which is highly
correlated to the dynamic modulus property. In this approach, the analysis will also result in
reduced thickness of the AC layer.
For DARWin-ME pavement design analysis, a demonstration of the process was used based on the
projects data input parameters shown in Table 3. Four main distresses were predicted in this
analysis; these are: permanent deformation (rutting) of the asphalt layer, top-down fatigue cracking
(longitudinal cracking), bottom-up fatigue cracking (alligator cracking), and International
Roughness Index (IRI). The DARWin-ME simulations were conducted for a typical road site in
Phoenix, Arizona location. The results are shown in Table 4. The results shows that the fiber
reinforced mixture will reduce the potential of rutting by 40%, top-down cracking by about 72%,
fatigue cracking by 42% and a resulting IRI reduction benefit of 4%. The lower IRI benefit may be
something to do with the IRI models accuracy built in with the DARWin-ME and not necessarily a
reflection of the improvement benefits of the distress.

Table 3 Input Data for DARWin- ME Analysis.

Table 4 DARWin-ME Output.

Concluding Remarks
The blend of polypropylene and aramid fibers used in improving the engineering properties of
asphalt mixtures provide substantial benefits in reducing rutting and fatigue cracking potential. The
reinforcing strength contribution of fibers was evident in several mechanical tests such as the
indirect tensile test, especially when the energy until fracture and total fracture energy were
compared to the control mixture. The flexural strength and C* fracture tests also indicated that the
FRAC mixture is better able to resist the development and propagation of cracks when compared to
the control mixture. The stiffness properties measured through the dynamic modulus and used for
pavement performance prediction also indicated that the FRAC will provide better rutting and
fatigue cracking resistance, or as an alternative design strategy reduce the asphalt mixture layer
thickness. In either context, the use of fibers make them suitable candidate as a sustainable
pavement material for asphalt concrete.

References
1. Bueno, B. S., Silva, W. R., Lima, D. C., Minete, E. (2003). Engineering Properties of Fiber
Reinforced Cold Asphalt Mixes. Technical Note, Journal of Environmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 129, N. 10.
2. Lee, S. J., Rust, J. P., Hamouda, H., Kim, Y. R., Borden, R. H. (2005). Fatigue Cracking
Resistance of Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt Concrete. Textile Research Journal, Vol. 75, N. 2,
pp. 123-128.
3. Fitzgerald, R. L. (2000) Novel Applications of Carbon Fiber for Hot Mix Asphalt
Reinforcement and Carbon-Carbon Pre-forms, M. S. Thesis, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 2000.
4. Cleven, M. A. (2000) Investigation of the Properties of Carbon Fiber Modified Asphalt
Mixtures M. S. Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological
University, 2000.
5. Jahromi, S. G., and Khodai, A. (2008) Carbon Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete, The
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, V. 33, No. 2B, October 2008, pp. 355-364.
6. Mahrez, A., Karim, M. R., and Katman, H. A. (2003) Prospect of Using Glass Fiber
Reinforced Bituminous Mixes, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 5, October 2003.
7. Mahrez, A., and Karim, M. R., (2007) Rutting Characteristics of Bituminous Mixes
Reinforced with Glass Fiber, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 6, 2007.
8. Putman, B. J., and Amirkhanian, S. N. (2004) Utilization of Waste Fibers in Stone Matrix
Asphalt Mixtures, Journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Recycled Materials in
Highway Infrastructure, Volume 42, Issue 3, October 2004, pp. 265-274.
9. Chowdhury, A., Button, J. W., and Bhasin, A. (2006) Fibers from Recycled Tire as
Reinforcement in Hot Mix Asphalt, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University
System, Report No. SWUTC/06/167453-1, April 2006.
10. Shaopeng. W., Qunshan. Y., Ning, L., and Hongbo, Y. (2007) Effects of Fibers on the
Dynamic Properties of Asphalt Mixtures, Journal of Wuhan University of TechnologyMaterials Science Edition, China, December 2007.
11. Kamil E. Kaloush, Krishna P. Biligiri, Waleed Zeiada, Maria Rodezno, and Jordan Reed,
(2010) Evaluation of Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt Mixtures Using Advanced Material
Characterization Tests, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, ASTM International, Volume
38, No. 4.
12. ASTM D2493 (1998). Viscosity Temperature Chart for Asphalts. In Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, pp230-234, Vol. 4.03.
13. Witczak, M. W., Kaloush, K. E., Pellinen, T., El-Basyouny, M., & Von Quintus, H. (2002).
Simple Performance Test for Superpave Mix Design. NCHRP Report 465. Transportation
Research Board. National Research Council. Washington D.C.
14. AASHTO Designation: T321-03. Determining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Hot-Mix
Asphalt (HMA) Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending.
15. SHRP Designation: M-009. Standard Method of Test for Determining the Fatigue Life of
Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending.
16. SHRP-A-404. Fatigue Response of Asphalt-Aggregate Mixes. Asphalt Research Program,
Institute Of Transportation Studies, University Of California, Berkeley. Strategic Highway
Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.

17. AASTHTO TP9-02. Standard Test Method for Determining Creep Compliance and
Strength of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device (Draft Test
Protocol). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 2002.
18. Trottier, J. F., and Banthia, N., (1994), Toughness Characterization of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Volume 6, No. 2, pp 264289.
19. Stempihar, Jeff (2013). Development of the C* Fracture Test for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures.
PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University.
20. Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures
(2004). Final Report. NCHRP, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., March 2004.
21. American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures, 1993 (AASHTO Publication: Washington, DC).

You might also like