Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.

Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 28

28
Table 31. Testing conditions for the dynamic Table 33. Air void content for
modulus equipment effects experiment. specimens used in the dynamic
modulus testing.
Confining Pressure, kPa Temperature, °C Frequency, Hz
0 10 10 Air Voids, Average Air
0 10 1 Machine Specimen % Voids, %
0 10 0.1 ITC 109 6.0
0 20 10 114 6.1 6.0
0 20 1 115 5.9
0 20 0.1 118 5.8
0 35 10 IPC 111 6.5
0 35 1 112 6.2 6.2
0 35 0.1 117 5.8
0 35 0.01 119 6.2
135 35 10 MDTS 110 6.2
135 35 1 113 6.1 6.1
135 35 0.1 116 6.1
135 35 0.01 120 5.9
using this system and these results were included in the analy- tract drift caused by the LVDT spring force moving the gauge
sis presented below. points apart. IPC designed a set of springs to counter the
LVDT spring force. The high temperature tests were repeated
with substantial improvement of the data at low frequency.
3.2.1.2 ITC
These data were used in the analysis presented below.
The ITC equipment could not accurately control the
loading rate for the 0.01 Hz tests at high temperatures. This 3.2.2 Statistical Analysis
problem was traced to the algorithm that ITC used to control
sinusoidal loading. The method becomes less accurate as the The dynamic modulus data from the equipment effects ex-
frequency and amplitude of the sinusoidal loading decrease. periment is presented in Appendix C. It includes the meas-
Very low load levels are required during dynamic modulus ured modulus and phase angle as well as the reported data
testing at 0.01 Hz at high temperatures. ITC modified the quality statistics for each test. The data were analyzed using
control software to use a different control algorithm for low analysis of variance, which is a statistical technique for com-
frequency loading. The high temperature testing was repeated paring the mean values from multiple populations. In this
and used in the analysis presented below.
Table 34. Air void content for specimens
used in the flow number testing.
3.2.1.3 IPC
Air Voids, Average Air
Initial graphical analysis of the dynamic modulus data in- Test Machine Specimen % Voids, %
cluding the repeated tests with the MDTS and IITC equipment ITC 127 6.4
133 6.1 6.2
revealed that the high temperature, 0.1 and 0.01 Hz test results 138 6.2
from the IPC equipment were much lower than those obtained 153 6.2
IPC 125 5.9
with the other equipment. Further review of the data showed Unconfined 131 6.2 6.1
that the LVDT drift measured at these combinations of tem- 147 6.4
perature and frequency was in the opposite direction of the 154 5.9
MDTS 122 5.9
applied load, indicating that the LVDT spring force was push- 134 6.2 6.1
ing the gauge points apart. The drift computation used in re- 140 6.1
148 6.3
ducing the dynamic modulus data is intended to remove the ITC 128 6.1
creep caused by the non-zero mean stress that occurs in a 141 6.0 6.1
compression haversine loading. It should not be used to sub- 145 6.2
152 6.1
IPC 129 6.0
Confined 131 6.2 6.2
Table 32. Testing conditions for the flow
149 6.3
number tests. 156 6.2
MDTS 132 6.2
Confinement, kPa Deviatoric Stress, kPa Temperature, °C 139 6.2 6.3
0 140 35 143 6.4
140 965 50 150 6.4

OCR for page 28

29
Table 35. Analysis of variance for dynamic modulus.
Temp., Freq., Conf., IPC ITC MDTS Grand Analysis of Variance
C Hz kPa Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg SSB MSW MSB F Fcr Conclusion
10 10 0 10687 1486055 10923 2609222 11248 13952430 10953 636155 2005301 318078 0.16 4.26 Moduli are the same
10 1 0 6795 742675 7006 869039 7318 6635076 7040 555795 916310 277898 0.30 4.26 Moduli are the same
10 0.1 0 3735 255849 3881 209442 4201 2770140 3939 456021 359492 228010 0.63 4.26 Moduli are the same
20 10 0 5723 483349 6192 142035 6194 2895315 6037 588841 391189 294421 0.75 4.26 Moduli are the same
20 1 0 3012 243403 3105 34839 3372 694325 3124 456959 103198 228480 2.21 4.26 Moduli are the same
20 0.1 0 1324 34612 1391 11249 1486 151007 1375 116224 22802 58112 2.55 4.26 Moduli are the same
35 10 0 2119 60941 1988 51075 1951 64987 2019 62052 19667 31026 1.58 4.26 Moduli are the same
35 1 0 906 11472 827 5720 745 29547 826 51642 5193 25821 4.97 4.26 Moduli are different
35 0.1 0 357 2906 397 289 281 16994 345 28190 2243 14095 6.28 4.26 Moduli are different
35 0.01 0 175 1348 245 967 148 10691 189 19831 1445 9916 6.86 4.26 Moduli are different
35 10 130 2365 37498 2556 46045 2709 281680 2543 237422 40580 118711 2.93 4.26 Moduli are the same
35 1 130 1272 6355 1396 8784 1403 82317 1357 43051 10828 21525 1.99 4.26 Moduli are the same
35 0.1 130 833 1773 946 3075 926 36549 901 29147 4600 14574 3.17 4.26 Moduli are the same
35 0.01 130 682 590 759 2478 769 29276 736 18183 3594 9092 2.53 4.26 Moduli are the same
study, it was used to compare the mean values of the dynamic MSb = mean squares between groups
modulus and phase angle data collected with the three SPTs MSw = mean squares within groups
for various combinations of confining pressure, temperature, k = number of groups (3 for this experiment)
and loading rate. The analysis of variance test as applied here N = total number of tests (12 for this experiment)
is summarized below (13):
For this experiment, the critical value of the F-statistic for a
Null Hypothesis, H0: IPC = ITC = MDTS level of significance of 5 percent is 4.26. Table 35 and Table 36
Alternative Hypothesis: The mean value from at least one present the analysis of variance for the dynamic modulus and
of the machines is different phase angle for all testing conditions.
MSb The data in Table 35 and Table 36 show some significant
Test Statistic: F =
MSw differences in the dynamic moduli and phase angles measured
Rejection Region: Reject H0 if F > Fcr for (k - 1, N - k) with the three machines. The Duncan multiple range test was
degrees of freedom. used to determine which values were significantly different (13).
This test compares the difference in the mean value between
Where:
two machines to a critical value based on the mean squares
IPC = mean for the IPC device within groups. If the difference exceeds the critical value, it is
ITC = mean for the ITD device concluded that there is a significant difference in the property
MDTS = mean for the MDTS device measured by the two machines. Table 37 and Table 38 present
F = value of F-statistic the Duncan multiple range tests for all testing conditions.
Table 36. Analysis of variance for phase angle.
Temp., Freq., Conf., IPC ITC MDTS Grand Analysis of Variance
C Hz kPa Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg SSB MSW MSB F Fcr Conclusion
10 10 0 16.0 0.34 15.4 0.15 15.1 1.11 15.5 1.49 0.18 0.74 4.18 4.26 Phase angles are the same
10 1 0 21.6 1.04 21.7 0.71 21.0 2.20 21.5 1.19 0.44 0.60 1.36 4.26 Phase angles are the same
10 0.1 0 27.9 2.65 27.9 1.82 26.9 6.64 27.6 2.74 1.24 1.37 1.11 4.26 Phase angles are the same
20 10 0 25.0 2.29 25.7 0.36 23.2 4.10 24.6 12.41 0.75 6.20 8.26 4.26 Phase angles are different
20 1 0 32.2 4.70 32.4 1.51 29.1 6.78 31.1 24.58 1.27 12.29 9.67 4.26 Phase angles are different
20 0.1 0 35.3 3.06 35.6 5.15 33.1 7.60 34.8 17.12 1.62 8.56 5.28 4.26 Phase angles are different
35 10 0 34.7 1.63 35.2 1.03 33.4 2.32 34.4 6.98 0.55 3.49 6.31 4.26 Phase angles are different
35 1 0 33.5 1.66 33.8 4.06 34.5 13.57 33.9 1.92 2.14 0.96 0.45 4.26 Phase angles are the same
35 0.1 0 29.9 3.66 26.7 4.29 31.0 35.43 29.2 39.52 4.82 19.76 4.10 4.26 Phase angles are the same
35 0.01 0 22.9 4.27 18.1 1.23 22.8 13.64 21.3 60.20 2.13 30.10 14.15 4.26 Phase angles are different
35 10 130 30.9 0.79 29.2 0.64 27.5 7.42 29.2 23.17 0.98 11.59 11.79 4.26 Phase angles are different
35 1 130 26.8 3.53 25.2 0.95 24.3 6.72 25.4 13.32 1.24 6.66 5.35 4.26 Phase angles are different
35 0.1 130 21.4 7.25 19.3 0.94 17.5 7.39 19.4 29.88 1.73 14.94 8.62 4.26 Phase angles are different
35 0.01 130 15.5 4.73 13.3 0.98 12.8 11.72 13.9 17.27 1.94 8.63 4.46 4.26 Phase angles are different

OCR for page 28

30
Table 37. Duncan multiple range test for dynamic modulus.
Temp., Freq., Conf., Duncan Multiple Range Test
C Hz kPa Critical IPC- IPC- ITC- Conclusion Max
ITC MDTS MDTS difference, %
10 10 0 2616 -236 -562 -326 Same 5.1
10 1 0 1769 -212 -524 -312 Same 7.4
10 0.1 0 1108 -147 -467 -320 Same 11.9
20 10 0 1156 -469 -471 -2 Same 7.8
20 1 0 594 -210 -477 -267 Same 15.3
20 0.1 0 279 -144 -239 -95 Same 17.4
35 10 0 259 131 168 37 Same 8.3
35 1 0 133 78 161 82 MDTS < IPC 19.5
35 0.1 0 88 -40 77 117 MDTS < ITC 33.9
35 0.01 0 70 -70 26 96 MDTS < ITC 50.9
35 10 130 372 -191 -344 -152 Same 13.5
35 1 130 192 -123 -130 -7 Same 9.6
35 0.1 130 125 -113 -93 20 Same 10.3
35 0.01 130 111 -77 -87 -10 Same 11.8
Table 38. Duncan multiple range test for phase angle.
Temp., Freq., Conf., Duncan Multiple Range Test
C Hz kPa Critical IPC- IPC- ITC- Max
ITC MDTS MDTS Conclusion difference, %
10 10 0 0.78 0.55 0.85 0.30 Same 0.8
10 1 0 1.22 -0.12 0.60 0.72 Same 0.7
10 0.1 0 2.05 0.03 1.03 1.00 Same 1.0
20 10 0 1.60 -0.69 1.73 2.42 MDTS< IPC and ITC 2.4
20 1 0 2.08 -0.66 2.66 3.31 MDTS< IPC and ITC 3.3
20 0.1 0 2.35 0.16 2.61 2.45 MDTS< IPC and ITC 2.6
35 10 0 1.37 -0.54 1.28 1.82 MDTS< ITC 1.8
35 1 0 2.71 -0.26 -0.95 -0.69 Same -0.3
35 0.1 0 4.06 3.19 -1.08 -4.28 Same 3.2
35 0.01 0 2.69 4.78 0.06 -4.72 ITC < IPC and MDTS 4.8
35 10 130 1.83 1.78 3.40 1.62 MDTS < IPC 3.4
35 1 130 2.06 1.61 2.55 0.95 MDTS < IPC 2.6
35 0.1 130 2.43 2.05 3.86 1.81 MDTS < IPC 3.9
35 0.01 130 2.57 2.26 2.76 0.49 MDTS < IPC 2.8
For the dynamic modulus, there is good agreement be- Table 39. Grand mean and variability
tween the three machines except for the lower frequency tests of dynamic modulus test data.
at high temperatures. In these tests, the ITC machine yields
significantly higher dynamic moduli than the MDTS ma- Temp., Freq., Conf., Dynamic Modulus Phase Angle
C Hz kPa Mean COV Mean Standard
chine. For the phase angle, the agreement between the three Deviation
machines is somewhat poorer. The MDTS machine typically 10 10 0 10953 12.9 15.5 0.4
yields lower phase angles than the other machines. 10 1 0 7040 13.6 21.5 0.7
Table 39 summarizes the variability of the dynamic mod- 10 0.1 0 3939 15.2 27.6 1.1
20 10 0 6037 10.4 24.6 0.9
ulus test data obtained by pooling the standard deviation of 20 1 0 3124 10.3 31.1 1.1
the data for each testing condition across all machines. Except 20 0.1 0 1375 11.0 34.8 1.3
for the 0.01 Hz loading at the high temperature, the variability 35 10 0 2019 6.9 34.4 0.7
of the test data are reasonably low with the coefficient of 35 1 0 826 8.7 33.9 1.5
variation for the dynamic modulus being approximately 35 0.1 0 345 13.7 29.2 2.2
35 0.01 0 189 20.1 21.3 1.5
10 percent and the standard deviation of the phase angle 35 10 130 2543 7.9 29.2 1.0
being approximately 1 degree. The overall variability obtained 35 1 130 1357 7.7 25.4 1.1
by pooling the coefficient of variation for the dynamic modu- 35 0.1 130 901 7.5 19.4 1.3
lus and the standard deviation for the phase angle over all test 35 0.01 130 736 8.1 13.9 1.4
conditions were 11.6 percent, and 1.2 degrees, respectively. Overall 11.6 1.2

OCR for page 28

31
10000
Average Dynamic Modulus, MPa
IPC
1000 ITC
MDTS
100
100 1000 10000
Grand Average Dynamic Modulus, MPa
Figure 18. Comparison of mean dynamic moduli from the
three machines.
These values agree well with those measured in Phase II where the data from a particular machine plot outside the 95 per-
the coefficient of variation for the dynamic modulus was cent confidence intervals. For the dynamic modulus this occurs
approximately 13 percent and the standard deviation of the only for the low frequency tests at high temperatures, where
phase angle was approximately 1.7 degrees (11). the data for the ITC machine are significantly higher and the
Figure 18 and Figure 19 graphically depict the results dis- data for the MDTS machine are significantly lower than the
cussed above. In these figures, the mean for each machine is grand average. Phase angles measured in with the MDTS ma-
plotted as a function of the grand mean obtained from the chine tend to be lower than the grand average, while those
data for all machines. These figures also include 95 percent measured with the IPC Global machine tend to be higher
confidence intervals for the grand mean computed using the than the grand average. Each machine exhibits a significant
overall coefficient of variation for the dynamic modulus data difference from the grand average for various combinations
of 11.6 percent and the overall standard deviation for the of temperature, frequency, and confinement, but there does
phase angle of 1.2 degrees. Significant differences occur when not appear to be a consistent trend for these departures.
40.0
35.0
Average Phase Angle, Degree
30.0
IPC
25.0 ITC
MDTS
20.0
15.0
10.0
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Grand Average Phase Angle, Degree
Figure 19. Comparison of mean phase angle from the three machines.