The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 25-34

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 25... ... Apparently, the dynamic modulus test is sensitive to the size of the glued gauge point, with larger gauge points resulting in shorter effective gauge lengths and lower modulus values. The MDTS gauge points were reduced in size by grinding some of the material from the top and bottom, and the dynamic modulus tests were repeated. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 3.2.2 Statistical Analysis The dynamic modulus data from the equipment effects experiment is presented in Appendix C It includes the measured modulus and phase angle as well as the reported data quality statistics for each test. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... The data in Table 35 and Table 36 show some significant differences in the dynamic moduli and phase angles measured with the three machines. The Duncan multiple range test was used to determine which values were significantly different (13) Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... The overall variability obtained by pooling the coefficient of variation for the dynamic modulus and the standard deviation for the phase angle over all test conditions were 11.6 percent, and 1.2 degrees, respectively. 30 Duncan Multiple Range Test Temp., C Freq., Hz Conf., kPa Critical IPCITC IPCMDTS ITCMDTS Conclusion Max 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 Duncan Multiple Range Test Tem p., C Freq., Hz Conf., kPa Critical IPC- ITC IPC- MDTS ITC- MDTS Conclusion Max difference, % 10 10 0 0.78 0.55 0.85 0.30 Sam e 0.8 10 1 0 1.22 -0.12 0.60 0.72 Sa me 0.7 10 0.1 0 2.05 0.03 1.03 1.00 Sam e 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 Sa me -0.3 35 0.1 0 4.06 3.19 -1.08 -4.28 Sam e 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 Table 37. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... Phase angles measured in with the MDTS machine tend to be lower than the grand average, while those measured with the IPC Global machine tend to be higher than the grand average. Each machine exhibits a significant difference from the grand average for various combinations of temperature, frequency, and confinement, but there does not appear to be a consistent trend for these departures. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 32 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Load Cycles Pe rm an en t S tra in , % ITC IPC MDTS Figure 20. Average permanent strain response for unconfined repeated load tests. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... The data in Table 40 indicate a significant difference in the permanent deformation response between devices early in the tests up to approximately 100 load cycles. Although there is a significant difference and based on the Duncan multiple range test, the permanent deformation from the ITC device is significantly lower than the other two, the difference is only 0.05 percent, which is not significant from an engineering 33 ITC IPC MDTS Grand Pooled Analysis of Variance Cycle Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg COV SSB MS W MSB F Fcr Conclusion 1 0.04 0.0000 0.05 0.0000 0.06 0.0001 0.05 6.02 0.0014 0.0000 0.0007 55.85 4.26 Permanent strains are different 16 0.23 0.0008 0.27 0.0002 0.27 0.0008 0.26 4.67 0.0040 0.0002 0.0020 10.42 4.26 Permanent strains are different 25 0.28 0.0010 0.33 0.0002 0.33 0.0012 0.31 4.54 0.0050 0.0003 0.0025 9.36 4.26 Permanent strains are different 40 0.34 0.0020 0.39 0.0002 0.39 0.0017 0.38 4.77 0.0063 0.0004 0.0031 7.32 4.26 Permanent strains are different 63 0.41 0.0026 0.46 0.0002 0.46 0.0024 0.45 4.68 0.0065 0.0006 0.0033 5.58 4.26 Permanent strains are different 100 0.49 0.0048 0.54 0.0003 0.54 0.0039 0.52 5.23 0.0082 0.0010 0.0041 4.10 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 160 0.58 0.0072 0.64 0.0005 0.63 0.0066 0.62 5.58 0.0088 0.0016 0.0044 2.77 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 250 0.69 0.0130 0.75 0.0007 0.74 0.0105 0.73 6.19 0.0094 0.0027 0.0047 1.75 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 400 0.83 0.0219 0.89 0.0015 0.88 0.0192 0.87 6.88 0.0090 0.0047 0.0045 0.95 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 630 1.01 0.0377 1.07 0.0032 1.06 0.0375 1.05 7.70 0.0080 0.0087 0.0040 0.46 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 1000 1.30 0.0721 1.35 0.0078 1.33 0.0871 1.32 8.91 0.0056 0.0186 0.0028 0.15 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 1600 1.80 0.1451 1.84 0.0225 1.80 0.2871 1.81 10.75 0.0034 0.0505 0.0017 0.03 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 2500 2.91 0.4842 2.89 0.0964 2.83 1.7224 2.88 15.22 0.0152 0.2559 0.0076 0.03 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e Table 40. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... The coefficient of variation in the unconfined test increases with increasing axial strain, while it decreases with increasing strain in confined tests. Before, the 34 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Load Cycles Pe rm an en t S tra in , % ITC IPC MDTS Figure 22. Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... 3.4 Repeatability The data from the equipment effects experiment can be used to make initial estimates of the repeatability of the dynamic modulus and flow number tests. These estimates of repeatability can be useful in early evaluations of the equipment and in the planning of an interlaboratory study where formal statements of both the repeatability, within laboratory precision, and reproducibility, between laboratory precision, of the tests are developed. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... The calibration of the temperature sensor and the deformation measuring equipment was verified using independent NIST traceable standards immediately before conducting the equipment effects experiment. For various combinations of temperature and frequency, significant differences in phase angles were also detected. Read the entire page →

From page 25...

... Apparently, the dynamic modulus test is sensitive to the size of the glued gauge point, with larger gauge points resulting in shorter effective gauge lengths and lower modulus values. The MDTS gauge points were reduced in size by grinding some of the material from the top and bottom, and the dynamic modulus tests were repeated.

Read the entire page →

From page 26...

... 3.2.2 Statistical Analysis The dynamic modulus data from the equipment effects experiment is presented in Appendix C It includes the measured modulus and phase angle as well as the reported data quality statistics for each test.

Read the entire page →

From page 27...

... The data in Table 35 and Table 36 show some significant differences in the dynamic moduli and phase angles measured with the three machines. The Duncan multiple range test was used to determine which values were significantly different (13)

Read the entire page →

From page 28...

... The overall variability obtained by pooling the coefficient of variation for the dynamic modulus and the standard deviation for the phase angle over all test conditions were 11.6 percent, and 1.2 degrees, respectively. 30 Duncan Multiple Range Test Temp., C Freq., Hz Conf., kPa Critical IPCITC IPCMDTS ITCMDTS Conclusion Max 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 Duncan Multiple Range Test Tem p., C Freq., Hz Conf., kPa Critical IPC- ITC IPC- MDTS ITC- MDTS Conclusion Max difference, % 10 10 0 0.78 0.55 0.85 0.30 Sam e 0.8 10 1 0 1.22 -0.12 0.60 0.72 Sa me 0.7 10 0.1 0 2.05 0.03 1.03 1.00 Sam e 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 Sa me -0.3 35 0.1 0 4.06 3.19 -1.08 -4.28 Sam e 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 Table 37.

Read the entire page →

From page 29...

... Phase angles measured in with the MDTS machine tend to be lower than the grand average, while those measured with the IPC Global machine tend to be higher than the grand average. Each machine exhibits a significant difference from the grand average for various combinations of temperature, frequency, and confinement, but there does not appear to be a consistent trend for these departures.

Read the entire page →

From page 30...

... 32 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Load Cycles Pe rm an en t S tra in , % ITC IPC MDTS Figure 20. Average permanent strain response for unconfined repeated load tests.

Read the entire page →

From page 31...

... The data in Table 40 indicate a significant difference in the permanent deformation response between devices early in the tests up to approximately 100 load cycles. Although there is a significant difference and based on the Duncan multiple range test, the permanent deformation from the ITC device is significantly lower than the other two, the difference is only 0.05 percent, which is not significant from an engineering 33 ITC IPC MDTS Grand Pooled Analysis of Variance Cycle Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg SSW Avg COV SSB MS W MSB F Fcr Conclusion 1 0.04 0.0000 0.05 0.0000 0.06 0.0001 0.05 6.02 0.0014 0.0000 0.0007 55.85 4.26 Permanent strains are different 16 0.23 0.0008 0.27 0.0002 0.27 0.0008 0.26 4.67 0.0040 0.0002 0.0020 10.42 4.26 Permanent strains are different 25 0.28 0.0010 0.33 0.0002 0.33 0.0012 0.31 4.54 0.0050 0.0003 0.0025 9.36 4.26 Permanent strains are different 40 0.34 0.0020 0.39 0.0002 0.39 0.0017 0.38 4.77 0.0063 0.0004 0.0031 7.32 4.26 Permanent strains are different 63 0.41 0.0026 0.46 0.0002 0.46 0.0024 0.45 4.68 0.0065 0.0006 0.0033 5.58 4.26 Permanent strains are different 100 0.49 0.0048 0.54 0.0003 0.54 0.0039 0.52 5.23 0.0082 0.0010 0.0041 4.10 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 160 0.58 0.0072 0.64 0.0005 0.63 0.0066 0.62 5.58 0.0088 0.0016 0.0044 2.77 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 250 0.69 0.0130 0.75 0.0007 0.74 0.0105 0.73 6.19 0.0094 0.0027 0.0047 1.75 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 400 0.83 0.0219 0.89 0.0015 0.88 0.0192 0.87 6.88 0.0090 0.0047 0.0045 0.95 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 630 1.01 0.0377 1.07 0.0032 1.06 0.0375 1.05 7.70 0.0080 0.0087 0.0040 0.46 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 1000 1.30 0.0721 1.35 0.0078 1.33 0.0871 1.32 8.91 0.0056 0.0186 0.0028 0.15 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 1600 1.80 0.1451 1.84 0.0225 1.80 0.2871 1.81 10.75 0.0034 0.0505 0.0017 0.03 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e 2500 2.91 0.4842 2.89 0.0964 2.83 1.7224 2.88 15.22 0.0152 0.2559 0.0076 0.03 4.26 Perm anent strains are the sam e Table 40.

Read the entire page →

From page 32...

... The coefficient of variation in the unconfined test increases with increasing axial strain, while it decreases with increasing strain in confined tests. Before, the 34 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Load Cycles Pe rm an en t S tra in , % ITC IPC MDTS Figure 22.

Read the entire page →

From page 33...

... 3.4 Repeatability The data from the equipment effects experiment can be used to make initial estimates of the repeatability of the dynamic modulus and flow number tests. These estimates of repeatability can be useful in early evaluations of the equipment and in the planning of an interlaboratory study where formal statements of both the repeatability, within laboratory precision, and reproducibility, between laboratory precision, of the tests are developed.

Read the entire page →

From page 34...

... The calibration of the temperature sensor and the deformation measuring equipment was verified using independent NIST traceable standards immediately before conducting the equipment effects experiment. For various combinations of temperature and frequency, significant differences in phase angles were also detected.

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.