关 键 词：

路基 宽度 26 行车道 3.75 公路 一级 车道 高速公路 说明书 土方 计算 30 CAD

资源描述：

路基宽度26米行车道宽4×3.75米公路一级四车道高速公路（说明书、土方计算表、30张CAD图）,路基,宽度,26,行车道,3.75,公路,一级,车道,高速公路,说明书,土方,计算,30,CAD

内容简介：

英文文献：English is the Civil Engineering Civil Engineering, civil engineering is literally, it is the construction of the project collectively. It means building objects that the construction on the ground, underground, water works facilities, equipment and materials to use in surveying, design construction, maintenance, repair and other professional skills. Civil Engineering with the progress of the human society, has been transformed into large integrated disciplines, it has a number of branches, such as : construction, rail projects, road projects, bridge projects, special project structure, water drainage works, the port project, water, environmental engineering disciplines. A total of six professional Civil Engineering : architecture, urban planning, civil engineering, construction and environmental engineering equipment, water drainage works and road bridge project. Civil Engineering as an important foundation subjects, its important attribute : an integrated, social, practicality, uniformity. Civil Engineering for the development of the national economy and improve the living standards of the people provided important material and technological foundation for the revitalization of many industries played a catalytic role in the construction of fixed assets is a basic production process, the construction and real estate in many countries and regions become a pillar of the economy Ancient Civil Engineering has a long time span, roughly 500 years before Christ from the original date in civil engineering activities to the 16 century Italian Renaissance, resulting in the rapid development of the Civil Engineering on the road today, and has experienced more than 2,000 years. During this period, due to the development of scientific theories and slow, there is no breakthrough in civil engineering practices. Century from 17 pages to 40 years in the 20th century end of the Second World War 300 years, foreign construction made great strides. Civil Engineering has entered a phase of quantitative analysis. Some theoretical development, the emergence of new materials, new tools of invention, the Civil Engineering Science is perfection and maturity. In modern times, after the end of World War II, many countries economic takeoff, the increasing advances of modern science, so as to provide a powerful impetus to further development and material basis. Peoples living conditions continue to improve, more and more comfortable living environment for the inevitable in the circumstances, the construction of development directly to the Civil Engineering development.译文：土木工程的英文是Civil Engineering ,直译是民用工程，它是建造各种工程的统称。它既指建设的对象，即建造在地上，地下，水中的工程设施，也指应用的材料设备和进行的勘测，设计施工，保养，维修等专业技术。 土木工程随着人类社会的进步而发展，至今已经演变成为大型综合性的学科，它已经出许多分支，如：建筑工程，铁路工程，道路工程，桥梁工程，特种工程结构，给水排水工程，港口工程，水利工程，环境工程等学科。土木工程共有六个专业：建筑学，城市规划，土木工程，建筑环境与设备工程，给水排水工程和道路桥梁工程。 土木工程作为一个重要的基础学科，有其重要的属性：综合性，社会性，实践性，统一性。土木工程为国民经济的发展和人民生活的改善提供了重要的物质技术基础，对众多产业的振兴发挥了促进作用，工程建设是形成固定资产的基本生产过程，因此，建筑业和房地产成为许多国家和地区的经济支柱之一。 古代的土木工程有很长的时间跨度，大致从公元前500年新石器时代出现原始的土木工程活动到16世纪末意大利的文艺复兴，导致土木工程走上迅速发展的道路为止，前后经历了两千多年。在这段时间内，由于科学理论发展及其缓慢，土木工程也没有突破习惯的发展。 从17世纪中页开始到20 世纪40年代第二次世界大战结束为止的300年间，国外的建筑取得了长足的进步。土木工程进入了定量分析阶段。一些理论的发展，新材料的出现，新工具的发明，都使土木工程科学日渐完善和成熟。到了近代，二战结束之后，许多国家经济起飞，现代科学日益进步，从而为进一步发展提供了强大的动力和物质基础。 人们生活水平的不断提高，必然要求越来越舒适的居住环境，在这种情况下，建筑的发展直接推动了土木工程的发展。 总的来说土木工程是一门古老的学科，它已经取得了巨大的成就，未来的土木工程将在人们的生活中占据更重要的地位。地球环境的日益恶化，人口的不断增加，人们为了争取生存，为了争取更舒适的生存环境，必将更加重视土木工程。在不久的将来，一些重大项目将会陆续兴建，插入云霄的摩天大楼，横跨大样的桥梁，更加方便的交通将不是梦想。科技的发展，以及地球不断恶化的环境必将促使土木工程向太空和海洋发展，为人类提供更广阔的生存空间。近年来，工程材料主要是钢筋，混凝土，木材和砖材，在未来，传统材料将得到改观，一些全新的更加适合建筑的材料将问世，尤其是化学合成材料将推动建筑走向更高点。同时，设计方法的精确化，设计工作的自动化，信息和智能话技术的全面引入，将会是人们有一个更加舒适的居住环境。一句话，理论的发展，新材料的出现，计算机的应用，高新技术的引入等都将使土木工程有一个新的飞跃. 主 要 经 济 技 术 指 标 表(K84+900- K85+913.62)工程名称：某高速公路序 号指 标 名 称单 位数 量备 注序 号指 标 名 称单 位数 量备 注一、基本指标9路基挖方坡度1:0.5,1:0.75,1:110路基填方坡度1:1.75,1:1.5，1:1.2511边沟/排水沟沟底宽度米0.61公路等级级高速公路12土石方数量2计算行车速度公里/小时120、挖方m3190925.883交通量辆/昼夜、填方m3214076.18二、路 线13挡土墙路堑式挡土墙m2001路线总长公里1.01362路肩式挡土墙m802平曲线最小半径米750.03平曲线占路线比例%55.987 四桥梁、涵洞4直线最大长度米814.471涵洞道15最大纵坡%2.852 6最短纵坡米310.000 7竖曲线占路线比例%64.803 8竖曲线最小半径凸型米12000 凹型米6000三、路基、路面1路基宽度米262行车道宽度米43.753硬路肩宽度米3.04土路肩宽度米0.755路拱横坡%26土路肩横坡%37超高横坡%8序号内 容文 件 图 纸 表 格 名 称图表编号张数一总说明总 说 明 书2主要经济技术指标表1二公路路线设计1、路 线 说 明 书12、平面设计图S123、路基纵断面设计图 S224、直线、曲线及转角表S315、纵坡、竖曲线表S416、逐桩坐标表S51三公路路基工程设计1、路基设计说明书42、路基设计表S133、边沟、排水沟设计表S234、路基标准横断面图S335、一般路基设计图S436、典型横断面图S527、路基横断面设计图S698、路基土石方计算表S739、边坡防护工程设计图S8410、路肩挡土墙布置图S9111、排水设施一般构造图S11412、路基排水工程布置图S122序号内 容文 件 图 纸 表 格 名 称图表编号张数三13、平台排水设计图S13114、总体布置图S142四公路路面工程设计1、路面设计说明书32、路面方案比选23、水泥砼路面结构图S114、水泥砼路面分块设计图S215、水泥砼路面钢筋布置图S316、水泥砼路面边缘和角隅钢筋布置图S417、水泥砼路面边角补强设计图S518、水泥砼路面接缝设计图S619、沥青砼路面结构设计图S7110、水泥路面与沥青路面相接段构造S8111、路面排水中央分隔带排水设计图S9112、路面边缘排水设计图S101五桥涵设 计1、桥涵设计说明书22、圆涵洞设计图S213、盖板涵洞设计图S31 总 目 录路基土石方数量计算表某高速公路K84+900K85+913.62段第 1 页 共 2 页桩 号横 断 面距离(m)挖 方 分 类 及 数 量 (m3)填 方 数 量 (m3)利 用 方 数 量 及 调 配 (m3)借 方 数 量弃 方 数 量备 注面 积总数量土石(m3)及运距(m3)及运距(m2)本桩利用填 缺挖 余远运利用及纵向调配示意(Km)(Km)挖方填方%数量%数量%数量%数量%数量%数量总数量土石土石土石土石土石土石12356789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233K84+9000.3119.941K84+9050.5876.83552.245200.449601.347200.44941.9441.942.24539.695K84+9852.422 353.69大、中桥梁K85+0001.507 377.931529.467520 5.8935 60 17.6805 205.89355487.125487.1229.46755457.65K85+0202.06189.122035.67207.1346021.402207.1345670.525670.5235.675634.85K85+037.2811.954 65.001 17.281 34.682967 20 6.93659 60 20.8098 20 6.936592195.7671 2195.767134.6832161.08K85+0402.706 51.385 2.7196.3352720 1.26705 60 3.80116 20 1.26705158.22677 158.226776.33527151.891K85+06061.166 143.6720638.7220 127.744 60 383.232 20 127.7441950.571950.57638.721311.85K85+0803.276 69.26520644.4220 128.884 60 386.652 20 128.8842129.372129.37644.421484.95K85+100266.48202697.5620 539.512 60 1618.54 20 539.512692.65692.65692.652004.91K85+120547.2208136.820 1627.36 60 4882.08 20 1627.368136.8K85+130685.5106163.4920 1232.7 60 3698.09 201232.76163.49K85+140809.06107472.78520 1494.56 60 4483.67 20 1494.567472.79K85+1601157.22019662.3120 3932.46 60 11797.4 20 3932.4619662.3K85+1801304.32024614.320 4922.86 60 14768.6 20 4922.8624614.3K85+2001104.62024088.5920 4817.72 60 14453.2 20 4817.7224088.6K85+220586.822016914.2120 3382.84 60 10148.5 20 3382.8416914.2K85+240453.352010401.7320 2080.35 60 6241.04 20 2080.3510401.7K85+260164.46 4.235206178.1120 1235.62 60 3706.87 20 1235.6242.3542.3542.356135.76K85+278.35113.666 60.628 18.351 1634.3768 20 326.875 60 980.626 20 326.875595.15046 595.15046595.151039.23K85+28020.562 89.287 1.649 28.220986 20 5.6442 60 16.9326 205.6442123.60492 123.6049228.22195.3839K85+3001.531 188.8620220.9320 44.186 60 132.558 2044.1862781.432781.43220.932560.5K85+3202.154 265.392036.85207.376022.11207.374542.54542.536.854505.65K85+3402.627 257.812047.81209.5626028.686209.5625232.025232.0247.815184.21K85+3601.408 217.192040.35208.076024.21208.074750.014750.0140.354709.66K85+3802.799 243.862042.07208.4146025.242208.4144610.494610.4942.074568.42K85+4003.988 252.452067.8720 13.574 6040.7222013.5744963.034963.0367.874895.16小 计129839.92596877903.92596845966.749 45966.7493205.7942761126634累 计129839.92596877903.92596845966.749 45966.7493205.7942761126634编制：复核：路基土石方数量计算表某高速公路K84+900K85+913.62段第 2 页 共 2 页桩 号横 断 面距离(m)挖 方 分 类 及 数 量 (m3)填 方 数 量 (m3)利 用 方 数 量 及 调 配 (m3)借 方 数 量弃 方 数 量备 注面 积总数量土石(m3)及运距(m3)及运距(m2)本桩利用填 缺挖 余远运利用及纵向调配示意(Km)(Km)挖方填方%数量%数量%数量%数量%数量%数量总数量土石土石土石土石土石土石12356789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233K85+4003.988 252.45K85+4208.582 301.0320125.72025.146075.422025.145534.745534.74125.75409.04K85+4406.408266.520149.92029.986089.942029.985675.275675.27149.95525.37K85+46013.961 176.4420203.6920 40.738 60 122.214 2040.7384429.424429.42203.694225.73K85+480364.69 36.294203786.5420 757.308 60 2271.92 20 757.3082127.362127.362127.361659.18K85+500586.38 26.991209510.7320 1902.15 60 5706.44 20 1902.15632.85632.85632.858877.88K85+519.421499.8219.421 10547.535 20 2109.51 60 6328.52 20 2109.51262.09611 262.09611262.09610285.4K85+520486.960.579 285.67339 20 57.1347 60 171.404 20 57.1347285.673K85+540257.49 90.82207444.4920 1488.9 60 4466.69 201488.9908.2908.2908.26536.29K85+56038.038 237.28202955.2420 591.048 60 1773.14 20 591.0483281.013281.012955.24325.77K85+5802.571 421.4320406.0920 81.218 60 243.654 2081.2186587.116587.11406.096181.02K85+6005.787 454.582083.5820 16.716 6050.1482016.7168760.18760.183.588676.52K85+6205.641 296.9720114.2820 22.856 6068.5682022.8567515.57515.5114.287401.22K85+6403.821 156.042094.6220 18.924 6056.7722018.9244530.074530.0794.624435.45K85+660143.33 21.264201471.5220 294.304 60 882.912 20 294.3041773.011773.011471.52301.49K85+679.421303.2619.421 4336.6316 20 867.326 60 2601.98 20 867.326206.48407 206.48407206.4844130.15K85+680266.92.0640.579 165.06103 20 33.0122 60 99.0366 20 33.01220.5975280.5975280.59753164.464K85+700225.34204922.4120 984.482 60 2953.45 20 984.48220.6420.6420.644901.77K85+72015.954 130.77202412.9720 482.594 60 1447.78 20 482.5941307.731307.731307.731105.24K85+7404.775 571.4320207.2920 41.458 60 124.374 2041.45870227022207.296814.71K85+7504.729 610.781047.52209.5046028.512209.5045911.025911.0247.525863.5K85+8301.125 742.07大、中桥梁K85+8401.125 729.561011.25202.25606.75202.257358.117358.1111.257346.86K85+8600.88730.782020.05204.016012.03204.0114603.414603.420.0514583.4K85+8800.9552.572017.8203.566010.68203.5612833.4912833.4917.812815.7K85+9000.88469.262017.8203.566010.68203.5610218.2810218.2817.810200.5K85+913.621.9934752028.73205.7466017.238205.7469442.589442.5828.739413.85小 计49367.1019873.4229620.39873.42120941.07 120941.071142110952037946.1累 计17920735841.410752435841.4166907.82 166907.8214626.8152281164580编制：复核：一、总 说 明 书本设计为湖南省XX高速公路的施工图设计,设计任务段为K84+900K85+913.62，全长共为1013.62米，在整个设计当中应当包括公路平纵横设计、路基工程的设计、路面工程的设计、桥涵的设计等。 1 设计标准全线按四车道高速公路设计，计算行车速度为120公里/小时，路基宽度26.00米，行车道宽43.75米，设计荷载：公路一级，全部实行封闭、全部控制出入。1.1 路线方案的确定见地形图平面图1.2 路线起点、中间控制点及里程本段起点桩号为K84+900，终点桩号为K85+913.62,路线全长为1013.62米。该段的线形较好，平曲线的半径为750米，通过的地区多为山地.1.3 沿线自然地理概况 设计在满足工程经济的前提下既要符合高速公路标准的要求，尽可能采用较高的技术指标，还要综合考虑其它影响因素。1.4 技术标准与技术指标的的总体适用情况本项设计方案各项技术指标均符合公路工程技术标准（JTG B012003），公路路线设计规范（JTG D20-2006）、公路路基设计规范（JTG D30-2004）公路水泥混凝土路面设计规范（JTG D40-2002）、公路沥青路面设计规范（JTG D50-2006）、公路路基施工技术规范（JTJ FD20-2006）、公路排水设计规范（JTJ018-97）、公路桥涵设计规范（JTG D60-2004）的要求。2 路线路线的布设以公路工程技术标准和公路路线设计规范为依据，按高速公路的标准来进行设计，路线的设计应当根据道路的等级及其使用的任务和功能，合理的利用地形，正确的利用技术标准，以保证线形的均衡性。路线的设计当中对公路的平纵横三个面进行综合的设计，以保证路线的整体的协调性，作到平面顺适，纵坡均衡、横面合理，并且应当考虑车辆的行驶时的安全舒适性以及驾驶员的视觉和心理的反应，并适当的注意与当地的环境和景观相协调，路线的选择应尽量的避免穿过地质不良的地段。贯彻保护耕地、节约用地的原则，少拆房屋、方便群众、保护环境、保护古迹。来修建道路，在高速公路的设计时，应在满足高速公路技术标准和设计规范要求的前提下，合理使用地形，力求使路线连续、流畅、舒适、安全、优美、工程经济，尽量采用较高的技术标准。3 路基路面及排水3.1 路基排水 在本路段的排水设计当中,在所有的挖方路堑地段都相应的设置了路堑边沟以配合边沟迅速的将路基范围的水排走。在绝大部分的路堤段设置了排水沟，为了不使得路面的水到处漫流,，在配合路堤防护的水沟同时将水以排水沟排向沟渠，引向鱼塘等地段.密切配合农田水利的建设。路段设置排水边沟或坡脚排水沟，尺寸为606060cm。山坡路段根据需要设置截水沟。沟底纵坡较大时设置急流槽，引水较远时设排水沟。路堤段高度超过4m时设边坡急流槽以排除路面汇水，防止对路堤边坡的冲刷。路基边坡设纵向排水渗沟排除路面内部积水。3.2路基工程1)、 基本要求路基的设计的基本要求是应根据使用要求和自然条件并结合施工方案进行设计，既应有足够的强度和稳定性，又要经济合理。影响路基强度和稳定性的地面和地下水，必须采取拦截或排出路基以外的措施，并结合路面排水，应做好综合排水设计，形成完整的排水系统。修筑路基取土和弃土时，应符合环保的要求，减少弃土侵占耕地，防止水土的流失。通过特殊路基的地段的路基的设计应当在作好调查的同时结合当地的实际的经验进行特别的设计。2)、 路基横断面设计 公路路基宽度为行车道与路肩宽度之和（若有中间带、变速车道、爬坡车道、应急停车带时也应当包括在内）。在本段的设计当中，根据公路工程技术标准对于公路路基的宽度的一般的要求，根据公路设计的等级及设计车速，高速公路四车道，设计车速为120km/h，采用26.00m的路基的宽度。即：2.00(中间带)+20.75（路缘带）+43.75(行车道) +23.0( 硬路肩)+20.75(土路肩)其具体的布置可以参看标准横断面图。3)、 路基高度路基高度的设计，应使路肩边缘的高度高出路基两侧地面的积水的高度，同时要考虑地下水，毛细水作用，以不至于影响路基的稳定性和强度。路基的设计标高（有中央分隔带的情况）为中央分隔带外侧边缘标高，路基施工标高为设计标高减去路面厚度，计算路基土石方已扣除路面厚度，施工时按设计标高减去路面厚度来进行控制。5、 路基边坡填土路堤边坡：根据路基规范的要求，本段的填土所采用的是粘性土，由路基规范表1-2-3的路堤边坡坡度表根据实际的情况来进行选择适当的坡率。视地形情况选用路堤边坡坡率为1:1.25，1:1.50，1:1.75。路堑边坡：同样根据路基规范的规定，以及本路段的地质情况，拟定岩石边坡的坡率为1:0.5，对于较高的路堑超过8m处设平台并。且对于特殊的地段应当采用相应的防护措施以确保路堑的稳定性。 6)、 支挡工程根据本段的实际的情况，设置仰斜路堤挡土墙以及路堑护面墙，挡土墙的设计荷载为公路一级，没有浸水地段的影响。根据路基的要求进行的设计和验算，符合要求。挡土墙的施工时也应当注意与设计的要求相配合，施工时应当注意地面排水和安全工作；在松软的地层、塌方或者是坡积层的地段，基坑不宜全段开挖，以避免挡土墙在砌筑的过程中发生坍滑；挡土墙的底部、顶部以及墙面的外层宜选用整齐的大块石砌筑；墙址部分的基坑，在基础施工完以后应及时的回填夯实，以避免积水的下渗，影响墙身的稳定。挡土墙的设计也应当考虑到施工的难易、环境的保护、工程的经济性等方面的问题来进行综合的考虑。8)、 防护工程在遵循“因地制宜，就地取材，以防为主，防治结合”的方针下，对于高速公路尤其应当兼顾经久耐用、节省造价、和造型美观的要求。根据本段的实际的情况在路基里的推荐的防护的各种方案中选取种植草皮防护方式。4 路面工程路面结构方案是根据交通量对路面结构强度的要求，结合沿线气候、水文、地形地质、路基工程特点，建筑材料及施工条件等方面的实际情况，综合确定。基本情况如下：公路等级：高速公路路面等级：高级路面设计年限：15年设计车速：120km/h车道特征：双车道有分隔车道系数：0.45一共拟定了三种路基状态干燥、中湿、潮湿下路面结构的不同型式。5 桥梁及涵洞本设计路段共设置涵洞1道，为2.0*2.5m盖板涵。从结构安全、保证农田灌溉和泄洪需要，尽量减小冲刷的角度出发， 力求保持原有水系及排灌系统，以利农田基本建设，保持生态平衡，力求采用标准、轻巧、经济的结构。 三、桥梁与涵洞说明书一、 涵洞1. 采用标准、规范及主要技术指标、采用中华人民共和国交通部颁布标准公路工程技术标准及小桥涵设计手册等相关规范；、设计洪水频率：1/1002. 本段涵洞基本情况：本设计段设有圆管涵3座，盖板涵通道1个,另有人行通道1个。3. 设计说明、管节预制运输、存放时应注意轻放，堆放的地面应平整，必要时铺设510cm的砂垫层，使受力均匀，以免管节开裂。、洞顶及涵身两侧在不小于两倍孔径范围内的填土须分层对称夯实，压实度应达到95。、施工过程中，洞顶填土厚度小于1.0m时，严禁任何重型机械和车辆通过。、除岩石地基外，涵洞每隔36m设一道沉降缝，缝内填沥青麻絮。 水泥混凝土路面与沥青混凝土路面施工概算(单位长度)序号路面长度(km)宽度(m)厚度(m)收费单价(元/m2)实际造价备注1 水泥砼路面10007.50.251501278409.09 单价按0.22m计算2 基层100012.70.235444500.00按厚度20cm计算3 垫层(天然砂粒)100011.90.22764260.0027元/立方米4 水泥路肩100050.266078000.00 按厚度10cm计算5 土路肩100013030000.00 不计厚度合计0.001 沥青砼路面10007.50.15695781875.00元/立方米2 基层与垫层100012.70.48351133475.00按厚度20cm计算,两层4 粗砂100012.90.142748762.0027元/立方米5 沥青路肩1000550250000.00 不计厚度6 土路肩100013030000.00 不计厚度合计2244112.00水泥砼路面每公里造价1895169.09粗略估算沥青砼路面每公里造价2244112元粗略估算水泥混凝土路面与沥青混凝土路面施工概算(单位长度)直线、曲线及转角表某高速公路K84+900K85+913.62段交点号交 点 坐 标交点桩号转 角 值曲 线 要 素 值 (m)曲 线 主 点 桩 号直线长度及方向备 注N (X)E (Y)半 径缓和曲缓和曲切 线曲 线外 距 校正值第一缓和曲线第一缓和曲线终曲线中点第二缓和曲线起第二缓和曲线直线段交点间计算方位角线长度线参数长 度长 度起 点点或圆曲线起点点或圆曲线终点终 点长 (m)距(m)123456789101112131415161718192021BP3025079.518 511365.7505K84+867.28110.0005432.85500000JD13025512.373 511365.7505K85+300.136490321(Y)750160346.41422.855802.1394 75.957 43.57K84+877.281K85+037.281K85+278.351K85+519.421K85+679.421622.5795 1045.434490321JD23026197.47512155.4175K85+702.133编制：复核：直线、曲线及转角表交点号交 点 坐 标交点桩号转 角 值曲 线 要 素 值 (m)曲 线 主 点 桩 号直线长度及方向备 注N (X)E (Y)半 径缓和曲缓和曲切 线曲 线外 距校正值第一缓和曲线第一缓和曲线终曲线中点第二缓和曲线起第二缓和曲线直线段交点间计算方位角线长度线参数长 度长 度起 点点或圆曲线起点点或圆曲线终点终 点长 (m)距(m)123456789101112131415161718192021编制：复核：纵 坡 、 竖 曲 线 表某高速公路K84+900K85+913.62段第 1 页 共 1 页序 号桩 号竖 曲 线纵 坡（）变坡点间距直坡段长备 注标 高（m）凸曲线半径R（m）凹曲线半径R（m）切线长T（m）外距E（m）起点桩号终点桩号+-（m）（m）0K84+900344.2330037.181666671K85+200353.500110000262.81833333.453673817K84+937.182K85+462.818-2.1563333780248.68979172K85+480336.680712000268.4918753.003661956K85+211.508K85+768.4922.3185312532051.5081253K85+870344.1编制：复核：翻 译 原 文Low-temperature failure behavior of bituminous binders and mixesABSTRACTA research including a large experimental campaign on the thermo-mechanical behavior of different bituminous materials in the large strain amplitude domain is proposed. The primary goal of this paper is to identify and determine the links between the failure properties of bituminous binders and those of mixes at low temperatures.The thermo-mechanical behavior of bituminous binders was evaluated with the tensile strength at a constant strain rate and constant temperatures. The thermo-mechanical behavior of bituminous mixes has been studied byperforming measurements of the coefficient of thermal dilatation and contraction, tensile tests at constant temperatures and strain rates, and Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Tests. Some pertinent links between fundamental properties of binders and mixes are established. Some characteristics which appear as pertinent and discriminating enough with regard to the low-temperature failure properties of bituminous mixes are presented.Keywords : bitumens, bituminous mixes, rheological behavior, thermo-mechanical properties, failure properties, tensile strength, TSRST, low temperature, brittle, ductile, brittle/ductile transition temperature.INTRODUCTIONThe different domains of bitumen behavior can be illustrated according to the strain amplitude (_) and the temperature (T), at a given strain rate. FIGURE 1 (drawn from (1) and (2) points out : the brittle and ductile domains, where the tensile strength p can be measured, the brittle failure, which could be characterized by the fracture toughness Kc (Linear Elastic FractureMechanics), the linear elastic behavior, characterized by the moduli E and G, the linear viscoelastic domain, characterized by the complex moduli E* and G*, the purely viscous (Newtonian) behavior, characterized by the viscosity , for strains of a few percent, the domain where the behavior is highly non-linear.A bituminous mix has also a complex temperature-sensitive behavior. Its response to a given loading is strongly dependent on temperature and loading path. In addition, at a given temperature and a given strain rate, four main typical behaviors can be identified according to the strain amplitude () and the number of applied cyclic loadings (N) (see FIGURE 2, from (3).This paper is aimed at providing an assessment of the work conducted to date within the framework of a partnership between the “Dpartement Gnie Civil et Btiment” of the Ecole Nationale des TPE, Appia and Eurovia. This study focused on the thermo-mechanical behavior of different bituminous materials in both the small strain domain and the large strain domain, at low and mid temperatures, when considering only a small number of loadings This paper only deals with the characterization of the failure properties (i.e. in the large strain amplitude domain) of bituminous materials, at low and mid temperatures. It may be underlined that this paper completes two previous papers which focused on the linear viscoelastic behavior of bituminous materials (i.e. in the small strain domain) at low and intermediate temperatures (2) and (4).MATERIALSFour very different bitumens have been tested : two pure bitumens (10/20 and 50/70 penetration grade), and two polymer modified bitumens with a high content of polymer, one with plastomer and one with elastomer. The polymer modified binders are named hereafter PMB1 and PMB2. TABLE 1 presents the results of the conventional tests (the Fraass brittle point, the Penetration at 25C and the Softening Point Ring and Ball) initially performed on the different binders.Four different bituminous mixes, made from the 10/20, 50/70, PMB1 and PMB2 bitumens with one type of aggregate and grading, have been tested. The mixture samples had a continuous 0/10mm diorite grading, a 31% void content and a binder content of 6% by dry weight of aggregate.TESTS ON BINDERSSHRP Direct Tensile Tests (DTT)As described in AASHTO TP3 and (5), the SHRP Direct Tensile Test consists in elongating 27mm high bitumen samples at 1mm/min and at constant temperatures. The corresponding strain rate () equals 2.22m/m/h. At least six repeats at each temperature were realized on unaged samples. Apart from the determination of the conventional temperature leading to failure at 1% strain, T=1%, our analysis also consists in characterizing a threshold temperature separating the brittle behavior and the ductile one. Moreover, the tensile strength (maximum tensile stress) and thecorresponding strain for each temperature are considered and represented in FIGURE 3.In our opinion, the ranking of binders in function of their strain tolerance using the parameter T=1% does not seem to be really pertinent in the sense that this approach is rather empirical. This parameter will be hereafter compared with a new concept of brittle/ductile transition temperature of binders, which is introduced at the studied strain rate. The determination of this brittle/ductile transition temperature of binders is explained in the next paragraphs.Any isothermal direct tensile test yields much more data than just failure strain or stress values. In particular, the brittle-like or the ductile-like shape of the stress-strain curve can be examined at each temperature. Athigh temperatures, binders have a purely ductile behavior, whereas at very low temperatures their behavior is purely fragile. Following the considered temperature, the bitumen behavior sweeps from ductile (high temperature) to brittle (low temperature). Nevertheless, at intermediate temperatures, there is a slow evolution of the behavior from a ductile one to a brittle one when decreasing the temperature. Thus, practically, there is no determining an accuratetransition temperature directly from the examination of the shape of the stress-strain curve. In the best case, it is just possible to determine a more or less wide temperature range which corresponds to this slow transition of thephysical properties of binders.From our results, we introduce a brittle/ductile transition temperature of binders at the studied strain rate,Tbdb, which is the temperature at which the tensile strength peaks in the axes tensile strength-temperature (FIGURE3). This makes the determination of Tbdb easier and more accurate since the maximum of the tensile strength may be clearly identified. King et al. (5) have already noticed that when the temperature drops below about -15C, the tensile strength of bituminous mixtures decreases and the tensile specimen fractures at low strain as a brittle failure.The brittle/ductile transition temperature, hereafter named Tbdb (for a strain rate of 2.22m/m/h), can be considered as a pertinent, handy and alternative low-temperature parameter. Its physical meaning is directly linked to the type of fracture process of specimens, which influences the shape of the stress-strain curves.The values of Tbdb are presented in TABLE 1 along with the temperature corresponding to a strain of 1% at failure, T=1%. Tbdb and T=1% are highly correlated with each other (r2=0.977). Nevertheless, further investigations onother bituminous binders are still needed before any definitive conclusion can be drawn.As shown in FIGURE 3, the failure stress results are noticeably scattered at low temperatures, where the behavior is brittle. However, the performance of such a test at intermediate and high temperatures leads to a minor scatter of results. Therefore, from our results on four very different binders, the maximum tensile stress (tensilestrength) seems to be all the more repeatable than the temperature is high (FIGURE 3). As assumed by Largeaud et al. (7), the scattering at low temperature could be explained by the detrimental influence of occlusions of air bubbles in the small section of binder samples.TESTS ON MIXESDirect Tensile Tests (DTT)DTT results on mixesThese tests were performed at constant temperatures between 5C to -46C at constant strain rate. Two very different strain rates (300 and 45000m/m/h) were chosen so as to study the influence of strain rate upon the failure properties of bituminous mixtures. 220mm high cylindrical (diameter=80mm) samples were tested in tension using a servo-hydraulic press at the Eurovia laboratory. The strain in the sample was considered as the mean value of the measures given by three transducers placed at 120 around the sample. Two or three test replicates were performedat each temperature.On one hand, as previously shown by Di Benedetto et al. (8) (9), the experimental results on the four studied bituminous mixtures evidence that the stress at failure (viscoplastic flaw) is highly dependent on the strain rate in the ductile domain (high temperature). On the other hand, the obtained stress at failure only slightly depends upon the strain rate in the brittle domain (low temperature). So, as a first approximation, the tensile strength in the brittle domain can be considered as independent of the chosen strain rate. This point is of primary importance since a high strain rate can be used in the brittle domain in order to save time. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that Stock and Arand (10) previously stated that in the brittle domain, at very low temperatures, the tensile strength slightly decreases while increasing the strain rate. This point needs to be deepened with further investigation.Furthermore, in reference to the transition temperature concept presented for binders, we introduced the brittle/ductile transition temperature of bituminous mixes, Tfdm, which depends on the applied strain rate (). The difference for the two considered strain rates (300 and 45000m/m/h) can reach 9C. This low-temperatureparameter is reported in TABLE 1 for the two considered strain rates.As illustrated in FIGURE 4 where all replicate results are plotted, the scatter of results is rather small whatever the strain rate and the temperature. The repeatability of such a test on mixes appears as especially good, as well in the fragile domain as in the ductile domain.FIGURE 5 sums up the influence of both the temperature and the strain rate on the brittle/ductile behavior for tensile tests at constant strain rate on binders and mixes.DTT on binders Vs DTT on mixesAs can be seen in FIGURE 6, the tensile strength of binders found with the SHRP Direct Tensile Tests at 1mm/min (2.22m/m/h) is quite close to the tensile strength of mixes at 300m/m/h. This point is noticeable and needs furtherinvestigation. Indeed, as testing bituminous mixtures is very expensive and time-consuming, one of the current great issues is to determine methods in which the properties of mixes could be evaluated with enough accuracy from the properties of the binder and from the mix composition. To confirm these results, next steps could consist in testing another strain rate for binders (150mm/min, i.e. 333m/m/h, if possible) and also different mix compositions. In addition, in the brittle domain at very low temperatures, and only as a first approximation (lack of repeatability), the previous observations (cf. FIGURE 6) allow to consider that the tensile strength of binders equals the tensile strength of mixes which does not depend on the strain rate (FIGURE 4). To our knowledge, this statement which is sometimes supposed to be valid has been but little experimentally checked. Moreover, this statement is of the utmost importance since the failure in mixes could be predicted, as a first approximation, from the failure in binders. For instance, as regards the current revision of the AASHTO low temperature specification MP1 (MP1A), the failure stress from DTT on binders is incorporated in a comprehensive model to calculate and predict the socalled critical cracking temperature of pavement (11) (12).Coefficient of thermal dilatation/contraction of bituminous mixesThe linear coefficient of thermal dilatation/contraction “” depends on the thermal characteristics of the components of the bituminous mixture (binder, aggregate and air). It especially highly depends on the binder content since thecoefficient of linear thermal dilatation/contraction of bitumen is some 30 times greater than that of the mineral aggregate (13) (14) (15). In our study, as only one mix design is considered, the influence of the amount of binder and aggregate can not be evaluated.Parallelepipedic asphalt samples (L*W*H = 16*4*4 cm3) of the four types of investigated mixes were laid on their length on a layer of small glass marbles coated with a silicone spray. This base provides nearly frictionless movement. Each sample was submitted to different plateaus of temperature in the range of +24 to 26C. Thetemperature was held constant for about three-hour periods after each increment of around three degrees Celsius.Two identical strain gages are used for each test : the first one is glued on the upper part of the asphalt beam, the second one on the lower part, for not taking into account the flexion of the beam during the test. The average value is considered. A third strain gage was glued on a reference titanium silicate beam, of known -value(0.03m/m/C), in order to account for and correct the effect of temperature. In addition, a temperature probe was used to measure the temperature at the surface of asphalt samples.The thermal strain can be written as follows :=T 1where : linear coefficient of thermal dilatation/contraction (m/m/C)T : change in temperature (C)Thermal equilibriumAfter each temperature change, the temperature is held constant during 3 hours so as to allow the specimen, the titanium silicate beam and the three strain gages to equilibrate at the considered temperature. At the onset of this plateau of temperature, a transitional period is first observed, in which each element is contracting (or dilating) until thermal equilibrium. The transitional period of each element depends i)on its dimensions (the strain gage reaches more quickly the thermal equilibrium than the mix sample), ii)on its thermo-physical coefficients, iii)on the temperature change amplitude, iv)etc. From our results, this transitional period lasts about 1 hour.Experimental coefficientsFIGURE 7 shows that the thermal dilatation coefficient of mixes and their thermal contraction coefficient are really close (see also (16). The two coefficients are hereafter considered as equal. Moreover, FIGURE 7 highlights that the four different mixes have very close thermal contraction coefficients over the considered range of temperature (from -26 to +24C). As Di Benedetto and Neifar (16), using a specially designed test method, and Serfass et al. (17) have already shown, a linear relationship between the thermal contraction coefficient and the temperature can beconsidered, as a first approximation, below 5C. These coefficients vary slowly from around 30 to 15m/m/C while decreasing temperature from 5 to 26C. The thermal contraction coefficient appears as nearly constant at temperatures above 5C, but the excessive creep of the sample makes the measurements inaccurate.The environmental chamber did not allow to investigate temperatures lower than 26C so that no glass transition point (change in the slope of -T curve) could have been identified from our results. It is noteworthy that Di Benedetto & Neifar (16) previously pointed out the anisotropic behavior of mixes.They measured on cylindrical samples the coefficients of both radial and axial thermal contraction. These latter were found to be different (30 to 50%).Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Tests (TSRST)Typically, restrained cooling tests (or TSRST) are considered as an accelerated performance test to predict lowtemperature cracking of bituminous mixtures. These tests were carried out at a cooling rate of 10C/h from an initial temperature of 5C using a servo-hydraulic press at the Eurovia laboratory and were run in duplicate or triplicate on 250mm high samples (diameter=60mm). A temperature probe was used to measure the temperature at the surface of asphalt samples. The thermal regulation is directly realized from the measured surface temperature. The air in theenvironmental chamber is circulated with a fan so that the temperature distribution is uniform. The strain in the sample was considered as the mean value of the values given by three transducers placed at 120 around the sample.This strain is kept equal to zero during the whole test. As the material is restrained, its tendency to shorten results in the development of a tensile stress that produces failure. The strain can be modeled as the sum of a “thermal” strain and a “mechanical” strain :with: mechanical strain, described by the DBN viscoplastic model (24-25) (not developed in this paper);: thermal strain which is equal to . (cf. equation 1).Moreover, as the coefficients of thermal contraction of the four mixes vary from 30 to 15m/m/C when the temperature drops from 5 to -30C (FIGURE 8), the equivalent mechanical strain rate () ranges from300 to 150m/m/h during the restrained cooling tests (since =0). It is noteworthy that aluminum caps were used tofix samples to the MTS hydraulic press in order to avoid excessive shear stresses at the top and at the bottom of samples. The standard value of the coefficient of thermal contraction of aluminum is around 23m/m/C, which is close to that of mixes over the considered range of temperatures.From our results, failure occurs in the brittle domain when the induced thermal stress equals the tensile strength obtained at 300m/m/h (FIGURE 8). This means that the strength of the bituminous mixes seems to be a function of the temperature (18) and the strain rate only, and does not depend upon the previous followed stress and temperature paths. Moreover, to the extent that the tensile strength only slightly depends on the strain rate in the fragile domain (FIGURE 4), it seems possible to forecast the thermal cracking in the brittle domain by means of the tensile strength curve obtained at any strain rate. The temperature which corresponds to failure, the so-called fracture temperature TTSRST, is given in TABLE 1.For equivalent changes in temperature, the lower the thermally induced tensile stress, the better the mix behavior. Likewise, the colder the TSRST fracture temperature, the greater the mix resistance to low-temperature cracking. Therefore, among the four considered bituminous mixes, the two polymer modified mixtures are the bestregarding their resistance to low-temperature cracking.Moreover, the performance ranking of the four considered mixtures which were made from the same mixdesign and four different binders is very discriminating. Thus, for the considered mix design, this confirms that thebitumen property appears as a key factor regarding the resistance to low-temperature cracking of bituminous mixes.The influence of the cooling rate has not been studied during this laboratory work. Mixtures resistance tothermal cracking has been measured under very severe conditions (-10C/h). It is of particular interest to note thatmore realistic pavement surface cooling rates are generally in the range from about 0.5 to 2C/h (19) (20). Amid theresults drawn from the literature, Fabb (21) previously showed that the cooling rate has little effect on the fracturetemperature and the fracture strength when the rate was greater than 5C/h. From the results of Jung and Vinson (22)(23), when considering cooling rates of 1C/h and 10C/h, the relative difference between the amplitudes of inducedthermal stresses can reach 100% near the fracture temperature. Typically, TTSRST is coldest at 1C/h, which can beeasily simulated by the “DBN” law (27). Notwithstanding this fact, the ranking of bituminous materials does notseem to be influenced by the chosen cooling rate. Therefore, the TSRST with a cooling rate of 10C/h can stillprovide rather quickly pertinent information regarding to the low-temperature cracking properties of bituminousmixtures.Eventually, the thermally induced stress of the given mixes may also have been predicted using the lawdescribed by Di Benedetto et al. (24-26) and Neifar et al. (27-28). The prediction is given by the general viscoplastic“DBN law” (Di Benedetto and Neifar) using the results of i)complex modulus tests, ii)the tensile strength of mixesand iii)the knowledge of the thermal contraction coefficient. This procedure consists in a very effective alternative tothe widespread procedures which are based only on the linear viscoelastic properties of these materials. Theinfluence of non linearities for the prediction of the TSRST has been previously evidenced with the DBN law (25)(28). Then, the cracking temperature can be determined from the intersection of the cooling and tensile strengthcurves (27-28). For more details, the reader is referred to the following references (24-28).The mixtures resistance to thermal cycles remains to be tested soon in a complementary study or,alternatively, can be theoretically predicted by means of the “DBN law” for instance. Finding that the rankings ofmixtures regarding to either low-temperature cracking or cyclic thermal resistance are similar could be in particularof great interest.ANALYSIS DISCUSSIONThe parameters T=1%, Tbdb, Tbdm(300m/m/h), Tbdm(45000m/m/h) and the failure temperature at the TSRST,named TTSRST, are presented in TABLE 1 for the four studied bituminous materials. TABLE 2 gathers the correlationcoefficients between all the previously introduced parameters.First, Tbdb and T=1% are highly correlated with each other (r2=0.977). One must bear in mind that thephysical meaning of the introduced Tbdb is directly linked to the type of fracture process of specimens, whichinfluences the shape of the stress-strain curves. That is why this pertinent parameter could be associated to thecurrent low-temperature specification for asphalt binders based up to now on T=1%.Second, for the considered mix design, Tbdm(300m/m/h) and Tbdm(45000m/m/h) exhibit pretty goodcorrelation with Tbdb (resp. r2=0.936 and 0.908) and T=1% (resp. r2=0.929 and 0.925). Moreover, the correlationbetween Tbdb and TTSRST is r2=0.992. This evidences that, at low temperatures, the failure properties of bituminousmixtures can be predicted from those of bitumens.These correlation coefficients between mixes and binders properties still need to be confirmed byadditional tests with other binders and especially other mix compositions.For the considered set of binders, the Softening Point Ring and Ball and the Fraass Brittle Point are notgood indicators of the low-temperature cracking properties of bituminous mixtures. Indeed, the correlationcoefficients of these two traditional parameters with T=1%, Tbdb, Tbdm(300m/m/h), Tbdm(45000m/m/h) and TTSRST are not good. Eventually, the correlation coefficients of the Penetration at 25C with T=1%, Tbdb, Tbdm(300m/m/h), Tbdm(45000m/m/h) and TTSRST appear as not so good. Indeed, as far as the authors know, in the literature, except the results of Jung and Vinson (23) (29) that evidenced pretty good correlation between TTSRST and the Penetration at15C, poor correlation is usually emphasized (5).Finally, as the Penetration at 25C, the Softening Point Ring and Ball and the Fraass Brittle Point are concerned, these conventional tests do not bring relevant information nor do they provide a very accurate ranking regarding to the failure behavior of the bituminous materials at low temperatures. Lets add that the Penetration at 25C and the Softening Point Ring and Ball are not well correlated with the low-temperature criterions since, obviously, they are not associated with the same domain of temperature.CONCLUSIONSA rational approach which consists in comparing the properties of binders and mixes only in the same domain of behavior (the large strain domain up to failure) has been considered in this paper. From our results, the following conclusions can be drawn : A new way of determining the brittle/ductile transition temperature related to the peak of the tensile strength/temperature response curve (at a given strain rate) is proposed. This makes the determination of such a transitional temperature easier and more accurate. For the considered set of binders, the tensile tests on binders and mixes rank the materials in the same manner regarding the rate-dependent brittle/ductile transition temperatures of binders and mixes. As a first approximation, the tensile strength of mixes can be considered as independent of the strain rate in the brittle domain (at very low temperatures). This point is of primary importance since a high strain rate can be used in the brittle domain so as to save time. Only as a rough approximation, in the brittle domain (at very low temperatures), the tensile strength of binders and mixes can be considered as close. This point needs further investigation. An expanded laboratory testing program is recommended to further explore the effects of strain rate and mixdesign on the tensile strength of bituminous binders and mixes. Parameters such as i)the temperature leading to failure at 1% strain at the SHRP tensile tests on binders, ii) and iii)the fragile/ductile transition temperatures of binders and mixes (for given strain rates) and iv)the failure temperature obtained at the TSRST tests have been determined for each material. It has been shown that theselow-temperature parameters well correlate with each other. This series of parameters ranks in the same manner the bituminous materials regarding to their low-temperature properties. That means that these four parameters can be good surrogates to each other. Concerning the relevancy of the traditional parameters (the Penetration at 25C, the Softening Point Ring and Ball and the Fraass Brittle Point), as many other authors have previously stated, bad correlation between the latter parameters and more rational characteristics have been found herein.沥青和沥青混合料的低温破坏性能摘要本文是对含有不同添加剂材料的沥青热力行为在大应变情况下的对比实验进行研究。实验目的是弄清低温和沥青混合料的低温破坏性能之间的关系并且通过测试沥青混合料的在常温.常应变率下的应力来评价它的热力行为。 沥青混合料的热力行为通过量测样品常温常应力下的热稳定系数和热膨胀力被研究。从而建立起基本成分性状和混合物的特性间的关系以得出沥青混合料低温破坏的一些明显的特征。关键字:沥青，含掺合剂的沥青混合料， 流动行为，热力学特性，破坏，拉应力， TSRST ，低温, 脆性，延性，脆、延性随温度的改变。绪论不同的沥青行为能用给定的应变率下广义应变(_)对应的温度（T)来描述 。从图 1(从（1）和（2）得出)可以看出：知道了拉伸应力p时，就能分辨脆性和延性破坏；脆性破坏时, 可以用线弹性系数Kc来表示；线弹性的破坏性质,用模量E 和 G 来表示；线性兼具黏弹性的破坏性质,用复杂模量E* 和 G*,来表示；纯黏性(牛顿体)的破坏性质, 用黏着系数来表示；对于高度非线性的一些张力行为.沥青混合料也表现出对温度复杂的敏感性。 给定的荷载的反应与温度和加载过程有关。 除此之外,对给定的温度和给定的应变率,四种主要的典型破坏行为都能用广义应变()和重复加载次数来表示。(见到图 2, 表(3)本文旨在为“Dpartement Gnie Civil et Batiment” of the Ecole Nationale des TPE, Appia and Eurovia的合作任务提供数据.这项研究同时还关注：当仅仅考虑小的荷载循环次数时，小应变和大应变，较低温度和正常温度条件下含不同掺合剂的沥青材料的热力学行为。本文只讨论广义大应变下的在较低温度和正常温度间变化的沥青混合料的破坏性能。 在早先的两篇论文中我们讨论了（2）号和（4）号试件在小应变条件下从较低温度向中间温度变化时的线黏弹性破坏。实验材料现在四种有显著差别的沥青已经被测试 :二种纯沥青 (针入度分别为10/20 和 50/70), 和二种被称为 PMB1 和PMB2的改性沥青混合料（一种添加的是塑性高聚物，一种加的是弹性高聚物） 表 1 列出了不同的沥青混合料常规试验的结果（弗拉斯脆点，25C的针入度，软化点）测试了四种不同等级的含掺合剂的沥青混合料试件（10/20 ,50/70, PMB1 ，PMB2 ），它们包含有0/10 毫米米间的连续级配的闪绿岩，31%的空隙率，6%的添加剂。结合料测试 SHRP 直接拉伸测试 (DTT)按照AASHTO TP3 和TP(5)的试验规程, 做了SHRP 直接拉伸测试 (DTT),在恒定温度下以1 毫米/ 分钟的速度将沥青混合料试件拉长27毫米，对应的应变率是 2.22 m/m/h 。每个未老化的试件在一个温度点上至少重复测试六次，除了传统试验中在1%的应变时由温度导致的破坏,我们的分析还表明存在一个区分脆性破坏和延性破坏的临界温度,而且, 在每一个温度点上拉伸应力( 最大的张应力) 和它对应的应变也表现在了图3中。我们看来，因为传统方法有相当大的经验成分在其中,T =1% 的容许应变和混合料的功能间似乎并不相关,与含掺合料的沥青混合料在计划研究的应变率下的脆延临界温度的新观点的比较，将在下一段中说明任何的等温直接拉伸试验跟仅用失效应变或应力比起来产生更多数据和更大的价值。在个别试验中，能得到每个温度下脆性或者延性破坏的应力应变曲线。在高温情况下，含掺合料的沥青混合料表现出纯粹的延性行为，但在非常低的温度下又是纯粹的脆性行为。 在他们之间的过渡温度, 沥青的行为从延性 (高的温度) 到脆性 (低的温度)转变。然而，在中间的温度，当温度减退的时候，有由脆到延的缓慢变化趋势。因此，实际地，不能从应力应变曲线上直接得到一个确定的临界温度， 在最好的情形中，也只是可能确定符合混合料物理性质缓慢变化的一个或大或小的温度范围从试验结果中得出：我们得到了在确定应变率下的脆延性转变的临界温度-Tbdb，在应力温度曲线上（图3）对应着拉伸应力的峰值。 因此我们可以更容易更准确的确定Tbdb。 King et al.先前已经发现当温度降到-15C以下时，含掺合剂的沥青的拉伸应力减少并且小应变水平下样品也呈脆性破坏。脆延性转变的临界温度, 由此被命名为 Tbdb(相应于 2.22 m/m/h 的应变率),它是一个相关，便利和可供选择的低温参数它的物理意义直接地和样品的破坏类型相关，影响着应力-应变曲线的形状。从表 1可以看出1Tbdb 和1% 的应变率失效时对应的温度彼此是高度相关的(r2=0.977)。然而, 需要对其他含掺合剂的进一步的研究,才能得出确定的结论。如图 3 所示, 脆性破坏时的失效应力具有明显的散布性。然而, 在中高温度时，相同测试的表现得到了不那么散布的结果因此,从对四种非常不同沥青混合料的上的试验结果来看, 最大的张应力 (抗拉强度）的可重现性似乎比温度的高得多。混合料测试直接拉伸测试 (DTT)混合料直接拉伸测试结果这些测试是在恒定的应变率从 5C 到-46个 C 之间进行的 。 选择了两种非常不同的应变率（300m/m/h和45000m/m/h）来研究它对含掺合剂的沥青混合料的失效特性的影响。我们在 Eurovia 实验室利用液压-伺服压力系统对高为 220 毫米圆柱体试件 (直径80 毫米) 样品的进行了应力测试。样品的应变取试件上呈120放置的应变片的结果的平均值，并且在每个温度点上重复两三次。一方面, 像 Di Benedetto et al(8)(9)先前指出的那样，对四种试件的研究结果证明，在延性破坏领域下（高温条件）的失效应力（黏塑性破坏）和应变率高度相关。另一方面，脆性破坏领域下（低温条件）的失效应