Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Establishing threshold value of surface free energy

and binder bond strength parameters for basaltic
asphalt mixes

Ayyanna Habal & Dharamveer Singh

To cite this article: Ayyanna Habal & Dharamveer Singh (2021): Establishing threshold value
of surface free energy and binder bond strength parameters for basaltic asphalt mixes, Road
Materials and Pavement Design, DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2021.1925576

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1925576

Published online: 20 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 121

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1925576

Establishing threshold value of surface free energy and binder

bond strength parameters for basaltic asphalt mixes
Ayyanna Habal a and Dharamveer Singhb
a Department of Civil Engineering, Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar, India; b Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present work was undertaken to establish the possible threshold values Received 9 August 2020
for Surface Free Energy (SFE) and Binder Bond Strength (BBS) methods for Accepted 29 April 2021
screening asphalt-aggregate systems to ensure excellent moisture damage KEYWORDS
resistance. A total of sixteen combinations of asphalt-aggregate systems Surface free energy (SFE);
consisted of warm mix additives (WMA) and recycled asphalt pavement compatibility ratio (CR);
(RAP) and WMA-RAP combinations. In addition, the study evaluates the binder bond strength (BBS);
effects of RAP, WMA, and WMA-RAP on compatibility ratio (CR), bitumen threshold limits; recycled
bond strength ratio (BSR), and indirect tensile strength ratio (TSR) for dif- asphalt pavements (RAP);
ferent combinations of aggregate-asphalt system. The results showed that warm mix asphalt (WMA)
compatibility and bond strength between asphalt binders and aggregates
deteriorated with the addition of RAP and WMA additives. Threshold crite-
ria for CR and BSR values were identified as 4.80 and 0.90, respectively, with
reasonably good accuracy of 90% for the SFE method and 75% for the BBS
method. The threshold values, along with the practical framework estab-
lished in the present study, would help the highway agencies select the
most compatible asphalt-aggregate combinations.

Introduction
Asphalt pavements are primarily constructed with an asphalt mix composed of aggregate and asphalt
binder. These kinds of pavements suffer various types of distresses such as stripping, ravelling, crack-
ing, rutting, and pothole formation. The stripping or moisture damage failure is one of the primary
reasons to decrease the service life of most of the flexible pavements. Moisture damage can be defined
as the loss of strength and durability in asphalt mixes because of moisture. Moisture damage resis-
tance of asphalt mixes largely depends on the bond strength of the aggregate-asphalt binder system.
Researchers have been trying to identify suitable test methods to evaluate moisture damage resis-
tance of asphalt mixes without conducting mix design and preparation of compacted samples, which
can be time-consuming and requires a lot of laboratory efforts. Many tests such as peel test, boiling
water, rolling bottle, surface free energy (SFE), and binder bond strength (BBS) tests have been devel-
oped to characterise the moisture damage potential of asphalt mixes (Grenfell et al., 2014; Horgnies
et al., 2011; Little & Bhasin, 2006; Moraes et al., 2011). In the present study, two recently adopted tests
(i.e. SFE and BBS) and a traditional Indirect tensile strength (ITS) method are considered.
(a) Surface free energy (SFE) – An energy-based method, bonding and de-bonding energy of the
asphalt-aggregate system are estimated based on SFE parameters. The ratio of bonding and de-
bonding energy, also known as Compatibility Ratio (CR), is a measure of compatibility between asphalt

CONTACT Ayyanna Habal ayyanna.habal@gmail.com

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

binders and aggregates. A higher CR value implies better compatibility and a stronger bond between
asphalt binder and aggregates, and thus moisture resistant mix (Ghabchi et al., 2013; Little & Bhasin,
2006). Researchers have shown that SFE can be a promising method for evaluating the moisture dam-
age potential of asphalt-aggregate systems (Bhasin et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2002; Ghabchi et al.,
2013; Hefer et al., 2006; Little & Bhasin, 2006; Wasiuddin et al., 2005). Some researchers have eval-
uated the effects of WMA additives, RAP binders, and antistripping agents on moisture damage of
asphalt-aggregate systems and asphalt mastics using the SFE method (Alvarez et al., 2012; Apeagyei
et al., 2014; Arabani & Hamedi, 2014; Diab et al., 2014; Mullapudi & Sudhakar Reddy, 2020). However, so
for threshold criteria for SFE parameters have not been well established for screening the compatible
asphalt-aggregate combinations.
(b) Bitumen bond strength (BBS) – BBS is a mechanical strength-based test conducted as per
AASHTO T361 (2016) to measures the pull-off tensile strength (POTS) between asphalt binders and
aggregates. In this method, tensile force is applied to measure the bond strength between asphalt
binder and aggregates; further, failure patterns (cohesive or adhesive) of the asphalt-aggregate sys-
tem can be captured and analysed to understand the failure mechanism. The loss of bond strength
resulting from the conditioning can be measured as the ratio of POTSwet to POTSdry expressed as
bond strength ratio (BSR). A higher value of BSR for an asphalt-aggregate combination indicates bet-
ter moisture resistance and vice-versa. Moreover, Moraes et al. (2011) reported that the BBS test is
cost-effective, easy to conduct, repeatable and reproducible, and effectively measures the effect of
moisture conditioning (Moraes et al., 2011). So far, no studies have suggested threshold values for the
BBS parameters, which can be used for screening moisture susceptible combinations.
(c) Indirect tensile strength (ITS) – In this test method, asphalt mix design is conducted, and sam-
ples of asphalt mixes are compacted, and the ITS test is performed on conditioned and unconditioned
samples as per ASTM D4867 (2014). The loss of ITS resulting from the action of water on the com-
pacted asphalt mix can be measured and expressed as the tensile strength ratio (TSR). A higher value
of TSR for an asphalt mix indicates better moisture resistance and vice-versa. Many countries are using
ITS parameters to screen the moisture susceptible asphalt mixes. Several agencies worldwide suggest
a threshold value of 80% TSR to screen the mixes for moisture sensitivity (Al-Qadi et al., 2014; Man-
ual Series No. 02 [MS-02], 2014; MoRTH, 2013; South Carolina Department of Transportation [SCDoT],
2011).
Considering the diverse approach for SFE, BBS, and ITS methods, all three methods selected in this
study are compared, and differences in various parameters are listed in Table 1.

Motivation and scope of the present study

Considering the SFE method’s fundamental nature and direct measurement involved in BBS approach,
identifying the threshold value for these approaches is very important to bring these tests into prac-
tice. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to establish the threshold values for SFE and BBS
test parameters to select the most compatible asphalt binders and aggregate combinations during the
material selection phase, which would help highway agencies. WMA additives and RAP materials are
being used to construct flexible pavements due to their low greenhouse gas emission, energy-saving,
and better work environment (Hurley & Prowell, 2005; Zaumanis et al., 2014). However, moisture dam-
age is one of the major concerns with WMA technology (Garcia Cucalon et al., 2017; Ghabchi et al.,
2013; Martin et al., 2014; Shiva Kumar & Suresha, 2019). This is mainly because of the reduced pro-
duction temperature, which may not dry aggregates completely and hence results in poor coating
between aggregates and asphalt binders. Therefore, the present study selected different categories
of WMA, namely wax-based Sasobit, foam-based Advera, and chemical-based Rediset. In addition, a
different proportion of RAP binder content was used. Since the addition of RAP increases the stiffness
of fresh mix, with the help of WMA additives, a higher percentage of RAP may be utilised. However,
moisture-induced damage is a serious concern with this type of combination.
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 3

Table 1. Differences between SFE, BBS, and ITS methods.

Parameter SFE BBS ITS
Test type

Material type Aggregate and asphalt Asphalt-aggregate direct Asphalt mix level
separate contact.
(Virtual contact) (Physically come in contact) (Complete mix as used in the
field)
Approach Energy-based Mechanical strength Mechanical strength
Type of Loading No loading Axial Radial
Rate of loading NA 0.7 MPa/sec 50 mm/min
Output -Bonding Energies Bond strength Tensile strength
(Dry, Wet, & Ratio) (Dry, Wet, & Ratio) (Dry, Wet, & Ratio)
Binder film thickness NA 0.8 mm (800 microns) 8–10 microns∗
Conditioning No conditioning 24 h at 40°C 24 h at 60°C
Air void NA Nil 6–8%#
Voids saturation level NA None 70–80%
Sample required Less quantity Less quantity More quantity
Aggregate texture Rough Polished at 220 SiC Rough
Failure analysis Theoretical Possible through failure Possible to some extent
patterns
Skillset required Advanced Minimal Minimal
Correlation with field Not established Not established Mixed results
performance
Limited studies (Bhasin et al.,
2006)
Cost of the test setup Very high Low Relatively Low
( > 100000 USD) ( ∼ 8000 USD) (12000 USD)
Time & effort required High Low Very high
Project stage Before mix design Before mix design After mix design
Implemented in the field? Not yet Not yet Yes
Test Standard Not developed AASHTO T361 ASTM D4867
Threshold criteria Not established Not established Well established
Note: NA: Not Applicable, ∗ for asphalt concrete mixes used in the surface course, # as per ASTM D4867.

Since compatibility and bonding between asphalt binder and aggregate are influenced by many
parameters like chemical composition, grade, type, and aggregate mineralogy (Ghabchi et al., 2013;
Little & Bhasin, 2006), therefore, due consideration was given in the present study for the selec-
tion of various additives and type of mixes. Therefore, the present study considers RAP, WMA, and
RAP-WMA combinations to capture the effects on SFE, bonding, and de-bonding behaviour of six-
teen aggregate-binder combinations. The present study utilised the energy-based SFE approach and
mechanical strength-based methods (i.e. BBS and ITS) to quantify the compatibility and bond strength
of RAP, WMA, and RAP-WMA binders in combination with basalt aggregates. Further, possible thresh-
old values for the SFE and BBS methods are explored as quality control acceptability criteria. Moreover,
material selection for a road construction project requires a lot of financial investment and time.
Therefore, it is crucial to select compatible asphalt binder and aggregate combinations to produce
superior performing asphalt mixes with minimal testing requirements. Therefore to help policymak-
ers and design engineers, a practical framework for selecting the most compatible asphalt-aggregate
combination is suggested.
4 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

Objective
The main objective of this study is to establish threshold values for SFE and BBS methods, and
suggesting a framework for the selection of most compatible materials.

Materials and methodology

For this study, three different types of binder modifications were selected, namely (i) the VG30 con-
trol binder was mixed with a selected dosage of WMA additives (i.e. 2% Sasobit, 6% Advera, and 2%
Rediset). (ii) VG30 binder was mixed with different proportions of RAP binders (i.e. 15%, 25%, and 40%),
and (iii) VG30 was blended with a combination of RAP-WMA. The test matrix of different types of binder
modification is shown in Figure 1. All combination of binders was subjected to short-term aging using
Rolling Thin-Film Oven Test (RTFOT) as per ASTM D2872 (Tables 2 and 3).
The experimental laboratory plan was divided into three phases.

• First phase: In this phase, the SFE of aggregate and asphalt binders was measured. The SFE compo-
nents of WMA, RAP, and RAP-WMA modified asphalt binders were measured using the Wilhelmy
Plate (WP) method. In contrast, SFE components of basalt aggregates were measured using the
Dynamic Vapor Sorption (DVS) method. Readers can find more details on these methods in the
literature (Habal & Singh, 2019; Little & Bhasin, 2006).

Figure 1. Overall experimental plan.

 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 5

Table 2. Basic properties of VG30 and RAP binder.

Observed value
Characteristics VG30 RAP Standard
Asphalt content, % by mix – 4.46 ASTM D6307
Penetration at 25°C,100 g, 5s 65 26.33 ASTM D5M
Absolute Viscosity @ 60°C, Poises 2704 > 30000 ASTM D3381M
Kinematic Viscosity @135°C, cSt or mPa-s 390 2150.0 ASTM D4402M
Solubility in Trichloroethylene, % 99.9 99.23 ASTM D2042
Softening Point (R&B), °C 52.8 59.2 ASTM D36M
Ductility at 25°C, cm 92.6 12.7 ASTM D113

Table 3. Basic properties of basalt aggregates.

Characteristics Observed value Standard
Specific Gravity
Coarse aggregates (13.2 mm retained) 2.758 ASTM D127
Coarse aggregates (4.75 mm retained) 2.673 ASTM D127
Fine aggregates (4.75 mm passing) 2.590 ASTM D128
Water Absorption, % 2.90 ASTM D127
Impact Value, % 9.95 IS-2386
Sand Equivalent, % 67.0 AASHTO T176

• Second phase: In this phase, bond strength of asphalt binder and aggregate in dry and wet condi-
tions using the BBS method was measured as per AASHTO T361; readers can find more details on
this method elsewhere (AASHTO T361, 2016; Habal & Singh, 2018; Moraes et al., 2011).
• Third phase: In this phase, Superpave asphalt mix design of sixteen combinations of asphalt mixes
(1 Control mix + 3 RAP mixes + 3 WMA mixes + 9 RAP-WMA mixes) was established as per MS-2, and
ITS in dry and wet conditions was measured as per ASTM D4867 (2014).

The performance of the asphalt binder-aggregate system depends on both dry and wet adhesion
strength. Therefore, in order to consider the combined effect of dry and wet conditions, compatibility
ratio (CR), bond strength ratio (BSR), and tensile strength ratio (TSR) values were calculated for each
combination based on SFE, BBS, and ITS methods, respectively. The threshold value for SFE and BBS
parameters was established, and a simple framework was prepared for selecting moisture-resistant
materials. Figure 1 shows the research plan for the present work.

Laboratory experiments
Surface free energy (SFE)
The SFE is the magnitude of work required to create a unit area of a align surface of the material in
a vacuum and is commonly indicated by the symbol ‘γ ’ (Van Oss et al., 1988). The total SFE of any
material is divided into polar and non-polar components, and numerically described by three compo-
nents, namely, Lifshitz-van der Waals component (γ LW ), Lewis acid component (γ + ), and Lewis base
component (γ − ). The total SFE (γ ) can be obtained using Equation (1). The work of cohesion (WBB ) for
asphalt binder and work of adhesion (WAB ) between asphalt binder and aggregate can be estimated
using SFE parameter by Equations (2) and (3), respectively (Little & Bhasin, 2006). Similarly, the work
of adhesion in the presence of water, also known as the work of de-bonding (WABWwet ) can be estimated

using Equation (4) (Little & Bhasin, 2006).


γ = γ LW + γ +− = γ LW + 2 γ + γ − (1)
WBB = 2γB (2)
6 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

  
WAB = γli (1 + cosθli ) = 2 γALW γBLW + 2 γA+ γB− + 2 γA− γB+ (3)
wet
WABW = γAW + γBW − γAB (4)

Where, Subscripts li, A, B, and W indicate ith probe liquid, aggregate, binder, and water, respectively.
γALW andγBLW = Lifshitz-van der Waals component of aggregate and binder, respectively, γA+ andγB+
Lewis acid component of aggregate and binder, respectively, and, γA− andγB− Lewis base component
of aggregate and binder, respectively.
γ AW , γ BW , and γ AB are interfacial energy between aggregate-water, asphalt binder-water, and
aggregate-asphalt binder, respectively.
Interfacial energy between any two materials, ‘x’ and ‘y’, can be determined by their respective SFE
components using Equation (5) (Little & Bhasin, 2006), as shown below.
  
γxy = γx + γy − 2 γxLW γyLW − 2 γx+ γy− − 2 γx− γy+ (5)

Hossain et al. (2015) and Little and Bhasin (2006) suggested a rational parameter CR for quantifying
moisture damage potential of the asphalt-aggregate system. The CR is defined as the ratio of wetta-
bility (WAB -WBB ) to the wet adhesion energy (WABW wet ) as shown in Equation (6) (Little & Bhasin, 2006). A

higher CR value implies better compatibility and a stronger bond between asphalt binder and aggre-
gates, and thus moisture resistant mix. Also, the specific surface area (SSA) of aggregates considered in
Equation (6) accommodates the effect of surface roughness at the micro-level and provides better cor-
relation with performance tests; therefore, CR with SSA is considered as more suitable index. (Bhasin
et al., 2007; Grenfell et al., 2014; Little & Bhasin, 2006). In this study, the SSA of basalt aggregates was
measured using n-octane probe vapour in the DVS test (Apeagyei et al., 2014).
 
 (WAB − WBB ) 
CR =  wet
 ∗ SSA
 (6)
WABW

SFE of asphalt binder and aggregates

In the present study, the SFE components of asphalt binders were determined by the contact
angle-based Wilhelmy Plate (WP) approach. Similarly, SFE of aggregates were measured using a well-
established dynamic vapour sorption (DVS) method considering three probe vapours, ethyl acetate,
n-Octane, and chloroform (Grenfell et al., 2014). A detailed discussion on sample preparation and SFE
measurement of asphalt binder and aggregates by WP and DVS methods can be found in the literature
(Grenfell et al., 2014; Habal & Singh, 2016, 2019).

Binder bond strength (BBS) test

The BBS test was conducted as per AASHTO T361 (2016) to measures the POTS between asphalt
binders and aggregates. Researchers have indicated that the POTS value can help in examining the
moisture damage resistance of the asphalt-aggregate system (Aguiar-Moya et al., 2015; Moraes et al.,
2011). Therefore, POTS was measured on conditioned as well as unconditioned samples to check the
influence of moisture on asphalt-aggregate bonding behaviour. Finally, the BSR was calculated as per
Equation (8).

(BP ∗ Ag ) − C
POTS = (7)
Aps
POTSwet
BSR = (8)
POTSdry
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 7

Where Ag = contact area of the gasket with reaction plate (mm2 ); BP = burst pressure (kPa); Aps = area
of pulling stub (mm2 ); C = piston constant, POTS for conditioned samples referred as POTSwet and for
unconditioned samples POTSdry .
The BSR of all sixteen asphalt binder combinations shown in Figure 1 was measured, and the results
are presented in Figures 4 and 5.

Indirect tensile strength (ITS) test

The ITS test is the most commonly used approach by many agencies for evaluating the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes. This test was conducted as per ASTM D4867 (2014) standard. Before
proceeding with the ITS test, it is necessary to perform the asphalt mix design to find Optimum Asphalt
Content (OAC) to prepare ITS test samples. Therefore, the Superpave mix design was performed as per
MS-02 to determine the OAC of four different mixes considering the change in RAP content (i.e. control,
15%, 25%, and 40% RAP mixes). The same OAC was used for corresponding WMA mixes considering
the fact that addition of additive is aimed at only reducing the mixing and compaction temperatures
(Kandhal, 2017).
Further, for each of the asphalt mix combinations, six compacted specimens (with air voids 7±1%)
were initially prepared. Out of six specimens, three were used for evaluating unconditioned (dry) ITS
value. The remaining three were used for evaluating the conditioned (wet) ITS value. For conditioning,
specimens were initially saturated to 70% to 80% saturation level, followed by water conditioning
at 60°C for 24 h. Once the conditioning was completed, samples were taken out and soaked in the
water bath maintained at 25±1°C test temperature for 1 h. For evaluating dry ITS value, compacted
specimens were directly kept in a water bath maintained at 25±1°C for 20 min before further testing.
The loss of ITS resulting from water action on the compacted asphalt mix was measured and expressed
as TSR (Equation (10)).
2000P
ITS = (9)
π ∗D∗t
ITSwet
TSR = ∗ 100 (10)
ITSdry

Where ITS = Indirect tensile strength in kPa; P = maximum load in N; t = sample thickness in mm;
D = Sample diameter in mm; TSR = Tensile strength ratio, %; ITSdry = Average tensile strength of
unconditioned samples in kPa; ITSwet = Average tensile strength of conditioned samples in kPa.
As stated earlier, the main objective of this article is to identify the threshold values for SFE and
BBS parameters. Therefore, considering the paper’s length and focus, only CR, BSR, and TSR results
obtained from SFE, BBS, and ITS methods, respectively, are presented and discussed in this paper.

Results and discussion

Compatibility ratio (CR) of asphalt binder-aggregate system
The CR of sixteen asphalt binders in combination with basalt aggregates was calculated as per
Equation (6).

Effects of RAP
The CR values of RAP blended binders in combinations with basalt aggregates were calculated as per
Equation (6), and results are presented in Figure 2(a). The CR value decreased with the addition of RAP
to the control binder. For example, the CR value of VG30 decreased from 6.11 to 5.03, 2.99, and 5.51
after the addition of 15%, 25%, and 40% RAP binder, respectively, indicating the addition of RAP may
result in weak moisture resistance. This may be due to increased SFE difference between asphalt binder
and aggregates as SFE of stiffer RAP binder decreases with the increase in RAP content. It is important
8 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

Figure 2. Compatibility ratio of (a) RAP combinations and (b) WMA combinations.

to note that the higher the difference between SFE of asphalt binder and aggregates, the lower the
compatibility ratio and vice versa.

Effects of WMA
Figure 2(b) presents the CR of different WMA binders in combination with basalt aggregate. The CR
value of VG30 binder with basalt aggregate increased from 6.11 to 6.73 with the addition of Rediset
and decreased from 6.11 to 5.13, and 2.03 with the addition of Sasobit, and Advera, respectively (Figure
2(b)). This indicates that the Rediset modified binder was found to increase the compatibility with
basalt aggregates; this may probably because of the amine-based surfactant is in line with most lit-
erature dealing with anti-stripping agents and chemical modifications to minimise moisture damage
potential. However, Sasobit and Advera modification of control binder may not be favourable from
the compatibility point of view. The poor performance of Advera modified binder may be attributed
to the presence of water in the form of zeolite in the additive, which might have resulted in poor
compatibility.

Effects of RAP-WMA
The CR values of RAP-WMA blended binders in combinations with basalt aggregates are presented in
Figure 3.
It was observed that, in general, the results of CR for RAP-WMA binder combinations indicate that
compatibility increased with the addition of Rediset. At the same time, it decreased with the addition of
Sasobit and Advera (except for 25% RAP) to RAP binder, indicating Rediset modification is favourable
when used in combination with the RAP binders. The superior performance of Rediset with RAP may
be attributed to the surfactant nature of WMA, which helps to promote the adhesive nature of stiffer
binders like RAP. The compatibility of WMA additives with RAP binders in combination with basalt
aggregates can be ranked as:

• For 15% RAP Combination: Rediset > Control > Sasobit > Advera
• For 25% RAP Combination: Advera > Rediset > Sasobit > Control
• For 40% RAP Combination: Rediset > Control > Sasobit > Advera

Overall, based on the SFE results, Rediset can be considered as a potential WMA additive for asphalt
mixes containing RAP. The addition of WMAs to RAP practically helps in the production, laying, and
compaction of recycled mixes at reduced temperatures without losing its compatibility properties.
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 9

Figure 3. Compatibility ratio of RAP-WMA combinations.

Moreover, WMAs like Rediset helps in utilising higher RAP content in recycled mixes, saving the energy
requirements through reduced fuel and new material consumption.

Bond strength ratio (BSR) of asphalt binder-aggregate system

The BSR is the ratio of POTS value in wet conditions to POTS value in dry conditions. The BSR value
of sixteen asphalt binders in combination with basalt aggregates was calculated as per Equation (8).
A higher value of BSR for an asphalt-aggregate combination indicates better moisture resistance and
vice-versa.

Effects of RAP
The BSR values of RAP blended binders in combinations with basalt aggregates were calculated as per
Equation (8), and results are presented in Figure 4(a).

Figure 4. Bond strength ratio of (a) RAP combinations, and (b) WMA combinations.
10 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

The BSR value of the VG30 control binder almost unchanged or marginally decreased with the addi-
tion of RAP binder. For example, the BSR value of VG30 decreased from 1.05 to 0.96, 0.99, and 1.05
after the addition of 15%, 25%, and 40% RAP binder, respectively, indicating the addition of RAP may
marginally decrease the bond strength performance of the control binder with basalt aggregates. This
may be attributed to the increased stiffness of RAP blended binders, as aged RAP binders pose more
stiffness compared to the control binder.

Effects of WMA
The addition of WMA additives to the control binder decreased the BSR value marginally (Figure 4(b)).
For example, the BSR value of VG30 decreased from 1.05 to 1.02, 0.98, and 0.95 after the addition
of Sasobit, Advera, and Rediset, respectively. However, it is expected that the marginal decrease in
BSR value may not have much influence on moisture damage performance. It is worth noting that
the BSR value seems to be influenced by the stiffness of binders. For example, the BSR value of VG30
decreased from 1.05 to 0.95 after the addition of Rediset, and it is a well-known fact that the chemical-
based Rediset additive decreases the stiffness by softening the binder. On the other hand, RAP binder
increases the stiffness of binder; therefore, the BSR value of VG30 was 1.05 and unchanged after the
addition of 40% RAP binder. This hypothesis is also supported by wax-based Sasobit modification,
which is also known to increase the binder’s stiffness.

Effects of RAP-WMA
The BSR values of different combinations of RAP-WMA binders with basalt aggregates are shown in
Figure 5.
It can be observed that the BSR value of RAP binders decreased with the addition of Sasobit and
Rediset to RAP binders (except for 15%RAP-Sasobit). For example, the addition of Sasobit, and Rediset
to 25% RAP binder decreased BSR value from 1.05 to 0.84, and 0.91, respectively. This indicates the neg-
ative effect of Sasobit and Rediset on RAP binders. Nevertheless, the addition of Sasobit to lower RAP
binder content (i.e. 15%) showed a positive effect on BSR values. It is worth noting that even though
WMA modification of control and RAP binders have shown a relatively negative effect on BSR, for all
the combinations BSR value was found to be above 0.8, and in most of the cases, it is close to 0.9.
Therefore, it is imperative to have a threshold criterion to evaluate whether the selected combination
is moisture damage resistant or not. In general, the performance in terms of bond strength of WMA
additives with RAP binders in combination with basalt aggregates can be ranked as:

• For 15% RAP Combination: Sasobit > Control > Rediset > Advera

Figure 5. Bond strength ratio of RAP-WMA combinations.

 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 11

• For 25% RAP Combination: Advera > Control > Rediset > Sasobit
• For 40% RAP Combination: Control > Sasobit ∼ Rediset > Advera

Tensile strength ratio (TSR) of asphalt mixes

The ITS test was conducted as per ASTM D4867 (2014) to evaluate the moisture damage potential of
various asphalt mixes. The ITS value indicates a direct measure of tensile strength between aggregate
and asphalt binders. To capture the effect of moisture, TSR is calculated as the ratio of ITS in wet con-
ditions to ITS in dry conditions. A higher value of TSR indicates better moisture resistance of asphalt
mixes and vice versa. To evaluate the asphalt mixes’ moisture susceptibility, the minimum TSR require-
ment is set by many agencies, which vary from 70% to 85% (Al-Qadi et al., 2014; MoRTH, 2013; MS-02,
2014; SCDoT, 2011). Asphalt Institute and many agencies follow the TSR value of 80% criteria. Hence,
in this study, results are compared with a threshold of 80% TSR.

Effects of RAP
The TSR values of RAP mixes were calculated as per Equation (10), and the results are presented in
Figure 6(a).
From Figure 6(a), it can be observed that the TSR value of control and 15% RAP mixes was found
to be 87% and 92%, respectively, satisfying the threshold criteria of 80% TSR. However, TSR values
of higher RAP mixes, i.e. 25% and 40% was found to be 76% and 70%, respectively, failing to meet
the threshold criteria indicating increased moisture susceptibility for higher RAP mixes. This may be
attributed to reduced diffusion of RAP and VG30 binder, which might have led to weaker bonding
between virgin aggregates and stiffer RAP binder present in higher RAP mixes.

Effects of WMA
The TSR value of the control mix increased from 87% to 91% with the addition of Rediset by increas-
ing the adhesion property, indicating an increase in moisture damage resistance of the mix (Figure
6(b)). Whereas the addition of Sasobit and Advera to the control mix decreased the TSR value from
87% to 81%, and 73%, respectively, indicating that the mix may be prone to moisture susceptibility.
As per the standards, a minimum TSR value of 80% is considered to satisfy the criteria of moisture-
resistant mixes. In this study, Advera modification fails to meet the minimum TSR criteria ( > 80%), and
Sasobit modification just satisfies the criteria by possessing 81% TSR value. This may be attributed

Figure 6. Tensile strength ratio of (a) RAP combinations, and (b) WMA combinations.
12 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

to the presence of water in the zeolite of Advera, and extra wax content contributed from Sasobit,
which may make the mix stiffer. Nevertheless, Rediset modification showed an improvement in TSR,
with the highest TSR value (91%) indicating a moisture-resistant mix among four mixes considered in
this task.

Effects of RAP-WMA
The TSR values of different combinations of RAP-WMA mixes are shown in Figure 7.
It can be observed that the TSR values of 15% and 25% RAP mixes slightly decreased with the
addition of Sasobit, indicating a decrease in moisture damage resistance of the mix. Remarkably,
the addition of Sasobit to 40% RAP mix increased the TSR value (Figure 7). As per 80% TSR thresh-
old criteria, Sasobit modified 15% RAP mix satisfies the criteria indicating a moisture-resistant mix.
Whereas 25% and 40% RAP mixes with Sasobit combinations fail to meet the TSR criteria, indicating
Sasobit modification of high RAP contents (i.e. 25% and 40%) may be prone to moisture damage.
Likewise, Advera modified 0%, 15%, and 40% RAP mix combinations fail to meet the TSR criteria,
broadly indicating Advera modification of RAP mixes may be prone to moisture damage. Similarly, the
TSR value of all RAP mixes increased with the addition of Rediset WMA, indicating an improvement
in moisture damage resistance of the mix (Figure 7). As per TSR threshold criteria, Rediset modi-
fied RAP mixes satisfy the criteria indicating moisture resistance of the mixes. Considering all three
WMA additives, Rediset modified RAP mixes perform superior, followed by Sasobit and Advera mod-
ification. The superior performance of Rediset with RAP may be attributed to the surfactant nature
of WMA, which helps to promote the adhesive nature of stiffer mixes like RAP. Similarly, the rela-
tively poor performance of Advera modified binder may be attributed to the presence of water in
the form of zeolite in the additive, which might have resulted in the poor coating of RAP material.
From the TSR results, the performance of different WMA additives with different RAP content can be
ranked as:

• For 15% RAP mix: Control > Rediset > Sasobit > Advera
• For 25% RAP mix: Rediset > Advera > Control > Sasobit
• For 40% RAP mix: Rediset > Sasobit > Advera > Control

Overall, considering rankings from SFE, BBS, and ITS methods Rediset and Sasobit can be used as a
potential rejuvenator for RAP Mixes.

Figure 7. Tensile strength ratio of RAP-WMA combinations.

 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 13

Correlation of ITS test with SFE and BBS

Correlation between SFE and ITS methods
The ITS test was conducted on asphalt mixes for all sixteen binders in combinations with basalt aggre-
gates. The TSR value indicates the resistance of asphalt mixes to moisture damage. Hence, the relation
between CR measured using SFE method, and TSR measured using the ITS method was checked.
Figure 8(a) shows the relation between CR and TSR values. Though a weak correlation (R2 = 0.30)
was observed, the trendline indicates an increase in TSR with an increase in CR value, inferring that
a higher CR value shows better moisture resistant of asphalt mix with a higher TSR value. The weak
correlation seems to be due to two data points (i.e. 15% and 40% RAP) which appear to be outliers,
as these two data points lie far outside the normal range. In general, RAP mixes are expected to show
higher variability compared to the control mix due to variability in the source RAP material and grada-
tion. Excluding these two data points from the data considering as outliers improved the correlation
between CR and TSR, i.e. a relatively better correlation with R2 = 0.51 was observed (Figure 8(a)). A
relatively weak correlation may be attributed to a smaller number of data points or test parameters
like conditioning time and temperature.

Correlation between BBS and ITS methods

Similar to other methods, the relation between BBS and ITS methods is also checked. Based on the
comparison of sixteen data points, very weak or no correlation was observed between BSR (BBS
method) and TSR (ITS method) parameters. Though both tests measure mechanical strength, there
are many differences in test parameters, as listed in Table 1. A couple of the possible influenc-
ing parameters could be saturation and conditioning temperature. In the BBS method, samples are
conditioned at 40°C for 24 h, whereas in the ITS method, samples are conditioned at 60176C for
24 h along with the saturation of voids. Hence, considering this as a possible cause and to avoid
the differences in conditioning effect, bond strength in dry state by both the methods were com-
pared (i.e. POTSdry and ITSdry ). Figure 8(b) presents the relationship between POTSdry and ITSdry .
Though a strong correlation (R2 = 0.27) was not discovered between POTSdry and ITSdry , never-
theless, a logical trend indicating an increase in POTSdry with increases in ITSdry was observed,
hinting that asphalt-aggregate combinations with higher POTSdry may produce moisture-resistant
mixes.

Figure 8. Relation between (a) CR and TSR, and (b) POTSdry and ITSdry .
14 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

Development of threshold limits for SFE and BBS parameters

In many countries, the ITS test is used for screening the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes. Several
agencies around the world suggest a threshold value of 80% TSR (Al-Qadi et al., 2014; MS-2, 2014;
MoRTH, 2013; SCDoT, 2011). Similarly, considering the fundamental nature of the SFE method and the
simplicity of BBS approaches, identifying the threshold value for these approaches is very important
to bring these tests into practice as quality control tests. In this regard, Bhasin et al. (2006) conducted a
study considering different types of asphalt binders and aggregates. Further, the qualitative inspection
of pavements, field cores, and mechanical testing of eight mixes at the laboratory level is performed.
Based on the limited field performance and mechanical tests, Bhasin et al. (2006) have suggested a
threshold value of CR as 0.5 to screen the mixes based on their moisture susceptibility. It is important
to note that only one study reported in the literature which has suggested the threshold value in this
regard, and majority of the other studies have followed the same classification approach for ranking
the compatibility of asphalt-aggregate combinations (Alvarez et al., 2012; Ashish et al., 2016; Habal &
Singh, 2016; Hossain et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2014; Mishra et al., 2019).
On the other hand, the BBS test is recently developed and relatively new. Though AASHTO has
published a standard for testing protocol, the threshold limit is not yet established, and so far, no
studies have reported threshold values for the BBS method. Therefore, an attempt has been made to
set threshold limits for SFE and BBS methods based on the moisture sensitivity of sixteen combinations
of asphalt mixes used in this research work.

Establishing threshold limit for SFE method

As mentioned in earlier sections, the ITS test results of all sixteen combinations selected in this study
were checked for 80% TSR threshold criteria. If the TSR value of an asphalt mix is more than 80%, it is
designated as ’Good’ or else rated as ‘Poor’ performing mix. The laboratory performance of all com-
binations based on the conventional ITS test is listed in Table 4. Out of sixteen mixes selected in this
study, six mixes are found to be poor-performing mixes as per the TSR criteria. It is interesting to note
that most of the asphalt mixes that shown poor performance against moisture have either high RAP
content or Advera additive in it. This may be possibly due to the increased stiffness of high RAP mixes,
and the presence of water in the form of zeolite in the additive might have resulted in the poor coating
of aggregates.

Table 4. Moisture damage performance of different mixes based on TSR.

SFE method BBS method ITS method
Mix Number Binder CR BSR TSR Performancea
#1 VG30 (Control) 0% RAP 6.11 1.05 87 Good
#2 VG30 15% RAP 5.03 0.96 92 Good
#3 25% RAP 2.99 0.99 76 Poor
#4 40% RAP 5.51 1.05 70 Poor
#5 2% Sasobit 0% RAP 5.13 1.02 81 Good
#6 15% RAP 4.91 1.09 83 Good
#7 25% RAP 4.75 0.84 74 Poor
#8 40% RAP 5.31 0.92 86 Good
#9 6% Advera 0% RAP 2.03 0.98 73 Poor
#10 15% RAP 4.78 0.82 72 Poor
#11 25% RAP 6.71 1.06 81 Good
#12 40% RAP 3.26 0.86 79 Poor
#13 2% Rediset 0% RAP 6.73 0.95 91 Good
#14 15% RAP 6.59 0.85 88 Good
#15 25% RAP 5.87 0.91 86 Good
#16 40% RAP 6.62 0.91 83 Good
Note: The CR, BSR, and TSR values were calculated as per Equation 6, 8, and 10, respectively.
a Moisture induced damage resistance performance is decided based on 80% TSR threshold criteria.
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 15

Table 5. Threshold calculation for CR value.

Compatibility Ratio (CR) Value Remarks
Minimum, (X) 2.03
Maximum 6.73
Mean 5.14
Standard Deviation (σ ) 1.35
Threshold value [X+2∗(σ )] 2.03+2∗1.35 = 4.73 ≈ 4.75 Good [CR > 4.75]

From the results presented in Table 4, calculate the minimum CR value and standard deviation of
all combinations. Based on CR value variation, the threshold value for CR is calculated as the minimum
value plus twice the standard deviation, as shown in Table 5.
The threshold value calculated can be verified by plotting the relationship between CR and mois-
ture susceptibility of all mixes with known performance, i.e. a graph showing asphalt mix number
along the x-axis and respective CR values along the y-axis is plotted (Figure 9). After that, the data
points are named as per corresponding moisture damage performance, i.e. ’Good’ if the mix is passing
the criteria and ’Poor’ if the mix fails to meet the TSR threshold criteria.

Verification and accuracy of CR threshold value

The threshold value identified is further cross-verified and fine-tuned (if needed) by plotting the
relationship between CR obtained through SFE and moisture susceptibility of mixes in terms of TSR
obtained through the ITS method in quadrant form, as shown in Figure 10.
From the plots (Figures 9 and 10), the threshold can be identified and fine-tuned (if needed) by
visually inspecting where the majority of the mixes’ performance changes from poor to good.. In this
case, the CR threshold value is fine-tuned from 4.75 to 4.80 to increase the accuracy and reflect the
mixes’ performance.
The accuracy involved in predicting the moisture-resistant asphalt mixes due to the identified
threshold value can be calculated statistically as:

Positive predictive value, PPV = TP/(TP + FP) = 10/(10 + 1) ∗ 100 = 90.9%

Figure 9. Moisture damage performance vs. compatibility ratio.

16 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

Figure 10. Moisture damage performance vs. compatibility ratio in quadrant form.

Negative predictive value, NPV = TN/(FN + TN) = 5/(0 + 5) ∗ 100 = 100.0%

Hence, the asphalt-aggregate combinations with CR values greater than 4.80 are classified as ‘Good’
and can be expected to have excellent bonding between such combinations and may produce
moisture damage-resistant asphalt mix.

Establishing threshold limit for BBS method

Similar to CR and TSR, the relationship between BSR and TSR was checked. The performance results
based on the TSR of all combinations along with BSR are listed in Table 4. Figure 11 shows the rela-
tionship between moisture damage performance and BSR of all sixteen combinations of asphalt and
aggregates. After that, the data points are named as per corresponding moisture damage perfor-
mance, i.e. ‘Good’ if the mix is passing the criteria and ’Poor’ if the mix fails to meet the TSR threshold
criteria.
The BSR results presented in Table 4 show that the variation in BSR values is minimum, and in most
cases, we can expect a maximum BSR value of 1.0. Also, visualising the data presented in Figure 11, the
threshold value for BSR is calculated as the minimum BSR value plus standard deviation, as shown in
Table 6.

Verification and accuracy of BSR threshold value

The BSR threshold value identified is further verified by plotting the relationship between BSR obtained
through BBS and mixes’ moisture susceptibility in terms of TSR obtained through the ITS method in
quadrant form, as shown in Figure 12.
Similar to the SFE method, the threshold values identified and fine-tuned (if needed) by visually
inspecting the plots (Figures 11 and 12). The BSR threshold value of 0.90 identified in previous steps
and this step was found to be the same.
The accuracy involved in predicting the moisture-resistant asphalt mixes due to the identified
threshold value can be calculated statistically as:

Positive predictive value, PPV = TP/(TP + FP) = 9/(9 + 3) ∗ 100 = 75.0%

 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 17

Figure 11. Moisture damage performance vs. bond strength ratio.

Table 6. Threshold calculation for BSR value.

Bond Strength Ratio (BSR) Value Remark
Minimum, (X) 0.82
Maximum 1.09
Mean 0.95
Standard Deviation (σ ) 0.083
Threshold value [X+(σ )] 0.82+0.083 = 0.903 ≈ 0.90 Good [BSR > 0.90]

Negative predictive value, NPV = TN/(FN + TN) = 3/(3 + 1) ∗ 100 = 75.0%

The threshold value for BSR by the BBS method is identified to be 0.90 for screening the moisture
susceptible mixes. Comparing with 80% TSR threshold value, the BSR threshold value of 0.90 or 90%
is found to be logical due to the following three reasons

1. The conditioning temperature in the BBS method is 40°C, whereas 60°C in the ITS method. Condi-
tioning at lower temperature indicates a relatively lesser degradation of bonding. Hence, setting
a higher threshold value for the BBS method makes sense.
2. ITS samples are prepared with 7±1% air voids and saturated at 70–80% before conditioning
to accelerate the deterioration of the sample due to water conditioning. Whereas in the BBS
method, air voids are not provided. Hence, lesser deterioration can be expected in the BBS method
compared to the ITS method.
3. The asphalt binder coating or film thickness in the BBS method is 0.8 mm, whereas, in the case
of the ITS method, it is only a few microns ( ∼ 10 µm) (Kandhal, 2017). Many research works have
shown that thicker binder coating shows more resistance to moisture-induced damage. Hence,
after conditioning, lesser deterioration of bonding between asphalt binder and aggregates can
be expected in the BBS method compared to the ITS method.

Considering these points, setting a higher threshold value for the BBS method than the ITS method
seems reasonable and logical. However, it is to be noted that out of sixteen mixes selected for this task,
four mixes (#3, #4, #9, and #14) did not meet the criteria. This may be possibly due to variability in the
RAP materials as mix #3, #4 and #14 are RAP mixes.
18 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

Figure 12. Moisture damage performance vs bond strength ratio in quadrant form.

The CR and BSR threshold values identified in this study are based on basalt aggregate combina-
tions only. Hence, the suggested threshold values may be applicable for combinations with basalt
aggregates or aggregates with similar properties only.

Comparison of moisture damage performance of mixes

It is important to know whether the moisture damage performance of asphalt-aggregate combi-
nations evaluated using different methods yield similar results or not. Therefore, moisture damage
performance results from SFE, BBS, and ITS methods are compared, considering the 80% TSR criteria,
and 4.80 CR, and 0.90 BSR threshold criteria identified in the previous sections. Table 7 presents the CR,
BSR, and TSR results of all combinations and their moisture damage performance as per the respective
threshold criteria.
Observations from Table 7 shows that SFE, BBS, and ITS methods presented similar performance
results for twelve out of sixteen combinations selected in this study. These findings increase the
confidence to adopt SFE and BBS methods for screening the moisture susceptible asphalt mixes before
the design stage itself. Further, comparing SFE and ITS methods, fifteen out of sixteen combinations,
i.e. 93.8% of cases, showed similar outcomes verifying the CR threshold criteria. However, comparing
BBS and ITS methods, twelve out of sixteen combinations, i.e. 75.0% of cases, showed similar results
indicating fairly good BSR threshold criteria.

Development of material selection protocol

The material selection for a road construction project, i.e. identification of aggregates quarry, suit-
able asphalt binder, and mix design, is a crucial part of the project, and it requires a lot of financial
investment and time. Therefore, it is crucial to select compatible asphalt binder and aggregate com-
binations to produce superior performing asphalt mixes with minimal testing time. Therefore, to help
policymakers and design engineers, a simple protocol/framework for selecting the most compatible
asphalt binder and aggregate combinations is proposed based on the threshold criteria established
in this study (Figure 13).
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 19

Table 7. Comparison of moisture susceptibility performance by SFE, BBS, and ITS tests.
SFE method BBS method ITS method
Mix Number Binder CR BSR TSR Remark
#1 VG30 (Control) 0% RAP 6.11 [S] 1.05 [S] 87 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#2 VG30 15% RAP 5.03 [S] 0.96 [S] 92 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#3 25% RAP 2.99 [N] 0.99 [S] 76 [N] SFE ≈ ITS
#4 40% RAP 5.51 [S] 1.05 [S] 70 [N] SFE ≈ BBS
#5 2% Sasobit 0% RAP 5.13 [S] 1.02 [S] 81 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#6 15% RAP 4.91 [S] 1.09 [S] 83 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#7 25% RAP 4.75 [N] 0.84 [N] 74 [N] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#8 40% RAP 5.31 [S] 0.92 [S] 86 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#9 6% Advera 0% RAP 2.03 [N] 0.98 [S] 73 [N] SFE ≈ ITS
#10 15% RAP 4.78 [N] 0.82 [N] 72 [N] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#11 25% RAP 6.71 [S] 1.06 [S] 81 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#12 40% RAP 3.26 [N] 0.86 [N] 79 [N] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#13 2% Rediset 0% RAP 6.73 [S] 0.95 [S] 91 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#14 15% RAP 6.59 [S] 0.85 [N] 88 [S] SFE ≈ ITS
#15 25% RAP 5.87 [S] 0.91 [S] 86 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
#16 40% RAP 6.62 [S] 0.91 [S] 83 [S] SFE ≈ BBS ≈ ITS
Note: [S]: Satisfying the threshold criteria; [N]: Not satisfying the threshold criteria. CR, BSR, and TSR values are calculated as per
Equation 6, 8, and 10, respectively. CR, BSR, and TSR values are calculated as per Equations (6), (8), and (10), respectively.

Considering different aspects of a highway project, the material selection protocol framework is
formed at three different levels:
Level-1 (SFE Method): In this level, the compatible materials (asphalt binder and aggregates) can be
selected based on the SFE of asphalt binder and aggregates, i.e. if the CR value of a combination is 4.8
or above, then the combination is considered as compatible. If the CR value of a selected combination
is less than 4.8, then suggested changing the asphalt binder or aggregates, considering the availability
of the materials, when there is no scope to change the materials, appropriate modifiers like polymers
can be used to enhance the compatibility. As explained in the earlier sections, asphalt and aggregates
virtually come in contact in this method, and bond energies between them are mathematically com-
puted. Therefore, the material required for this method is significantly less and required only once at
the beginning to prepare the SFE database. Level-1 will be helpful in making decisions at a larger scale,
i.e. at the policy-making level to decide the road development plans, project costing, etc. The SFE of
materials is source-specific and once tested and the database is created, the same data can be used to
compute compatibility of multiple combinations before performing mix design, saving a lot of time
and money.
Level-2 (BBS Method): In this level, the compatible combinations selected in Level-1 may be fur-
ther screened based on the mechanical bond strength between asphalt binder and aggregates, i.e.
if the BSR value of a combination is 0.9 or above, then the selected combination is expected to yield
moisture-resistant mix. On the other hand, if the measured BSR value of a selected combination is less
than 0.9, then suggested changing the asphalt binder or aggregates considering the availability of the
materials. Otherwise, analyse the failure patterns and suggest the required modification for asphalt or
aggregate. For example, if cohesive failure is observed, then suggested modifying the asphalt binder.
Similarly, in the case of adhesion failures suggested modifying aggregates with suitable adhesion pro-
moters or antistripping agents to enhance the bond strength. The level-2 will be helpful to agencies
for awarding the projects and making decisions at the project level to select the alternative options
available for aggregate quarries or asphalt binders before performing mix design and saving a lot of
time and money.
Level-3 (ITS method): In this level, the moisture susceptible asphalt mixes are screened based on
the tensile strength between asphalt binder and aggregates, i.e. if the TSR value of a combination
is 80% or above, then the selected combination is considered as moisture resistant mix. On the other
hand, if the measured TSR value of a selected mix is less than 80%, then suggested to add antistripping
20 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

Figure 13. Framework for the selection of compatible materials.

agents and check for TSR or change the aggregate gradation and binder type/content and once again
perform the mix design and then find the TSR at revised OAC. The cycle continues until the selected
asphalt mix fulfils the 80% TSR criteria. This level is the current practice in many countries. However, this
level’s drawback is the prerequisite of asphalt mix design, which essentially requires a lot of materials,
money, and time. Level-3 is project-specific; it will help design engineers make decision regarding the
modification of selected asphalt binder and aggregates with suitable antistripping additives so that
finally moisture-resistant mixes can be produced.
The three levels mentioned above may be used individually or in conjunction with other levels
considering the scope of the project. For example, for policy-making at a larger scale, level-1 alone
may be enough to identify the material sources/quarries through the SFE database. Whereas, for the
construction of a road project, level-3 has to be performed after selecting compatible combinations
through level-1, and ensuring the stronger bond strength through level-2, doing so would help in
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 21

identifying the material combinations without performing asphalt mix design on many combinations,
hence, saving a lot of time and resources.

Conclusions
Moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes was checked using the conventional ITS test. In real-world road
construction practice, usually, this step comes after selecting asphalt and aggregates and performing
asphalt mix design for a given project. A suitable method or tool to identify the moisture susceptibility
of asphalt-aggregate combinations at the material selection stage would help to identify the suitable
aggregate quarry and most compatible asphalt binder. For this purpose, the SFE and BBS methods are
found to be suitable. Hence, the SFE and BBS methods are compared with the traditional ITS method,
and threshold values for the SFE and BBS methods are also established, which can be used as a quality
control tool to screen the moisture susceptible combinations. Based on the results and discussions
presented in the previous sections, the following conclusions are drawn:

• The CR and TSR results indicate that the addition of RAP to control binder decreases the bonding
potential of asphalt binder with aggregates.
• From the BBS test, it was found that the addition of Sasobit and Rediset to RAP binders exhibited a
marginal effect on the moisture damage performance of RAP-WMA binders. However, the addition
of Advera and Sasobit additives to the control mix decreases CR and TSR values, indicating rela-
tively weak moisture resistance of WMA modified mixes. Based on CR and TSR values, the order of
moisture damage resistance for VG30 was found to be Control > Rediset > Sasobit > Advera.
• From SFE, BBS, and ITS methods, the performance of different WMA additives with different RAP
content are ranked. Considering WMA additive effect on RAP, Rediset and Sasobit can be suggested
as a potential rejuvenator for RAP Mixes.
• Comparison of different methods revealed that a relatively better correlation exists between SFE
and ITS methods (R2 = 0.51). On the other hand, a comparison of BBS and ITS methods showed
weak correlation (R2 = 0.31). Nevertheless, a logical trend was observed, indicating that an increase
in POTSdry increases the ITSdry, hinting that samples with higher POTSdry values may produce
moisture-resistant mixes.
• It is crucial to have threshold criteria to bring any new tests into practice. Based on the performance
of sixteen combinations of asphalt mixes selected in this study, threshold criteria for SFE and BBS
test parameters, i.e. CR and BSR values were identified as 4.80 and 0.90, respectively, with a reason-
ably good accuracy of 90% for the SFE method, and 75% for the BBS method. This can be used as a
QC tool for screening the asphalt-aggregate combinations.
• Both the SFE and BBS methods are useful in evaluating moisture damage potential of asphalt mixes
as the moisture susceptibility of different combinations obtained using SFE, and BBS methods
based on the threshold criteria identified in this study presented a similar performance as observed
in ITS method.
• A practical protocol/framework is proposed for selecting the most compatible asphalt binder and
aggregate combinations. This is very beneficial to policymakers and design engineers for making
the right decision while selecting the materials for road construction projects.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Ayyanna Habal http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3494-5785
22 A. HABAL AND D. SINGH

References
AASHTO T361. (2016). Standard method of test for determining asphalt binder bond strength by means of the asphalt bond
strength (ABS) test. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Aguiar-Moya, J. P., Salazar-Delgado, J., Baldi-Sevilla, A., Leiva-Villacorta, F., & Loria-Salazar, L. (2015). Effect of aging on
adhesion properties of asphalt mixtures with the use of bitumen bond strength and surface energy measurement
tests. Transportation Research Record, https://doi.org/10.3141/2505-08
Al-Qadi, I. L., Abuawad, I. M., Dhasmana, H., & Coenen, A. R. (2014). Effect of blending time and crumb rubber con-
tent on properties of crumb rubber modified asphalt binder (Research Report FHWA-ICT-14-004). Illinois Center for
Transportation.
Alvarez, A. E., Ovalles, E., & Caro, S. (2012). Assessment of the effect of mineral filler on asphalt-aggregate interfaces based
on thermodynamic properties. Construction and Building Materials, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.089
Apeagyei, A. K., Grenfell, J. R. a., & Airey, G. D. (2014). Moisture-induced strength degradation of aggregate–asphalt mastic
bonds. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 15(sup1), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2014.927951
Arabani, M., & Hamedi, G. H. (2014). Using the surface free energy method to evaluate the effects of liquid
antistrip additives on moisture sensitivity in hot mix asphalt. International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2013.778410
Ashish, P. K., Singh, D., & Bohm, S. (2016). Evaluation of rutting, fatigue and moisture damage performance of nanoclay
modified asphalt binder. Construction and Building Materials, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.057
ASTM D4867. (2014). Standard test method for effect of moisture on asphalt concrete paving mixtures. ASTM International.
Bhasin, A., Little, D. N., Vasconcelos, K. L., & Masad, E. (2007). Surface free energy to identify moisture sensitivity of materials
for asphalt mixes. Transportation Research Record, https://doi.org/10.3141/2001-05
Bhasin, A., Masad, E., Little, D., & Lytton, R. (2006). Limits on adhesive bond energy for improved resistance of hot-mix
asphalt to moisture damage. Transportation Research Record, https://doi.org/10.3141/1970-03
Cheng, D., Little, D. N., Lytton, R. L., & Holste, J. (2002). Use of surface free energy properties of the asphalt- aggregate
system to predict moisture damage potential. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, AAPT, 71,
59–88.
Diab, A., You, Z., Hossain, Z., & Zaman, M. (2014). Moisture susceptibility evaluation of nanosize hydrated lime-
modified asphalt-aggregate systems based on surface free energy concept. Transportation Research Record,
https://doi.org/10.3141/2446-06
Garcia Cucalon, L., Kassem, E., Little, D. N., & Masad, E. (2017). Fundamental evaluation of moisture damage in warm-mix
asphalts. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 18(sup1), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1266765
Ghabchi, R., Singh, D., Zaman, M., & Tian, Q. (2013). Application of asphalt-aggregates interfacial energies to evaluate
moisture-induced damage of warm mix asphalt. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2013.11.095
Grenfell, J., Ahmad, N., Liu, Y., Apeagyei, A., Large, D., & Airey, G. (2014). Assessing asphalt mixture moisture suscepti-
bility through intrinsic adhesion, bitumen stripping and mechanical damage. Road Materials and Pavement Design,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.863162
Habal, A., & Singh, D. (2016). Comparison of Wilhelmy plate and sessile drop methods to rank moisture damage susceptibil-
ity of asphalt – aggregates combinations. Construction and Building Materials, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2016.03.060
Habal, A., & Singh, D. (2018). Influence of recycled asphalt pavement on interfacial energy and bond strength of asphalt
binder for different types of aggregates. Transportation Research Record, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118784377
Habal, A., & Singh, D. (2019). Effects of warm mix asphalt additives on bonding potential and failure pattern of
asphalt-aggregate systems using strength and energy parameters. International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2019.1623399
Hefer, A. W., Bhasin, A., & Little, D. N. (2006). Bitumen surface energy characterization using a contact angle approach.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2006)18:6(759)
Horgnies, M., Darque-Ceretti, E., Fezai, H., & Felder, E. (2011). Influence of the interfacial composition on the adhesion
between aggregates and bitumen: Investigations by EDX, XPS and peel tests. International Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2011.01.005
Hossain, Z., Bairgi, B., & Belshe, M. (2015). Investigation of moisture damage resistance of GTR-modified asphalt binder by
static contact angle measurements. Construction and Building Materials, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.
07.032
Hossain, Z., Zaman, M., Hawa, T., & Saha, M. C. (2014). Evaluation of moisture susceptibility of nanoclay-modified
asphalt binders through the surface science approach. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001228
Hurley, G. C., & Prowell, B. D. (2005). Evaluation of sasobit® for use in warm mix asphalt (NCAT report 05-06). National Center
for Asphalt Technology.
Kandhal, P. S. (2017). Bituminous road construction in India. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 23

Little, D. N., & Bhasin, A. (2006). Using surface energy measurements to select materials for asphalt pavement, NCHRP web
only document 104, NCHRP Project 9-37. Transportation Research Board.
Liu, Y., Apeagyei, A., Ahmad, N., Grenfell, J., & Airey, G. (2014). Examination of moisture sensitivity of aggregate-bitumen
bonding strength using loose asphalt mixture and physico-chemical surface energy property tests. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2013.855312
Manual Series No. 02 (MS-02). (2014). Asphalt mix design methods (7th ed.). Asphalt Institute.
Martin, A. E., Arambula, E., Yin, F., Cucalon, L. G., Chowdhury, A., Lytton, R., Epps, J., Estakhri, C., & Park, E. S. (2014). Evaluation
of the moisture susceptibility of WMA Technologies (NCHRP Report 763). Transportation Research Board.
Mishra, V., Singh, D., & Habal, A. (2019). Investigating the condition number approach to select probe liq-
uids for evaluating surface free energy of bitumen. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-019-0097-x
Moraes, R., Velasquez, R., & Bahia, H. (2011). Measuring the effect of moisture on asphalt-aggregate bond with the bitumen
bond strength test. Transportation Research Record, https://doi.org/10.3141/2209-09
MoRTH. (2013). Specification for road and bridge works. Fifth revision, Indian Roads Congress, Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways, Government of India.
Mullapudi, R. S., & Sudhakar Reddy, K. (2020). An investigation on the relationship between FTIR indices and surface free
energy of RAP binders. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 21(5), 1326–1340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2018.
1552889
Shiva Kumar, G., & Suresha, S. N. (2019). State of the art review on mix design and mechanical properties of warm mix
asphalt. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 20(7), 1501–1524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2018.1473284
South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDoT). (2011). Supplemental technical specifications for hot-mix asphalt
material properties SCDOT designation (SC-M-402 (2/13)). South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Van Oss, C. J., Chaudhury, M. K., & Good, R. J. (1988). Interfacial Lifshitz—van der Waals and polar interactions in
macroscopic systems. Chemical Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1021/cr00088a006
Wasiuddin, N. M., Barraza, H., Zaman, M., & O’Rear, E. A. (2005). Assessment of surface free energy characteristics of
performance graded asphalt binders. GSP 130 Advances in pavement engineering (pp. 1–13).
Zaumanis, M., Mallick, R. B., & Frank, R. (2014). 100% recycled hot mix asphalt: A review and analysis. Resources, Conserva-
tion and Recycling, 92, 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.007