Construction and Building Materials 76 (2015) 307–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Long term effectiveness of anti-stripping agents

H.F. Haghshenas a, A. Khodaii b,⇑, M. Saleh c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

h i g h l i g h t s

 Zycosoil improves long term performance compared with the hydrated lime.
 The most significant factor affecting the TSR is the bitumen content.
 The proposed model can be employed to find the proper time for rehabilitation.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Numerous factors affect long term resistance of asphalt mixtures against stripping, therefore, proposing a
Received 28 August 2014 mathematical model between the stripping failure and these factors is essential. The rehabilitation time
Received in revised form 30 October 2014 of pavements, a very pivotal issue, can be predicted if the developed model comprises time as an inde-
Accepted 28 November 2014
pendent factor. Apart from the capability of such model for prediction of rehabilitation time, the pro-
Available online 20 December 2014
posed model reveals the effect of each individual factor on the stripping process and it discloses the
interrelationship between the pertinent factors. In this study, Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
Keywords:
was successfully employed to establish the time dependent models between Tensile Strength Ratio
Stripping potential
Response surface methodology
(TSR) as the response parameter and independent factors such as time and anti-stripping additives
Grading (namely hydrated lime and Zycosoil). The results obtained through the modeling showed that both the
Bitumen content short and long term performance of the Zycosoil is superior to the hydrated lime. The proposed models
Lime content can be solved to find the time that asphalt mixtures take to reach certain terminal TSR; e.g. for TSR = 80. A
Zycosoil content mathematical model is developed that can predict the proper time of rehabilitation of pavement before
Time stripping failure.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Stripping of asphalt mixtures is defined as the detachment of
the aggregate and bitumen typically accompanied by the failure
in bitumen structure. This distress can result in rutting, cracking,
shoving, raveling of the asphalt pavement layer. This mode of fail-
ure imposes a large waste of energy and financial expenses on
highway authorities [1].
There is extensive literature on the factors significantly influ-
encing the stripping of the asphalt mixtures such as chemical com-
position and gradation of the aggregates [2–7], the type/amount of
the bitumen and the bitumen modifier [8–11], the void content of
the mixtures [12] and the type/amount of the anti-stripping agents
[2,13–15].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 6454 3000; fax: +98 21 6641 4013.
E-mail addresses: h.haghshenas@huskers.unl.edu, hfhaghshenas@yahoo.com
(H.F. Haghshenas), khodaii@aut.ac.ir (A. Khodaii), mofreh.saleh@canterbury.ac.nz
(M. Saleh).
For instance, a comparison between the lime stone and siliceous
material aggregates indicated that lime stone improves the
resistance of asphalt mixtures against the freeze–thaw cycles [2].
Also, it was reported that the aggregates with alkali metals con-
tent, such as lime stone, has a higher moisture resistivity compared
to the basalt aggregates [6,7]. Moreover, hydrated lime improves
the fatigue and cracking resistance of the mixtures [16,17].
Another important point regarding the factors influencing the
stripping of asphalt mixtures is the gradation of aggregates.
Khodaii and coworkers have found that the moisture sensitivity
of the coarse graded mixtures is lower than that of the fine graded
mixtures and the stripping resistivity of the asphalt mixtures with
dense grading aggregates drops by an increase in the mastic
asphalt content [3,18]. In addition, higher mastic asphalt content
of the mixtures enhances the stripping resistivity of stone matrix
asphalt (SMA) [4].
Optimum bitumen content has significant effect on stripping
resistance; it has been shown that a bitumen (60/70 penetration

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.060
0950-0618/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
308 H.F. Haghshenas et al. / Construction and Building Materials 76 (2015) 307–312

grade) content of 5.5% enhances the moisture susceptibility of the

hot mix asphalt with the dense grading siliceous aggregate [8]. In
addition, polymer type has shown considerable effect on moisture
resistance of the polymer modified bitumen. According to Gorkem
and Sengoz styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS) is a more effective
polymer compared to ethylene–vinyl acetate (EVA) regarding the
moisture resistance of asphalt mixtures [11].
Recently, it has been shown that Zycosoil, an organosilane com-
pound, improves the moisture resistance of asphalt mixtures
[14,19], regardless of the source of aggregate [2,20].
To the authors’ best knowledge, most of the investigations have
only focused on the short term moisture susceptibility of the
asphalt mixtures; for instance, a period of 24 h is considered for
the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixtures in the modified
Lottman Test (AASHTO T283) [21]. It should be noted that the
obtained moisture susceptibility did not show the actual resistivity
of the asphalt mixture in a real pavement system. In a previous
study conducted by Lu and Harvey, it was observed that most of Fig. 1. Grading size distribution of the coarse, medium and fine aggregates.
the detrimental effects of moisture occur in the first four months
[22]. By conditioning of different asphalt mixtures in water for cer-
tain period (maximum 7 days), Gandhi et al. also showed that the Table 1
Properties of the siliceous aggregate used.
hydrated lime is the most effective anti-stripping agent. However,
they found hydrated lime and liquid anti-stripping have similar Test Standard Values MS – 2
effect on actual resistivity of the asphalt mixture after 90 days of (%) specifications (%)
conditioning [5]. LA abrasion loss AASHTO T96 19 <30
Systematic evaluation of the effect of the above mentioned Fractured in one face ASTM D5821 100 –
Fractured two faces and more ASTM D5821 93 90<
factors is necessary for proposing a feasible procedure for
Coating of aggregate AASHTO T182 97 95<
proper asphalt mixture preparation. Besides, this systematic Flakiness BS – 812 20 <25
approach can results in collective identification and quantification Sand equivalent AASHTO T176 75 50<
of the effective factors and their probable interrelationships Sodium sulfate soundness AASHTO T104 2.90 <12
[3,4,8,13,14,23,24]. The factorial design of experiment (DOE) is a 0.40 <8

powerful tool for conducting such strategy. A suitable mathemat-

ical relationship between the factors and the response is
achievable by employing an appropriate DOE that provides the
opportunity to predict optimum value of these factors
Table 2
[3,4,8,13,14].
Engineering properties of aggregate used.
An appropriate choice of design of experiments is essential to
be able to determine a response surface. One of the conventional Fraction Standard Specific gravity Absorption
(g/cm3)
designs to derive a second order model is to deploy the central
composite design (CCD) with 2k runs (k is the number of factors), Apparent Bulk
2k axial (star) runs and a few center runs [8,25]. Instead of carry- Retained on 2.36 mm (No. 8) AASHTO 2.62 2.52 1.58
ing out a full factorial of experiment design, fractional factorial T85
designs (FFD) such as CCD, can be used with less number of Passed from 2.36 mm and AASHTO 2.62 2.51 2.2
retained on 0.075 mm T84
experiments and derive any interactions between parameters Passed from 0.075 mm (No. 200) – 2.68 –
[8,23,25]. Bulk specific gravity on blended – 2.53 –
In the present work, authors attempt to present second order aggregate
polynomial relationships between TSR and bitumen content,
grading, anti-stripping content (hydrated lime and Zycosoil) and
time. A CCD is considered as the design matrix since it allows The AC 60/70 penetration grade bitumen was used to prepare all the mixtures.
The properties of the bitumen, hydrated lime and Zycosoil are given in Tables 3–5,
identification of first order interaction between factors and gives
respectively.
second order polynomial model which can optimize these factors.
The effect of time – as the pertinent factor – is also varied in
2.2. Mixture design
the CCD, to acquire a time dependent model. This model can
be employed to find the proper time for rehabilitation of the Asphalt mixes used in this investigation were mixed and compacted according
pavement before the occurrence of the stripping failure. Also, to Marshall mix design method according to ASTM D1559-89 [27]. The flow, stabil-
ity and air voids in the total mix, air void content in the mineral aggregates, as well
the long term performance of each anti-stripping additive can be
as the percentage of voids filled with binder are examined at various binder con-
examined. tents to determine the ‘optimum’ value for stability.
The optimum bitumen contents were determined as 6%, 5.5% and 5.1% for mix-
tures with fine, medium and coarse aggregate grades, respectively.
2. Materials and mix design

2.1. Materials 3. Experimental methods

Three grading levels corresponding to the aggregate type according to (ASTM
D3515-01) [26], with different size distribution (85%, 70% and 55% passing through
4.75 mm sieve size) were selected as shown in Fig. 1. The grading levels were
named as the fine, medium and coarse grading. In Tables 1 and 2, the physical prop-
erties of the siliceous aggregates are listed.
3.1. Test procedure
The modified Lottman Test (AASHTO T283) was used to evaluate the moisture
susceptibility of the asphalt mixtures. The test is conducted by compacting speci-
mens to an air void content of 6.0–8.0% percent. Three specimens were selected
 H.F. Haghshenas et al. / Construction and Building Materials 76 (2015) 307–312 309

Table 3 Table 6
Properties of bitumen used in the study. Central composite design arrangement and responses for modified mixtures.

Test Standard AC 60/70 Run Factors Response

Ductility at 25 °C (cm) ASTM D113 100 Passing sieve size 4.75 mm (%) LC (%) BC (%) t (day) TSR (%)
Penetration at 25 °C, 100 g (0.1 mm) ASTM D5 61
(a) Lime content (LC)
Softening point (°C) ASTM D36 50.1
1 55 0.0 4.5 1 24.50
Specific gravity at 25 °C ASTM D70 1.016
2 85 0.0 4.5 1 23.00
Viscosity at 135 °C (Pa s) ASTM D4402 0.51
3 55 3.0 4.5 1 33.00
4 85 3.0 4.5 1 28.00
5 55 0.0 6.5 1 47.00
6 85 0.0 6.5 1 50.50
Table 4 7 55 3.0 6.5 1 86.00
Physical testing results of the hydrated lime. 8 85 3.0 6.5 1 88.00
9 55 0.0 4.5 181 12.31
Cao Co2 (%) Cao Moisture Retained on Specific
10 85 0.0 4.5 181 4.34
(%) dehydrated (%) (%) 0.075 mm (%) gravity
11 55 3.0 4.5 181 25.47
95.95 3.82 5.34 0.88 0.5 2.12 12 85 3.0 4.5 181 14.38
13 55 0.0 6.5 181 31.77
14 85 0.0 6.5 181 29.33
15 55 3.0 6.5 181 78.93
16 85 3.0 6.5 181 73.38
17 55 1.5 5.5 91 86.61
Table 5
18 85 1.5 5.5 91 83.02
Properties of Zycosoil nano-material.
19 70 0.0 5.5 91 47.79
Color Solid Flash Viscosity at Solubility 20 70 3.0 5.5 91 73.94
content point (25 °C) 21 70 1.5 4.5 91 31.13
22 70 1.5 6.5 91 71.65
Clear to pale 41% 80 °C 200-800 cP s Soluble in
23 70 1.5 5.5 1 93.54
yellow bitumen
24 70 1.5 5.5 181 79.26
25 70 1.5 5.5 91 81.30
26 70 1.5 5.5 91 82.00
27 70 1.5 5.5 91 81.00
28 70 1.5 5.5 91 80.89
as the control sample and tested without moisture conditioning; three other spec-
imens were conditioned by saturation with water (70–80% saturation level). The Run Passing sieve size 4.75 mm (%) ZyC (%) BC (%) t (day) TSR (%)
specimens were then tested for the indirect tensile strength (ITS) by loading the (b) Zycosoil content
specimens at a constant rate (50 mm/min). The tensile strength of the conditioned 1 55 0.0 4.5 1 24.50
specimens was compared with the control specimens to determine the TSR. The TSR 2 85 0.0 4.5 1 23.00
is calculated as shown in Eq. (1) [21]: 3 55 0.2 4.5 1 38.01
4 85 0.2 4.5 1 32.13
S2 5 55 0.0 6.5 1 47.00
Tensile Strength Ratio ðTSRÞ ¼  100 ð1Þ
S1 6 85 0.0 6.5 1 50.50
7 55 0.2 6.5 1 90.70
where S1 and S2 (kPa) are the average indirect tensile strength of the dry subset and 8 85 0.2 6.5 1 92.56
average indirect tensile strength of the conditioned subset, respectively. 9 55 0.0 4.5 181 12.31
In a similar way to the test procedure proposed by Gandhi et al. for evaluating 10 85 0.0 4.5 181 4.34
long term effectiveness of anti-stripping agents [5], samples of each age (i.e. 1 day, 11 55 0.2 4.5 181 35.86
91 days and 181 days) were prepared to test for the ITS. Three of them were stored 12 85 0.2 4.5 181 22.70
as the dry samples at 25 ± 1 °C, and the other three are stored as the wet samples (at 13 55 0.0 6.5 181 31.77
25 ± 1 °C). Before breaking the samples after 1 day, the wet samples were sub- 14 85 0.0 6.5 181 29.33
merged in water at 60 ± 1 °C for 24 h and then in water at 25 ± 1 °C for 2 h. For con- 15 55 0.2 6.5 181 82.90
ditioning durations more than 1 day, the wet samples were submerged in a water 16 85 0.2 6.5 181 79.53
bath at 25 ± 1 °C for one day shorter than the specific duration (i.e. 90 days and 17 55 0.1 5.5 91 91.42
180 days) and then in a water bath (60 ± 1 °C) for 24 h followed by submersion in 18 85 0.1 5.5 91 87.64
water at 25 ± 1 °C for 2 h before breaking. 19 70 0.0 5.5 91 47.79
20 70 0.2 5.5 91 79.95
21 70 0.1 4.5 91 40.07
3.2. Design of experiments 22 70 0.1 6.5 91 77.43
23 70 0.1 5.5 1 96.55
In order to investigate the effect of pertinent factors on the stripping potential 24 70 0.1 5.5 181 83.13
of HMA and the long term effectiveness of the different anti-stripping agents on the 25 70 0.1 5.5 91 85.88
mixtures, a Center Composite Design (CCD) was chosen with four factors and three 26 70 0.1 5.5 91 86.52
levels comprising 28 experimental runs using MINITAB [28] Release 15 (Table 6). 27 70 0.1 5.5 91 84.70
A quadratic polynomial regression model (Eq. (2)) proposed by Montgomery 28 70 0.1 5.5 91 85.20
[25] was considered for predicting the response variable (TSR) in terms of the four
independent variables chosen for the study as shown in Eq. (2):

X
4 X
4 X
3 X
4 4. Results and discussion
Y ¼ b0 þ bi X i þ bii X 2i þ bij X i X j ð2Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1 j¼iþ1
4.1. Model fitting
where b0, bi, bii, and bij are constant coefficients of intercept, linear, quadratic and
interaction terms, respectively, and Xi and Xj represent the four independent vari- The measured values of responses corresponding to each of the
ables (bitumen content, grading, lime or Zycosoil content and time). The experi- 28 experimental runs are presented in Table 6. The statistical sig-
ments were carried out with three replicates in a randomized order to avoid nificance of results is supported by the P-value data of the factors
systematic bias.
The statistical significance of the developed model as well as the effect of factors
studied attained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA). A low P-
(linear, quadratic and interactive terms) was evaluated by analysis of variance value means rejection of the null hypothesis which means the
(ANOVA). parameter is significant. In this study the level of significance (a)
310 H.F. Haghshenas et al. / Construction and Building Materials 76 (2015) 307–312

is taken as 10%. In this case, P-values less than 0.1 means that the
parameter is significant as given in Table 7.
The P values of the regression coefficient given in Table 8 show
that all the first order terms of the independent factors, the second
order terms of X1, X2, X3 and X4 and the interactive terms are
statistically significant at 90% confidence level (P value < 0.1).
Accordingly, two polynomial regression equations are developed
as shown in Eqs. (3) and (4):
TSRLC ¼ 81:11  1:75X 1 þ 12:80X 2 þ 20:02X 3  6:91X 4
þ 3:81X 21  20:12X 22  29:60X 23 þ 5:40X 24  0:75X 1 X 2
þ 1:44X 1 X 3  1:62X 1 X 4 þ 8:18X 2 X 3
þ 1:52X 2 X 4  0:38X 3 X 4 R2 ¼ 99:98
TSRZyC ¼ 85:86  1:81X 1 þ 15:76X 2 þ 19:37X 3  6:28X 4
þ 3:46X 21  22:19X 22  27:31X 23 þ 3:77X 24  0:70X 1 X 2
þ 1:75X 1 X 3  1:55X 1 X 4 þ 7:65X 2 X 3
þ 2:17X 2 X 4  0:92X 3 X 4 R2 ¼ 99:96
where
X1 = Percent materials passing sieve size 4.75 mm (PPSS
4.75 mm),
X2 = Lime content (LC) in Eq. (3) and Zycosoil content (ZyC) in
Eq. (4),
X3 = Bitumen content (BC),
X4 = Time (t).
A comparison between coefficient of the interaction term of
bitumen-anti-striping agents in two equations shows that
hydrated lime changes the bitumen properties. While Zycosoil
changes the aggregate properties It seems these changes result in
an improvement in adhesion between aggregate and bitumen.
It was reported by Little and Jones in 2003 that, hydrated lime
reacts with carboxylic acids in the bitumen and produce an insol-
uble calcium organic salts which prevent bitumen from reacting
with a siliceous surface to form water sensitive bonds. This leaves
important active sites on the siliceous surface to form strong water
resistant bonds with nitrogen groups in bitumen [2,29]. On the
other hand, Zycosoil creates a hydrophobic nano-layer on the sur-
face of aggregates by converting the hydrophilic silanol groups to
ð3Þ
hydrophobic siloxane groups. As a result, Zycosoil can transform
water sensitive aggregate surface to an oil-loving surface [2,20].
As indicated in Section 2.1 the aggregate used in all mixtures
was siliceous aggregate. The aggregate predominantly comprised
of SiO2 that creates an unstable bond with bitumen against water
attack. When such mixes are exposed to moisture water is rapidly
ð4Þ absorbed by the aggregate and detaches from the binder. It is
believed that the high percentage of hydroxyls on the surface of
siliceous aggregate makes it very suitable for Zycosoil as it perma-
nently changes the physical properties of aggregate surface [2].
To sum up, based on the above statistical/mathematical find-
ings, it could be concluded that Zycosoil results in more noticeable
improvement in TSR of the asphalt mixtures over the time.
Table 8
Values of regression coefficients calculated for (a) TSRLC and (b) TSRZyC values.

The values of first order coefficients of the factor reveal that the Independent P-value T-value Standard Regression
BC of the asphalt mixture is the most effective factor influencing factor error coefficient
TSR. Furthermore, Zycosoil shows higher effectiveness on TSR com- (a)
pared to the LC. The positive sign of the lime and bitumen content Constant 0.00 444.62 0.18 81.11
coefficients implies that these two factors reduce the stripping Linear
potential of asphalt mixtures. Higher coefficient of interactive term PPSS 4.75 mm 0.00 14.13 0.12 1.75
LC 0.00 102.99 0.12 12.80
of Zycosoil and time, in comparison with the hydrated lime and
BC 0.00 161.00 0.12 20.02
time, indicates that the long term effect of Zycosoil on TSR is more T 0.00 55.56 0.12 6.91
important than that of the hydrated lime.
Quadratic
The main stripping mechanisms are the loss of adhesive bond PPSS 4.75 mm 0.00 11.62 0.32 3.81
between the bitumen and aggregate (a failure of the bonding of LC 0.00 61.27 0.32 20.12
bitumen to aggregate) and softening of the cohesive bonds within BC 0.00 90.12 0.32 29.60
the bitumen (failure in structure of bitumen). The coefficient of the T 0.00 16.45 5.40

interaction term of bitumen and aggregate has a positive sign in Interactive

both Eqs. (3) and (4), while the coefficients of the interaction term PPSS 4.75 mm–LC 0.00 5.32 0.13 0.750
PPSS 4.75 mm–BC 0.00 10.93 0.13 1.44
of bitumen and time are negative. This could be attributed to the PPSS 4.75 mm–t 0.00 12.34 0.13 1.62
possible cohesion failure within the bitumen resulting in the strip- LC–BC 0.00 62.07 0.13 8.18
ping of the asphalt in such mixtures. LC–t 0.00 11.56 0.13 1.52
BC–t 0.01 2.89 0.13 0.38

Table 7 (b)
ANOVA table for (a) TSRLC and (b) TSRZyC values. Constant 0.00 302.64 0.28 85.86
Linear
DF SS MS F-values P-values
PPSS 4.75 mm 0.00 9.40 0.19 1.81
(a) ZyC 0.00 81.52 0.19 15.76
Total 27 22202.70 – – – BC 0.00 100.19 0.19 19.37
Regression 14 22199.10 1585.65 5696.24 0.00 T 0.00 32.48 0.19 6.28
Residual error 13 3.60 0.28 – –
Quadratic
Lack of fit (model error) 10 2.90 0.29 1.15 0.51
PPSS 4.75 mm 0.00 6.78 0.51 3.46
Pure error (replicate error) 3 0.80 0.25 – –
ZyC 0.00 43.44 0.51 22.19
R2 99.98 – – – –
BC 0.00 53.47 0.51 27.31
(b) T 0.00 7.38 0.51 3.77
Total 27 23582.00 – – –
Interactive
Regression 14 23573.20 1683.80 2500.88 0.00
PPSS 4.75 mm–ZyC 0.00 3.69 0.2 0.705
Residual error 13 8.80 0.67 – –
PPSS 4.75 mm–BC 0.00 8.55 0.2 1.75
Lack of fit (model error) 10 6.90 0.69 1.09 0.53
PPSS 4.75 mm–t 0.00 7.59 0.2 1.55
Pure error (replicate error) 3 1.90 0.63 – –
ZyC–BC 0.00 37.33 0.2 7.65
R2 99.96 – – – –
ZyC–t 0.00 10.61 0.2 2.17
Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean square. BC–t 0.00 4.51 0.2 0.92
 H.F. Haghshenas et al. / Construction and Building Materials 76 (2015) 307–312
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. Main effect plots of TSR. (a) Mixture was modified with hydrated lime.
(b) Mixture was modified with Zycosoil.
According to the criterion given in AASHTO T283, the critical
value of TSR is 80%; i.e. if the value of TSR becomes lower than
80%, the mixture is at risk of stripping. By substituting the critical
value of TSR in Eqs. (3) and (4), different set of factor values’ can be
estimated. The main advantage of this mathematical exercise is the
estimation of critical time when other factors are set at desired val-
ues; this critical time is the rehabilitation time of pavement before
stripping failure occurs.
4.2. Main effect plot
According to the main effect plots presented in Fig. 2a, the influ-
ence of bitumen content on TSR is more pronounced than that of
LC, grading and time when each parameters moves from its low
level to its mid-level. A change in the BC from low level (4.5%) to
mid-level (5.5%) results in an increase in the TSR value approxi-
mately from 30% to 77%; but in case of LC, a change in the LC from
low level to mid-level leads to an increase in the TSR value from
around 22% to 79%. After that TSR decreases when BC and LC move
from their mid-level to high level.
It can be observed that a variation in PPSS 4.75 mm from its low
level (coarse grading) to mid-level (medium grading), leads to
around 25% increase in this response and then TSR descends when
PPSS 4.75 mm changes from mid to high level. The same trend can
be observed in case of mixtures modified with Zycosoil (Fig. 2b).
Close observation of Fig. 2 shows that at 70% materials passing
sieve size 4.75 mm (PPSS 4.75 mm) the value of TSR reaches a max-
imum value for both types of mixture which can be attributed to
the positive effect of the gradation on the moisture susceptibility
as measured by TSR. The optimum amount of bitumen content
for this gradation (PPSS 4.75 mm = 70%) was found to be around
5.5%. It should be pointed that these values are similar to the
311
optimum value obtained in the mixture design procedure (Section
2.2) with medium aggregate gradation (PPSS 4.75 mm = 70%). The
maximum TSR was reached at 1.5% and 0.1% lime and Zycosoil con-
tent, respectively; the effect of each anti-stripping agent decreased
when the lime and Zycosoil content was increased from these val-
ues. This is in agreement with the findings of other researchers
[8,13,14,17]. For instance, the, National Lime Association has car-
ried out a global survey and reported that researchers have found
that normally the use of around 1% lime will improve the moisture
resistance of asphalt mixtures [17]. Kavussi et al. investigated the
effect of different anti-stripping agents on stripping potential of
asphalt mixtures. They reported that lime content of 1.7% [13]
and Zycosoil content of 0.14% [14] enhances the moisture resis-
tance of asphalt mixtures with the dense grading siliceous
aggregate.
5. Conclusions and findings
From the semi-empirical modeling, the following conclusions
can be derived:
1. The most significant factor affecting the TSR, as an index for
predicting the stripping potential, is the bitumen content of
the asphalt mixtures.
2. Zycosoil improves the moisture resistance and long term per-
formance of the asphalt mixtures compared with the hydrated
lime.
3. From the proposed models, it seems that the cohesion failure
(failure in structure of bitumen) leads to stripping failure in
these mixtures.
4. The proposed time dependent models can be solved for finding
the time that asphalt mixtures experiences a specific TSR; e.g.
for TSR = 80 the proper time of rehabilitation of pavement can
be predicted before stripping failure.
5. The best performance is related to medium grading which is
attributed to the positive effect of the gradation on the moisture
susceptibility.
6. The optimum value of the anti-stripping agent for achieving the
maximum moisture resistance is 1.5% and 0.1% for the hydrated
lime Zycosoil, respectively.
Acknowledgment
Authors would like to acknowledge the Dr. D.F. Haghshenas for
his discussion on statistical modeling.
References
[1] Mehrara A, Khodaii A. A review of state of the art on stripping phenomenon in
asphalt concrete. J Constr Build Mater 2013;38:423–42.
[2] Ameri M, Kouchaki S, Roshani H. Laboratory evaluation of the effect of nano-
organosilane anti-stripping additive on the moisture susceptibility of HMA
mixtures under freeze–thaw cycles. Constr Build Mater 2013;48:1009–16.
[3] Khodaii A, Haghshenas HF, Kazemi TH, Khedmati M. Application of response
surface methodology to evaluate stone matrix asphalt stripping potential.
Korean J Civil Eng (KSCE) 2013;17(1):117–21.
[4] Khodaii A, Haghshenas HF, Kazemi Tehrani H. Effect of grading and lime
content on HMA stripping using statistical methodology. J Constr Build Mater
2012;34:131–5.
[5] Gandhi Tejash S, Copeland Kathryn P, Putman Bradley J, Amirkhanian Serji N.
Laboratory evaluation of long term effectiveness of liquid antistripping agents.
Transportation Research Board (TRB). In: 86th Annual meeting, TRB
compendium of papers CD-ROM; 2007.
[6] Abo-Qudais S, Al-Shweily H. Effect of anti-stripping additives on
environmental damage of bituminous mixtures. Build Environ
2007;42:2929–38.
[7] Bagampadde U, Isacsson U, Kiggundu BM. Impact of bitumen and aggregate
composition on stripping in bituminous mixtures. J Mater Struct 2006;39(3):
303–15.
312 H.F. Haghshenas et al. / Construction and Building Materials 76 (2015) 307–312
[8] Haghshenas HF, Khodaii A, Khedmati M, Tapkin S. A Mathematical model for
predicting stripping potential of hot mix asphalt. J Constr Build Mater
2015;75:488–95.
[9] Al-Qadi Imad L, Abuawad Ibrahim M, Dhasmana Heena, Coenen Aaron R,
Trepanier James S. Effect of various asphalt binder additives /modifiers on
moisture susceptible asphaltic mixtures. Illinois Center for Transportation
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Report No. FHWA-ICT-14-004; January 2014.
[10] Kim YR, Pinto I, Park SW. Experimental evaluation of anti-stripping additives
in bituminous mixtures through multiple scale laboratory test results. J Constr
Build Mater 2012;29:386–93.
[11] Gorkem C, Sengoz B. Predicting stripping and moisture induced damage of
asphalt concrete prepared with polymer modified bitumen and hydrated
bitumen. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:2227–36.
[12] Behiry AEA El-Maaty. Laboratory evaluation of resistance to moisture damage
in asphalt mixtures. Ain Shams Eng J 2013;4:351–63.
[13] Kavussi A, Qorbani M, Khodaii A, Haghshenas HF. Moisture susceptibility of
warm mix asphalt: a statistical analysis of the laboratory testing results. J
Constr Build Mater 2014;2014(52):511–7.
[14] Kavussi A, Qorbani M, Khodaii A, Haghshenas HF. Quantification of parameters
affecting moisture resistance of warm mix asphalt using response surface
methodology. In: IJPC  international journal of pavements conference, São
Paulo, Brazil; 2013.
[15] Hunter E, Ksaibati K. Evaluating moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes.
Department Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming;
November 2002.
[16] Khodaii A, Kazemi Tehrani H, Haghshenas HF. Hydrated lime effect on
moisture susceptibility of warm mix asphalt. J Constr Build Mater 2012;36:
165–70.
[17] Little Dallas N, Epps Jon A. The benefits of hydrated lime in HMA. Prepared for
the National Lime Association, National Lime Association (LIME); 2001.
[18] Mehrara A, Khodaii A. Evaluation of asphalt mixtures moisture sensitivity by
dynamic creep test. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 2011;23(2).
[19] Khodaii A, Khalifeh V, Dehnad MH, Hamedi GhH. Evaluating the effect of
Zycosoil on moisture damage of hot-mix asphalt using the surface energy
method. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 2014;26(2).
[20] Moghadas Nejad F, Azarhoosh AR, Hamedi GHH, Azarhoosh MJ. Influence of
using nonmaterial to reduce the moisture susceptibility of hot mix asphalt. J
Constr Build Mater 2012;31:384–8.
[21] AASHTO T283. Standard method of test for resistance of compacted hot mix
asphalt (HMA) to moisture-induced damage. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials; 2007.
[22] Lu Q, Harvey JT. Laboratory evaluation of long-term effectiveness of
antistripping additives. TRB 2006 annual meeting CD ROM.
[23] Haghshenas HF, Khodaii A, Mehrara A, Dehnad MH, Ahari AS. Frequency and
temperature interactive effects on hot mix permanent deformation using
response surface methodology. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 2014. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) MT.1943-5533.0000894.
[24] Khodaii A, Khedmati M, Haghshenas HF, Khedmati M. Statistical evaluation of
hot mix asphalt resilient modulus using a central composite design. Int J
Pavement Res Technol 2014;7(6):445–50.
[25] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 6th ed. New York: John
Wiley & Sons; 2006.
[26] ASTM D3515-01. Standard specification for hot-mixed, hot-laid bituminous
paving mixtures. American Society for Testing and Materials; 2001.
[27] ASTMD1559-89. Test method for resistance of plastic flow of bituminous
mixtures using Marshall apparatus. American Society for Testing and Materials;
1989.
[28] MinitabÒ 15.1.30.0. Ó 2007 Minitab Inc.
[29] Little D, Jones D. Chemical and mechanical mechanisms of moisture damage in
hot mix asphalt pavements. National Seminar in Moisture Sensitivity, San
Diego, California; 2003.