Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Development of compression pull-off test (CPOT) to assess bond strength

of bitumen
Abdur Rahim a,⇑, Nick Thom b, Gordon Airey b
a
Department of Transportation Engineering and Management, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
b
Nottingham Transportation Engineering Centre, University of Nottingham, University Park, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

New test for bond strength of Compression

bitumen and mastics.

This compression approach is useful
than direct tension test.

A new gap assembly is developed for
film thickness of binder.

CPOT is successful in evaluation of Tension
relevant testing parameters.

Load

CPOT
displacement

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

Article history: The quantification of moisture susceptibility has been a major concern for researchers as it adversely
Received 17 September 2018 affects the performance of asphalt pavements. Several methods have been developed to assess bond
Received in revised form 12 February 2019 strength using asphalt mixtures in loose and compacted state. These tests lack in their ability to study
Accepted 15 February 2019
fundamental properties that affect the bond between bitumen and aggregate. In this context, more fun-
Available online 27 February 2019
damental techniques have been developed such as pull-off stub tests and direct tension tests. The first
group only measures the maximum pull-off strength and second group has problems related to use of
Keywords:
consistent binder film thickness and operational difficulties in test itself.
Pull-off test
Bitumen
This paper presents a new test to evaluate bond strength, in an attempt, to solve problems associated
Adhesion with traditional direct tension tests. The aim is achieved through a review of existing techniques, devel-
Cohesion opment of a gap assembly, fabrication of direct tension test moulds, development of Compression Pull-Off
Bond strength Test (CPOT) and evaluation of its results. The key parameters for bitumen and mastics were evaluated.
Tensile strength The CPOT shows promising results for use of this technique to study cohesive as well as adhesive bond
Moisture damage strength of binder.
Compression pull-off test Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Test development

1. Introduction
Binding material ‘bitumen’ is used in road construction all
across the globe because of its good adhesive, cohesive and water-
proof characteristics. These bituminous pavements are experienc-
ing an ever increase in traffic load and its complexity. In addition
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rahim@uet.edu.pk (A. Rahim).
to traffic loading, there are environmental factors that affect the
durability and integrity of asphalt mixture. These factors include
ageing and moisture damage as primary reasons, provided that
pavement is constructed according to specifications [1]. Further-
more, ageing makes bitumen stiffer and brittle leading to its sus-
ceptibility of thermal cracking. The moisture damage results in
deterioration of adhesive and cohesive bond in asphalt mixtures.
Moisture damage is a complex interfacial phenomenon and can
be defined as ‘‘progressive functional deterioration of a pavement

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.093
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421
mixture by loss of the adhesive bond between the asphalt cement
and the aggregate surface and/or loss of the cohesive resistance
within the asphalt cement principally from the action of water”
[2]. This loss of bond strength leads to weaker pavement layer
and makes it prone to deform under traffic loading and results in
deterioration [1,3]. The bond strength also referred to as pull-off
strength is a measure of adhesive and cohesive bond. The cohesive
bond failure occurs due to deformation under load at a distance
from aggregate that is beyond the influence of mechanical inter-
locking and surface molecular orientation [4].
The five main mechanisms which produce moisture damage,
have been reported as; detachment, displacement, spontaneous
emulsification, pore pressure, and hydraulic scouring [5,6]. Addi-
tionally, there are four common approaches/theories that explain
the bond between bitumen and aggregate. These include chemical
reaction, surface energy (surface change), molecular orientation,
and mechanical adhesion (mechanistic tenacity) [6,7].
One of the earliest tests to evaluate properties of bitumen
included chew test. The builders tried to assess the consistency
as well as the stickiness of bitumen using this technique. Since
then several methods have been devised for assessment and
improvement of cohesive and adhesive bond. The improvement
methods include; modification of bitumen [8], selection of suitable
combination of binder and aggregate [9], improvement of mixing
techniques, and reduction of dust powder on surface of aggregate.
However, it is difficult to improve bond between bitumen and
aggregates using these methods [10]. In addition to this, different
antistripping additives such as hydrated lime has also been used
to improve strength and reduce moisture susceptibility of asphalt
mixtures [11–14].
The tests on assessment of moisture damage in asphalt mixture
can be classified into two categories; tests conducted on loose and
compacted mixtures [15]. Several researchers have summarised
these moisture sensitivity tests [16,17,6,18]. The loose mixture
tests are empirical in nature and rely on visual inspection. The tests
on compacted mixtures are more fundamental in nature [1]. How-
ever, compacted mixtures tests cannot isolate the fundamental and
rheological properties of the bitumen-aggregate bond [19].
The problems associated with mixtures level tests have led
researchers to quantify bond strength based on fracture parame-
ters, surface energy, diffusion coefficients and adhesion [12]. His-
torically, less research has been direct towards the evaluation of
tensile properties of bitumen thin film as compared to other means
of evaluating bitumen properties [20]. Hitherto, there is no unified
and standard fundamental test method for evaluation of bond
strength [3,21–23].
2. Objectives
This research aims to evaluate pull-off bond strength through
development of a better, simple and robust testing mechanism to
solve problems associated with traditional pull-off testing tech-
niques. The test developed to achieve this aim is termed the ‘Com-
pression Pull-Off Test (CPOT)’. The objectives of this research
include;

Review of existing bond strength techniques

Evaluation of the direct tension test approach

Development of a mechanism to achieve the required binder
film thickness

Development of Compression Pull-Off Test (CPOT)

Evaluation of the key parameters for binder testing and valida-
tion of results
413
3. Review of bond strength methods
The traditional methods on loose and compacted mixtures such
as Lottman’s procedure and its advanced modification i.e. AASHTO
T283 are useful in the comparative analysis of moisture suscepti-
bilities of various asphalt mixtures. These methods, however,
meausre bulk properties of mixtures and lack in focus on funda-
mental material properties [19,24–26]. This creates the necessity
to evaluate bond strength using component characteristics tests
which measure the fundamental properties. Additionally, testing
based on components characteristics is generally more economical
[12]. A fundamental test on binder and aggregate will also give a
better understanding of moisture sensitivity and its effect on the
cohesive and adhesive bond [3].
There has been vast research in the science of adhesion to mea-
sure the adhesive properties of coatings and the composites.
Jakarni [27] has summarized some of these common tests for their
suitability in the bond strength evaluation of asphalt mixtures.
These tests included Peel Pest, Pull-Off Test, Double Cantilever
Beam (DCB) Test, and Tapered Double Cantilever Beam (TDCB) test.
The review of experience in adhesive technology helped the
researcher to formulate a new pull-off testing technique to evalu-
ate the bond strength between bitumen and aggregate [27].
In binder research, peel test was adopted to quantify the adhe-
sive strength [23,28,29]. The test consists of pulling a peel arm
adhered on a substrate (aggregate/control plate). A pull load is
applied through peel arm at a constant speed and specific angle.
The force to initiate and propagate peel fracture is measured as a
function of the displacement to calculate fracture energy. The
studies demonstrated that the peel test is a suitable method to
determine the adhesive fracture energy.
A more direct and fundamental approach to quantify bond is
pull-off loading type tests. There are numerous studies which
emphasis the importance of thin film binder to evaluate its
response to pull-off loading [4,22,27.30–39]. A commonly used test
to measure pull-off strength is Pneumatic Adhesion Tensile Testing
Instrument (PATTI) for assessment of moisture damage. Copeland
[40] modified the procedure of sample preparation in this pull-
off stub test to improve the control of the bitumen film thickness.
Santagata et al. [41] also modified PATTI and reported on reliability
and practicality to evaluate the adhesion/cohesion properties of
bitumen and aggregate system. One adaptability of PATTI is Bitu-
men Bond Strength test (BBS) to evaluate pull-off strength
[3,23,42]. BBS results are reported to be reliable, repeatable and
reproducible [3,4,25,43]. However, these pull-off stub methods
only measure the maximum pull-off strength and report the
description of coating fracture. This approach has its limitation in
a sense that the rate of loading (in terms of displacement) cannot
be controlled [29]. In contrast, another approach, Direct Tension
Test (DTT) methods have their advantage in measuring the pull-
off load and elongation [22,39].
There are several direct tension test studies to evaluate bond
strength [27,34,37,44]. In work with direct tension tests, research-
ers have reported difficulties in preparing aggregate samples,
achieving consistent film thickness and performing tests itself
[22,39]. In direct tension approach, epoxy resin adhesive and
screwing mechanism have been used to fix the aggregate plates
with testing fixture [10,27]. The use of adhesive materials is a slow
process and requires removal of excessive adhesive around the fix-
ture. The screw fastening mechanism has operational problems
associated with it. Another problem in these tests is control of bin-
der film thickness. The use of gap assemblies [22,27] and Dynamic
Shear Rheometer (DSR) has been reported to control film thickness
[29,38]. The gap assembly approach is more practical and
414 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421
independent of sophisticated equipment in comparison to DSR that
can measure film thickness at submicron level.
The Surface Free Energy (SFE) is another useful approach to
evaluate adhesion between aggregate and binder. Kringos et al.
[42] used surface energy approach and combined direct tension
test approach with numerical moisture diffusion analyses. The
results were reported to be consistent with expected field perfor-
mance. The work also highlights the importance of mechanical
tests to assess bond strength. There have been attempts to corre-
late bond energy (from SFE) and total work of fracture (from
pull-off tests). The main problem with SFE is its thermodynamics
approach that does not include energy dissipation during loading
and unloading. Moreover, the total work of fracture (pull-off
strength) is dependent on test geometry and testing conditions
[45].
The review of bond strength techniques concludes with the
importance of direct tension approach to evaluate the bond
strength using gap assembly. There is a need to address the diffi-
culties associated with this test approach. Any such attempt must
be effective to measure maximum bond strength, rate of deforma-
tions corresponding to pull-off load and availability of fracture sur-
face to examine.
4. Test materials
In this study, three penetration grades of bitumen were used as
binder and aluminium was selected as a control material for sub-
strate. The conventional properties of bitumen are listed in Table 1.
The control helped to ensure that substrates (aluminium plates)
were smooth and parallel to achieve a uniform film thickness. This
control also helped to ensure ready availability of gap assembly to
prepare multiple specimens in a shorter interval of time due to its
high thermal conductivity. Limestone (Ls) and granite (Gr) fillers
(passing sieve 63 mm) were used to prepare mastics. The percent-
age of fillers was added as 40% by mass of bitumen. These mastics
were prepared by gradual mixing of fillers in an oven heated bitu-
men over a hot plate. In addition to these materials, limestone
plates were used to validate the results of CPOT.
5. Test methods
A literature survey helped to formulate the basic requirements
for pull-off strength evaluation. These methods were selected/
devised based on; direct measurement of bond strength, strain
control, simplicity, practicality and cost-effectiveness to test on
binder level. A gap assembly was also devised to achieve the
required binder film thickness for these tests. In addition, RTFO
and oven were used for short term ageing of bitumen and mastics.
5.1. Gap assembly for film thickness
The gap assembly as shown in Fig. 1, was manufactured locally.
In this assembly, a compressive load was applied through a rotat-
ing disc to achieve required film thickness. The resultant compres-
sion on binder was measured with a deflection gauge (0.05 mm
least count and 0–20 mm range). A 10° rotation of the rotating disc
Table 1
Bulk mass properties of bitumen.
Bitumen Source 1 Pen Source 1 Pen Source 2 Pen
60/70 40/50 60/70
Penetration Grade (dm) 64 47 69
Specific Gravity/Density 1.04 1 1.02
Softening Point (°C) 51 56 49.5
compressed the bitumen layer to 50.56 mm. In order to achieve a
statistically consistent film thickness, the boundary of assembly
and position of the needle was marked before testing. The lateral
movement of substrates was prevented by providing grooves in
the upper and bottom plates of assembly.
In specimen preparation, hot bitumen was poured on an alu-
minium plate. The second plate was placed over it to create a sand-
wiched specimen. The preconditioning of these plates at 110 °C
before pouring was identified as a ‘best practice’. However, in some
cases plates were preconditioned at room temperature. The second
case required marginal oven heating of sandwiched specimen. The
sandwiched specimens, in both cases, were then compressed in
gap assembly to achieve the required thickness. After curing in
gap assembly at room temperature, specimens were removed
and left for additional curing/conditioning at room temperature
for 24 h. After conditioning period specimens were specimens
were tested with DTT and CPOT.
5.2. Direct tension test (DTT) assembly
The direct tension test moulds were fabricated to evaluate ten-
sile bond in displacement controlled mode as shown in Fig. 2 (left).
In these moulds, extended arms were attached with a double uni-
versal joint to connect with a 10 kN Universal Testing Machine
(UTM). During testing, sandwiched aluminium specimens were
gripped in the upper and lower moulds with three under-head
screws. The moulds containing specimen were fixed in saw tooth
grip of UTM through extended arms as shown in Fig. 2 (right).
The testing was performed after adjustment of test parameters in
software.
In view of operational problems associated with DTT and vari-
ability of its result (Section 6.2), a better mechanism for testing
was needed with the following considerations:

The three-point grip (3 under-heads) was deemed insufficient.
In testing, aluminium plates were getting damaged due to drag
and slip.

The damaging of fractured surfaces caused problem in analysis
of cohesive failure.

The general operational problems of this approach created the
need to conceptualise a new mechanism instead of adding fur-
ther modifications to testing arrangement.
5.3. Development of compression pull-off test (CPOT) assembly
The rationale of this test was derived from traditional compres-
sion tests performed on concrete and asphalt mixtures. The basic
principle was formulated as ‘‘the load applied in compression of
the UTM should generate a pull-off load on the specimen”. A con-
ceptual diagram was prepared to translate this novel idea into real-
ity as shown in Fig. 3 (left). This idea was found to be feasible in
terms of manufacturability and detailed design was prepared
(Fig. 3 right). The assembly was designed and manufactured locally
with ‘lean manufacturing’ approach. The first complete operational
assembly is shown in Fig. 4 (left).
The sandwiched specimens from gap assembly were fixed by
means of two horizontal sliding plates. Circular groves in these
plates were provided to thoroughly grip the substrates. This
approach added a simplicity to design and ease of operation.
Fig. 4 (right) shows three further design improvements which were
added as per need of trial testing. In first modification, two springs
were added to bars in upper moveable part to prevent it from strik-
ing the fixed part. In second modification, a shaft was introduced to
movable part for ease of centring and alignment. Thirdly, a half
spheroid was introduced on the loading shaft for the seating
adjustments. A hole in the base of fix part helped in alignment
 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421 415

Fig. 1. The compression gap assembly.

external source and translate it into a uniform co-axial pull-off load

Fig. 2. Direct pull-off testing assembly.
on a binder-substrate system.
In testing, specimens prepared from gap assembly were
inserted in the inner plate of fixed part and tightened with hand
pressure. Lower plate was raised to grip the bottom aluminium
substrate. After fixing both ends of specimen, a slight pressure
was applied with a small wrench to ensure a firm grip. The grip-
ping mechanism had a better tolerance towards marginally misa-
ligned plates of the sandwiched specimen. In testing with CPOT
assembly, no specimen was broken during installing, fixing, han-
dling, and testing with assembly.
The test parameters were defined in terms of loading direction,
loading rate (mm/min), specimen dimensions and elongation lim-
its etc. After this, a small seating load (few Newtons) was applied
to ensure proper contact. In some cases, specimens were discarded
due to the application of accidental load (higher than 100 N). The
load was then applied in strain control mode and results were
obtained in terms of load and displacement values.

6. Results and discussion

purposes prior to test. This complete assembly was named as
‘Compression Pull-Off Test (CPOT) assembly’. The term signified The results were analysed in terms of mean pull-off strength
that assembly was able to take a compression load from an (POS) and coefficient of variance (COV) for at least five replicates.

Movable part
to be
compressed

Movable plate
Fixed to generate
part tensile load

Fig. 3. Conceptual design of compression device for pull-off testing.

416 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421
Generated
Tensile load
Applicaon of
Compression
Fig. 4. First prototype and final design of CPOT assembly.
Maximum pull-off strength of a specimen, expressed in MPa, was
calculated by dividing failure load (Fn) with an area of contact at
substrate surface i.e. POS ¼ 4 pFDn2 , where Fn is expressed in Newtons
and mean diameter of substrate ‘D’ is expressed in (mm). The
acceptance and rejection of results were based on observation as
per guidelines of ASTM D4541-17. The pull-off strength variables
were evaluated for materials, method and key test parameters.
6.1. Repeatability and operator variability of gap assembly
The accuracy of film thickness was checked with Vernier caliper
for 36 specimens before and after pouring of a short-term aged
binder. These specimens were grouped according to plate condi-
tion. In cold plate case, specimens were prepared by pouring hot
binder onto clean control plate preconditioned at room tempera-
ture. This plate condition was labelled as ‘cold’. The cold condition
required little oven heating before use of gap assembly. In hot plate
condition, specimens were prepared by ‘best practice’ identified in
Section 5.1.
In Table 2, a comparison of film thickness with two plate condi-
tion is given. The results show that good repeatability was
achieved for pouring in hot plate condition. The operator 1 (expe-
rienced) achieved more repeatable results as compared to operator
2 with the same method of pouring. This shows that the repeatabil-
ity is dependent on method of specimen preparation and opera-
tor’s understanding of best laboratory practices.
The effect of film variation in these specimens was further
investigated with CPOT. Tests were performed under 10 mm/min
rate of loading. These specimens were tested in untrimmed state
after 15 h dry or wet conditioning. Two specimens were discarded
for operator 1 in each case and six specimens for operator 2 were
used for additional conditioning. The mean POS and COV values
for bond strength of these specimens are shown in Table 3.
Operator 1 and 2 for dry conditioning
In Table 3, operator 1 achieved 100 mm higher film thickness
than operator 2 in dry condition. This would results into slightly
lower POS (theoretically) for operator 1. However, the actual differ-
ence is significantly less, the possible explanation is bad bonding
caused by cold plate condition and non-uniformity of binder inside
the plates due to cold plates.
Binder on
plates
pull apart
Comparison of dry and wet for hot plate condition
A small decrease in film thickness (50 mm) for operator 2 would
result in a minute increase in POS. However, dry POS is signifi-
cantly higher as compared to wet conditioning. This reflects that
main cause of the adverse effect is moisture conditioning.
Comparison for cold/hot and dry/wet for operator 1
The wet conditioning would result in a decrease of POS and a
50 mm film thickness difference would slightly increase POS. The
net effect is expected to be a decrease, this is however not the case.
The possible explanation is a bad bond achieved with cold plate
condition. The quality of results for good and bad bonding was ver-
ified with load-displacement curves (as discussed in 6.3).
The results show good repeatability of gap assembly in hot plate
condition. The film thickness measurement and CPOT tests of these
aged binders reinforce that repeatability of gap assembly is depen-
dent on specimen preparation method and operator’s understand-
ing of best laboratory practices. In further tests, cold plate
condition needed careful consideration for mastics and aged
binder.
6.2. Results and discussion on DTT results
The sandwiched specimens of bitumen and granite mastic pre-
pared with gap assembly were tested with DTT moulds. Bitumen
specimens were prepared by direct hot pouring on a hot alu-
minium plate. These sandwiched specimens were trimmed after
curing period. For granite mastic, specimens were prepared in cold
plate condition and tested as untrimmed. The results in Table 4,
show variability of 16.8% for virgin bitumen and 33.9% for granite
mastic. The comparison of two materials shows an increased vari-
ability. This variability may have been caused by DTT moulds or
method of specimen preparation (as discussed in results of gap
assembly). In addition, a comparison of results with CPOT values
in Table 5 indicates a higher variability for DTT in hot plate
conditions.
The results were studied for load-displacement curves. Fig. 5
shows ductile (left) and brittle (right) mode of failures for bitumen
and mastic respectively. The ductile mode was dominate for virgin
bitumen and is identified from the ability of the material to take
load after failure in cohesive mode. The negative slope in the soft-
ening portion is dependent on the degree of ductility of material.
 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421 417

Table 2
Film thickness in gap assembly.

Operator Plate condition Film Thickness (mm) Replicates

Max Mean Range SD COV (%) Mean +2 SD Mean 2 SD
Operator 1 Cold 0.74 0.55 0.44 0.13 23.90 0.29 0.81 10
Hot 0.63 0.50 0.21 0.06 12.09 0.38 0.63 10
Operator 2 Hot 0.58 0.45 0.33 0.10 21.92 0.25 0.65 16

Table 3
CPOT results for repeatability of gap assembly.

Binder POS COV Test condition Replicates Mean Film thickness

RTFO aged Source 1 Pen 60/70 1.17 13.54 Operator 1, dry 15 h, cold 9 0.55
1.25 8.40 Operator 1, wet 15 h, hot 9 0.50
1.53 14.80 Operator 2, dry 15 h, hot 10 0.45

Table 4
Summary of test results using direct pull-off testing.

Material Pull-Off Strength (MPa) COV (%) Plate Condition Replicates

Source 2 Pen 60/70 0.71 16.78 Hot 6
Gr (40%) in Source 1 Pen 40/50 1.01 33.86 Cold 6

1.60

1.40
CPOT pull-off strength (MPa)

R² = 0.7678
1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60
Fig. 5. Brittle and ductile type failure using DTT.
0.40

The brittle failure, indicating a sudden drop in load carrying capac-
ity after failure, was dominate for mastics. A film thickness of
0.5 mm is expected generate cohesive failure for mastics. The cold
plate condition seems relevant here, providing a weakest plane of
failure. The significantly increased variability of Table 4 in addition
to brittle failure, indicates bad bonding as main reason for variabil-
ity. However, this variability of DTT results in cold condition is sig-
nificantly higher than any case of CPOT results (except for re-used
aggregate substrate).
A comparison can be made between the results of DTT in Table 4
and CPOT results in Table 6 for an equal film thickness of binder. It
is evident from the variability of the CPOT results that this method
is more repeatable in evaluating bond strengths in comparison to
developed DTT. A correlational analysis was performed between
two tests as shown in Fig. 6. The results show a close linear corre-
lation between the two tests with R2 value of 0.77. This correlation
is based on a virgin bitumen and granite mastic with limited data
available for DTT. This comparison needs further evaluation on dif-
ferent binders for DTT results with the use of best specimen prepa-
ration practices.
The direct tension moulds were provided with a double univer-
sal joint on the upper and lower part for seating adjustment and
self-aligning. However, this resulted in damage of failure surfaces.
In addition, DTT of this research required several procedural steps.
This increased excessive handling and breaking of specimens. Also,
some specimen slipped out of moulds during test resulting in dam-
aged plates and leading to misleading results. In order to solve
these issues, a new approach and design was necessary.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Direct tension test pull-off strength (MPa)
Fig. 6. Correlational analysis of CPOT and DTT.
6.3. Further discussion on results of CPOT
The main objective was to investigate the usefulness of CPOT for
bond strength evaluation with material and method parameters.
The parameters related to material were evaluated using direct
and silicon method of pouring. The silicon method referred to
pouring hot bitumen into a silicon mould and after cooling, placing
this disc of bitumen on an aluminium plate. The constant test
parameters included; film thickness (0.5 mm), rate of loading
(10 mm/min), cold plate condition, 24 h dry conditioning, and
room temperature testing. Table 5 shows a slight decrease of
pull-off strength with silicon pouring and trimming for virgin, oven
aged, and RTFO aged bitumens. The use of specimen trimming has
been in reported in direct tension approach [37,38,46,39]. This
study suggests that method of pouring and trimming of specimens
affect the results to some degree.
The effect of short-term ageing on bond strength were analysed.
In Table 5, both RTFO and oven ageing have resulted in increase of
pull off strength. The 3 h oven aged specimens show increased
bond strength than RTFO aged samples. The load-displacement
418 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421

Table 5
Tests to check repeatability of CPOT method.

Round Material Pull-Off Strength (MPa) COV (%) Variable Testing conditions Replicates
Round 1 Source 2 Pen 60/70 0.70 9.67 Silicon, tr 5
0.77 6.82 Direct, un 8
Round 2 3-hour oven aged Source 1 Pen 40/50 1.4 13.35 Silicon, tr 9
1.45 11.04 Direct, un 8
Round 3 RTFO aged Source 1 Pen 60/70 1.00 11.63 Silicon, tr 7
1.17 13.54 Direct, un 9

Table 6
Effect of film thickness on pull-off bond strength.

Material Mean POS (MPa) COV (%) Film Thickness (mm) Failure Mechanism Replicate
Source 2 Pen 60/70 1.29 20.97 0.3 Hybrid to adhesive 7
Source 2 Pen 60/70 0.77 6.82 0.5 Cohesive 8
Granite (40%) in Source 1 Pen 40/50 0.89 12.2 0.5 Cohesive 6

CPOT Direct Pull-off Test

Fig. 7. Typical ductile failure with CPOT and direct pull-off testing.

curves showed a ductile behaviour for unaged and RTFO aged spec-
imens. Two of 3-hours aged specimen showed brittle failure. This is
attributed to increased ageing in harsh environment of oven as
compared to RTFO. The finding of this research on short term age-
ing corroborates the work of Wang et al. [21] on the effect of short
ageing and work of Copeland et al. [33] on the effect of long-term
ageing to increase cohesive strength of bitumen in dry condition.
This discussion indicates usefulness of CPOT to evaluate the bond
strength of bitumen in aged condition. In addition, the coefficient
of variance in all test groups indicate a good repeatability of CPOT
results.
The effect of film thickness for virgin bitumen was studied using
CPOT. In Table 6, the decrease in film thickness has resulted in
increase of pull-off bond strength. The mode of failure in case of
0.5 mm film thickness was cohesive while for 0.3 mm film thick-
ness it changed from hybrid to adhesive. This is consistent with
findings in literature about the effect of film thickness on pull-off
bond strength [20,27,34,37,39,44,47].
The typical ductile failure curves are presented in Fig. 7 for com-
parison of CPOT and DTT. In both tests, a deviation from this trend
was attributed to an anomaly in specimens and test itself. These
problems happened due to issue in specimen preparation, curing/
conditioning, non-uniform film thickness, presence of air voids in
binder, non-homogenous mixing of filler particles and slipping of
plates during test.
The generation of load-displacement curve in DTT and CPOT is
the main advantage of these tests when compared to pull-off stub
tests. In comparison to CPOT, direct tension test curve before peak
load is different due to seating adjustments. The CPOT assembly
takes care of major seating adjustment prior to start of test. The
curve of CPOT can be directly analysed while DTT curve needs nor-
malisation to study energy dissipation. CPOT is useful in the study
of load-displacement curves as compared to contemporary direct
tension tests.
6.4. Validation of CPOT results
The results were validated with RTFO aged limestone mastics
and use of limestone aggregate plates. The conditioning time was
limited to 24 h as main equilibrium uptake occurs during this con-
ditioning period [46]. Table 7 shows strength of aged mastic has
significantly decreased with moisture conditioning. The dominant
type of failure, in this case, was hybrid to adhesive. This is because
mastics and aggregate plates allowed easier access of water within
the mass of binder and to the interface with aggregate. The dry
conditioned specimens have also shown tendency towards hybrid
to adhesive failures in case of aggregate plates. This may have been
caused by residual dust on aggregate plates, in addition to less con-
trol over plate surface as compared to control. The reason for
hybrid to adhesive failure is increased chance of weak failure plane
near the bitumen-aggregate interface. In addition, cohesive
strength is only completely available if the interface bond between
binder and aggregate is of good quality.
 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421 419

Table 7
CPOT results with aggregate plates and moisture conditioning.

Material Mean POS (MPa) COV (%) Conditioning Plates Replicate

RTFO aged Ls 40% in Source 1 Pen 40/50 1.38 11.53 Dry New 6
0.96 33.31 Dry Used 5
0.81 16.15 Wet New 6

Table 8
Comparison of CPOT with Pull-off stub and DTT tests.

Parameter Pull-off stub and DTT tests Compression Pull-Off Test

Material behaviour (comparison with
Pull Stub type tests)
Breakage of specimen during
handling and fitting in UTM (DTT
tests)
Gripping of aggregate plates and
variation of diameter (DTT Tests)
Damage to Aluminium substrate
(DDT in this study)
Failed surface (DTT in this study)
Load-displacement curve adjustment
(DTT tests)
Cavitation
Limitations
Further improvement
Pull-off stub type tests only measure the maximum pull-off
strength and do not take into account load-elongation
behaviour.
DTT tests, in general, requires careful clamping to avoid
misalignment and breakage of specimen. The specimen
breakage is also an issue in handling.
Use of adhesives is a slow process. The 3-point clamping
mechanism, in addition to operational problems, has less
tolerance to account for variation in plate diameter.
Three-point clamping damaged the aluminium plates.
The fail surface can easily get disturbed during the testing in
devised DTT.
Curve correction is needed after test to study energy dissipation.
In pull stub tests it is difficult to fully analyse cavitation
phenomenon due to the absence of load-displacement curve.
The disturbed surfaces in DTT of current study created
hindrance in examining the failure surfaces to augment load-
displacement curves.
In DTT, there are increased chances of substrate damage and slip
with use of screwing mechanism.
PATTI is conducted at room temperature. DTTs rely on
temperature control environment of UTM.
PATTI and its modifications are reported to be reproducible.
There is no established DTT to comment on.
Extensive research has been done on film thickness.
Direct tension test requires UTM temperature control
environment.
No portable variant has been reported for direct tension tests.
Further studies and improved procedures are required in
establishing film thickness.
Captures complete range of data required for testing of
adhesive and cohesive bond.
No specimen was broken during fixing and handling. It does
not require any direct attachment; the assembly can readily
be tested under loading shaft of UTM.
The clamping approach is relatively fast and has better
tolerance to larger variations in diameter.
A thorough clamping mechanism did not damage any plate.
The plates are separated effectively to analyse the surface.
No curve correction needed after test to study energy
dissipation.
This method makes it easier to analyse cavitation and
fibrillar structure in cohesive bond using load-displacement
curve examination of failure surfaces.
Caution is required as bitumen in clamping grooves can
cause a slip of substrate.
Currently rely on temperature control environment of UTM.
Reproducibility studies are required.
The film thickness further needs to be decreased to study
adhesive bond primarily.
A self-contained temperature control environment can be
integrated with CPOT due to compression approach.
A portable variant can be built.
Improved gap assembly or alternative methods for film
thickness can also be considered for CPOT.

A second evaluation was made with re-use of cleaned aggregate the practicality, advantages, limitations and need for further
plates. The results indicate a significant reduction in bond strength improvements in this method to evaluate pull-off strength.
also with an increased coefficient of variance. This is caused by a
decrease in active bond sites present on re-used aggregate surface.
8. Conclusions
The presence of oily components due adsorption in the first use of
bitumen may have resulted in decreased strength and increased
In this study, a novel test has been devised to evaluate cohesive
variability.
and adhesive bond strength based on the principle of ‘tensile
The CPOT results have shown promising results to evaluate
strength evaluation’. The research can be summarized in following
moisture damage with the use of aggregate plates. These results
conclusions:
in addition to the discussion on plate condition, method of speci-
men preparation, and effect of short-term ageing have shown good

CPOT is a useful test to evaluate cohesive and adhesive bond
repeatability and robustness of this method to evaluate key param-
strength. This method provides solution to some of the prob-
eters. This test is successful in quantifying the bond strength of
lems faced in traditional test methods.
bitumen involving fillers, effect of ageing, and moisture

The gap assembly to prepare specimen for CPOT is able to
conditioning.
achieve the required film thickness under best laboratory prac-
tices. There is a further need to improve gap assembly for
7. Comparison with pull-off stub and DTT approach repeatability and practicability reasons.

The material response in CPOT is more elaborative in terms of
A qualitative comparison of CPOT with pull-off stub tests and load-displacement curve than direct tension tests. This
direct tension tests is presented in Table 8. The examples of direct can be useful to investigate the phenomenon of cavitation
tension approach in this comparison involve the work of various and fibrillary nucleation in cohesive bond of bitumen and
researchers, see [27,37,39,48]. This comparison is useful to study mastics.
420 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421
Finally, further research is required to characterise different
bitumen, evaluation of special binders and study of adhesion by
use of decreased film thickness. The cases of moisture conditioning
also need further evaluation. It will be advantageous to carry out
the correlational analysis by use of different bond strength mea-
surement techniques.
Conflict of interest
None
Acknowledgements
The testing for this research was performed at the Department
of Transportation Engineering & Management and Department of
Polymer & Process Engineering, University of Engineering and
Technology Lahore. The authors gratefully acknowledge this sup-
port. The input of six anonymous reviewers is appreciated for their
suggestions and constructive comments. The corresponding author
also acknowledges the assistance of Sadia Dilawar, Muhammad
Shoaib and Muhammad Ehsan.
References
[1] Gordon D. Airey, Young Kyu Choi, State of the art report on moisture sensitivity
test methods for bituminous pavement materials, Road Mater. Pavement Des.
3 (4) (2002) 355–372, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2002.9689930.
[2] Badru M. Kiggundu, Freddy L. Roberts, Stripping in HMA Mixtures: State-of-
the-Art and Critical Review of Test Methods (NCAT Report 88-02), National
Centre for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Alabama, 1988. https://
trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=485075.
[3] Raquel Moraes, Raul Velasquez, Hussain Bahia, Measuring the effect of
moisture on asphalt-aggregate bond with the bitumen bond strength test,
Transp. Res. Rec. 2209 (1) (2011) 70–81, https://doi.org/10.3141/2209-09.
[4] Preeda Chaturabong, Hussain U. Bahia, Effect of moisture on the cohesion of
asphalt mastics and bonding with surface of aggregates, Road Mater. Pavement
Des. 19 (3) (2018) 741–753, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2016.1267659.
[5] Mark A Taylor, N. Paul Khosla, Stripping of asphalt pavements: state of the art
(Discussion, Closure), Transp. Res. Rec. 911 (1983) 150–158. https://trid.trb.
org/view/210085.
[6] Umaru Bagampadde, Ulf Isacsson, Badru M. Kiggundu, Classical and
contemporary aspects of stripping in bituminous mixes, Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 5 (1) (2004) 7–43, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2004.9689961.
[7] John W. Shute, R.G. Hicks, James E. Wilson, Lewis G. Scholl, Effectiveness of
Antistripping Additives, FHWA-OR-RD-89-03A, Oregon Dept.
Transportation, Materials and Research Section, 1989. https://digital.osl.
state.or.us/islandora/object/osl:35886.
[8] Alejandra Baldi-Sevilla, Mavis L. Montero, José P. Aguiar-Moya, Luis G. Loria-
Salazar, Amit Bhasin, Influence of bitumen and aggregate polarity on
interfacial adhesion, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 18 (sup2) (2017) 304–317,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1304265.
[9] W. Curtis, 1990. A Literature Review of Liquid A Ntistripping And Tests for
Measuring Stripping.
[10] Chao Peng, Pengxu Chen, Zhanping You, Songtao Lv, Ran Zhang, Xu. Fang, Hao
Zhang, Hanlin Chen, Effect of silane coupling agent on improving the adhesive
properties between asphalt binder and aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 169
(2018) 591–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.186.
[11] Shin-Che Huang, Raymond E. Robertson, Jan F. Branthaver, J. Claine Petersen,
Impact of lime modification of asphalt and freeze-thaw cycling on the asphalt-
aggregate interaction and moisture resistance to moisture damage, J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 17 (6) (2005) 711–718.
[12] Yong-Rak Kim, Ingryd Pinto, Seong-Wan Park, Experimental evaluation of anti-
stripping additives in bituminous mixtures through multiple scale laboratory
test results, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 386–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2011.10.012.
[13] Mahmoud Ameri, Sareh Kouchaki, Hossein Roshani, 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. 48 (2013) 1009–1016, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.07.030.
[14] Syed Bilal Zaidi, Ahmed., The Influence of Hydrated Lime on Moisture
Susceptibility of Asphalt Mixtures (Ph.D dissertation), The University of
Nottingham, 2018.
[15] Robert P Lottman, R.P. Chen, K.S. Kumar, L.W. Wolf, A Laboratory test system
for prediction of asphalt concrete moisture damage, in: 53rd Annual Meeting
of the Highway Research Board Location: Washington District of Columbia,
United States, 1974, pp. 18–26. https://trid.trb.org/view/38746.
[16] Ronald L. Terrel, J.W. Shute, Summary Report on Water Sensitivity, SHRP-A/IR-
89-003, Strategic Highway Research Program National Research Council,
Washington, DC United States, 1989. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/
shrp/shrp-A-IR-89-003/SHRP-AIR-003.pdf.
[17] Ronald L. Terrel, Saleh AI-Swailmi, Water Sensitivity of Asphalt–aggregate
Mixes: Test Selection, SHRP-A-403, Strategic Highway Research Program
National Research Council, Washington, DC United States, 1994. https://trid.
trb.org/view/405687.
[18] Mansour Solaimanian, John Harvey, Maghsoud Tahmoressi, Vivek Tandon, Test
methods to predict moisture sensitivity of hot-mix asphalt pavements, in: A
National Seminar Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt Pavements, 2003, pp. 77–
110.
[19] Dong-woo Cho, Hussain U. Bahia, New parameter to evaluate moisture
damage of asphalt-aggregate bond in using dynamic, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22
(3) (2010) 267–277, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2010) 22:3
(267).
[20] W.V. Chang, Application of Acoustic Emission to Study the Cohesive and
Adhesive Strength of Asphalt, SHRP-A-682, Strategic Highway Research
Program, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC United States, 1994.
[21] Dongsheng Wang, Junyan Yi, Decheng Feng, Modelling and laboratory studies
on the adhesion fatigue performance for thin-film asphalt and aggregate
system, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/819083.
[22] Abdur Rahim, Effect of Fillers on the Oxidative Ageing of Bitumen and Cohesive
Bond Strength of Mastics (Ph.D dissertation), The University of Nottingham,
2017.
[23] Lu. Zhou, Weidong Huang, Feipeng Xiao, Quan Lv, Shear adhesion evaluation of
various modified asphalt binders by an innovative testing method, Constr.
Build. Mater. 183 (2018) 253–263, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.06.064.
[24] Amit Bhasin, Eyad Masad, Dallas Little, Robert Lytton, Limits on adhesive bond
energy for improved resistance of hot-mix asphalt to moisture damage,
Transp. Res. Rec. 1970 (2006) 3–13, https://doi.org/10.3141/1970-03.
[25] Francesco Canestrari, Fabrizio Cardone, Andrea Graziani, Felice Ausilio
Santagata, Hussain U. Bahia, Adhesive and cohesive properties of asphalt-
aggregate systems subjected to moisture damage, Road Mater. Pavement Des.
11 (sup1) (2010) 11–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2010.9690325.
[26] Gholam Hossein Hamedi, Fereidoon Moghadas Nejad, Using energy
parameters based on the surface free energy concept to evaluate the
moisture susceptibility of hot mix asphalt, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 16
(2) (2015) 239–255, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2014.990049.
[27] Fauzan Mohd Jakarni, Adhesion of Asphalt Mixtures (Ph.D thesis), The
University of Nottingham, 2012.
[28] Bamber R.K. Blackman, Shuang Cui, Anthony J. Kinloch, Ambrose C. Taylor, The
development of a novel test method to assess the durability of asphalt road-
pavement materials, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 42 (2013) 1–10, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.10.013.
[29] Jizhe Zhang, Gordon D. Airey, James Grenfell, Alex K. Apeagyei, Moisture
damage evaluation of aggregate–bitumen bonds with the respect of moisture
absorption, tensile strength and failure surface, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 18
(4) (2017) 833–848, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1286441.
[30] J.A.F. Harvey, D. Cebon, Failure mechanisms in viscoelastic films, J. Mater. Sci.
38 (5) (2003) 1021–1032, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022345713409.
[31] Kunnawee Kanitpong, Hussain Bahia, Relating adhesion and cohesion of
asphalts to the effect of moisture on laboratory performance of asphalt
of
mixtures, Transp. Res. Rec. 1901 (2005) 33–43, https://doi.org/10.3141/1901-
05.
[32] A. Copeland, N. Kringos, Determination of bond strength as a function of
moisture content at the aggregate-mastic interface, 10th International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, 2006. Quebec, Canada 709–18. urn:nbn:
se:kth:diva-84073.
[33] Audrey Copeland, Jack Youtcheff, Aroon Shenoy, Moisture sensitivity of
modified asphalt binders: factors influencing bond strength, Transp. Res.
Rec. 1998 (2007) 18–28, https://doi.org/10.3141/1998-03.
[34] L.D. Poulikakos, M.N. Partl, Micro scale tensile behaviour of thin bitumen films,
Exp. Mech. 51 (7) (2011) 1171–1183, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-010-
9434-3.
[35] Allex E. Alvarez, Evelyn Ovalles, Silvia Caro, Assessment of the effect of mineral
filler on asphalt-aggregate interfaces based on thermodynamic properties,
Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1) (2012) 599–606, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2011.08.089.
[36] Alex K. Apeagyei, James R.A. Grenfell, Gordon D. Airey, Moisture-induced
strength degradation of aggregate-asphalt mastic bonds, Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 15 (sup1) (2014) 239–262, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2014.927951.
[37] Sharmin Sultana, Tensile Strength of Asphalt Binder and Influence of Chemical
Composition on Binder Rheology and Strength (Ph.D dissertation), The
University of Texas at Austin, 2014.
[38] A.H.A.A. Al-Haddad, H. Al-Khalid, Development of a new aggregate-binder
adhesion test method, in: 6th International Conference Bituminous Mixtures &
Pavements Thessaloniki, 2015, pp. 385–394.
[39] Duraid M. Abd, Hussain Al-Khalid, Riaz Akhtar, Adhesion properties of warm-
modified bituminous binders (WMBBs) determined using pull-off tests and
atomic force microscopy, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 19 (8) (2018) 1926–
1939, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1374993.
[40] Copeland, R. Audrey, Influence of Moisture on Bond Strength of Asphalt-
Aggregate Systems (Ph.D Dissertation), Vanderbilt University, 2007.
 A. Rahim et al. / Construction and Building Materials 207 (2019) 412–421
[41] F.A. Santagata, F. Cardone, F. Canestrari, Hussain U. Bahia, Modified PATTI test
for the characterization of adhesion and cohesion properties of asphalt
binders, Sixth International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation
of Pavements and Technological Control (MAIREPAV6) Turin, 2009. https://
trid.trb.org/view/899139.
[42] N. Kringos, A. Scarpas, A. de Bondt, Determination of moisture susceptibility of
mastic-stone bond strength and comparison to thermodynamical properties, J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 77 (2008) 435–478. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?
urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-84061.
[43] Monketh Mohammed, Tony Parry, Nick Thom, James Grenfell, Investigation
into the bond strength of bitumen-fibre mastic, Constr. Build. Mater. 190
(2018) 382–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.084.
[44] J.A.F. Harvey, D. Cebon, Fracture tests on bitumen films, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 17
(1) (2005) 99–106, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005) 17:1(99).
421
[45] Jonathan Embrey Howson, Relationship Between Surface Free Energy and
Total Work of Fracture of Asphalt Binder and Asphalt Binder-Aggregate
Interfaces (Ph.D dissertation), A&M University, Texas, 2011.
[46] Alex K. Apeagyei, James Grenfell, Gordon D. Airey, Influence of aggregate
absorption and diffusion properties on moisture damage in asphalt mixtures,
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 16 (sup1) (2015) 404–422, https://doi.org/
10.1080/14680629.2015.1030827.
[47] C.R. Marek, M. Herrin, Tensile behaviour and failure characteristics of asphalt
cements in thin films, in: Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol Proc, 1968, pp. 1–54.
https://trid.trb.org/view/100898.
[48] Jizhe Zhang, Alex K. Apeagyei, Gordon D. Airey, James R.A. Grenfell, Influence
of aggregate mineralogical composition on water resistance of aggregate-
bitumen adhesion, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 62 (2015) 45–54, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.06.012.