Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Evaluate the mechanism of the effect of hydrated lime on moisture

damage of warm mix asphalt
Saeid Hesami a, Hossein Roshani b,⇑, Gholam Hossein Hamedi c, Alireza Azarhoosh c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
c
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s

 WMA additives lead to a decrease in adhesion between acidic aggregate and asphalt binder.
 Released energy in mixtures modified by hydrated lime is lower than other mixtures, which would result in less stripping.
 Hydrated lime leads to improvement in adhesion between binder and acidic aggregate.
 Among the mixtures used in this study, using asphamin with limestone aggregate has the best resistance against stripping.

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

Article history: With increasing interest in the use of warm mix asphalt in the paving industry, more studies in this field
Received 5 November 2012 for improvement of warm mix asphalt properties seem to be necessary. In spite of many warm mix
Received in revised form 25 April 2013 asphalt advantages, moisture susceptibility is one of the potential disadvantages of warm mix asphalt
Accepted 4 May 2013
mixtures. In this study, the effects of using hydrated lime as a common anti-strip additive on moisture
Available online 20 June 2013
susceptibility of asphalt mixtures has been evaluated by determining the mechanism that affects the
adhesive bond between the aggregate and asphalt binder using the surface free energy method. Two
Keywords:
types of aggregates, limestone and granite, and two types of warm mix asphalt additives, namely sasobit
Warm mix asphalt
Hydrated lime
and asphamin, as well as hydrated lime as anti-strip additives were evaluated in this study. The results of
Moisture susceptibility the surface free energy method indicate that hydrated lime increases the wettability of asphalt binder on
Surface free energy method the aggregate and improves the adhesion between the asphalt binder and aggregate. Also, the difference
Adhesion between surface free energies of asphalt-aggregate and water-aggregate is higher in samples made with
untreated aggregates, as using hydrated lime caused these values to decrease. This implies that more
energy is needed for stripping phenomena to occur, and the rate of moisture damage decreases.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In recent years, there has been an increased interest in produc-

Moisture damage in flexible pavements generally occurs be-
cause of the separation and removal of asphalt binder from the
aggregate surface in the presence of water, which leads to stripping
in the asphalt pavement and potentially causes premature failure.
Moisture damage of asphalt pavement can lead to serious distress,
reduced performance, and increased maintenance of asphalt pave-
ments. Localized bleeding, particle degradation, disintegration,
potholes, shoving, and structural failure of pavement due to per-
manent deformation and cracking are examples of moisture-in-
duced damage [1,2].
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: No. 50, Dokhaniat Ave., Sari, 48139-86638
Mazandaran, Iran. Tel.: +98 151 323 3574; fax: +98 151 340 7585.
E-mail address: roshani.hossein@gmail.com (H. Roshani).
ing asphalt aggregate mixtures using greener technologies that
would alleviate the drawbacks of preparing hot mix asphalt
(HMA). These technologies were given the name warm mix asphalt
(WMA) since they facilitate using lower temperatures when pre-
paring asphalt-aggregate mixtures while satisfying the coating
and workability requirements. WMA technologies reduce the vis-
cosity of the asphalt binder through the addition of organic or min-
eral additives, chemical emulsification, or foaming using water.
These processes allow for producing asphalt-aggregate mixtures
at temperatures 17–55 °C lower than those in the production of
traditional HMA. Reduced mix production and paving tempera-
tures would decrease the energy required to produce asphalt
mixes, reduce emissions and odors from plants, and lead to better
working conditions at the plant and the paving site [3–7].
In spite of many WMA advantages, moisture susceptibility is
one of the potential disadvantages of WMA mixtures [8]. Many

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.079
936 S. Hesami et al. / Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941

researchers believe that lowering temperatures may not allow for 2. Statement and objectives
proper drying of aggregates; especially at mixing temperatures in
the range of 100–140 °C, the aggregate may not be completely In the present study, by applying thermodynamic concepts and
dried during the mixing process, and the presence of moisture surface properties, the mechanism of the effect of hydrated lime on
could prevent binder and aggregate from adequately bonding, thus the resistance of warm mix asphalt to moisture damage was inves-
leading to moisture damage of the mixtures [9–11]. To prevent tigated. Two types of aggregates and two types of WMA additives
moisture susceptibility, proper mix design is essential. Of the many were evaluated in this study. The specific objectives of this study
ways to prevent stripping in asphalt mixture, the use of anti-strip are:
agents is the most common. One of the most commonly used anti-
stripping agents in the world is aggregate coating with suitable  Determining the SFE components of hydrated lime treated and
agents such as hydrated lime and polymer [12]. In 2011, Arabani untreated aggregates.
and Hamedi [13] showed that coating the aggregate surface with  Selection of aggregate, asphalt binder and anti-strip additive
a suitable agent could reverse the predominant electrical charges systems that are more resistant to moisture damage in warm
at the surface and reduce the hydrophilic properties of the aggre- mix asphalt, and
gate. In their research, Button and Epps [14] and Kristjansdottir  Understanding the mechanism of the effect of hydrated lime on
[15] concluded that adding hydrated lime to the WMA resulted the reduction of moisture damage in warm mix asphalt.
in improved cohesion and moisture resistance. However, while
some studies have been conducted on the effect of hydrated lime 3. Surface free energy method
on WMA mixtures, the micro-mechanisms of the effects of hy-
drated lime on WMA are still not fully understood. The water susceptibility, healing and fatigue cracking properties
Researchers were motivated to estimate the moisture damage of mixtures can be evaluated through having information about
in a more fundamental way because of the lack of a unified labora- the characteristics of cohesion and adhesion of an asphalt mixture
tory test method to assess the moisture damage and also the lack [22]. Using the equations developed by Good and Oss [23], Cheng
of correlation with field performance of the most traditional test [22] tried to find the combined surface free energy of aggregates
methods. Some of these studies have concentrated on measuring and asphalt in the presence and absence of water. Through apply-
the surface energies of different asphalt binders and aggregates ing Eq. (1), the total surface free energy of the aggregate and as-
[16,17]. According to thermodynamic theory, the thermodynamic phalt binder can be estimated.
changes in the surface free energy (SFE) of adhesion and cohesion
are related to two factors: breaking the interface between the as- C ¼ CLW þ CAB ð1Þ
phalt and aggregate and creating a fracture that occurs within where C is SFE of asphalt or aggregate; C LW
is Lifshitz-van der
the binder. Therefore, it is sensible to estimate the surface free Waals component of the SFE; and CAB is acid-base component of
energies of asphalt and aggregate in order to calculate the work the SFE.
of adhesion and cohesion. Elphingstone from Texas Transportation The acid-base term has the capacity to be decomposed to a Le-
Institute first showed that the SFE measurements can be a good wis acidic surface parameter and a Lewis basic surface parameter
tool for predicting fatigue and moisture damage in asphalt mixture as follows:
[18]. In 2002, Cheng et al. [19] evaluated the SFE of different bind-
0:5
ers and aggregates and calculated the free energy of adhesion and CAB ¼ 2ðCþ C Þ ð2Þ
free energy of cohesion of the mix with and without the presence + 
where C is Lewis acid component of SFE and C is Lewis base com-
of water. Their results were consistent with the accelerated mois-
ponent of SFE.
ture damage testing on asphalt-aggregate mixtures. In 2012,
The basic foundation of the surface free energy of cohesion
Moghadas Nejad et al. [20] investigated the mechanism of the ef-
(DGic) is a cohesive unit area of the union of two bodies of the same
fect of hydrated lime on the resistance of hot mix asphalt to mois-
material under vacuum conditions [22], as can be observed in the
ture damage with SFE method. Use of hydrated lime caused the
following equation:
promotion of adhesion between asphalt binder and aggregate in
the absence and presence of water, in particular in the mixtures DGci ¼ 2Ci ð3Þ
containing acidic aggregates prone to moisture damage. Estakhri a
The surface free energy of adhesion (DG ) between the as-
et al. [21] focused their research on evaluating all aspects of
phalt and aggregate system is the same as the energy needed
WMA and identifying the effects of WMA technologies on mixture
for the formation of a crack at the interface between the asphalt
design, lab performance characteristics, and field performance. The
and aggregate under vacuum [22], as can be seen in the follow-
results of the SFE method indicated that the resistance to adhesive
ing equation:
fracture (at the asphalt-aggregate interface) was reduced in both
wet and dry conditions for all WMA additive/binder/aggregate DGai ¼ DGaLW
i þ DGaAB
i
 0:5  
combinations investigated in their study. Another study showed
LW LW
0:5   LþW 0:5
that sasobit and asphamin reduced the total SFE of asphalt binders, ¼ 2 C2 C1 þ Cþ2 C1 þ C2 C1 ð4Þ
whereby the effect of asphamin in reduction SFE of asphalt binders
was lower. Indeed, most WMA additives increase the acidic com- where DGai is surface free energy of adhesion; DGaLW
i is non-polar
ponent and decrease the base component of SFE of asphalt binders. or Lifshitz and der Waals part of adhesion; DGaAB
i is acid-base or
On the other hand, most of the asphalt mixtures made by acidic polar part of adhesion; CLW þ 
l , Cl , and Cl are SFE components of
LW þ 
aggregates are susceptible to moisture damage. However, increas- asphalt binder; and C2 , C2 , and C2 are SFE components of
ing the ratio between the SFE acid and the base component led to aggregate.
decreased free adhesion energy between asphalt and aggregate, in Since moisture damage destroys the asphalt mixture, it is
particular in mixtures made with the acidic aggregate that are sus- necessary to know the surface free energy of adhesion in the
ceptible to moisture damage. This phenomenon occurs when the presence of water. Generally, Eq. (5) explains the surface free en-
water enters into the asphalt-aggregate system, as the adhesion ergy of adhesion for two materials in contact within a third
between asphalt and aggregate is broken, causing stripping [8]. medium [22]:
 S. Hesami et al. / Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941 937

  0:5
 þ  0:5 cylindrical samples. Samples were compacted and tested by
DGa132 ¼ C12  C13  C23 ¼  2CLW
3 þ 4 C3 C3  2 CLW LW
1 C3
deploying the following standard procedures: the bulk specific
 0:5  0:5  0:5  0:5
 2 Cþ3 C1  2 C3 Cþ1  2 CLW LW
 2 Cþ2  C3 gravity [30], the stability and flow test [31], and the maximum the-
2  C3
 0:5  oretical specific gravity [32].
 0:5  0:5  0:5
 2 C2  Cþ3 þ 2 CLW
1 C2
LW
þ 2 Cþ1 C2 þ 2 C1 Cþ2 ð5Þ
5.2. Measuring surface free energy components of aggregates and
The two phases of the material are inclined to bind together, if asphalt binder
the value of the free energy of adhesion is negative. This way, the
more negative values contribute to higher bonding strengths [23]. The surface energies of aggregates and asphalt binder were
measured using a universal sorption device (USD) and Wilhelmy
4. Materials plate (WP) established by Bhasin and Little [33] and Hefer et al.
[34], respectively. It is hardly possible to directly measure surface
4.1. Aggregate and asphalt binder
energy of a solid such as aggregate. A more feasible way to mea-
For this study, two types of aggregates including limestone and granite were sure surface energy is to measure the adhesion act between the un-
evaluated. The aggregates represent a substantial range in mineralogy and associ- known solid and another material with known surface energy
ated degree of stripping. The chemical compositions of the aggregates are listed components. The material with known surface energy components
in Table 1. The physical properties of the two types of aggregates are demonstrated is known as the probe material. The adhesion act between the
in Table 2. To characterize the properties of the asphalt binder, conventional tests
aggregate and a probe vapor for materials with high surface ener-
including the penetration test, softening point test and ductility were carried out.
The engineering properties of the asphalt binder are listed in Table 3. The gradation gies, such as aggregates, can be estimated from an adsorption iso-
of the aggregates employed in the study (mean limits of ASTM specifications for therm. The adsorption isotherm is the relationship between the
dense aggregate grading) is drawn in Fig. 1. The nominal size of this grading was vapor pressure of a probe vapor and the mass of the vapor ad-
19.0 mm.
sorbed on an aggregate surface. The relationship is linear between
the adhesion work and square root of surface energy components
4.2. Warm mix additive
(Eq. (6)). Hence, to generate a set of three linear equations and to
4.2.1. Additives solve three unknown aggregate surface energy components, the
Sasobit and asphamin are the WMA additives used in this study. Sasobit is a adhesion act with three different probe vapors is needed.
long-chain aliphatic hydrocarbon obtained from coal gasification by the Fischer– h  i
Tropsch process. The Fischer–Tropsch process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in W aS;V ¼ pe þ 2Ctotal
v ¼ 2 CLW LW
s C1 þ ðCþs C1 Þ þ ðCs Cþ1 Þ ð6Þ
which carbon monoxide and hydrogen are converted into liquid hydrocarbons of
various forms in the presence of iron and cobalt as catalysts. Sasobit forms a homo-
where W aS;V is adhesion work between the aggregate surface (S) and
geneous solution with the base binder upon stirring (1.5% by weight of the binder),
yielding marked reduction in the binder’s viscosity. After crystallization, sasobit
the vapor (V); Ctotal
V is total surface energy of the probe vapor; and pe
forms a lattice structure in the binder, providing structural stability [24]. Asphamin is equilibrium spreading pressure of the probe vapor on the aggre-
is a sodium aluminum silicate that has been hydrothermally crystallized as a very gate surface.
fine powder. It contains about 21% crystalline water by weight and is added to the The spreading pressure of a vapor over the aggregate surface is
mixture in the amount of 0.3% by weight of the mixture. Its simultaneous addition
determined from its adsorption isotherm using the following
with the binder ensures that a very fine water spray is created as all the crystalline
water is released. This causes a volume expansion in the binder, thereby increasing equation:
the workability and compatibility of the mixture at lower temperatures [25].
Z Pn
RT n
pe ¼ dp ð7Þ
MA 0 p
4.2.2. Hydrated lime
A number of anti-strip additives have been introduced to decrease the moisture where R is universal gas constant; T is test temperature; M is molec-
sensitivity of warm mix asphalt. Due to superior performance against moisture
ular weight of the probe vapor; n is mass of vapor adsorbed per unit
damage and comfortable usage in comparison to other additives, hydrated lime is
widely used throughout the world as an anti-strip additive [14,26–28].
mass of the aggregate at vapor pressure p; and A is specific surface
In this study, lime slurry was added to aggregate in an attempt to improve as- area of the aggregate.
phalt mixture resistance to moisture damage, whereby optimum content of hy- Specific surface area of the aggregate is calculated using the
drated lime added to aggregate was obtained after preliminary tests. The percent classical Branauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) equation as follows:
of hydrated lime that showed the best strength against moisture damage was se- 
lected as the optimum content of hydrated lime. The moisture damage potential nm  N0
A¼ a ð8Þ
of samples was determined according to the AASHTO T283 test, as it is an attractive M
and universal laboratory test for estimating moisture susceptibility of asphalt mix-
tures [29]. where N0 is Avogadro’s number; a is projected area of a single mol-
ecule; and nm is specific surface area of the aggregate.
5. Experimental setup and procedure Monolayer capacity is the number of molecules required to cov-
er the aggregate surface in a single layer. Monolayer capacity can
5.1. Mix design methodology be determined from the slope S and intercept I of the best fit
straight line between p/n(p0p) versus p/p0, where p, p0, and n
The asphalt mixtures were designed by using the standard are partial vapor pressure, maximum saturation vapor pressure,
Marshal mix design procedure with 75 blows on each side of and the mass of vapor adsorbed on per unit mass of the aggregate,
respectively. The straight line is fit only for partial vapor pressure,
Table 1 or p/p0, ranging from 0 to 0.35, as the BET equation is valid only for
Chemical composition of the two types of aggregates.
this range [33].
Properties Limestone Granite 1
nm ¼ ð9Þ
pH 8.8 7.1 SþI
Silicon dioxide, SiO2 (%) 3.8 68.1
R2O3 (Al2O3 + Fe2O3) (%) 18 16.2 The following relationship between the Gibbs free energy of
Aluminum oxide, Al2O3 (%) 1 14.8 adhesion DGaL;S , adhesion work W aL;S , contact angle h of a probe
Ferric oxide, Fe2O3 (%) 0.4 1.4 liquid (L), in contact with a solid (S), and surface energy character-
Magnesium oxide, MgO (%) 1.2 0.8
istics of both the liquid and solid was recommended by Good and
Calcium oxide, CaO (%) 51.3 2.4
Oss [23] according to the Young–Dupre equation.
938 S. Hesami et al. / Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941

Table 2
Physical properties of the aggregate.

Test Standard Limestone Granite Specification

Specific gravity (coarse agg.) ASTM C 127
Bulk 2.612 2.654 –
SSD 2.643 2.667 –
Apparent 2.659 2.692 –
Specific gravity (fine agg.) ASTM C 128
Bulk 2.618 2.659 –
SSD 2.633 2.661 –
Apparent 2.651 2.688 –
Specific gravity (filler) ASTM D854 2.640 2.656 –
Los Angeles abrasion (%) ASTM C 131 25.6 19 Max 45
Flat and elongated particles (%) ASTM D 4791 9.2 6.5 Max 10
Sodium sulfate soundness (%) ASTM C 88 2.56 1.5 Max 10–20
Fine aggregate angularity ASTM C 1252 46.65 56.3 Min 40

Table 3
Results of the experiments conducted on 60/70 penetration grade asphalt binder.
In 1863, Wilhelmy [35] first proposed an indirect measurement
Test Standard Result method, in which a plate is immersed into a liquid to measure con-
Penetration (100 g, 5 s, 25 °C), 0.1 mm ASTM D5-73 64 tact angle with the liquid. Since the plate is in motion (moving at a
Penetration (200 g, 60 s, 4 °C), 0.1 mm ASTM D5-73 23 few microns per second) during the process, this technique is
Penetration ratio ASTM D5-73 0.36
Ductility (25 °C, 5 cm/min), cm ASTM D113-79 112
known as a quasi-static contact angle measurement. Based on sim-
Solubility in trichloroethylene,% ASTM D2042-76 98.9 ple force equilibrium considerations, the difference between the
Softening point, °C ASTM D36-76 51 weight of a plate measured in air and partly submerged in a probe
Flash point, °C ASTM D92-78 262 liquid (DF) is represented through the buoyancy of the liquid, li-
Loss of heating, % ASTM D1754-78 0.75
quid surface energy, contact angle, and geometry of the plate. Thus,
Properties of the TFOT Residue
Penetration (100 g, 5 s, 25 °C), 0.1 mm ASTM D5-73 60 as can be observed in Eq. (12), the contact angle between the liquid
Specific gravity at 25 °C, g/cm3 ASTM D70-76 1.020 and surface of the plate can be estimated by this equilibrium.
Viscosity at 135 °C, cSt ASTM D2170-85 158.5
DF þ V im ðqL  qair  gÞ
cos h ¼ ð12Þ
Pt Ctotal
DGaL;S ¼ W aL;S ¼C total
L ð1 þ cos hÞ L

 0:5  where Pt is perimeter of the asphalt coated plate; Ctotal is total sur-
0:5 0:5 L
¼2 CLW LW
s C1 þ ðCþs C1 Þ þ ðCs Cþ1 Þ ð10Þ face energy of the liquid; h is dynamic contact angle between the
asphalt and the liquid; Vim is volume immersed in the liquid; qL
To calculate surface energy components of asphalt binder, the is density of the liquid; qair is air density; and g is local gravitational
fundamental Eq. (10) is used to measure the contact angles. In this force [34,36].
equation, the solid (S) is substituted by the asphalt under consider- Further details on measuring SFE components of aggregates and
ation and the liquid (L), which is known as a liquid with defined asphalt binders are beyond the scope of this paper and can be
surface energy characteristics, in this context. If the square roots found elsewhere [33,34,36].
of the three unknown surface energy components of the asphalt
are shown as x1, x2, and x3, Eq. (10) can be transformed as: 6. Results and discussion
h 0:5
i
0:5
Ctotal
L ð1 þ cos hÞ ¼ 2 ðCLW
l Þ  x1 þ ðCL Þ0:5  x2 þ ðCþL Þ  x3 ð11Þ 6.1. Mix design and hydrated lime content

The measured contact angle of a probe liquid with asphalt and The optimum asphalt-binder quantities in control samples
surface energy components of the probe liquid are placed into Eq. made with limestone and granite aggregates were found to be
(11) to create a linear equation with unknowns x1–x3. This 5.4% and 4.9%, respectively. It is noteworthy that the mix design
equation is similar to Eq. (6) in that it is applied to find the SFE was performed with the asphalt binder without any WMA and
components of an aggregate. anti-strip additives. Moreover, the preceding binder quantities
were used in all mixtures so that the amount of binder would
100
lower limit specified not confound the analysis of the test data.
90 In this study, the percent of hydrated lime that showed the best
testing
80 strength against moisture sensitivity was selected as optimum
Percent Passing (%)

upper Limit Specified

70 content of hydrated lime. The amount of hydrated lime used in this
60 study was 2% and 1.5% by the weight for granite and limestone
aggregate, respectively. The results of this test are presented in
50
Fig. 2.
40
30 7. Results and discussion of surface free energy method
20
10 7.1. Results and discussion of the surface free energy of aggregates and
0
asphalt binder
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Size (mm) The SFE asphalt binder components with and without WMA
additives were determined using the dynamic Wilhelmy plate
Fig. 1. Gradation of the aggregates used in the study. method. Table 4 shows the total SFE and its components of the
 S. Hesami et al. / Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941 939

asphalt binder with and without modifications. Asphalt binder is
acidic in nature. The acid and base components of AC 60/70 binder
obtained in this study were 1.45 and 0.65 ergs/cm2, respectively.
The results presented in Table 4 demonstrated that WMA additives
cause increments in acid component and reduction in asphalt bin-
der SFE base components. This is in line with previously reported
findings. In the case of an acidic aggregate and an acidic binder,
the surface chemistry of Lewis acids and bases does not favor adhe-
sion, and a good bond between an acidic aggregate and an acidic
binder is very difficult to obtain. Correspondingly, the increase in
the ratio between the asphalt binder acid to base SFE components
modified with WMA additives results in WMA susceptibility to
moisture damage. Moreover, results suggest that adding WMA
additives does not significantly change the total asphalt binder
SFE, although the total SFE in asphalt binders using WMA was low-
er. The findings of the current study are consistent with those of
Arabani et al. [8] who found that WMA additives cause an increase
in acid component and reduction in asphalt binder SFE base
components. This leads to decrease in adhesion between acidic
aggregate that is more sensitive to moisture damage and asphalt
binder.
90
indirect tensile strength ratio (%)
The SFE components of the aggregates with and without hy-
drated lime treatment were determined using the universal sorp-
tion device. The results are presented in Table 5. It is apparent
from this data that hydrated lime treatment reduces the acid SFE
and increases the base SFE of the two types of aggregates. As as-
phalt binder has acidic properties, these changes in SFE aggregate
components are favorable conditions for adhesion between asphalt
binder and granite aggregate, which are prone to stripping. In addi-
tion, hydrated lime causes a decrease in the acid-base component
of SFE. According to Peltonen research [37], high polarity of stone
surface is a sign of high silicon dioxide content. Therefore, decreas-
ing aggregate polarity would result in decreased aggregate surface
susceptibility to water, which has polar molecules [8]. These
changes in two types of aggregates show that hydrated lime is
more effective in treatment of granite aggregate. Table 5 shows
that the acid-base (polar) SFE of the limestone (149.63 ergs/cm2)
is much lower than the granite (354.88 ergs/cm2).
The results presented in Table 5 show that hydrated lime causes
non-polar components of SFE to increase in two types of aggregate.
The use of hydrated lime reduced total SFE of two types of
aggregate. Decrease in total SFE improves water retention of as-
phalt binder over the aggregate. However, it can be seen that
changes in total SFE in granite aggregate are more significant than
those of limestone aggregate. The total SFE of granite decreased

significantly, from 399.18 ergs/cm2 to 395.08 ergs/cm2.

85 The findings of the current study are consistent with other
researchers found that aggregate treatment (with suitable agents
80 such as polyethylene and hydrate lime) with the decrease in total
aggregate SFE causes improved asphalt binder water retention in
75 comparison to the aggregate [8,20].

70
7.2. Results and discussion of the surface free energy parameters
65
It is clear from Table 6 that asphalt binder-aggregate bonds are
60 much weaker than water-aggregate bonds, which is expected, gi-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ven that the SFE of water is higher than that of asphalt. The nega-
content of hydrate lime (%) tive values of SFE of adhesion in asphalt-aggregate-water showed
limestone aggregate granite aggregate that this system is thermodynamically unstable [13]. Based on
the results, the free energy of adhesion between water and granite
Fig. 2. The effects of hydrate lime content on tensile strength ratio.
aggregate was much greater than that between water and lime-
stone aggregate. This implies that the affinity of granite to water
is higher compared to limestone, in general.
The difference between surface free energies of asphalt-aggre-
Table 4 gate and water-aggregate caused aggregate stripping. Moreover,
Surface free energy components of asphalt binder with WMA. as this difference increases, so does the aggregate stripping ten-
Asphalt binder types AC 60/ AC with AC with
dency in the presence of water [8]. According to data presented
70 sasobit asphamin in Table 6, this parameter is higher in specimens made with un-
Total SFE, U (ergs/cm2) 15.63 14.50 13.12
treated aggregates, as using hydrated lime caused these values to
Lifitz-van der waal component, ULW 13.69 11.68 10.76 decrease. This implies that more energy is needed for stripping
(ergs/cm2) phenomena to occur, and the rate of moisture damage decreases.
Acid-base component, UAB 1.94 2.82 2.36 Furthermore, the difference between the free energy of adhesion
(ergs/cm2)
of aggregate-asphalt binder in dry and wet conditions is equal to
Acidic component, C+ (ergs/cm2) 1.45 2.96 2.67
Basic component, C (ergs/cm2) 0.65 0.57 0.52
the amount of energy released when stripping occurs. Thus, a high-
er difference corresponds to an increased stripping tendency of the

Table 5
SFE components of aggregate with and without hydrated lime (HL).

Types of aggregate Total SFE, U Nonpolar component, ULW Polar component, UAB Acidic component, C+ Basic component, C
(ergs/cm2) (ergs/cm2) (ergs/cm2) (ergs/cm2) (ergs/cm2)

Limestone 210.86 61.23 149.63 484.21 11.56

Limestone + HL 209.71 62.79 146.92 452.36 11.93
Granite 399.18 44.30 354.88 678.98 46.37
Granite + HL 395.08 46.38 348.70 628.31 48.38
940 S. Hesami et al. / Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941

Table 6
Surface free energy of adhesion.

Type of mixture Asphalt Water- Asphalt-binder in Difference between asphalt-aggregate Difference between asphalt-aggregate
binder- aggregate presence of water and water-aggregate surface energies surface energies in dry and wet
aggregate condition
Limestone + AC + sasobit 101.21 329.65 120.82 228.44 222.03
Limestone + AC + asphamin 94.18 122.56 235.46 216.74
Limestone + HL + AC + sasobit 100.87 323.68 114.95 222.82 215.82
Limestone + HL + AC + asphamin 93.95 116.56 229.74 210.50
Granite + AC + sasobit 111.58 394.09 177.82 282.51 289.41
Granite + AC + asphamin 103.50 180.94 290.59 284.44
Granite + HL + AC + sasobit 111.52 387.00 170.41 275.48 281.93
Granite + HL + AC + asphamin 103.56 173.36 283.44 276.92

system [8]. The results presented in Table 6 show that this differ-
ence is lower in mixture containing limestone compared to granite,
as modifying the aggregate surface with hydrated lime decreases
this difference, causing the mixture to be more resistant to mois-
ture damage. As can be seen from the Table 6, use of HL in mixtures
containing limestone and asphamin reduced the difference be-
tween the surface energy of binder-aggregates in dry and wet con-
dition, this means that the energy released in the mixtures
modified by HL will be low; forthis reason, the tendency to strip-
ping in these mixture is low.
8. Conclusion
This research has evaluated the mechanism of the effect of hy-
drated lime on moisture damage of warm mix asphalt by applying
the surface free energy method. The following conclusions can be
drawn from the present research:
1. WMA additives cause a significant increase in acid component
and reduction in asphalt binder SFE base components. This
leads to a decrease in adhesion between acidic aggregate that
is more sensitive to moisture damage and asphalt binder.
2. The free energy of adhesion between water and granite aggre-
gate is much greater than that between water and limestone
aggregate. This implies that the affinity of granite to water is
higher compared to limestone, in general.
3. Hydrated lime treatment reduces the acid SFE and increases the
base SFE of the two types of aggregates used in this study. These
changes in aggregate SFE components lead to a significant
improvement in adhesion between asphalt binder and acidic
aggregate that is more sensitive to moisture damage.
4. The use of hydrated lime decreases polarity of the aggregates;
consequently, it will decrease the tendency of aggregate sur-
face, which has polar molecules, to water.
5. Hydrated lime treatment with the decrease in total aggregate
SFE causes improved asphalt binder water retention in compar-
ison to the aggregate. Moreover, changes in total SFE in granite
aggregate are more significant than those of limestone
aggregate.
6. The difference between surface free energies of asphalt-aggre-
gate and water-aggregate is higher in samples made with
untreated aggregates, as using hydrated lime caused these val-
ues to decrease. This implies that more energy is needed for
stripping phenomena to occur, and the rate of moisture damage
decreases.
7. Use of hydrated lime causes a reduction in the difference
between the free energy of adhesion of aggregate-asphalt bin-
der in dry and wet conditions. Therefore, the released energy
in mixtures modified by hydrated lime is lower than other mix-
tures, which would result in reduction in the stripping.
8. Among the mixtures investigated in this study, use of asphalt
binder with asphamin, as a warm additive, in associated
with limestone aggregate that covered with hydrated lime
causes a mixture that has the best resistance against moisture
damage.
References
[1] Xiao F, Jordan J, Amirkhanian SN. Laboratory investigation of moisture damage
in warm-mix asphalt containing moist aggregate. Transport Res Rec J
Transport Res Board 2009;2126:115–24.
[2] Kennedy TW, Roberts FL, Lee KW. Evaluation of moisture effects on asphalt
concrete mixtures. Transport Res Rec J Transport Res Board 1983;911:134–43.
[3] Ayman W Ali. Laboratory evaluation of warm mix asphalt prepared using
foamed asphalt binders. M.Sc. thesis. Civil Engineering, Akron University;
2010.
[4] Hurley G, Prowell B. Evaluation of SasobitÒ for use in warm mix asphalt. NCAT
Report 05-06, Auburn; 2005.
[5] Kristjansdottir O, Muench S, Michael L, Burke G. Assessing potential for warm-
mix asphalt technology adoption. Transport Res Rec J Transport Res Board
2007;2040:91–9.
[6] Prowell B, Hurley G, Crews E. Field performance of warm-mix asphalt at
national center for asphalt center for asphalt technology test track. Transport
Res Rec J Transport Res Board 2007;1998:96–102.
[7] Wasiuddin N, Selvamohan S, Zaman M, Guegan M. Comparative laboratory
study of sasobit and aspha-min additives in warm-mix asphalt. Transport Res
Rec J Transport Res Board 2007;1998:82–8.
[8] Arabani M, Roshani H, Hamedi GHH. Estimating moisture sensitivity of warm
mix asphalt modified with zycosoil as an antistrip agent using surface free
energy method. J Mater Civil Eng 2012;24(7):889–97.
[9] Kima YR, Zhangb J, Ban H. Moisture damage characterization of warm-mix
asphalt mixtures based on laboratory-field evaluation. Constr Build Mater
2012;31:204–11.
[10] Mogawer W, Austerman A, Bonaquist R. Evaluating effects of warm-mix
asphalt technology additive dosages on workability and durability of asphalt
mixtures containing recycled asphalt pavement. In: The 88th Annual Meeting
of the transportation Research Board CD-ROM, Washington DC; 2006.
[11] Shu X, Huang B, Shrum ED, Jia X. Laboratory evaluation of moisture
susceptibility of foamed warm mix asphalt containing high percentages of
RAP. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:125–30.
[12] Xiao F, Zhao W, Gandhi T, Amirkhanian SN. Influence of anti-stripping
additives on moisture susceptibility of warm mix asphalt mixtures. J Mater
Civil Eng 2010;22(10):1047–55.
[13] Arabani M, Hamedi GHH. Using the surface free energy method to evaluate the
effects of polymeric aggregate treatment on moisture damage in hot-mix
asphalt. J Mater Civil Eng 2011;23(6):802–11.
[14] Button JW, Epps JA. Evaluation of methods of mixing lime in asphalt pavement
mixtures. Texas Hot Asphalt Pavement Association; 1983.
[15] Kristjansdottir O. Warm mix asphalt for cold weather paving. 1th
ed. Washington State Department of Transportation; 2006.
[16] Mercado AE. Influence of fundamental material properties and air void
structure on moisture damage of asphalt mixes. 1th ed. Texas A&M
University; 2007.
[17] Alvarez AE, Ovalles E, Caro S. Assessment of the effect of mineral filler on
asphalt–aggregate interfaces based on thermodynamic properties. Constr
Build Mater 2012;28(1):599–606.
[18] Elphingstone GM. Adhesion and cohesion in asphalt-aggregate systems. 1th
ed. Texas A&M University; 1997.
[19] Cheng DX, Little DN, Lytton RL, Holste JC. Use of surface free energy properties
of the asphalt-aggregate system to predict damage potential. J Assoc Asphalt
Paving Technol (AAPT) 2002;71:59–88.
[20] Moghadas Nejad F, Hamedi GH H, Azarhoosh AR. The use of surface free energy
method to evaluate the mechanism of the effect of hydrate lime on moisture
 S. Hesami et al. / Construction and Building Materials 47 (2013) 935–941
damage of hot mix asphalt. J Mater Civil Eng, in press, doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000650.
[21] Estakhri C, Button J, Alvarez AE. Field and laboratory investigation of warm
mix asphalt in Texas. 1th ed. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M
University System; 2010.
[22] Cheng D. Surface free energy of asphalt-aggregate system and performance
analysis of asphalt concrete. 1th ed. Texas A&M University; 2002.
[23] Good RJ, Oss CJ. The modern theory of contact angles and the hydrogen bond
components of surface free energies. In: Schrader ME, Loeb GI, editors. Modern
approaches to wettability: theory and application. New York: Plenum Press;
1992. p. 1–28.
[24] Sasol Wax. <http://www.sasolwax.com/Sasobit_Technology.html> [accessed
January 2011].
[25] Eurovia <http://www.aspha-min.com> [accessed January 2012].
[26] McCann M, Sebaaly PE. Evaluation of moisture sensitivity and performance of
lime in hot-mix asphalt – resilient modulus, tensile strength, and simple shear
tests. Transport Res Rec J Transport Res Board 2003;1832:9–16.
[27] Epps Martin A, Rand D, Weitzel D, Sebaaly P, Lane L, Bressette T, Maupin GW.
Topic 7: Field Experience. National seminar on moisture sensitivity of asphalt
pavements. San Diego, CA, February 4–6, 2003, p. 229–58.
[28] Little DN, Epps JA. The benefits of hydrated lime in hot-mix asphalt. Updated
By: Peter E. Sebaaly, Prepared for the National Lime Association; 2006.
941
[29] AASHTO T283. Standard method of test for resistance of compacted hot mix
asphalt (HMA) to moisture-induced damage. T283, Washington DC; 2004.
[30] ASTM. Standard test method for bulk specific gravity and density of non-
absorptive compacted bituminous mixtures. D2726, West Conshohocken, PA;
2010.
[31] ASTM. Test method for resistance of plastic flow of bituminous mixtures using
Marshall apparatus. D1559, West Conshohocken, PA; 1989.
[32] ASTM. Standard test method for theoretical maximum specific gravity and
density of bituminous paving mixture. D2041, West Conshohocken, PA;
2000.
[33] Bhasin A, Little D. Characterization of aggregate surface energy using the
universal sorption device. J Mater Civil Eng 2007;19(8):634–41.
[34] Hefer A, Bhasin A, Little D. Bitumen surface energy characterization using a
contact angle approach. J Mater Civil Eng 2005;18(6):759–67.
[35] Wilhelmy J. Über die Abhängigkeit der Kapillaritäts-Konstanten des Alkohols
von Substantz und Gestalt des Benetzten Festen Korpers. Ann Phys 1863;119:
177–217.
[36] Wasiuddin NM, Howell DC, Fogle CM, Zaman MM, O’Rear EA. Acid-base
characteristics of an asphalt binder with and without anti-Strip additives.
ASCE airfield and highway pavements conference, Atlanta, Georgia; 2006.
[37] Peltonen PV. Road aggregate choice based on silicate quality and bitumen
adhesion. J Transport Eng 1992;118(1):50–61.