ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Effect of asphalt film thickness on the moisture sensitivity characteristics

of hot-mix asphalt
Burak Sengoza,, Emine Agarb
a
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, 35160, Izmir, Turkey
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
Received 13 October 2006; received in revised form 13 October 2006; accepted 13 October 2006

Abstract

Temperature, air and water are the common factors that profoundly affect the durability of asphalt concrete mixtures. In mild weather
conditions, distresses such as permanent deformation, fatigue cracking can be encountered on the pavements due to traffic loading. But
when a severe climate is in question, these stresses increase in poor materials; under inadequate control; with traffic as well as with water
which are key elements in the degradation of asphalt concrete pavements. Many variables affect the amount of water damage in asphalt
concrete layer. Among them, mixture design properties such as air void level, permeability, asphalt content and asphalt film thickness are
the ones that must be investigated carefully.
This study is aimed to determine the relationship between the various asphalt film thicknesses and the susceptibility characteristics to
water of hot mix asphalt (HMA) so that an optimum asphalt film thickness that minimizes the moisture damage of HMA can be
obtained. For this purpose, the modified Lottman Test (AASHTO T283) is performed on the Superpave Gyratory compacted specimens
that contain 5 different asphalt film thicknesses. A good correlation between the asphalt film thickness and the modified Lottman test
results as well as an optimum asphalt film thickness of 9.5–10.5 mm is obtained.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Asphalt film thickness; Moisture susceptibility; Water damage; Stripping

1. Introduction Moisture damage in the asphalt concrete pavement occurs

Many highway agencies have been experiencing pre-
mature failures that diminish the performance and service
life of the pavements. One of the major causes of premature
pavement failure is the moisture damage of the asphalt
concrete layer. However, the causes of the increase in
pavement distress because of moisture susceptibility have
not been conclusively identified. Researchers suggest that
changes in asphalt binders, decreases in asphalt binder
content to satisfy rutting associated with increases in
traffic, changes in aggregate quality, increased widespread
use of selected design features and poor quality control are
primarily responsible for increased water sensitivity pro-
blems [1,2].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 232 412 7072; fax: +90 232 412 7253.
E-mail address: burak.sengoz@deu.edu.tr (B. Sengoz).
due to the loss of adhesion (stripping) or loss of cohesion (i.e.
softening of asphalt that weakens the bond between asphalt
and aggregate). The stripping of asphalt from the aggregates
results in the reduction of strength of asphalt concrete
mixture [2]. The reduction in strength may contribute to the
development of various forms of pavement deterioration such
as rutting, raveling, cracking [3].
Many variables affect the amount of the moisture
damage which occurs in an asphalt concrete mixture. The
characteristics of aggregate and asphalt concrete mixture
properties in terms of permeability, air voids and asphalt
film thicknesses are probably the most important factors
[4]. Researchers have carried out laboratory experiments
related to the effect permeability, air voids and aggregate
gradation on the moisture susceptibility of asphalt concrete
mixtures [1,4,5], however no experimental study has been
conducted for evaluating the effect of asphalt film thickness
on the water damage of hot-mix asphalt (HMA).

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3622 B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628

The objectives of this study are to conduct the modified Table 1

Lottman Test (AASHTO T 283) on the Superpave Factors which influence moisture damage [3]
Gyratory compacted samples that contain different asphalt 1. Aggregate
film thicknesses so as to obtain optimum asphalt film  Aggregate composition
thickness. In this way, relationship between the asphalt film J Degree of acidity
thickness and the moisture susceptibility of hot-mix asphalt J Surface chemistry
J Types of minerals
(HMA) can be determined.
J Source of aggregate

2. Factors affecting moisture susceptibility of asphalt  Physical characteristics

concrete pavement J Angularity
J Surface roughness
Moisture damage in asphalt concrete pavement is J Surface area
affected by many factors. The type of aggregate, both J Gradation
J Porosity
coarse and fine, must be examined carefully in evaluating J Permeability
the water damage of the mixture. Some aggregates such as
granite, gravel and other siliceous type materials are  Dust and clay coatings
sensitive to moisture and are prone to stripping when  Moisture content
incorporated in asphalt concrete. Other aggregates such as  Resistance to degradation
limestone are less susceptible to moisture damage [6]. In
2. Asphalt
some cases, the majority of the stripping takes place in the  Chemical composition
coarse aggregate portion of the mixture. In some cases, the  Hardness
fine aggregate is more moisture sensitive and most  Crude source and refining process
stripping occurs in that part of the mixture.
The second factor is the type of source of crude oil and 3. Mixture design and construction
 Air voids level and compaction
refining process which is used to manufacture the asphalt  Permeability and drainage
cement. Most asphalt cements are relatively inert in regard  Film thickness
to moisture damage. The asphalt cements, from one to
another; do not show much difference in the degree of 4. Environment
stripping. In other words, the source of asphalt cement is  Temperature
 Freeze-thaw cycles
much less dominant than the type of aggregate [7].  Dampness and pavement age
The third factor is the asphalt concrete mixture proper-
ties. The air void level and the permeability of the mixture, 5. Trafik
which are influenced by the degree of compaction, asphalt 6. Anti-stripping additives properties
cement and the aggregate gradation, are important since
they control the level of water saturation and drainage. At
high air void contents, above 6%, a given mixture can The summary of the factors that affect the amount of
suffer a considerable degree of moisture damage. Exception moisture damage are given in Table 1.
is made for open graded mixtures where air void levels of
15%–25% allow water to drain [8]. 3. Materials
The asphalt film thickness has also an influence on the
moisture susceptibility characteristics of HMA because it 3.1. Aggregate
affects durability of the mixture. Thick films which are
associated with black flexible mixtures are known to be The Superpave mixtures are produced with limestone
durable. On the other hand, thin films which are associated aggregate from Redland Genstar’s Frederick Maryland
with brownish, brittle mixtures tend to crack and ravel quarry. Although asphalt mixtures prepared with limestone
excessively thus shortening the service life of the pavement. aggregate are less susceptible to moisture damage, the
Mixtures with thick asphalt film are less susceptible to reason for the utilization of limestone aggregate is to
water damage than the mixtures with thin asphalt film since simulate the real pavement conditions in Turkey, where
very little quantities of water can move through the mixture most of the asphalt pavements are constructed using
that contains thick asphalt film thicknesses [8,9]. limestone aggregate. In order to find out the properties of
Environmental conditions and traffic affect the amount the aggregate used the sieve analysis, specific gravity, Los
of stripping which happens in a particular mixture. More Angeles abrasion resistance test, sodium sulfate soundness
moisture damage typically occurs in areas where there are test, fine aggregate angularity test, fractured faces, sand
considerable amount of rain and/or snowfall. Both the type equivalent and flat and elongated particles tests were
of traffic and the volume are important variables. As the conducted on each aggregate group. The results of these
traffic becomes heavier and as the truck volume increases, tests conducted on aggregate groups and specification
the amount of stripping becomes greater [9]. limits corresponding to each test method are presented in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628 3623

Table 2
Results of experiments conducted on aggregate groups

Test 7# 8# 10# Washed 10# Specification Spec. Limits

Bulk specific gravity 2.701 2.700 2.586 2.663 AASHTO T84/T85 —

Surface saturated SG. 2.717 2.710 2.646 2.687 AASHTO T84/T85 —
Apparent SG 2.736 2.730 2.729 2.729 AASHTO T84/T85 —
Absorption (%) 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.9 AASHTO T84/T85 —
Los angeles abrasion (%) 26 26 — — AASHTO T96 45% (max)
Sodium sulfate soundness 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.2 AASHTO T104 10—20% (max)
Fine aggregate angularity — — 45.6 45.6 AASHTO TP33 40% (min.)
Fractured faces (%) 100 100 100 100 PTM 621 —
Sand equivalent — . 89 89 AASHTO T176 40% (min.)
Flat and elongated particles 7.5 9.7 — — ASTM D4791 10% (max.)

Table 3 was calculated by multiplying the surface area factors given

Stockpile proportions and final 12.5 mm gradation in MS-2. [10], by the gradation values presented in Table 3.
Sieve no (mm) Passing %
The surface area factors are presented in Table 5. The
surface area factors used to calculate asphalt film thickness
19.0 100 (given in Table 5) are also adopted in Superpave Design
12.5 97 Method. For the aggregate gradation used, the surface area
9.5 87
was calculated to be 5.1827 m2/kg. This value was used in
4.75 58
2.36 35 the calculation of asphalt content corresponding to the
1.18 21 asphalt film thicknesses chosen in the study.
0.600 13 In this study asphalt paving mixtures were prepared at
0.300 9 each of the following five effective asphalt film thicknesses:
0.150 8
0.075 6.1
4.9, 5.8, 7.7, 9.6 and 11.4 mm. The utilization of these
thicknesses are based on the Shell Bitumen Handbook
which states that the average asphalt film thickness in
Table 2. As seen from Table 2, all results obtained from HMA ranges from 5 to 15 m [11]. The required asphalt
experiments are within Superpave Specification limits. contents corresponding to 4.9, 5.8, 7.7, 9.6 and 11.4 mm
After determining the properties of aggregate groups, asphalt film thicknesses were calculated as 3.08%, 3.58%,
mixture ratios were chosen based on the Superpave 4.56%, 5.5% and 6.45% taking the percentage of asphalt
consensus aggregate criteria related to control points and (unmodified PG 64-22) absorption for limestone aggregate
restricted zones for 12.5 mm nominal sized aggregate. Four into consideration.
stockpile proportion and final gradation is presented in The Modified Lottman Test (AASHTO T283) was then
Table 3. performed on the asphalt specimens prepared by using the
calculated asphalt contents mentioned above.
3.2. Asphalt cement The aim of the modified Lottman Test is to evaluate
susceptibility characteristics of the mixture to water
The asphalt cement used in each of the Superpave damage. This test is performed by compacting specimens
mixtures is an unmodified PG 64-22 obtained from the to an air void level of 7%71%. Three specimens are
Paulsboro, New Jersey Terminal of the Citgo Asphalt selected as a control and tested without moisture con-
Refining Company. An extensive testing program is ditioning; and three more are selected to be conditioned by
performed to characterize the rheological properties of saturating with water (55%–80% saturation level) followed
the asphalt cement using both conventional and Superpave by a freeze cycle (18 1C for 16 h) and subsequently having
tests. Table 4 summarizes the results of the tests conducted a warm-water soaking cycle (60 1C water bath for 24 h).
on PG 64-22 asphalt cement. The tests carried out (given in The specimens are then tested for indirect tensile
Table 4) complying with the Superpave requirements and strength (ITS) by loading the specimens at a constant rate
Specifications. As seen from Table 4, all results obtained (50 mm./min vertical deformation at 25 1C) and the force
from the experiments are within the Superpave Specifica- required to break the specimen is measured. The indirect
tion limits. tensile strength (ITS) of the conditioned specimens is
compared to the control specimens in order to determine
4. Experimental the tensile strength ratio (TSR).
In this study, specimens were sorted into two subsets
After the properties of the aggregate and the asphalt (both control and conditioned) of three specimens each
cement were determined, the surface area of the aggregate so that average air voids of two subsets are equal.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3624 B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628

Table 4
Results of the experiments conducted on PG 64-22 asphalt

Condition Test Specification Results Specification limits

Unaged asphalt
Specific gravity (25 1C) AASHTO T228 1.021 —
Viscosity, 135 1C ASTM D4402 0.420 Pa.s —
Viscosity 165 1C ASTM D4402 0.114 Pa.s —
Dynamic shear rheometer (G*/sin d), 10 rad/sec., 64 1C AASHTO TP5 1.260 kPa 1.00 kPa (min)
(Indicator to resistance to permanent deformation)
RTFO aged residue
Mass change AASHTO T240 0.14% —
Dynamic shear rheometer (G*/sin d), 10 rad/s., 64 1C AASHTO TP5 2.516 kPa 2.200 kPa (min)
(Indicator to resistance to permanent deformation)
PAV aged residue
Dynamic shear rheometer (G*/sin d), 10 rad/s., 25 1C AASHTO TP5 4154 kPa 5000 kPa (max)
(Indicator to fatigue cracking)
Bending beam Rheometer 60 s, 12 1C AASHTO TP1 209 MPa 300 Mpa (max)
(Indicator to low temperature cracking)
m value 60 s., 12 1C AASHTO TP1 0.342 0.300 (min.)

Table 5 dent variables. The independent variable is the asphalt film

Surface area factors thickness whereas the dependent variables whose values
Sieve no (mm) Surface area factor
were given in Tables 7 and 8 were the ITS test results for
the control and the conditioned specimens. Fig. 2 shows
19.0 0.41 the relationship between the asphalt film thickness and the
12.5 0.41 ITS test results of specimens.
9.5 0.41
Regression analysis leads to power functions in the data
4.75 0.41
2.36 0.82 as modeled by the following equations:
1.18 1.64
0.600 2.87
ITScontrol ¼ 8097:4 h1:0026 R2 ¼ 0:99 (1)
0.300 6.14
0.150 12.29 ITScond ¼ 5453:5 h0:8694 R2 ¼ 0:98 (2)
0.075 32.77
where ITScontrol is the Indirect tensile strength of control
specimens, kpa, ITScond the Indirect tensile strength of
conditioned specimens, kpa, h the Asphalt film thickness,
The specimens were prepared to give target air void content mm, R2 the Determination of coefficient.
level of 7%. A Superpave Gyratory Compactor was used A fairly good relationship was obtained between the
for this purpose. The total number of specimens tested asphalt film thickness and the ITS of control and
were 5 (asphalt film thickness)*2 (control and conditioned conditioned specimens both of which were compacted with
specimen)*3 (replicates) ¼ 30. The flow chart of the 7% air voids. Although the database is small, the very high
experimental study and design parameters are presented value of R2 (determination of coefficient) indicates that the
in Fig. 1 and Table 6 respectively. investigated functions exactly represent the relationship
between the asphalt film thickness and the ITS of speci-
5. Results and discussion mens. It should be noted the mentioned functions are only
valid between the asphalt thicknesses of 5–12 mm.
The ITS test results of control and conditioned speci- It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the slope of the curve
mens which are a part of the modified Lottman test are becomes steeper as the film thickness falls below a value of
given in Tables 7 and 8 respectively. about 9.5–10.5 mm. This indicates that the asphalt paving
In order to see the effect of the asphalt film thickness on mixture becomes more susceptible to water damage with a
the moisture susceptibility characteristics of the samples decrease in the asphalt film thickness below about
and to determine the optimum asphalt film thickness, 9.5–10.5 mm. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the
asphalt film thicknesses were plotted against the values of 9.5–10.5 mm asphalt film thickness can be accepted as an
ITS for both control and conditioned specimens. optimum asphalt film thickness that minimizes the
The concept of power regression analysis was used as a moisture damage of HMA.
tool to fit the observed data to the curve, which quantifies The ITS of the conditioned specimens was compared to
the relationship between the independent and the depen- the control specimens in order to determine the tensile
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628 3625

Preparation of asphalt concrete mixtures

using five different asphalt film thickness

Loose mix curing at 60 °C for 16 hours

Short term aging of loose mixture at 135

°C for 2 hours

Compaction

Indirect Tensile Application of partial vacuum in order to

Strength Test on determine level of saturation between
control specimens
(S1)

Freezing procedure of Thawing procedure of

compacted specimen at compacted specimen at
-18°C for 16 hours 60 °C for 24 hours

Indirect Tensile Strength

Test on conditioned
specimens
(S2)

Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR)=S2/S1

Fig. 1. The flow chart of the modified Lottman Test (AASHTO T283).

Table 6 values presented below:

Design parameters
Type of asphalt
Type of aggregate
Asphalt film thickness (mm)
Specimen conditions
Target air void level (%)
Tests performed
Replicates
Unmodified PG 64-22
Lime stone aggregate
4.9, 5.8, 7.7, 9.6, 11.4
Control and conditioned
7
Indirect tensile strength at 25 1C
3 that the resistance of asphalt mixtures to the detrimental
TSR ¼ 0:6735 h0:1332 R2 ¼ 0:92 (4)
2
The very high value of R indicates that the above
function represents the relationship between the asphalt
film thickness and TSR values of specimens.
Table 9 and Fig. 3 show that as the asphalt film thickness
increases, the TSR values increase as well. This indicates
effect of water decrease with increase in asphalt film
thickness.

strength ratio (TSR) which is calculated with the following
equation:
S2
TSR ¼
S1
where S1 is the Average indirect tensile strength of control
specimen, S2 the Average indirect tensile strength of
conditioned specimen.
The results are presented in Table 9.
TSR values were then drawn corresponding to each
asphalt film thickness that is given in Fig. 3.
Power regression gave an acceptable model for the
relationship between the asphalt film thickness and TSR
6. Conclusions and recommendations
Moisture damage in asphalt mixtures is a complex
(3) mechanism which is not well understood and has many
interacting factors. The effect of the asphalt film thickness
on the moisture damage in HMA is one of the factors and
has not been investigated. Therefore the main objective of
the study is to evaluate moisture susceptibility character-
istics of HMA in terms of asphalt film thickness and the
following conclusions can be drawn:
 The relationship between the asphalt film thickness and
the ITS of control and conditioned specimens as well as
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3626 B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628

Table 7
Indirect tensile strength tests results of the control specimens

Specimen no Asphalt film Air void (%) Average air void (%) Indirect tensile Average indirect
thickness (mm) strength (kpa) tensile strength (kpa)
(S1)

1A 4.9 6.8 6.9 1655.05 1677.412

1B 7.0 1683.05
1C 7.0 1694.14
2A 5.8 6.9 7.1 1369.07 1339.603
2B 7.2 1262.30
2C 7.3 1387.44
3A 7.7 6.5 6.7 1106.94 1079.846
3B 7.0 1057.06
3C 6.7 1075.54
4A 9.6 6.6 6.8 858.074 820.588
4B 7.0 864.637
4C 6.7 739.052
5A 11.4 6.5 6.9 702.258 711.207
5B 7.0 719.24
5C 7.1 712.124

Table 8
Indirect tensile strength tests results of the conditioned specimens

Specimen Asphalt film Air void (%) Average air void Level of Indirect tensile Average indirect
thickness (mm) (%) saturation (%) strength (kpa) tensile strength
(kpa) (S2)

1A 4.9 7.0 6.9 60.7 1418.56 1389.938

1B 7.0 72.2 1464.010
1C 6.8 60.2 1287.240
2A 5.8 7.3 7.1 61.6 1139.920 1131.126
2B 6.9 61.5 1187.500
2C 7.2 58.9 1065.950
3A 7.7 6.7 6.7 67.1 985.661 976.509
3B 6.6 65.2 1068.315
3C 6.8 59.3 875.551
4A 9.6 6.7 6.8 65.5 734.936 747.192
4B 6.9 64.1 796.691
4C 6.8 64.0 709.948
5A 11.4 6.9 6.8 66.4 656.290 655.094
5B 6.3 69.2 653.898
5C 7.2 73 653.459

tensile strength ratio values are quantified by regression
analysis. The very high determination of coefficient
indicates that the functions exactly represent the
relationship between the asphalt film thickness and
moisture sensitivity characteristics of the samples.
 Optimum range of asphalt film thickness obtained from
the figures plotted between the asphalt film thickness
and the modified Lottman test (AASTHTO T283)
results is between 9.5 and 10.5 mm.
 The results of the TSR lead to the conclusion that as the
asphalt film thickness increases, the TSR values increase
as well. This indicates that the detrimental effect of
water decrease with increase in asphalt film thickness.
 The modified Lottman Test (AASHTO 283) includes the
short term aging of hot mix asphalt namely the aging of
asphalt concrete during mixing, transporting and
compacting. Since the effect of long term aging and
water damage occurs simultaneously during the service
life of the pavement, long term aging laboratory tests
representing the aging of asphalt binder during the
service life of the road should be adopted in AASHTO
T283 method.
 The asphalt film thickness calculation is based on the
surface area factors and the percentage of absorbed
asphalt. Further research concerning the measurement
of the asphalt film thickness using recently developed
image processing techniques may be helpful.
 In conclusion, since one type of aggregate and
performance graded asphalt cement were utilized, the
authors recommend to conduct more experiments using
different aggregate and asphalt cement combinations for
this purpose.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628 3627

Indirect Tensile Str. of conditioned Specimens

Indirect Tensile Str. of control Specimens
Regression line between asphalt film thickness and ITS of control specimens
Regression line between asphalt film thickness and ITS of conditioned specimens

1900

Average Indirect Tensile Strenght (kpa)

1700
ITScontrol = 8097.4h-1.0026
R2 = 0.99
1500

1300

1100

900
-0.8694
ITScond. = 5453.5h
R2 = 0.98
700

500
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
Asphalt Film Thickness (micronmeter)

Fig. 2. Relationship between the asphalt film thickness and the indirect strength test results of the control and conditioned specimens.

Table 9
Tensile strenght ratios (TSR) correponding to the asphalt film thicknesses

Asphalt film thickness (mm) TSR (S2/S1)

4.9 0.83
5.8 0.84
7.7 0.90
9.6 0.91
11.4 0.92

TSR valuesof compacted specimens

Regressionline between asphaltfilm thickness and TSRvalues of specimens
0.94

0.92

0.90
TSR Value

TSR = 0.6735h0.1332
R2 = 0.92
0.88

0.86

0.84

0.82
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
Asphalt Film Thickness (micronmeter)

Fig. 3. Relationship between the asphalt film thickness and the indirect tensile strength ratio (TSR).

References concrete mixtures, Transportation Research Board, 75th Annual

Meeting, Washington DC, 1996.
[1] Epps JA, Sebeally PE, Penerande J, Maher MR, Hand JA. [3] Solaimanian M, Kennedy TW, Elmore WE. Long term evaluation of
Compatibility of a test for moisture induced damage with Superpave
stripping and moisture damage in asphalt pavements treated with
Volumetric Mix Design, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Report No: 444, Washington DC, 2000. lime and anti-stripping agents. Texas Department of Transportation,
[2] Tandon V, Vemuri N, Nazarian S. Evaluation of environmental Report No: CTR 0-1286-1F, Center of Transportation Research,
conditioning system for predicting moisture susceptibility of asphalt University of Texas at Austin, 1993.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3628 B. Sengoz, E. Agar / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3621–3628
[4] Kennedy TW. Laboratory tests for water susceptibility. Proceedings
of the Annual Meeting of Texas Hot mix Asphalt Pavement
Association, Report No: FHWA-DP 39-36, 1982. p. 160–189.
[5] Graf EG. Factors affecting moisture susceptibility of asphalt concrete
mixtures. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 1986;55:176–204.
[6] Proctor J. Marginal and low quality moisture susceptible aggregates
in bituminous mixtures Final report, Colorado Department of
Highways, Report No:CDOH-SBM-R-82-S, 1984.
[7] Mullins TE. Affect of hot asphalt on anti-strip. A paper presented at
the annual meeting of Western Cooperative Test Group, Montana,
1983.
[8] Stuart KD. Moisture damage in asphalt mixtures-a state of art
report, Federal Highway Administration, 1990.
[9] Scherocman JA, Mesch KA, Proctor J. The effect of multiple freeze
thaw cycle conditioning on the moisture damage in asphalt concrete
mixture. Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 1986;55:
213–27.
[10] The Asphalt Institute, Mix design methods for asphalt concrete and
other hot mix types, The Asphalt Institute, MS-2, Sixth edition,
1993.
[11] Whiteoak D, Read JM. The Shell bitumen handbook. London:
Published by Thomas Telford Services Ltd; 2003.