Abstract: One of the primary factors affecting the durability of bituminous paving mixtures is the

moisture damage. Water damage can be understood as a loss of cohesion in the mixture or loss of adhesion between the bitumen and aggregate interface, that is stripping. The report discuss one of the water sensitivity test (AASHTO T-283) carried out to evaluate moisture sensitivity of the bituminous mix.

Objectives: The test is done to find out the following objectives Evaluation of Bituminous mix moisture sensitivity, dividing into two categories: visual inspection test and mechanical test. Indirect Tensile Strength (IDT) of bituminous mix of dry and wet sample. IDT ratio (wet strength/dry strength) or Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR). Prediction of stripping susceptibility of bituminous mix.

Introduction: Longevity of bituminous pavements is seriously affected due to the presence of moisture in the pavement. Moisture sensitivity of bituminous mixtures generally called stripping is a major form of distress in asphalt concrete pavement. Many factors (Ref fig 1) are involved in moisture sensitivity of bituminous mix such as characteristics of the asphalt binder and the aggregate and environmental effects during and after construction, and the use of anti-stripping additives, so the test method are required to closely simulate the real field condition to reflect these variables. Moisture sensitivity of bituminous mixtures is a complex phenomenon but it can be explained as the loss of adhesive bond between the binder and the aggregate or by a softening of the cohesive bonds within the binder, which happens due to loading under traffic in the presence of moisture.

Aggregate Composition

Degree of acidity

Type of mineral

Source of aggregate

Surface chemistry

Figure 1a : Showing the various factors affecting moisture sensitivity of bituminous mix.

Aggregate physical charecteristics Angularit y Surface roughness Surface area Gradation Pourosity Permeabil ity Dust & clay content Moisture content Resistanc e to degradati on

Figure 1b : Showing th various fac he ctors affecting moisture sen g nsitivity of bi ituminous mix x.

Mixture d design & con nst Air void & d compact tion Perm miability & dr rainage Anti-str ripping additi ives

Film thicknes ss

he g Figure 1c : Showing th various factors affecting moisture y r c sensitivity of bituminous mix under design and const.

Asphalt

Envion nmental

Chemi ical compos sition

Hardness

Source and e refining process

Temperature

Freezethaw cycle

Damp pness and pave ement age

Figure 1d Showing the various factors affecti moisture sensitivity of bituminous mix under asphalt d,e: f ing f and enviro onment class. .

Literature Review: Even tho ough moistur sensitivity of bitumino mixtures has been re re y ous s esearched for decades, it has t proven to be very dif o fficult to con nfidently predict this typ e of distress in the labor ratory becaus of se factors in nvolved. It can be viewed as a failure of the bond e ding of the b binder to the aggregate o a e or failure within the bin w nder itself (re fig3) due to the action of loading u ef t n under traffic in the prese c ence of moistu This dist ure. tress general begins at the bottom of a bitumin lly t nous layer an progresse nd es upward, which can be detected only after ope w ening the pa avement and observing th material. he Since stri ipping is usu ually difficul to identify from surfac examinati alone the potential fo lt y ce ion e or moisture sensitivity in bituminou mix are ev i us valuated thro ough laborat tory testing.

Figure 2 : Affect of moisture in bitumen. m b Tests can be put into three catego n ories:

1. Visual inspec V ction testing: The loose mixture is im : m mmersed in w water at room temperatu or m ure boiling water for a specif duration. The criteria of failure ar decided by visual r fic re y id dentification of stripped (uncoated) aggregate. B n a Boiling Wate TestASTM D 3625 er 2. Mechanical la M aboratory tes sting: The co ompacted m mixture is con nditioned in a manner th is hat in ntended to si imulate the real situation A compari r n. ison of the p physical cond ditions such as st trength or resilient modu of the co ulus onditioned a uncondit and tioned sampl is used to les o ev valuate the moisture sen m nsitivity. Indi irect Tensile Test and/or Modulus T e r TestASTM D 4867, AASHT T 283 TO L el ulates traffic loading in t laborator Test was c the ry. s 3. Loaded whee testing: IT tries to simu or riginal devel loped for rut tting test but have been f t found that it provides m t more accurate ely ev valuate mois sture sensitiv when pe vity erformed on saturated m mixtures. Most rese earchers con nsider that moisture dam m mage is more due to the a adhesive mod of failure than de e cohesive mode. Tun nicliff (8) usi the chem ing mical reaction theory of a n adhesion exp plained that stripping was the disp g placement of the asphalt binder film from the ag t m ggregate surf face. Lottman (30, 31), trie to replica field relat condition in the labo ed ate ted ns oratory. He noticed the behavior of water in the pore stru ucture of a bituminous m mixture loade by heavy traffic. He ed suggested some of th major moi d he isture damag mechanism (26): ge ms 1. The developm of pore water pressure in the m T ment mixture voids due to the r s repetition of f wheel-loads; thermal expansion and contraction p w c produced by ice formatio temperat y on, ture cy ycling above freezing, fr e reeze-thaw, and thermal shock; or a combination of these fa n actors (m mechanical disruption). d 2. Asphalt remo by water in the mixt A oval r ture at mode erate to high temperature es (e emulsificatio on). 3. Watervapor interaction with the asph filler ma W w halt astic and lar rger aggregat interfaces te s (a adhesion fail lure based on surface en n nergy theory) ). 4. Water interac W ction with cla minerals in the aggreg fines (a ay gate adhesion fail lure based on n ch hemical reac ction).

Figure 3 a,b : Showin the effect of vacuum on saturation & air void classificatio ng t n d on. Care needs to be take in the deg of satura en gree ation produc in the sam ced mple. Magn nitude and duration of vacuum (Ref fig 3a) applied determines the l evel of satur ( a ration. It has been found that, s d increasin the magnitude of vacu ng uum results in highly inc i creased level of saturati and ls ion

increasin the duratio of vacuum slightly in ng on m ncrease the sa aturation. In order to sim n mulate field condition saturation should be su which will be produc under the atmospheric pressure n s uch ce c condition in the field Water temp n d. perature dur ring vacuum saturation a plays an important r m also n role and shou ideally sim uld mulate field conditions. Apparat used: Fo tus ollowing are the apparatu which are used for the test. us e e Equipment fo preparation of samples E or s. Vacuum cont V tainer for ext tracting air bubbles from sample. b m o Water bath ca W apable of ma aintaining 60 Celsius tem 0 mperature. o Freezer that can maintain almost -18 Celsius tem c n mperature. Polythene bag and plastic film for pac g c cking the sam mple. Measuring cy M ylinder. Oven thermostatically con O ntrolled up to 176o Celsi temperat t ius ture. ID testing ap DT pparatus.

Procedure:

Fi igure 4: Gener layout of e ral experiment

1. Chose the gradat e tion of aggr regate and percentage of bitumen (here we use Semi D n Dense Bitumino Concrete For this th gradation of aggregate is shown in table 1). ous e. he e n pt 2. The mix is then ke at room temperature for 2 hour, and then kep at 60o Celsius temper m ept t rature for 16 ho then incr our, rease the tem mperature up to 110 Cel p lsius for 2 ho our. 3. Six sa amples are then prepared with bitu umen conten of 5.5% and by giv nt ving 65 blow for w Compact tion on each face. 4. After that maxim mum theoretical density (Gmm) and bulk densi (Gmb) of each samp is y d ity f ple ned. After th Air void (VA) is fo hat d ound out. Th VA shou be nearly about 7% (The he uld y Determin calculatio of VA is shown table 2a and 2b). on e 5. The sa amples are divided into two groups (one group i for dry tes and anothe for wet test) so d t ( is st er that their average VA is nearly eq r A qual. 6. For dr test the three samples are maintain at 25o C ry ned Celsius temp perature for 2 hour. After that IDT test is conducted The maxim d. mum applied load is note down. d ed

7. For wet test the three samples are first kept in vacuum container (contained water) for 10 minutes to reduce the air bubbles inside the samples. Then the samples are taken out the container and kept in water at room temperature for 10 minutes. After that it is packed in polythene packet and sealed it and kept in freeze maintaining -18o Celsius temperature. There the samples are kept for 16 hours. 8. After that the samples are removed from freeze and kept in water bath maintaining 60o Celsius temperature for 24 hour. 9. Then these are kept at temperature 25o Celsius temperature for 2 hour. After that the IDT test is carried out. 10. The cracked specimens are inspected for Stripping susceptibility.

Table 1: Gradation of aggregate and bitumen content Sieve size(mm) %passing % of Retain Wt of Aggregate. in gm 13.200 100.000 0.000 0.000 9.500 95.000 5.000 61.425 4.750 43.000 52.000 638.820 2.360 31.500 11.500 141.278 1.180 22.500 9.000 110.565 0.300 14.000 8.500 104.423 0.075 5.500 8.500 104.423 Dust 0.000 5.500 67.568 Total Aggregate content 1228.500 Bitumen (5.5%) 71.500

Table 2a: Calculation of Gmm (all weights in gm) BLANK BOTTLE (B) (gm) 473.5 473.5 473.5 473.5 473.5 473.5 BOTTLE + SAMPLE (C) (gm) 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 573.5 BOTTLE+ SAMPLE+ WATER (D) (gm) 1077.0 1073.5 1076.5 1074.0 1074.0 1076.0 BOTTLE+ WATER (E) (gm) 1014.5 1014.5 1014.5 1014.5 1014.5 1014.5 VOL. OF WEIGHT SAMPLE OF WITHOUT SAMPLE AIR VOID (W) (G-F) (gm) (gm) 37.5 100 41 100 38 100 40.5 100 40.5 100 38.5 100

Sr No

D-C (F) (gm) 503.5 500 503 500.5 500.5 502.5

E-B (G) (gm) 541 541 541 541 541 541

Gmm (W/GF) 2.666 2.439 2.631 2.469 2.469 2.597

1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 2b: Calculation of Gmm for new samples (all weights in gm) VOLUME OF WEIGHT SAMPLE OF WITHOUT SAMPLE AIR VOID (G-F) 82 200 81 200 82 200 81.5 200

Sr No

BLANK BOTTLE (B) 473.5 473.5 473.5 473.5

BOTTLE+ SAMPLE (C) 673.5 673.5 673.5 673.5

BOTTLE+SAM PLE+WATER (D) 1135.0 1136.0 1135.0 1135.5

BOTTLE +WATE R (E) 1017 1017 1017 1017

D-C (F)

E-B (G)

Gmm

1 2 3 4

461.5 462.5 461.5 462

543.5 543.5 543.5 543.5

2.439 2.469 2.439 2.454

Table 3a: Calculation of VA (all weights in gm) WEIGHT OF SAMPLE (W) (gm) 1174.5 1174 1178 1180.5 1183.5 1157 Height of sample (H) DIA. (cm) 10 10 10 10 10 10 H1 (cm) 6 6.5 6.1 6.5 6.8 6 H2 (cm) 6.2 6.5 6.1 6.7 6.4 6.1 H3 (cm) 6.1 6.6 6.2 6.6 6.4 6.3 H4 (cm) 5.9 6.7 6.1 6.5 6.6 6.1 AVG. H (cm) 6.05 6.575 6.125 6.575 6.55 6.125 VOLUME OF SAMPLE (V) (cc) 475.167 516.4005 481.0575 516.4005 514.437 481.0575

Sr NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gmb (W/V) 2.471763 2.273429 2.448772 2.286016 2.300573 2.405118

Gmm

VA (%)

2.666667 2.439024 2.631579 2.469136 2.469136 2.597403

7.308904 6.789401 6.946675 7.416337 6.826783 7.402961

Table 3b: Calculation of VA for new samples (all weights in gm) Dry wt of sample (gm) 1170 1170 1158.5 1175.5 Submerge wt of sample (gm) 666 665 662 668 Saturated wt of sample (gm) 1180 1177 1171.5 1185.5

Gmb

Gmm

VA(%)

Sr no. 1 2 3 4

2.276 2.285 2.274 2.271

2.439 2.469 2.439 2.454

6.673 7.451 6.774 7.436

Results:

In above the VA is calculated as VA = (1- Gmb/Gmm) 100 % The samples are divided as per following Dry sample group: SL1, SL2 and SL4 with average VA 7.128 Wet sample group: SL3, SL5 and SL6 with average VA 7.078 (SL = SL NO. in the above table) Tensile strength is calculated as St = (2000P)/ (3.1416tD) --(2) Where, St= Tensile strength in kpa P= Maximum load in N t= Specimen thickness in mm D= Specimen diameter in mm The IDT ratio or TSR is calculated as TSR= (Sum of tensile strength of wet samples)/ (Sum of tensile strength of dry Samples) --(3) --(1)

Table 4: Calculation of TSR Sample identification Parameters Diameter(mm) Thickness (mm) Dry Mass in Air, (gm) Bulk sp gr Max Sp gr % Air Voids Loads, N

D t A Gmb Gmm Pa P

Dry Samples 100 100 100 60.5 1174.5 2.472 2.667 7.309 9500 65.75 1174 2.273 2.439 6.789 9200 65.75 1180.5 2.286 2.469 7.416 10000

Freeze-Thawed Samples 100 100 100 61.25 1178 2.449 2.632 6.947 9200 65.5 1183.5 2.301 2.469 6.827 8900 61.25 1157 2.405 2.597 7.403 8800

Dry Samples 100 100 65.4 1170 2.276 2.439 6.673 8300 65.2 1170 2.285 2.469 7.451 7700

9 10 Freeze-Thawed Samples 100 100 64.9 1158.5 2.274 2.439 6.774 7500 65.9 1175.5 2.271 2.454 7.436 6800

Dry Strength (kPa) Wet Strength (kPa) Cracked/Brok en Aggregate? TSR

S1 S2

999.65 Yes (3%)

890.78 Yes (2%)

968.24 Yes (2%)

956.23 Yes (4%)

865.02

914.65

807.39

751.95 736.02 657.00 Yes (2%)

Yes Yes (1%) (3%) 0.934564576

Yes (2%)

Yes (2%)

Yes (1%)

Conclusion: 1. TSR value is 0.93 which is less than 1.0 (Ref table 3), indicates the effect of moisture conditioning and the disturbance given to the sample which reduce the indirect tensile strength. 2. In sample number 8 (Ref table 3) stripping was not visible, indicating that the failure in the samples were dominant due to cohesive failure (Ref fig 2) of binder and not binding stripping failure of aggregate. 3. Use of vacuum pressure for moisture saturation conditioning could play very notoriously if proper care is not taken. High vacuum pressure may itself damage the samples. Air void distribution in bituminous mix can be separated into two components, the air voids that are not accessible to water at atmospheric pressure and the air voids that are waterpermeable at atmospheric pressure. Vacuum pressure and duration may dictate level of saturation (Ref fig 3a). 4. The new samples tested where given only 60 blows on each face to reduce the air voids, compare to 65 blows to the old samples, this may be the reason of difference in the strength of the new and the old samples. 5. The laboratory test takes a longer time and hence is time consuming, other test may be used depending upon the suitability. 6. The test doesnt consider the traffic condition under the saturation condition over the sample and hence may not stimulate the field condition accurately. Instead the method takes the ratio of indirect tensile strength of conditioned and unconditioned samples (eq3). References: 1. Lowa Highway Research Board, Evaluation of hot mix asphalt moisture sensitivity using Nottingam asphalt test equipment. 2. Burak Sengoz and Emine Aga, Effect of asphalt film thickness on the moisture sensitivity characteristics of hot-mix asphalt. 3. AASHTO T-283 Standard Test Method for Effect of Moisture on Asphalt Concrete Paving Mixtures. 4. G.AIREY, Y.CHOI, State of the Art Report on Moisture Sensitivity Test Methods for Bituminous Pavement Materials.