You are on page 1of 13

Construction and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Eect of aggregate properties on asphalt mixtures stripping and creep behavior


Saad Abo-Qudais, Haider Al-Shweily
*
Civil Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan Received 23 July 2004; received in revised form 24 July 2005; accepted 31 July 2005 Available online 26 March 2007

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to look at some aspects of the eects of aggregate chemical and physical properties on the creep and stripping behavior of hot-mix asphalt (HMA). Two types of aggregates evaluated in this study were limestone and basalt. The eects of the aggregates type were evaluated on three dierent aggregate gradations and two types of asphalt used in preparing the HMA. The percent of increase in static creep strain of HMA due to conditioning was utilized in this study to assess the stripping. Test results indicated that unconditioned HMA specimens prepared using basalt aggregate resist creep better than those prepared using limestone. However, after conditioning, mixes prepared using basalt were less resistant to creep strain than those prepared using limestone aggregate. Percent absorbed asphalt was found to be directly related to stripping resistant. Also, mixes prepared using aggregate following ASTM upper limit of dense aggregate gradation presented the highest resistance to stripping. The results of the calculated adhesion work were able to detect the eect of stripping on creep behavior for mixes prepared. 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Asphalt mixes; Stripping; Performance evaluation; Aggregate gradation

1. Introduction Asphalt pavement failure is a complicated phenomena. It is a result of cumulative damage in dierent pavement layers [11]. The inuence of moisture on hot-mix asphalt (HMA) stripping is dicult to characterize due to the presence of many factors aecting this damage. One of the major problems aecting the performance of hot-mix asphalt is stripping. Many studies indicated that asphalt binder chemistry, aggregate mineralogy, aggregate surface texture, and the interaction between asphalt and aggregate signicantly affect moisture susceptibility. The large numbers of dierent aggregate mineralogies and the dierent types of asphalt binders used across the world, coupled with varied environmental conditions, trac, and construction practices, have

Corresponding author. E-mail address: aboqdais@just.edu.jo (H. Al-Shweily).

made testing to predict accurately hot-mix asphalt moisture susceptibility a dicult task [12]. Aggregate mineral and chemical composition, exposure history (e.g., freshly crushed versus days of exposure to environmental weathering after crushing) have signicant eects on stripping. Hydrophilic (water loving) aggregates should be avoided unless an antistripping additive is used. Angular aggregates, sometimes, increase the stripping potential. This can be explained by the fact that angular aggregates increase the potential of lm rupture at the aggregate sharp edges [12]. Using high-viscosity asphalt produces hot-mix asphalt with higher resistance to stripping. However, low viscosity asphalt is desirable during mixing operations, since low viscosity asphalt has more spreading ability which produces better aggregate coating during mixing [12]. Variations in temperature, freezethaw cycles, and wettingdrying cycles increase the stripping potential. Also, the nature of the water to which the mix is exposed (salt content, pH) aects stripping. Trac imposes cyclic

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.07.014

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

1887

loading on pavement as well as abrasion of its surface; in addition, trac will increase the pore water pressure, leading to an increase of stripping potential [12]. Many studies were performed to evaluate stripping and its eect on pavement performance. Abo-Qudais and AlShweily [2] evaluated 24 dierent HMA types using dierent mix parameter combinations for the eect of stripping on static creep deformation. The mix parameters include; two types of asphalt cement (60/70 and 80/100 penetration grade), three types of aggregate gradations, two types of additives, and two modes of conditioning (conditioned and unconditioned). The ndings of this study indicated that conditioning of HMA specimens has a signicant effect on the increase of creep deformation. This is especially true for open-graded aggregate gradation mixes. Also, aggregate gradation, asphalt type, and the type of antistripping additive have a considerable eect on creep deformation. This is especially true for conditioned specimens. For both conditioned and unconditioned mixes prepared using mid limits and upper limit of ASTM specication for dense graded aggregate gradations, the creep deformation of mixes prepared using 80/100 asphalt was less than that for mixes prepared using 60/70 asphalt and tested at the same temperature. The opposite trend was noticed for conditioned specimens prepared using open-graded aggregate gradation, the creep deformation of mixes prepared using 80/100 asphalt was more than that for mixes prepared using 60/70 asphalt. Antistripping additives showed a signicant eect on reducing stripping and creep behavior. Mixes prepared using calcium stearate hydroxide antistripping additive showed less stripping and creep deformation than those containing limestone dust additive. In another study, Abo-Qudais [1] studied the eect of using dierent evaluation techniques on the predicted stripping of 24 dierent HMA combinations prepared using different mix parameters. Similar mix parameters as those in a previous study were used. The stripping evaluation techniques include percent reduction in both indirect tensile strength and Marshall stability, percent increase in creep due to stripping, in addition to stripping visual evaluation using the Texas boiling test. The ndings of this study indicated that the estimated stripping is aected signicantly by the method of evaluation. The reduction in indirect tensile strength and Marshall stability were found to be less sensitive to stripping than the percent increase in creep. Also, percent increase in creep was the only one among the methods used that was able to determine the eect of used asphalt and aggregate gradation on the stripping of HMA. Guirgus et al. [8] investigated the use of cement-coated aggregate mixtures to improve the pavement performance. It was found, that the resistance of cement-coated aggregate mixtures to the action of water is as high as those treated with hydrated lime, and the retained strength after immersion in hot water is almost 100%. Portland cement has been used as an agent in hot-mix bituminous mixtures to prevent stripping of asphalt cement

from aggregate. It has been reported, that the addition of 1% of Portland cement will increase stability by 250 300% over that of untreated hot-mix asphalt. Also, Flexural fatigue resistance was increased when cement treated aggregate mixtures were used [7]. Maupin [10] performed eld investigations on the eectiveness of antistripping additives in Virginia. The results of the study indicated that signicant visual stripping was detected at many sites, also chemical additives performed no better than hydrated lime. The pavement voids at many sites were too high for good durability. The degree of stripping damage in underlying layers could inuence performance at many sites. In another study, Maupin [9] used Lottmans test to evaluate the eect of dierent types of asphalt cements and antistripping agents on the stripping susceptibility of HMA. The results indicated that the new test method measured no dierences in stripping susceptibility of HMA with dierent types of asphalts, while signicant dierences in stripping susceptibility were detected when dierent additives were used. Brown and Bassett [5] evaluated ve hot-mix asphalt mixes with dierent maximum aggregate sizes of crushed limestone used in preparing the specimens. The asphalt content of all mixes was selected to provide air void content of 4%. Specimens were evaluated using the Marshall, indirect tensile strength, creep, and resilient modulus tests. The creep test results indicated that the permanent strain of 4 in. specimens increased with an increase in the maximum size of aggregate. 2. Objectives The main purpose of this paper was to evaluate the effects of aggregate and its properties on stripping and creep behavior of HMA. To accomplish this, a laboratory study was initiated to evaluate the eect of aggregate properties on stripping and creep behavior susceptibility of HMA. 3. Laboratory program 3.1. Variables The eect of aggregate type on HMA stripping and creep behavior were evaluated at dierent mix parameters including three aggregate gradations, two types of asphalt, and two mode of conditioning, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1. In an earlier study by Abo-Qudais [1] the eect of aggregate gradation and asphalt type on HMA prepared using limestone aggregate was evaluated. In the present study, dierent parameters were evaluated for their eect on mixes prepared using either limestone or basalt aggregate. Half of the specimens were exposed to conditioning while the other half were tested without conditioning, three specimens were tested at each mix parameter and conditioning combination.

1888

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

HMA Specimens (72 specimens)

Limestone (36 specimens)

Basalt * (36 specimens)

Gradation A** (12 specimens)

Gradation B (12 specimens)

Gradation C ** (12 specimens)

60/70 Asphalt (6 specimens)

80/100 Asphalt *** (6 specimens)

Conditioned (3 specimens)

Unconditioned (3 specimens)

*Same variables as those for limestone aggregate were considered. ** Same variables as those for gradation B aggregate were considered. *** Same variables as those for 60/70 Asphalt were considered.

Fig. 1. Evaluated hot-mix parameters and conditioning mode. Table 1 Experimental design Variable Aggregate type Gradation Limestone aggregate Basalt aggregate Gradation A Gradation B Gradation C 60/70 Asphalt 80/100 Asphalt Conditioned Unconditioned Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 Number of variables 2 3 Cumulative number of samples 2 6

was obtained from Al-Huson quarries in the northern part of Jordan, while basalt was obtained from Al-Safawi in the eastern part of Jordan. Table 2 summarizes the physical properties of these aggregates; While Table 3 summarizes the chemical composition of the two aggregates. For each aggregate type, three aggregate gradation were evaluated:  Gradation A. Upper limit of ASTM specications for dense aggregate gradation. The nominal size of this gradation was 12.5 mm.  Gradation B. Mid limits of ASTM specications for dense aggregate gradation. The nominal size of this gradation was 19.0 mm.  Gradation C. Mid limits of ASTM specications for open aggregate gradation. The nominal size of this gradation was 19.0 mm. Fig. 2 shows the aggregate size distribution of the three gradations. 3.2.2. Asphalt Two types of asphalt cement with dierent penetrations were used in this study:  Asphalt 1. Performance grading (PG) 7010, 60/70 penetration grading, and AC-20 viscosity grading.

Asphalt type Conditioning Repetition

2 2 3

12 24 72

3.2. Materials The materials used in this study were dierent types of aggregate and asphalt and are described as follows. 3.2.1. Aggregate Aggregate from two sources were utilized in asphalt mixtures: crushed limestone and basalt. The limestone

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898 Table 2 Physical properties of aggregate used Aggregate ASTM test designation Dry bulk specic gravity Limestone Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Mineral ller C127 C128 C128 2.424 2.485 2.552 Basalt 2.531 2.632 2.692 Apparent specic gravity Limestone 2.573 2.590 2.625 Basalt 2.621 2.680 2.710 Absorption (%) Limestone 3.1 4.6 5.1

1889

Basalt 3.1 3.6 5.0

Table 3 Chemical composition of aggregates used Compound SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 FeO MgO CaO Na2O K2O H2O CO Limestone 1.1 0.86 2.0 0.86 54.6 41.8 Basalt 1.7 17.9 7.2 1.0 2.8 6.9 4.2 1.6 1.2

Table 4 Properties of asphalt used Test Methods Result AC 60/70 Ductility at 25 C (cm) Penetration at 25 C, 100 g (0.1 mm) Softening point (C) Flash point (C) Fire point (C) Specic gravity at 25 C ASTM D113 ASTM D5 ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM D36 D92 D92 D70 110 64 50 319 325 1.010 AC 80/100 118 92 45.5 312 318 1.010

 Asphalt 2. PG 5822, 80/100 penetration grading, and AC-30 viscosity grading. The two asphalt types were obtained from a local petroleum renery. Table 4 summarizes the physical properties of the asphalts. 3.3. Mix design methodology (optimum asphalt content) To determine the optimum asphalt content by weight of total mix, for each aggregate gradation, Marshall mix design procedures (ASTM D1559) were followed. The Mar100

shall compaction method was used instead of the Gyratory compaction method, because HMA specimens prepared using basalt aggregate and compacted by Gyratory compactor were found to have high air voids even when a high number of gyrations was used. Three specimens of each asphalt content (3.0%, 3.5%, 4.0%, 4.5% and 5.0% for mixes prepared using gradation C, and 4.5%, 5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0% and 6.5% for mixes prepared using gradations A and B) were prepared. A total of 45 specimens were tested for stability, ow, air voids, unit weight, and voids in mineral aggregate. The optimum asphalt content was calculated as the average of asphalt content that meets maximum stability,

Upper limit of ASTM for dense aggregate gradation

(A) (B) (C)

90 80 70

Mid limits of ASTM for dense aggregate gradation Mid limits of ASTM for open aggregate gradation

Percent Passing

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01

0.1

10

100

Seive opening (mm)


Fig. 2. Aggregate gradation of aggregates used.

1890

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

maximum unit weight, and 4% air voids. The resulting optimum asphalt content was checked whether it achieved the specication limits of the ve parameters (stability, ow, air voids, unit weight, and voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)). The resulting optimum asphalt content of mixes prepared using limestone aggregate were 5.6%, 5.3%, and 4.2% for mixes prepared using gradation A, B, and C, respectively, while for mixes using basalt aggregate the optimum asphalt content was 5.7%, 5.4%, and 4.4% for mixes prepared using gradation A, B, and C, respectively. 3.4. HMA specimens fabrication The specimens were prepared according to the Asphalt Institute Manual (MS-2). The asphalt cement and aggregate (limestone or basalt) were mixed at 164 and 155 C for specimens prepared using asphalt 1 and asphalt 2, respectively. The HMA specimens were compacted using the Marshall compactor at about 148 and 143 C for specimen prepared using asphalt 1 and asphalt 2, respectively. 3.5. Moisture conditioning The moisture conditioning was used to evaluate the eects of water saturation and accelerated water conditioning with a freezingthawing cycle of compacted bituminous mixtures in the laboratory. The hot-mix asphalt specimens conditioning was performed according to AASHTO T283 by immersing the specimens in water and exposing them to a vacuum for 10 min to achieve saturation levels between 55% and 80%. Then the specimens were exposed to freezing at a temperature of 18 3 C for 16 h and thawing at 60 C for 24 h. The conditioned specimens were left for 24 h before performing the creep test. The eect of conditioning on HMA stripping was evaluated using the static creep test. The results of creep tests on conditioned specimens were com-

static creep test was conducted, at 30 C, using the Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The tests were performed according to the following procedures: after capping the two sides of the specimen, it was placed in the loading machine, Fig. 3, under a conditioning stress (initial loading) of 10 kPa for 10 min. Then the conditioning stress was removed and a stress of 100 kPa was applied for 1 h, after which the load was removed and the deformation recovery was monitored for 15 min. Three specimens were evaluated for the same: type of aggregate, type of asphalt, type of aggregate gradations, and mode of conditioning. The initial height of the specimens was measured before capping, while the axial deformation was monitored during the creep test using the linear vertical displacement transducers (LVDTs). Accumulated microstrain was calculated as the ratio between the measured deformation to the initial specimen height according to the following equation: e Dh=h0 ; 1

where e is the accumulated microstrain occurred in the specimen during a certain loading time at a certain temperature, h0 is the initial specimen height (the initial distance between specimen loading surfaces) (mm), and Dh is the axial deformation (reduction in distance between specimen loading surfaces) (mm 106). Creep test results for dierent mixes and conditioning are summarized in Figs. 49; while Fig. 10 and Table 6 summarize the percent increase in creep after 60 min of loading. It should be noted that each point on these gure represent the average results of three specimens prepared from the same mix parameters and tested under the same conditions. The stripping eect on creep behavior was evaluated based on percent increase in creep due to conditioning. It was calculated by dividing the dierence in creep value between unconditioned and conditioned specimens on that of unconditioned specimens

%Increase in creep

Creep of conditioned specimens Creep of unconditioned specimen 100%. Creep of unconditioned specimen

pared to those on unconditioned (control) specimens (see Table 5). 3.6. Static creep test This test is considered to be very important in obtaining data for estimating potential deformation of vehicle wheel paths and ranking bituminous mixtures on the basis of their resistance to permanent deformation. The creep test was selected, for the evaluation of stripping in this study. Based on a previous study by Abo-Qudais [1], the creep test proved to have a better capability to predict stripping than the tensile strength ratio or the Marshall stability ratio. The

3.7. Adhesion and cohesion works analysis The attraction force between asphalt and aggregate was analyzed for dierent combinations of asphalt and aggregate types. This attraction force across the interphase was measured as the reversible work of adhesion by using Dupres relationship [3] W adh cs cb csb ; 3

where Wadh is the work of adhesion between asphalt and aggregate, cb is the surface tension of asphalt, cs is the surface tension of aggregate, and csb is the interfacial tension between asphalt and aggregate.

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898 Table 5 Properties of dierent evaluated HMA mixtures Gradation used Property

1891

Type of aggregate used in preparing HMA specimens Limestone Basalt 5.7 1220 11.2 2.49 2.52 2.48 0.023 5.0 5.1 4.9 0.100 14.5 14.5 14.4 0.057 5.4 1120 10 2.46 2.49 2.4 0.052 4.8 5.2 4.6 0.321 14.1 15.2 13.5 0.953 4.4 525 15.8 2.25 2.28 2.24 0.023 12.3 14.2 10.9 1.653 18.6 18.9 18.4 0.264

Optimum asphalt content (%) Stability (kgf) Flow (0.25 mm) Bulk specic gravity

Air voids (%)

Voids in mineral aggregates (%)

Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation

5.6 1483 16 2.42 2.45 2.40 0.026 4.8 5.0 4.7 0.173 13.7 14.2 13.0 0.610 5.3 1426 16.5 2.31 2.36 2.27 0.040 4.1 4.4 3.9 0.261 13.1 14.1 12.5 0.814 4.2 665 12.8 2.24 2.25 2.24 0.006 12.8 13.4 13 0.721 16.8 17.3 16.0 0.682

Optimum asphalt content (%) Stability (kgf) Flow (0.25 mm) Bulk specic gravity

Air voids (%)

Voids in mineral aggregates (%)

Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation

Optimum asphalt content (%) Stability (kgf) Flow (0.25 mm) Bulk specic gravity

Air voids (%)

Voids in mineral aggregates (%)

Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation Mean Maximum Minimum Standard deviation

Here, cb and cs were determined by measuring the contact angle of a series of test liquids, with known surface tension, placed on the asphalt and aggregate, respectively. The following equation was then applied: cb c1 1 cos / ; 4U2
2

Similarly, the surface tension of the asphalt (cs) was determined. The interfacial surface tension between asphalt and aggregate (csb) was determined from asphalt and aggregate surface tensions using the following formula: cbs cb cs 2Ucb cs
1=2

where c1 is the surface tension of test liquid, / is the measured contact angle between aggregate and test liquid, and U is the factor function of molar volume of asphalt and aggregate, can be assumed equal to 1.0 [3].

The attraction force in the asphalt body itself was measured as the reversible work of cohesion, for the cohesion work in asphalt [3] W coh 2cb ; 6 where Wcoh is cohesion work.

1892

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

Fig. 3. Static creep test setup.

16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Accumulated microstrain

Limeston aggregate, conditioned Basalt aggregate, conditioned Limeston aggregate, unconditioned Basalt aggregate, unconditioned

Time (second)
Fig. 4. Eect of aggregate type and conditioning on creep of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using 60/70 asphalt, and mid limits for dense aggregate gradation.

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898


16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 500 1000

1893

Accumulated microstrain

Limeston aggregate, conditioned Basalt aggregate, conditioned Limeston aggregate, unconditioned Basalt aggregate, unconditioned
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Time (second)
Fig. 5. Eect of aggregate type and conditioning on creep of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using 80/100 asphalt, and mid limits for dense aggregate gradation.

16000 14000

Accumulated microstrain

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Limeston aggregate, conditioned Basalt aggregate, conditioned Limeston aggregate, unconditioned Basalt aggregate, unconditioned

Time (second)
Fig. 6. Eect of aggregate type and conditioning on creep of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using 60/70 asphalt, and upper limit for dense aggregate gradation.

The results gave attraction forces (adhesion and cohesion), for dierent combinations of asphalt and aggregate types, which were used in explaining why a certain combination of asphalt and aggregate experienced less stripping resistance and higher creep deformation. The same method of calculating the work of adhesion between asphalt and aggregate was used to calculate the adhesion work between water and asphalt or aggregate. Comparing the work of adhesion between water and asphalt or aggregate to that between asphalt and aggregate can be used to determine whether submerging specimens in water will cause stripping of asphalt from aggregate.

4. Results and discussion The static creep behavior of the prepared specimens was evaluated using the Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The eects of aggregate type and gradation, type of asphalt and amount of absorbed asphalt on hot-mix asphalt stripping and creep behavior are summarized in Table 6 and discussed in the following sections. The eects of conditioning, aggregate chemical composition and adhesion work between aggregate and asphalt on the creep behavior of hot-mix asphalt are also discussed. As mentioned earlier each point in the results presented in this study represent the average of three specimens prepared from the same mix parameters

1894

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898


20000 18000

Accumulated microstrain

16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Limeston aggregate, unconditioned Limeston aggregate, conditioned Basalt aggregate, unconditioned Basalt aggregate, conditioned

Time (second)
Fig. 7. Eect of aggregate type on creep of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using 80/100 asphalt, and mid limits for dense aggregate gradation.

25000

20000

Accumulated microstrain

15000

10000

5000

Limeston aggregate, conditioned Basalt aggregate, conditioned Limeston aggregate, unconditioned Basalt aggregate, unconditioned
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Time (second)
Fig. 8. Eect of aggregate type and conditioning on creep of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using 60/70 asphalt, and mid limits for open graded aggregate gradation.

and tested under the same conditions. Statistical analysis of collected data indicated that the variability in results (based on the calculated standard deviation) between specimens prepared from the same mix parameters and tested under the same conditions are low and within the expected variability of these parameters. Also, statistical analysis, using t-test at 95% condence level, indicated that there is a signicant dierence between specimens prepared from dierent mix parameters or tested under dierent conditions. 4.1. Eect of aggregate type The eect of aggregate type on creep strain of dierent types of hot-mix asphalt specimens is shown in Figs. 49.

These Figures indicate the relationship between accumulated strain (microstrain) and time for both conditioned and unconditioned HMA specimens prepared using dierent types of aggregate. Unconditioned specimens indicated that hot-mix asphalt prepared using limestone aggregate experienced higher creep value than those prepared using basalt aggregate. The same trend was noticed regardless of the types of asphalt and the aggregate gradations used in preparing mixes. After 60 min of loading, the creep microstrains, of HMA prepared using 80/100 asphalt and mid limits of dense aggregate gradation, were 7926 and 3846 for mixes prepared using limestone and basalt aggregate, respectively. These results can be explained by the fact that the basalt aggregate is rougher than the limestone

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

1895

35000

Limeston aggregate, unconditioned


30000

Limeston aggregate, conditioned


Basalt aggregate, unconditioned
Basalt aggregate, conditioned

Accumulated microstrain

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Time (second)
Fig. 9. Eect of aggregate type and conditioning on creep of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using 80/100 asphalt, and mid limits for open graded aggregate gradation.

Fig. 10. Percent increase in creep strain due to conditioning after 60 min of static loading for dierent types of hot-mix asphalt. Table 6 Bulk specic gravities, percent increase in creep due to conditioning, and absorbed asphalt for dierent types of hot-mix asphalt Aggregate Limestone Gradations A B C Basalt A B C Asphalt 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 csb 2.455 2.455 2.447 2.447 2.432 2.432 2.569 2.569 2.556 2.556 2.541 2.541 cse 2.557 2.564 2.548 2.543 2.460 2.451 2.593 2.591 2.567 2.571 2.552 2.549 cse csb 0.102 0.109 0.101 0.096 0.028 0.019 0.024 0.022 0.011 0.015 0.01 0.008 Increase in creep (%) 17.4 32.5 25.2 53.7 39.0 100.9 83.3 139.8 196.3 295.0 252.9 357.9 Absorbed asphalt (%) 0.1073 0.114978 0.10622 0.100764 0.028606 0.01934 0.024466 0.02241 0.011158 0.015239 0.011158 0.008105

1896

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

aggregate, so the mechanical interlock between asphalt and basalt aggregate will be higher leading to higher resistance to creep. For the unloading portion of the creep test (deformation recovery), the recovered deformations of mixes prepared using limestone aggregate and mix prepared using basalt aggregate was closed to each other. In contrast to unconditioned hot-mix asphalt specimens, conditioned HMA specimens prepared using basalt aggregate showed higher creep values than those prepared using limestone aggregate. A similar trend was noticed regardless of the type of asphalt and aggregate gradations used in preparing the HMA. After 60 min of loading, the creep microstrains for HMA prepared using 80/100 asphalt and mid limits of dense aggregate gradation, were 12,490 and 14,601 for mixes prepared using limestone and basalt aggregate, respectively. The above mentioned results can be explained by the fact that the limestone aggregate has better resistance to stripping than basalt aggregate. Limestone rock is hydrophobic (water hating) aggregate while basalt rocks tend to be hydrophilic (water loving) aggregate. This agree with the results of other studies that used Marshall stability to evaluate stripping in HMA. These studies, indicated that conditioned hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using limestone aggregate have higher stability value than those prepared from basalt aggregate [4,6,11]. The conditioning of hot-mix asphalt specimens prepared using open graded aggregate gradation with basalt aggregate caused complete failure of the specimens after short periods of loading, as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. 4.2. Eect of absorbed asphalt According to the mechanical theory, the composition of the rock is important only to the extent that it eects surface texture. It is thought that the rougher the surface texture, the better the adhesion. Porous aggregate usually

shows better adhesion to asphalt due to better mechanical interlock. However, in some cases it is dicult to remove water from the pores during the drying process; this may be detrimental. In this section the stripping of hot-mix asphalt is related to the amount of asphalt absorbed in aggregate permeable voids. The results, shown in Fig. 11 and Table 6, indicate a strong direct relationship between resistance to stripping (creep strain resistance) and the amount of absorbed asphalt. This result can be explained by the fact that as absorbed asphalt increases, the mechanical bonding between asphalt and aggregate will increase as the amount of absorbed asphalt increases. Fig. 11 indicates that the amount of absorbed asphalt is capable of explaining not only the eect of aggregate type, but also the eect of aggregate gradation and type of asphalt used in preparing the HMA. It should be noted that there are other factors that explain why HMA prepared with limestone aggregate has better resistance to stripping between asphalt and aggregate. These factors include chemical reactions, surface energy relationships, and polarity of the aggregate. 4.3. Eect of aggregate chemical composition The chemistry of the aggregate surface aects the degree of the water sensitivity of the asphalt aggregate bond. The chemical compositions of the two types of aggregates used are summarized in Table 3. This table indicates that limestone is composed mainly of CaCO3, while basalt is composed principally of Al2O3. Compared to basalt aggregate, limestone aggregate contains less SiO2. Silica usually causes a reduction in the bond between asphalt and aggregate. Limestone is considered to bear a positive charge, while basalt bears a mixed charge. Usually stronger bonds are associated with more electro-positive charge. This makes the basalt aggregate fall in the hydrophilic (water

Fig. 11. Percent increase in creep and percent absorbed asphalt of dierent HMA types.

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

1897

loving) category, while the limestone aggregate falls in the hydrophobic (water hating) category. 4.4. Aggregate shape Both aggregates evaluated in this study were manufactured, elongated, angular aggregate. No dierent aggregate shapes, for the same type of aggregate, were evaluated in this study, so the aggregate shape was not a factor that can be evaluated at this stage on the study. 4.5. Aggregate gradation HMA prepared using gradation C (open-graded gradation) was found to be less resistant to stripping. This is caused by a large amount of air voids and the large diameter of pores in the mix. HMA prepared using gradation A showed the highest resistance to stripping although it has more air voids than mixes prepared using B aggregate gradation as shown in Table 5. The higher air voids in mixes prepared using B aggregate gradation can be referred to using less amount of ne compared to mixes prepared using A aggregate gradation. For unconditioned HMA specimens, HMA prepared using gradation C experienced the highest creep strain, while mixes prepared using A aggregate gradation experienced the least creep strain. This can be explained by the fact that HMA prepared using C aggregate gradation contain less nes; this will reduce adhesion by nes causing less resistance to stripping. 4.6. Adhesion work The results of the adhesion work calculations for dierent combinations of asphalt and aggregate types are summarized in Table 7. This table indicates that the adhesion between aggregate and asphalt in HMA prepared using limestone aggregate is higher than that of mixes prepared using basalt aggregate. This means that the HMA prepared using limestone aggregate have higher resistance to stripping since the bond strength between asphalt and limestone aggregate, as reected by the adhesion work, is stronger than that between asphalt and basalt aggregate. The adhesions between aggregate and 60/70 asphalt were 4.88 and 0.24 dyne cm for mixes prepared using limestone and basalt aggregate, respectively. As the eect of types of asphalt used in preparing the HMA were considered, it was found that mixes prepared

using 80/100 asphalt have higher adhesion than that of 60/70 asphalt. This means that mixes prepared using 80/ 100 asphalt have better stripping resistance and therefore less increase in creep due to conditioning compared to that of HMA specimens prepared using 60/70 asphalt. This agreed with the percent increase in creep obtained for mixes prepared using A and B aggregate gradation, but it disagreed with those for mixes using C gradation. Mixes using C gradation showed higher creep when asphalt 80/ 100 was used in preparing the mix. As shown in Table 7, the adhesion between water and aggregate was higher than that between asphalt and aggregate, regardless of the types of asphalt and aggregate used in preparing the mix. For example the adhesion work between limestone aggregate and 60/70 asphalt was 4.88 dyne cm, while it was 11.63 dyne cm between the same aggregate and water. This means that the bond strength between water and aggregate is higher than that between asphalt and aggregate, i.e., water has the tendency to replace asphalt coating the aggregate, and so cause stripping. 5. Conclusions This study evaluated the eect of aggregate type on the hot-mix asphalt stripping and static creep behavior. On the basis of the results, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The HMA stripping resistance was found to be signicantly eected by the type of aggregate used in preparing the mix. Unconditioned HMA asphalt prepared using limestone showed better stripping resistance than that prepared using basalt aggregate. This trend was reversed as the HMA was exposed to conditioning. 2. Aggregate gradations was found to have very strong eect on stripping resistance. HMA prepared using aggregate gradation followed upper limit of ASTM specication for dense gradation showed the highest resistance to stripping, followed by HMA prepared using aggregate gradation followed mid limits of ASTM specication for dense gradation. HMA prepared using aggregate gradation followed mid limits of ASTM specication for open graded aggregate gradation showed the least stripping resistance. 3. The Absorbed asphalt found to have the capability of reecting the eect of aggregate type and gradation, and type of asphalt on the HMA stripping resistance.

Table 7 Adhesion work between aggregate and asphalt or water Asphalt 60/70 Surface tension Adhesion work Adhesion work Adhesion work (dyne cm) with 60/70 Asphalt (dyne cm) with 80/100 asphalt (dyne cm) with water (dyne cm) 35.2 Asphalt 80/100 22.4 Water 72.8 6.76 14.44 Limestone 66.3 4.88 11.63 62.03 Basalt 41.2 0.24 2.84 53.24

1898

S. Abo-Qudais, H. Al-Shweily / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 18861898

The percent of absorbed asphalt was found to have a strong reverse relationship with HMA stripping resistance. 4. Adhesion work was found to have the capability of reecting the eect of aggregate type and gradation, and type of asphalt on stripping resistance. However it was not able to detect the eect of the type of asphalt used in preparing the HMA on stripping resistance.

2. The eect of other types of asphalt, aggregate, and aggregate gradation should be evaluated.

References
[1] Abo-Qudais SA. The eects of environmental damage evaluation techniques on the prediction of environmental damage in asphalt mixtures. Building and Environment Journal, UK [submitted]. [2] Abo-Qudais SA, Al-Shweily H. Eect of antistripping additives on environmental damage of bituminous mixtures. Building and Environment Journal, UK [accepted]. [3] Aklons JJ, Macknight WJ. Introduction to polymer viscoelasticity. New York, NY: Wiley; 1972. p. 249. [4] Al-Kofahy NA. Development of systematic laboratory testing procedure to predict stripping of asphalt concrete mixtures, Ph.D thesis, Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan; 2003. p. 254. [5] Brown ER, Bassett CE. Eect of maximum aggregate size on rutting potential and other properties of asphalt aggregate mixtures, Transportation Research Record, 1259, TRB, National Research Council, Washington (DC); 1990. p. 107119. [6] Braik O. Stripping of asphalt mixtures and the eectiveness of antistripping additives, Master thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan; 1987. p. 86. [7] Eriksen K. Microscopical analysis of asphaltaggregate mixtures related to pavement performance, Report No. 245, Danish Road Institute, Denmark; 1993. p. 17. [8] Guirgus HR, Daoud OEK, Hamdani SK. Asphalt concrete mixture made with cement-coated aggregate, Transportation Research Record Report No. 843, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC; 1982. p. 8085. [9] Maupin Jr GW. Implementation of stripping test for asphaltic concrete, Virginia Highway and Transportation Council, Charlottesville, Transportation Research Record Report No. 712, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC; 1979. p. 812. [10] Maupin Jr GW. Follow-up eld investigation of the eectiveness of anti-stripping additives in virginia, Project Report No. 9398-010-940, Virginia Transportation Research Council, VA; 1997. p. 22. [11] Obaidat AF. Evaluation of bituminous mixtures stripping using conventional and image processing techniques, Master thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan; 1999. p. 115. [12] Roberts FL, Kandhal PS, Brown ER, Lee Dah-Yinn, Kenedy TW. Hot mix asphalt materials, mixture design, and construction. MD: NAPA Education Foundation; 1991. p. 490.

6. Recommendations 6.1. Recommendations for practical applications Based on the results of this study, the following points can be recommended for practical use of these results: 1. Adhesion work between asphalt and aggregate should be used to select the best combination of asphalt and aggregate for the purpose of preparing HMA. 2. When both limestone and basalt aggregate are available, it is recommended to use limestone in preparing HMA. This is especially true if the mix, in the eld will be exposed to long periods of wetting and/or freezing/ thawing cycles. 3. In arid areas, it is recommend to use basalt in preparing HMA, especially for roads expected to be exposed to heavy axle loads. 4. Aggregate with higher absorption, and having all the same other properties, is recommended to be used in HMA to improve stripping resistance.

6.2. Recommendations for further studies Based on the ndings of this research the following recommendation are suggested: 1. The eect of aggregate type on hot-mix asphalt stability, ow, fatigue, dynamic creep and other properties needs to be evaluated.