Ap T76 07

AP-T76/07
AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT
Case Study and Test Method Review

on Moisture Damage
Case Study and Test Method
Review on Moisture Damage
Case Study and Test Method Review on Moisture Damage
First Published 2007
© Austroads Inc. 2007
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-921329-02-9
Austroads Project No. TT1135
Austroads Publication No. AP–T76/07
Project Manager
Gary Liddle, VicRoads
Prepared by
Young Choi, ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Incorporated

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Case Study and Test Method
Review on Moisture Damage
Sydney 2007
Austroads profile
Austroads is the association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities
whose purpose is to contribute to the achievement of improved Australian and New Zealand road
transport outcomes by:
undertaking nationally strategic research on behalf of Australasian road agencies and
communicating outcomes
promoting improved practice by Australasian road agencies
facilitating collaboration between road agencies to avoid duplication
promoting harmonisation, consistency and uniformity in road and related operations
providing expert advice to the Australian Transport Council (ATC) and the Standing
Committee on Transport (SCOT).
Austroads membership
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities and the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services in Australia, the
Australian Local Government Association and Transit New Zealand. It is governed by a council
consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its
eleven member organisations:
Roads and Traffic Authority New South Wales
Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure South Australia
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
Department of Planning and Infrastructure Northern Territory
Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services
Australian Local Government Association
Transit New Zealand
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road sector.
SUMMARY
Moisture damage has been a topic of great interest to asphalt pavement technologists and road
authorities for many years. As a sub-task of Austroads funded project TT1135 (Delivering Better
Quality of Asphalt), this report presents extensive literature reviews on case studies of moisture
damage in pavements and moisture sensitivity testing methods available worldwide. Moisture
damage problems in USA, South Africa and Australia are reviewed. A summary of test method
development history is also presented.
Case studies generally agree on the importance of prevention of moisture ingress, which is the
prime cause of damage. This can be achieved by attention to pavement design, with emphasis on
implementing a proper pavement drainage system including consideration of drainage of all
pavement layers.
Permeability of an asphalt mixture also appeared to be an important factor, since a mixture with a
moderate permeability tends to permit moisture ingress easily, but is not able to drain as easily,
resulting in water being ‘trapped’ in the pavement layer for a prolonged period of time. The air void
content that results in this easy ingress, but poor egress of water, has been referred to as the
‘pessimum voids’ condition.
It is also important to select durable materials, such as mixtures with Hydrated Lime Filler (HLF),
screened by a suitable moisture sensitivity test during the mix design stage.
The two approaches to evaluating moisture sensitivity comprise a visual evaluation of

uncompacted ‘loose’ mix or subjecting a compacted asphalt specimen to a physical test. Visual
evaluation is used extensively for the coated aggregate tests. Most moisture sensitivity test
procedures on compacted mixes measure the loss of strength or stiffness of an asphalt mix due to
moisture induced damage. Typically, the reduced performance resulting from moisture sensitive
mixes is estimated by comparing the physical properties of ‘conditioned’ samples to those of
‘unconditioned’ samples (usually expressed as a percentage). The conditioning processes
associated with most test methods are to simulate the deterioration of the asphalt mix in the field in
an accelerated manner. Normally, the hastening of the deterioration is achieved by immersing the
material in water at an elevated temperature. Additionally, the samples can be subjected to
combined conditioning factors which better simulate field conditions, such as the Hamburg Wheel
Tracking Device (HWTD) or the Saturation Ageing Tensile Stiffness (SATS) test.
The HWTD incorporates a traffic loading aspect and is likely to provide a better simulation of field
conditions. It was generally accepted as a promising test method and could provide an alternative
test to the more widely used AASHTO T283 procedure (also known as ‘modified Lottman’).
However, it is not widely used at present. In conclusion, it was suggested that the HWTD be
trialled from a research perspective, while continuing to use existing test methods.
Austroads 2007
—i—
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Report overview..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Moisture Damage of Bituminous Materials .................................................................................1
2 CASE STUDIES OF MOISTURE DAMAGE ..............................................................................3
2.1 USA ............................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 California .........................................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Nevada ............................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Texas...............................................................................................................................6
2.1.4 Virginia ............................................................................................................................7
2.1.5 Other states.....................................................................................................................7
2.2 South Africa ................................................................................................................................8
2.3 Australia......................................................................................................................................9
3 MOISTURE SENSITIVITY TESTS .............................................................................................11
3.1 Tests on loose mixtures..............................................................................................................11
3.2 Tests on compacted mixtures.....................................................................................................14
3.3 Moisture sensitivity tests combined with other factors................................................................17
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................20
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................22
Austroads 2007
— ii —
TABLES
Table 2.1: Caltrans interim guideline on moisture sensitivity treatment ........................................... 4
Table 2.2: Caltrans environmental risk zone.................................................................................... 4
Table 2.3: Old TxDOT guidelines for moisture sensitive HMA mixtures using wet-dry TSR
and boil criteria................................................................................................................ 7
Table 2.4: New TxDOT guidelines for moisture sensitive HMA mixtures using HWTD criteria ....... 7
Table 3.1: Stripping tests for loose aggregate ............................................................................... 12
Table 3.2: Moisture damage tests for compacted asphalt mixtures............................................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Immersion wheel tracking test ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.2: Environmental conditioning system ............................................................................. 18
Austroads 2007
— iii —
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report overview
This study was conducted as part of the Austroads funded project TT1135, Delivering Better
Quality Asphalt, being carried out by ARRB. The purpose of the project is to improve the field
performance of asphalt. Since moisture ingress can cause catastrophic failure in the field under
certain conditions, it was considered important to study asphalt moisture sensitivity.
1.2 Moisture Damage of Bituminous Materials

Bitumen-based products are used as binders in bituminous materials because they bind the
mineral aggregate materials together into an interconnected whole. This bound material is able to
support applied loads and to some extent provide a water resistant layer and thus is able to be
used as structural and surfacing layers in pavements.
The adhesion and cohesion properties of the binder are the decisive factors for the formation of the
bitumen/aggregate system. Therefore, ‘adhesion failure’ and ‘cohesion loss’ are considered to be
the two main ways by which the material may fail. If the aggregate is clean and dry, and the
bitumen can maintain adhesion to the aggregate surface, the mode of failure is likely to be
cohesive. However, in the presence of water, the most likely failure mode is loss of adhesion such
as stripping (or debonding) of the bitumen from the aggregate surface.
The vast majority of aggregates are classified as ‘hydrophilic’ (i.e. having an affinity for water, Read
and Whiteoak 2003). If water enters the pavement system (e.g. rainfall during/before the
construction stage, rainfall infiltrating through open voids or crack of surfacing, etc.) it can act as an
effective ‘debonding agent’ which physically and/or chemically disrupts the bitumen film on the
aggregate surface, resulting in a loss of adhesion, and ultimately loss in material strength. This
accelerated (or premature) weakening process of bituminous materials caused by moisture, mainly
in a form of adhesion failure, is typically termed ‘moisture damage’.
There are a number of terms to describe various contributing mechanisms to moisture damage
(Kiggundu and Roberts 1988; Taylor and Khosla 1983; Terrel and Al-Swailmi 1994), and include:
Detachment – microscopic separation of the binder film from the aggregate surface by a thin
layer of water without obvious breaks in the film.
Displacement – preferential removal of the binder film from the aggregate surface by water
introduced through a break in the film.
Pore pressure – pore pressure of ‘trapped water’ in the voids increases and/or decreases
due to traffic loading, resulting in film rupture.
Hydraulic scouring – pressurised water (due to traffic loading) blasting the binder film from
the aggregate.
Spontaneous emulsification – water suspended within binder film (inverted phase emulsion),
resulting in a weaker cohesive strength of binder.
Environmental distress – pH of contact water affecting adhesion property, temperature
fluctuations resulting in volumetric change of trapped water (including freeze-thaw condition),
ageing of the bitumen affecting adhesion property.
Austroads 2007
—1—
Different types of bituminous material will have different levels of durability against a given
moisture damage condition. Moisture sensitivity of a bituminous material is affected by various
elements in various material production processes, and is summarised as follows:
Crude oil – crude oil from which bitumen-based products are derived naturally contains
water, salts and clays which can influence the moisture sensitivity of the binders.
Aggregate mineralogy – bonding of the acidic molecules of binder to the base molecules of
aggregate is considered the prime form of adhesion. Thus, basic aggregate is likely to
produce a better adhesion to the bituminous binder, resulting in a better resistance against
moisture damage whereas acidic aggregates are likely to produce more moisture sensitive
mixes.
Aggregate physical properties – high porosity and rough surface texture are likely to reduce
moisture sensitivity, due to increased surface area allowing better adhesion.
Aggregate quality control – dryness and cleanness are important factors affecting the
moisture sensitivity of a mix.
Binder content – thicker binder films (higher binder contents) are likely to produce a more
moisture resistant mix.
Dust content – higher dust content can prevent a good binder adhesion (due to excessive
dust coating).
Aggregate grading – affects the permeability of the mixture, along with other factors (air
voids, compaction level, etc.).
Pavement design – provision of a proper drainage system is a prime factor affecting moisture
damage potential. Water and water vapour may seep down under gravity and rise up due to
capillary action. Therefore the water resistance of all pavement layers needs to be
considered not just the surfacing layer.
Austroads 2007
—2—
2 CASE STUDIES OF MOISTURE DAMAGE

2.1 USA
2.1.1 California
Since the 1980s, there have been concerns that moisture susceptible mixtures were causing or
contributing to premature distress (e.g. alligator cracking, ravelling, potholing etc.) on extended
lengths of asphalt pavement on the California highway system (Shatnawi 1992, 1995). This
distress can develop as early as two years and as late as nine years, after construction.
To prevent this premature distress, the lime slurry marination (LSM) pre-treatment was introduced
for all aggregates on all major projects. This pre-treatment consisted of precoating the aggregate
with a lime slurry, prior to stockpiling for a specific marination period of 1 to 21 days. However,
industry had concerns with this approach, as follows:
there was no consensus concerning definition or identification of moisture damage
it was possible that aggregate treatment was unnecessarily required where no history of
stripping existed
LSM was the only treatment allowed for major projects
the precision and bias of the best available laboratory test for moisture sensitivity (AASHTO
T283, see section 3.2 for more details of the test method) were poor.
These concerns resulted in the creation of several Caltrans-industry task groups. These groups
were to address Caltrans’ original intent which was to require treatment only in appropriate
locations and any effective treatment could be used.
The first problem was the absence of a laboratory test method that had a good correlation with field
performance. Although the AASHTO T283 test procedure was the best test method then available
it had poor repeatability and reproducibility as noted in round-robin studies (Epps et al. 2000).
A further problem was identification of appropriate treatments, with a careful consideration to the
different climate condition (e.g. wet or dry, freeze or no freeze) at the job site. Also discussed at
length between Caltrans and industry was the effectiveness of treatment that is less time
consuming, less expensive and therefore less disruptive than the current LSM. No agreement had
been made then.
An outcome from the task groups examining this problem was interim guidelines (Table 2.1) to
decide when a moisture sensitivity treatment is required.
A matrix approach was adopted (Table 2.2) based on the mix evaluation using tensile strength
ratio (TSR) results. These data, combined with the climatic data (the state region was divided into
low, moderate and high risk zones based on rain and freezing conditions) were used to determine
if the asphalt mixture needed treatment and which treatments were applicable.
The adoption of the above matrix approach led to the creation of several short-term and long-term
issues for which Caltrans developed a plan through its Independent Assurance Program (Martin et
al. 2003). The identified issues required:
a reproducible, performance-related test
a moisture sensitivity test criteria that correlated with the severity of the climate
mix design procedures and specifications for the various treatments
Austroads 2007
—3—
laboratory accreditation and personnel training and certification.
Table 2.1: Caltrans interim guideline on moisture sensitivity treatment

Conditions of asphalt concrete source Strategy
No history of stripping.
No treatment required.
No documented history of an antistrip agent treatment.
No documented history of stripping in past projects.

Use past treatment.
AC consistently been treated with LSM, or liquid antistrip agent.
Documented history of stripping in past projects. LSM treatment required.

AC may or may not have utilised antistrip agent. AASHTO T283 should not be required.
New or unknown AC sources, with no obtainable documented history. LSM treatment required.
Treat on a case-by-case basis. AASHTO T283 should not be required.
Table 2.2: Caltrans environmental risk zone

Required TSR
Risk zone TSR Mix risk Treatment
after treatment
≥ 70 Low None required

Low risk zone 51 – 69 Moderate LAS, DHL, LSM** ≥ 70
≤ 50 High DHL, LSM ≥ 70
≥ 75 Low None required

Moderate and high risk
61 – 74 Moderate LAS, DHL, LSM** ≥ 75
zone
≤ 60 High LSM ≥ 75
** Select one treatment

LAS: liquid antistrip.
DHL: dry hydrated lime with no marination.
LSM: lime slurry with marination.
2.1.2 Nevada
Moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixtures in Nevada was first identified in 1983 when a pavement
section near Deeth experienced severe moisture-related distress shortly after opening to traffic
(Epps et al. 1984). The surface layer (open-graded mix) showed ravelling and delaminations at
several locations. At the time of construction, the Nevada Department of Transport (NDOT) did not
specify the use of any antistripping additives. An investigation to identify the cause of the distress
revealed that the materials used in the project were significantly moisture sensitive. Typical
retained strength ratios (from the AASHTO T283 testing) were found to be in the range of 15 –
30%. The following recommendations were made based on this investigation:
requirement for a moisture sensitivity test with a freeze-thaw cycle as part of the mix design
requirement for a minimum dry tensile strength value as part of the mix design
Austroads 2007
—4—
requirement for an in-place air voids limit as part of quality control during construction
inclusion of aggregate gradation control requirements between sieve sizes 1.18 mm to
75 μm.
Actions taken in reply to the above recommendations included:

development of a modified version of the Lottman moisture conditioning procedure
use of hydrated lime in most projects in the state
introduction of limits for air void contents of compacted HMA pavements
increase in the minimum Hveem stability under higher traffic volumes (from 35 to 37 units)
a minimum unconditioned tensile strength of 65 psi (448 kPa)
a minimum retained strength ratio of 70%
mandatory marination for all HMA mixtures.
The AASHTO T283 test procedure served as the primary method for estimating the moisture
sensitivity of asphalt mixtures. Testing was conducted at the mix design stage and during the
construction stage. During construction, NDOT required sampling of the asphalt mixture every
10,000 tons or twice a week from the completed mat (behind the paver). All behind-the-paver
samples were evaluated for moisture sensitivity and subjected to the minimum specification on the
minimum unconditioned tensile strength of 65 psi (448 kPa) and retained strength ratio of 70%.
In some special cases, the modified Lottman procedure with multiple (1 ~ 18) freeze thaw cycles
was used as a forensic tool. In this case, instead of the destructive strength test, the ‘non-
destructive’ resilient modulus test was used to assess the mixture properties after various freeze
thaw cycles. The multiple freeze thaw conditioning was found to be very effective in assessing the
true resistance of asphalt mixture to moisture damage.
Nevada has conducted several extensive research studies on factors influencing moisture
sensitivity of asphalt mixtures. Topics covered were:
mix design versus field mixtures
impact of marination time
impact of lime and lime addition method
impact of lime on pavement performance.
Outcomes of these studies can be summarised as follows:

The proposed minimum unconditioned tensile strength (448 kPa) was a realistic limit.
Marination process significantly improved the moisture sensitivity properties of field-produced
HMA mixtures.
Recommended marination period of 48 hours up to a maximum period of 60 days.
Among the various lime application methods, addition of lime to wet aggregates with
48 hours marination time was found to be most desirable.
Field investigation comparing the performances of untreated and lime-treated mixtures
demonstrated that the lime treatment significantly reduced the moisture sensitivity of the
mixtures. The long-term pavement performance data of in-service pavements also clearly
showed the superior performance of lime-treated mixtures.
Austroads 2007
—5—
On average, the lime treatment extended the expected performance life of asphalt
pavements by 38%.
2.1.3 Texas
Moisture sensitivity problems in Texas surfaced in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Kennedy and
Anagnos 1984; O’Connor 1984) and prompted the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in
1978 to initiate a six year research project. The objectives of this project were to:
define the extent and severity of the moisture sensitivity problem in Texas
evaluate the effectiveness of antistripping treatments
define methods to minimise moisture damage and test procedures which could identify more
moisture sensitivity mixtures.
The project revealed that moisture damage was a widespread problem throughout the southern US
states. In Texas, this problem was generally concentrated in the east and south-eastern parts of
the State, where high annual rainfall and high water tables were common. However, some isolated
cases of moisture damage were also noted in other drier parts of the State, possibly due to the soil
moisture issues. The project resulted in two major recommendations:
ensure that adequate compaction of the mixture was achieved at construction
test specific material combinations to identify potentially moisture sensitive mixtures.
Three laboratory tests were initially reviewed by the research project, which were:
a visual assessment using a rating board after boiling the loose mix for short-term evaluation
wet-dry retained indirect TSR (Tahmoressi 1996) with moisture conditioning at a constant
degree of saturation (similar to AASHTO T283) for long-term evaluation
multiple freeze-thaw pedestal test (Anon 2002; Kennedy and Anagnos 1984; Kennedy et al.
1984).
During a second more extensive research project, the multiple freeze-thaw pedestal test was
discarded and the other two tests were utilised to evaluate laboratory and field performance. Both
tests were used to test laboratory mixes, plant mixes and field cores (Liu and Kennedy 1991; Ping
and Kennedy 1991) and were generally found to be effective in demonstrating the positive effects
of both lime and antistripping agents on the mixture performance.
A 1998 TxDOT study evaluated the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD), which tests mixture
resistance to rutting and moisture sensitivity simultaneously. TxDOT suggested that the HWTD
was the best laboratory test for identifying moisture sensitive mixtures and could be an ideal tool
for quality control testing during production.
Recommendations from the first six year project led to the adoption of guidelines by TxDOT
(Kennedy and Anagnos 1984; O’Connor 1984), as shown in Table 2.3, where antistripping
treatment was required for ‘Stripping susceptible’ mixtures and recommended for ‘Marginal’
mixtures. This guideline was replaced by new TxDOT guidelines (Table 2.4), which were based on
the HWTD testing at 50oC during mix design and production stages (Anon 2003).
Other recommendations presented by the TxDOT taskforce were:

provision of adequate drainage
reduction in segregation using a material transfer vehicle
Austroads 2007
—6—
sealing the HMA layer, being careful not to trap moisture within the layer (Joslin et al. 1998;
Kennedy and Anagnos 1984).
Table 2.3: Old TxDOT guidelines for moisture sensitive HMA mixtures using wet-dry TSR and boil criteria
Boiling test TSR test
Stripping potential of mix Uncoated aggregate surface TSR ratio
Nonstripping < 10% > 0.80
Marginal mix 10 ~ 20% 0.60 ~ 0.80
Stripping susceptible > 20% < 0.60
Table 2.4: New TxDOT guidelines for moisture sensitive HMA mixtures using HWTD criteria
High temperature PG binder grade Minimum no. of HWTD passes at 50oC to rut depth of 12.5 mm
PG 64 10,000
PG 70 15,000
≥ PG 76 20,000
2.1.4 Virginia
Virginia has had concerns with moisture damage since the late 1960s. Antistripping additives were
introduced for some surface mixtures in the early 1970s. Failures observed early on were often
catastrophic and required complete removal of the affected layers. In 1996, numerous cores were
taken statewide to observe whether stripping still existed (Maupin Jr. 1997). About half of the sites
displayed moderate to moderately-severe visual stripping, although there was no indication of
severe distress at the pavement surface.
Virginia initially used a boiling water test to investigate moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixes, but
soon changed to the Lottman test, also known as the TSR test. The TSR test was used by
contractors in their mix design process to ascertain whether the chosen antistripping additives
were effective in a particular mixture. It was also used as an occasional check by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to certify that the correct amount of additives had been used
in the field production process. The Superpave TSR criterion of 0.8 was recently adopted by
VDOT for the AASHTO T283 test. Despite cases where the T283 test did not correlate well with
field performance, it was generally accepted as the best practical test available at the time.
2.1.5 Other states

A state-wide investigation of moisture damage of in situ pavements was carried out in South
Carolina (Busching et al. 1984). An extensive range of coring and testing was conducted to
determine the extent and severity of asphalt stripping. Cores were taken from pavements and
transferred to a laboratory where the specimens were immersed for 24 hours at 60oC, before
testing in indirect tension at 25oC using the Marshall test frame.
Austroads 2007
—7—
A visual inspection was carried out of the tested specimens, using a tentative rating guideline
developed by Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). It found that stripping was pervasive
but of varying severity. Stripping was found to be related to the following factors:
aggregate source
mixture type
cross-section type
traffic group
pavement age
presence of open-graded friction courses.
In Oregon, before 1974, stripping in hot mix asphalt concrete was considered to be a relatively
minor problem (Takallou et al. 1984). However, during the mid 1970s, several problems were
noticed during and after construction of asphalt pavements. One of the major problems associated
with asphalt pavements was the early appearance of ravelling.
Oregon’s specification (before 1984) attempted to ensure good performance of asphalt mixtures
against stripping. For example, AASHTO T165 test procedure (Terrel and Shute 1989) specifies
an index of retained strength (IRS) as the determining factor to prevent stripping. If the IRS of a
mix was below 70%, an antistripping agent was stipulated. Additionally, a 70% minimum resilient
modulus ratio (after vacuum saturation and freeze-thaw conditioning) was also used for the same
purpose.
Field studies conducted in 1983 were designed to identify causes of ravelling problems in central
Oregon (areas of high elevation and severe climatic conditions). The investigation involved field
condition surveys, coring, review of project construction records, review of mix designs, review of
asphalt concrete test data (construction cores and compaction control test results), and numerous
tests on cores taken during the investigation. From the information collected, several factors were
found to contribute to the observed ravelling and changes were made for the 1984 specification, as
follows:
mandatory use of lime-treated aggregates in high elevation projects or areas known to have
problem pavements
increasing the binder content by reducing design voids from 4 – 7% to 3 – 5%
increasing the IRS from 70% to 75%
reducing the mix moisture from 1.0% in the road to 0.7% at plant
increasing the minimum air temperature requirement for compaction
requirement for pneumatic multi-tyred rollers on all projects
careful monitoring of pick-up machines and storage silos.
2.2 South Africa

In 1997 a pavement at Cape Town Airport showed early failure and many investigations were
performed to find the cause. It was generally agreed that rainfall during the construction process
(on the base layer before it was surfaced) was the main cause of this catastrophic failure.
Although no pre-construction moisture sensitivity test results were available, the AASHTO T283
testing performed on core samples typically showed the mix was sensitive to moisture damage.
Austroads 2007
—8—
To prevent a repeat of such failures, Pretorius et al. (2003) introduced a new asphalt mix design
procedure which incorporated moisture sensitivity testing (AASHTO T283, recommended minimum
ITS ratio was 80%) in its multi-level design criteria.
2.3 Australia
Lee at el. (1987) investigated an airfield pavement which had shown premature stripping failure of
the surface layer. They found the mix used in the pavement was not particularly moisture sensitive
according to a static immersion test. They concluded that the stripping was a consequence of
fluctuating pore pressure forcefully disrupting the binder-aggregate interface, due to moving aircraft
and rapid temperature changes.
In 1999, the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) of New South Wales requested the collection of
asphalt pavement condition data on various sections of the Pacific Highway within the North Coast
region (Anon 2000). RTA was particularly interested in moisture sensitivity data determined using
the RTA T649 test. The RTA T649 test was similar to the AASHTO T283 test, with slightly different
vacuum conditioning requirements, and was focussed on testing field cores. More details of the
test method are to be found in Section 3.2.
Sites that failed the T649 assessment criteria showed signs of distress indirectly associated with
moisture damage. RTA also commented that the tensile strength after freeze/thaw moisture
conditioning appeared to be the most selective parameter for predicting moisture susceptibility.
The RTA concluded that the T649 test showed a good correlation to field performance. The T649
test may be used as an effective asset management tool for the monitoring of moisture sensitivity.
It also provided the following recommendations:
Asphalts that have been identified as moisture-sensitive should be protected from water
entering the pavement. Advice on the selection of the most appropriate measure for each
particular site should be sought.
The development and improvement of the T649 test should be continued. More work is
required to clearly define warning limits and intervention levels.
In 2005, the author had a series of interviews with an expert in the Australian Asphalt Paving
Association (AAPA) and several experts in the RTA to obtain general views on moisture damage in
pavements in Australia.
The RTA acknowledged some moisture related problems to the north of Sydney in the early
1980's, which were overcome by the use of liquid adhesion agents. However, moisture damage
had not been seen as a major issue in Australia until a section on the Hume Highway (New South
Wales) showed signs of major distress in 1995. This case caused the RTA to change its
specification mandating the use of hydrated lime filler (HLF, 1.5 ~ 2% of total weight) and to
introduce the methylene blue test and T640 test into their mix design procedures. Since then, no
major problems have been reported. The RTA T640 test was similar to the T649 test, but uses
laboratory produced specimens (see Section 3.2 for more details).
The experts in RTA generally agreed on the effectiveness of adding HLF to the asphalt mixture.
They seemed to be satisfied with the performance of the T640 test, although there was a concern
that the test might not be severe enough to screen out potentially moisture-sensitive mixes. There
was a suggestion that the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device (HWTD) could be an ideal tool to
investigate moisture damage potential of a mix, in conjunction with the T640 and T649 tests.
Austroads 2007
—9—
Queensland also experienced some problems related to moisture damage which caused it to
introduce the T640 test into its mixture design procedure.
The expert in Queensland discussed a case study where a newly constructed road in Queensland
showed signs of stripping less than twelve months after construction, in 2002. The surfacing was
SMA with HLF and polymer modified binder. The pavement had a properly installed drainage
system. Modified Lottman testing of the SMA and lower dense graded base layers showed
satisfactory results (greater than 80%) but after a few years the pavement was badly stripped. The
stone mastic asphalt surfacing was found to be highly permeable. It was determined that water
was entering through the stone mastic asphalt surfacing and infiltrating into the underlying asphalt
layers. This was resulting in stripping of the underlying base layer. All properties (mixture
durability, drainage system) appeared to be satisfactory; however, the air voids of the SMA
surfacing layer was around 6% ~ 9% which appeared to be within the ‘pessimum’ range of air
voids (typically 5% ~ 15%). It would appear that the water infiltrated easily but could not drain or
evaporate out of the pavement. As a result of this and other stripping failures, Queensland is
considering a permeability requirement in their specification to monitor and control mixture
permeability.
One of the experts in the RTA and another expert in Queensland emphasised that in situ
permeability of asphalt mixes should be carefully monitored as an important indicator for potential
moisture damage, since simple measurement of air voids does not necessarily represent the
mixture’s susceptibility to moisture infiltration. The experts all agreed on the importance of a
proper drainage system in the pavement design.
South Australia has reported no major problems. It experienced some signs of distress, but this
was limited to some of their thin asphalt surfacings.
It was noted that there had been no report of moisture damage in Victoria where HLF (1% of total
weight) was used in the standard mix design. Victoria also focused on achieving sufficient field
compaction (target air void content to be less than 7%) in the standard quality control procedure,
which, in general, contributed to the satisfactory performance of pavements.
Austroads 2007
— 10 —
3 MOISTURE SENSITIVITY TESTS

There are numerous test protocols developed worldwide to measure and quantify the moisture
sensitivity of asphalt materials in the laboratory. The following sections summarise a number of
well-known test methods.
The development of tests to determine the moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixtures began in the
1930s (Terrel and Shute 1989). Since then numerous tests have been developed in an attempt to
identify the susceptibility of asphalt mixtures to moisture damage. Moisture sensitivity tests can
broadly be divided into two categories:
tests conducted on loose coated aggregate
tests conducted on compacted mixtures.
Test methods in the first category generally involve immersing the uncompacted coated loose mix
in water (or a chemical solution) either at room temperature or an elevated temperature for a
specific period of time, and assessing the separation of the bitumen binder from the aggregate
(stripping) by visual inspection.
Tests on compacted mixes generally use either samples prepared in the laboratory or cored from
in-service pavements. Typically, the samples are conditioned in water to simulate in-service
conditions in a much shorter period, and assessment is made by calculating the ratio of
conditioned to unconditioned mechanical properties of the material (i.e. strength or stiffness).
3.1 Tests on loose mixtures

Several methods have been developed to assess the bitumen loss which occurs as a result of
uncompacted, coated aggregate being immersed in water. However, for the majority of these tests
little information is available to correlate test data with field performance. The various methods
differ in the type of specimen used, the way in which the specimen is immersed in water and the
manner in which stripping (adhesion loss) is assessed. A list of stripping tests for loose mix is
presented in Table 3.1.
Static immersion tests

The static immersion test (designated to ‘AASHTO T182’, ‘ASTM D1664’) involves coating 100 g of
aggregate with bitumen, immersing it for 16 to 18 hours in 400 ml of distilled water (pH 6 to 7), then
visually estimating the total visible area of the coated aggregate as above or below 95%. The
visual assessment is made while the mixture is still immersed in the water. Although the method
may indicate mixtures showing some degree of moisture sensitivity, it is doubtful that the long-term
potential of stripping is considered (Terrel and Shute 1989). The static immersion test was also
discontinued as an ASTM standard in 1993 (Airey 2002).
Another example of a static immersion test is the total water immersion test (‘TWIT’ test) (Whiteoak
1990). The test involves coating 14 mm single size aggregate with a known quantity of bitumen
and then soaking the coated aggregate in distilled water at 25°C for 48 hours. The percentage of
bitumen stripped off the aggregate is then visually assessed. However, as with the ASTM method,
indication of stripping in the laboratory does not always relate to poor field performance and vice
versa.
Austroads 2007
— 11 —
Table 3.1: Stripping tests for loose aggregate

Test method Water volume Duration Aggregate size Sample size Extra features
Static immersion test
400 ml distilled
– AASHTO T182, 16 to 18 hrs Single size 100 g -
water
ASTM D1664
Total water
Distilled water 48 hrs 14 mm aggregate - 25°C
immersion test - ‘TWIT’
6.3 mm to 8 mm Glass rod, flask
250 ml
Rolling bottle method 75 min with 0.1 mm 200 particles rotated @
deionised water
binder film 40 rpm
Boiling water test - 500 ml distilled Single size or
10 min 200 – 300 g Boiling water
ASTM D3625 water graded
6 mm to 10 mm
200 ml distilled
Ancona stripping test 45 min with 3 g of 60 g Boiling water
water
bitumen
Boiling water 600 ml

10 mm to 14 mm Boiling water,
demineralised 10 min 200 g
stripping test with 1.8% binder chemical attack
water
0.2 g
Test piece –
Ultrasound method Water - bitumen – Ultrasound
20 mm x 80 mm
0.12 mm
Net adsorption test – 6 hrs 140 ml –
2 ml of water Passing 4.75 mm 50 g
SHRP 8 hrs bitumen-toluene sol
Net adsorption test – 6 hrs Passing 4.75 mm, 140 ml –

2 ml of water 50 g
Modified 8 hrs specific grading bitumen-toluene sol
Dynamic immersion tests

Dynamic immersion tests are similar to static immersion tests except that the loose mixture is
mechanically agitated by shaking or kneading. A visual assessment is then made to estimate the
degree of stripping. However, the reproducibility of the test can be very poor (Whiteoak 1990).
Rolling bottle method

The rolling bottle (flask) method (designated as ‘CEN prEN 12697-11’) is used to determine the
adhesion between single size aggregate and bitumen. In the test 200 spherical aggregate
particles (6.3 mm to 8 mm) are coated with a 0.1 mm thick binder film. The coated aggregate is
then placed in a 250 ml flask containing deionised cold water. A glass rod is inserted and rotated at
40 rpm for three days. The amount of retained bitumen is then visually determined (Airey 2002).
Boiling water test

This test (designated as ‘ASTM D3625’) is a result of the assimilation of different boiling tests used
by several US state agencies (Terrel and Shute 1989), such as the Texas boiling test (Kennedy et
al. 1983). The boiling water test involves placing a 200 to 300 g sample of coated aggregate
(single size aggregate or aggregate graded to design specifications) in boiling water (500 ml of
distilled water) for 10 minutes. The mixture is stirred three times with a glass rod whilst it is being
boiled. After boiling, the mixture is dried and the amount of bitumen loss is determined by visual
assessment. The test is very subjective and known to provide inconsistent results in terms of
identifying moisture sensitive mixtures. In addition, the test only reflects the loss of adhesion and
does not address loss of cohesion.
Austroads 2007
— 12 —
Ancona stripping test

The Ancona stripping test (AST) is used to evaluate the stripping potential of a bitumen-aggregate
system (band Colagrande 1993). The procedure entails placing a sample of loose bituminous mix
(60 g of aggregate, passing a 10 mm sieve and retained on a 6 mm sieve, mixed with 3 g of
bitumen) in a 600 ml beaker with 200 ml of distilled water. The 600 ml beaker is then placed in a
2000 ml beaker containing 600 ml of boiling water for 45 minutes. At the end of this period, the
beaker is removed and cooled to ambient temperature. The loose bituminous mix is removed from
the beaker and a visual assessment made of the percentage stripping.
Boiling water stripping test

The Belgium Road Research Centre (BRRC) has combined the boiling water test with a more
objective means of assessing the amount of stripping using a stripping ratio calibration curve,
thereby eliminating the low precision generally associated with visual assessment techniques
(Choquet and Verhasselt 1993).
The procedure involves coating 1.5 kg of aggregate (10 to 14 mm fraction) with 1.8% by mass of
bitumen (Anon 1991). An acid consumption calibration curve (against percentage uncoated
aggregate) is then derived by subjecting mixtures of uncoated (bare) aggregate and the coated
aggregate to chemical attack. Finally, 200 g of the coated aggregate is boiled in 600 ml of
demineralised water for 10 minutes, allowed to dry and subjected to chemical attack to determine,
based on the derived calibration curve, the amount of stripping.
Ultrasonic method
Vuorinen and Valtonen (1999) developed an ultrasonic method to measure the resistance to
stripping of coated aggregates. In the test a polished stone test piece (20 mm × 80 mm, with a
thickness of 10 mm) is coated with 0.2 g of bitumen to give a binder film thickness of 0.12 mm.
The coated test piece is then subjected to ultrasound under water where microscopically small
bubbles of negative pressure strip the bitumen mechanically from the stone. The degree of
stripping is determined either by weighing the stripped test piece or by visual assessment.
Net adsorption test

The Net adsorption test (SHRP Designation M-001; Harrigan et al. 1994) was developed by Curtis
et al. (1993) and used as a screening procedure for selecting bitumens and aggregates, as well as
determining the effectiveness of antistripping additives, as part of the Superpave Mixture Design
Method (Kennedy et al. 1994).
The test involves measuring the amount of bitumen dissolved in toluene that is adsorbed onto the
aggregate surface followed by the amount which is desorbed (removed) by the addition of water to
the system. The amount of bitumen which remains on the aggregate after aqueous desorption is
termed the Net Adsorption. An adsorption value over 70% was considered a good performance
(Cominsky 1994).
Walsh et al. (1996) later proposed a modification to the net adsorption test. In the modified net
adsorption test, the aggregate is prepared to a specific grading rather than simply passing the
4.75 mm sieve. In addition, an initial adsorption value is calculated as well as the net adsorption in
order to provide a more discriminating assessment of affinity and resistance to stripping of the
binder-aggregate system (Woodside et al. 1994).
Austroads 2007
— 13 —
3.2 Tests on compacted mixtures

Numerous tests on compacted asphalt mixtures, either fabricated in the laboratory or cored from
existing pavements, have been developed in an attempt to assess the moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixtures. These methods are summarised in the following sections and listed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Moisture damage tests for compacted asphalt mixtures.

Test method Thermal cycling Performance tests
Cracking of specimen over a
Freeze-thaw pedestal test (FTPT) -12°C for 12 hours and 49°C for 12 hours
fulcrum
Immersion compression test – AASHTO 49°C for 4 days or 60°C for 24 hours, 23°C for 4
Compressive strength
T165, ASTM D1075 hours
Vacuum treatment under water @ 0°C to 1°C,
Marshall stability test – AASHTO T245 Marshall stability
60°C for 48 hours
Unconfined compression @
Duriez test – NFP 98-251-1 18°C for 7 days
18°C and 1 mm/s
Distilled water @ partial vacuum of 600 mmHg for
Indirect tensile strength and
Lottman procedure 30 minutes, atmospheric pressure for 30 minutes,
stiffness
-18°C to -12°C for 15 hours, 60°C for 24 hours
Distilled water @ partial vacuum of 508 mmHg

Tunnicliff and Root procedure Indirect stiffness
until 55% to 80% saturation, 60°C for 24 hours
Distilled water @ partial vacuum of 508 mmHg

Modified Lottman procedure – AASHTO Indirect tensile strength and
until 60% to 80% saturation, -18°C to -12°C for 15
T283 stiffness
hours, 60°C for 24 hours
Partial vacuum of 510 mmHg @ 20°C for 30

LINK Bitutest protocol minutes, saturation at 60°C for 6 hours, 5°C for 16 NAT ITSM testing @ 20°C
hours
The tests typically involve the measurement of a change in a physical property of a compacted
asphalt mixture after a certain procedure of moisture conditioning. The commonly measured
mechanical properties are indirect tensile stiffness and/or strength (usually expressed as a
percentage or normalised ratio to the initial properties).
Texas freeze-thaw pedestal test

The Texas freeze-thaw pedestal test (FTPT) attempts to simulate viscosity changes in asphalt
mixtures which have been in service for five years (Kennedy et al. 1982). In the test, small
specimens (41 mm in diameter by 19 mm in height) are fabricated from a single size aggregate
(passing the 0.85 mm sieve, and retained on the 0.5 mm sieve). The effect of physical properties
such as aggregate gradation, density, aggregate interlock are minimised through the use of a
single size aggregate so that the test primarily evaluates the strength of bonding and binder
cohesion.
After fabrication, the specimen is cured at 23°C for three days then placed on a pedestal which
acts as a fulcrum. The arrangement is placed in a water bottle and subjected to thermal cycling,
consisting of freezing at -12°C for 12 hours and thawing at 49°C for 12 hours (total 24 hours), until
the specimen cracks. Kennedy et al. (1982) proposed that the range of values between 10 and 20
thermal cycles to cracking would be the borderline between stripping and non-stripping mixtures.
The test was able to identify some moisture susceptible mixtures while being insensitive to others.
Austroads 2007
— 14 —
Immersion compression test

The immersion compression test (designated as ‘AASHTO T165’, ‘ASTM D1075’) is widely used
throughout the United States to evaluate the loss of strength of compacted asphalt mixtures due to
moisture damage. The index of retained strength (IRS) is obtained by comparing the compressive
strength of unconditioned specimens (air cured at 23°C for four hours) to that of conditioned
duplicate specimens which have been immersed in water for four days at 49°C (or 60°C for 24
hours) and then conditioned in water at 23°C for four hours. The Asphalt Institute recommends
that mixtures be rejected if they have an IRS less than or equal to 75% (Terrel and Shute 1989).
Marshall stability test

The Marshall stability test (designated as ‘AASHTO T245’) is widely used to evaluate the relative
performance of asphalt mixtures. In the test, the stability of unconditioned specimens is compared
with the stability of duplicate specimens which have been subjected to some form of moisture
conditioning. Terrel and Shute (1989) note that the conditioning procedure varies amongst
organisations and is usually an adaptation from one of the existing procedures.
The Shell method uses at least eight specimens manufactured using a prescribed aggregate type,
aggregate gradation, bitumen content and void content (Whiteoak 1990). Four of these specimens
are tested according to the standard Marshall stability test. The remaining four specimens are
vacuum treated under water at a temperature between 0 and 1°C, stored in a water bath at 60°C
for 48 hours and tested for Marshall stability. The retained Marshall stability is then determined as
the stability ratio of the conditioned/unconditioned specimens.
Duriez test
The Duriez test (designated as ‘NFP 98-251-1) has been used for over 40 years in France to
assess moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixtures (Corte and Serfass 2000). The procedure is
performed on 80 mm or 120 mm diameter cylindrical specimens, statically compacted under a
pressure of 12 MPa. The moisture conditioning consists of submerging specimens under water at
18°C for seven days. The sensitivity to moisture is then assessed as the ratio of the unconfined
compressive strength of the conditioned to unconditioned specimens at a temperature of 18°C and
a loading rate of 1 mm/s.
Lottman procedure
The Lottman procedure (Lottman 1982) is typically used to predict moisture damage in dense-
graded bituminous mixtures. In this procedure samples are subjected to vacuum saturation alone
or vacuum saturation followed by freeze-plus-warm-water soaking, more commonly referred to as
freeze-thaw. The test specimens, 100 mm in diameter and 63 mm in height, are then tested to
produce conditioned to unconditioned ratios of indirect tensile strength and stiffness. The short-
term analysis, vacuum saturated to dry ratio, is intended to reflect a field performance up to four
years, while the long-term performance, vacuum saturated plus freeze-thaw to dry ratio estimates
the field performance from 3 to 12 years.
The vacuum saturation part of the procedure consists of submerging the specimens in distilled
water in a partial vacuum of 600 mmHg (80 kPa) for 30 minutes. The samples are then left
saturated at atmospheric pressure for a further 30 minutes, conditioned in water at the test
temperature for three hours and then tested to obtain conditioned and unconditioned ratios of
indirect tensile strength and stiffness. The freeze-thaw procedure consists of tightly wrapping the
vacuum saturated specimens in plastic wrap, placing them in heavy-duty plastic bags, each
containing approximately 3 ml of distilled water, and freezing them at –18 to –12°C for 15 hours.
The plastic wrap is then removed and the samples are heated to 60°C in a distilled water bath for
24 hours, conditioned in water at the test temperature for three hours and tested.
Austroads 2007
— 15 —
Tunnicliff and Root Procedure

The Tunnicliff and Root procedure (Tunnicliff and Root 1984) is similar to the Lottman procedure
(Lottman 1982). However, the procedure uses a slightly different vacuum saturation and thermal
treatment methodology, and excludes freezing of the saturated specimens. The procedure
controls the degree of saturation to ensure that enough moisture is present to initiate moisture
damage, while preventing over-saturation which could induce unrelated damage to specimens.
Conditioning involves submerging the specimens in distilled water and incrementally applying a
partial vacuum of 508 mmHg (68 kPa) in 5 minute increments until a degree of saturation between
55 to 80% is achieved. The specimens are then heated in a distilled water bath at 60°C for
24 hours, conditioned in water at the test temperature of 25°C for one hour and tested.
Modified Lottman procedure (AASHTO T283)

The modified Lottman test (designated as ‘AASHTO T283’) procedure combines features of both
the Lottman (1982) and Tunnicliff and Root (1984) procedures. The Lottman procedure attempts
to achieve 100% saturation in its specimens, while the Tunnicliff and Root procedure attempts to
control the saturation level between 55 and 80%. Due to concerns on over-saturation, where the
negative pressure applied in the vacuuming process may cause extra non-moisture-related
damage to specimens, the modified Lottman procedure uses a decreased saturation level of
between 60 and 80% (Scherocman et al. 1986). As the saturation level achieved by partial
vacuum is primarily responsive to the magnitude of the vacuum and relatively independent of the
length of time, this reduced saturation was achieved by reducing the partial vacuum from 600
mmHg (80 kPa) to 508 mmHg (68 kPa). This test method was adopted by the Superpave system
as the required test for determination of moisture damage (Solaimanian et al. 2003).
RTA T640 and T649 (Australia)

In New South Wales, the RTA adopted the AASHTO T283 test to assess moisture sensitivity of its
mixtures. The T640 test is for laboratory produced specimens whereas T649 is for in situ cores.
They are fundamentally identical tests to the AASHTO T283 procedure, but T640 uses a slightly
higher specimen air voids range of 7 ~ 9% (compared to 6 ~ 8%) and does not incorporate the
mixture ageing process. Vacuum conditioning comprises 80 kPa for 10 min.
LINK Bitutest moisture sensitivity protocol

Scholz (1995) produced a test method for measuring moisture sensitivity of compacted bituminous
mixtures that involved determining the ratio of conditioned to unconditioned indirect modulus
values as measured with the Nottingham Asphalt Tester (NAT). The conditioning consisted of
saturation under a partial vacuum of 510 mmHg (68 kPa) at 20°C for 30 minutes, followed by
immersion in water at 60°C for six hours, and immersion in water at 5°C for 16 hours. The
samples were finally conditioned in water at 20°C for two hours prior to the indirect modulus
measurement.
Austroads 2007
— 16 —
3.3 Moisture sensitivity tests combined with other factors

Immersion wheel tracking test
The immersion wheel tracking test simulates the effect of traffic whilst the asphalt mixture is
immersed in water (Mathews and Colwill 1962). The test apparatus consists of three solid-tyred
wheels which traverse three specimens, positioned so that the water level is just above their top
surface (Figure 3.1). The immersed specimens (water at 40°C) are subjected to a 20 kg wheel
load reciprocating at 25 cycles per minute. The failure is indicated by a sudden and significant
increase in plastic deformation of the specimen. A good correlation exists between stripping failure
on heavily trafficked roads and the behaviour of similar materials in the immersion wheel tracking
test (Nicholas and Mathews 1954; Whiteoak 1990). The immersion wheel tracking test has also
shown excellent correlation with the net adsorption test for a range of aggregate types (Scholz et
al. 1994). However, Whiteoak (1990) cited another study incorporating 17 aggregates which
showed wide variability in failure times.
Figure 3.1: Immersion wheel tracking test
Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD)

Fundamentally similar to the immersion wheel tracking tester described above, the Hamburg wheel
tracking device consists of a pair of samples subjected to wheel loading under water. The
specimen shape was originally cubical or prismatic (typical size of 260 mm × 320 mm × 40 mm),
but cylindrical specimens can also be tested using a specially designed mould. The samples are
submerged in water at 50°C, although the temperature can vary from 25°C to 70°C, and subjected
to a steel wheel (width = 47 mm), which passes 50 times per minute with a maximum velocity of
340 mm/sec in the centre of the sample. Testing is undertaken to 20,000 passes, or until 20 mm
rut depth is reached.
Austroads 2007
— 17 —
The onset of stripping is termed to be the ‘stripping inflection point’ and relates to the intersection
of the creep slope and the stripping slope where there is a sharp increase in the rate of permanent
deformation. Both the stripping slope and the stripping inflection point are related to the moisture
damage of the sample. Based on an evaluation of 20 pavements, Aschenbrener (1995) found an
excellent correlation between the Hamburg wheel-tracking device and pavements of known field
performance.
Environmental conditioning system (ECS)

The environmental conditioning system (designated as ‘AASHTO TP34’) test procedure was
developed at Oregon State University as a part of the SHRP Asphalt Research Program (Al-
Swailmi and Terrel 1992). The AASHTO TP34 procedure was designed to determine the moisture
susceptibility of compacted asphalt specimens under combined effects of temperature, water
saturation and dynamic loading which provided a more realistic distress condition.
Figure 3.2 shows a schematic diagram of the ECS. The fluid conditioning system is used to wet
the test specimen as well as determine air and water permeability of the compacted mixture. It
also contains facilities to monitor pH of the distilled water passing through the specimen as well as
specimen and water temperatures.
Figure 3.2: Environmental conditioning system
Austroads 2007
— 18 —
The loading system is comprised of an electro-pneumatic closed-loop servo system and a modified
triaxial cell which also serves as the load frame. The triaxial cell/load frame is housed within the
environmental cabinet which is capable of a wide range of temperatures (minus 20 to about 100°C)
and a relative humidity range of up to 95%. The specimens are 102 mm in diameter and 102 mm
in height, and tested in an unconfined triaxial configuration. The test procedure used with the ECS
consists of three phases. Firstly, the specimen is evaluated in a dry condition by determining the
dry original resilient modulus (stiffness) and air permeability. Secondly, water is run through the
specimen for 30 minutes under a vacuum level of either 254 mmHg (34 kPa) or 508 mmHg
(68 kPa) and the water permeability determined. Thirdly, the saturated specimen is subjected to
thermal cycling and subsequent resilient modulus and water permeability testing.
The thermal cycling phase consists of three hot cycles at 60°C for six hours and one freezing cycle
at minus 18°C for six hours. Following each of the cycles, the specimen is conditioned for two
hours at 25°C and subjected to resilient modulus and water permeability testing. During the 60°C
cycles the specimen is subjected to a partial vacuum of 34 kPa and continuous repeated loading of
124 kPa. The repeated loading is not utilised during the freezing cycle but the partial vacuum is
still maintained.
An advantage of the ECS is the capability to observe the influence of traffic loading and the
resultant pore water pressure fluctuation. This was a significant consideration if the mechanism
that causes moisture damage in the pavement is to be simulated. However, it is worth noting that
the ECS is a complex and expensive procedure, and did not provide a better relationship to field
performance than the other tests available, such as the AASHTO T283 procedure (Solaimanian et
al. 2003).
Saturation ageing tensile stiffness (SATS) Test

Choi (2005) developed a combined ageing/moisture sensitivity laboratory test to evaluate the
performance of bituminous materials. The saturation ageing tensile stiffness (SATS) test consisted
of initial vacuum saturation of cylindrical specimens prior to placing in a high temperature (85oC)
and pressure (2.1 MPa) environment in the presence of moisture for an extended period of time
(65 hours). The modulus measured after the test (using the Nottingham Asphalt Tester) divided by
the modulus measured before the test (i.e. ‘retained stiffness’), and the specimen saturation
measured again after the test (i.e. ‘retained saturation’), are used as an indication of the sensitivity
of the compacted mix to combined ageing and moisture effects.
The test protocol was initially developed for a very specific type of mix (i.e. high modulus base
materials with relatively high air voids content and relatively low binder content). However, a trial
on different types of mixture demonstrated that the protocol could be applied to a wider range of
materials. Choi (2005) concluded that, for the limited range of materials investigated in the study,
ageing of the binder did not significantly alter the moisture sensitivity of the mixture.
Austroads 2007
— 19 —
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Moisture damage has been a topic of great interest to asphalt pavement technologists and road
authorities for many years. There is an extensive body of literature covering case studies of
moisture damage in in situ pavements, reviews of test methods, and correlations between
laboratory measured values and observed field performance.
Case studies generally agree on the importance of prevention of moisture ingress, which is the
prime cause of the damage. This can be achieved by attention to pavement design, with a
particular emphasis on implementing a proper pavement drainage system including consideration
of drainage of all pavement layers.
Permeability of mixture also appeared to be an important factor. Within a certain range of air voids
(described as the ‘pessimum’ condition), a situation arises where moisture can easily enter a
pavement layer, but is not able to leave as easily. This means that water is ‘trapped’ within the
pavement layer for some time. Naturally, achieving an optimum field compaction level for a
mixture (to control air voids, thus controlling permeability) is an important issue.
It is also important to select durable materials, such as mixtures with hydrated lime filler (HLF),
screened by a suitable moisture sensitivity test during the mix design stage.
The testing methods can be broadly grouped into the following categories:
moisture sensitivity testing of loose asphalt mixes
moisture sensitivity testing of compacted asphalt specimens.
Moisture sensitivity tests generally have a conditioning and an evaluation phase. The conditioning
processes associated with most test methods are to simulate the deterioration of the asphalt mix in
the field in an accelerated manner. Normally, the hastening of the deterioration is achieved by
immersing the material in water at an elevated temperature. It is noted that the elevated
temperature applied on the loose mixture is typically 100oC. However, 60oC appears to be the
most typical temperature used on compacted specimens. This lower temperature avoids or
minimises any structural disruption caused by the high temperature, rather than moisture damage.
Additionally, the samples can be subjected to combined conditioning factors which better simulate
field conditions, such as HWTD, ECS or SATS.
The two methods of evaluating ‘conditioned’ specimens are either a visual evaluation or subjecting
the specimen to a physical test. Visual evaluation is used extensively for the coated aggregate
tests (uncompacted ‘loose’ mixture). However, visual assessment tends to be subjective and
moreover, the assessment is performed on loose material ‘before’ compaction, and compaction
has been found to be one of the most decisive factors related to the field performance.
Most moisture sensitivity test procedures on compacted mixes measure the loss of strength or loss
of stiffness of an asphalt mix due to moisture induced damage. Typically, the reduced
performance resulting from moisture sensitive mixes is estimated by comparing the physical
properties of ‘conditioned’ samples to those of ‘unconditioned’ samples (usually expressed as a
percentage). The physical properties are evaluated using various mechanical tests which can be
divided into destructive (compression, stability, indirect tensile strength and fatigue) and non-
destructive (indirect tensile modulus and resilient modulus) approaches. An apparent advantage of
using a non-destructive test is that the same specimen can be used for a direct comparison of
unconditioned and conditioned properties. This reduces the number of specimens required
compared to destructive testing.
Austroads 2007
— 20 —
Saturation is a common link in all the conditioning procedures and is the key to the laboratory
simulation of moisture induced damage in the test specimens. Saturation is obtained by immersion
of the specimen in static or boiling water and/or by applying a certain degree of vacuum. The
vacuum quickly draws water into the air voids within the specimen shortening the time required for
the specimen to reach the desired saturation level.
Although there are concerns regarding the repeatability and reproducibility, and the correlation with
field performance is questionable, the AASHTO T283 (and several other tests which are
fundamentally the same, but with some minor modifications) is the most widely used method at
present. This is probably due to some extent to the test being part of the Superpave system.
Moisture induced damage is but one aspect of the distress found in pavements in service. During
a pavement’s life it is subjected to a range of environmental conditions and traffic loadings which
are impossible to replicate in the laboratory. The poor correlations between laboratory test
procedures and field performance noted in the studies summarised in this report may be in part
due to this lack of replication of the environmental conditions and traffic loadings already
experienced by the in-service pavement.
The Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD) incorporates a traffic loading aspect and is likely to
provide a better simulation of field conditions, and could provide an alternative test to the AASHTO
T283 procedure. However, it is not widely accepted at present. A logical approach might be to
trial the HWTD and gather information on field performance, while continuing to use existing test
methods to control moisture sensitivity.
Austroads 2007
— 21 —
REFERENCES
Airey, GD 2002, Optimising the Returns from Long Life Roads – Review of Durability Test Methods, Report
by Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering for the Highway Agency, Contract No. 3/302, April.
Al-Swailmi, S & Terrel, RL 1992, ‘Evaluation of Water Damage of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures using the
Environmental Conditioning System (ECS)’, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, vol. 61.
Anon 1991, Boiling water stripping test on coarse aggregates coated with a bituminous binder, Operating
Procedure, ME 65/91, Belgian Road Research Centre (BRRC).
Anon 2000, Investigation into the Condition of Asphalt on selected sites on Pacific Highway – Preliminary
Report, Report No. 002291/1, December, Pavement Projects Branch, Road and Traffic Authority,
Australia.
Anon 2002, Manual of Testing Procedure, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, USA.
Anon 2003, TxDOT Standard Specification for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and
Bridges, Draft, Texas Department of Transportation, Austine, USA.
Aschenbrener, T 1995, Evaluation of Hamburg wheel-tracking device to predict moisture damage in hot-mix
asphalt, TRR 1492, pp. 193-201, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Bocci, M, & Colagrande, S 1993 ‘The adhesiveness of modified road bitumens’, Proceedings of the 5th
Eurobitume Congress, vol. 1A, Paper No. 1.61, Stockholm, Sweden.
Busching, HW, Corley, GC, Burati, Jr. JL, Amirkhanian, SN & Alewine, JM 1984, ‘A Statewide Program to
Identify and Prevent Stripping Damage’, Evaluation and Prevention of Water Damage to Asphalt
Pavement Materials, ASTM STP 899, ASTM Committee D-4 on Road and Paving Materials,
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, pp. 7-21.
Choi, YK 2005 ‘Development of the Saturation Ageing Tensile Stiffness (SATS) Test for High Modulus Base
Materials’, PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, April.
Choquet, FS & Verhasselt, AF 1993 ‘An objective method of measuring bitumen-aggregate adhesion’,
Proceedings of the 5th Eurobitume Congress, Paper No. 1.50, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 267-270.
Cominsky, RJ 1994, Strategic Highway Research Program; Report-A-407, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, USA.
Corte, JF & Serfass, JP 2000 ‘The French approach to asphalt mixture design: a performance-related
system of specifications’, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, vol. 69, pp. 794-
834.
Curtis, CW, Ensley, K & Epps, J 1993 Fundamental properties of asphalt-aggregate interactions including
adhesion and adsorption, SHRP-A-341, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Epps, JA, Holmes, RD & Andrae, J 1984, An Investigation of Premature Pavement Distress on Interstate
Route 80 Near Deeth, Nevada, Research Report 504-1, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, USA.
Austroads 2007
— 22 —
Epps, JA, Sebaaly, PE, Penaranda, J, Masher, MR, McCann, MB & Hand, AJ 2000, Compatibility of a Test
for Moisture-induced Damage with Superpave Volumetric Mix Design, NCHRP Report 444, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Harrigan, ET, Leahy, RB & Youtcheff, JS 1994, The Superpave mix design system: Manual of specifications
- test methods and practices, SHRP-A-379, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research
Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Joslin, J, Garrison, M, Anderson, M, Rudd, W, Still, C, Cleaver J, Leake, W, Skopik, R, Fults, K, Tahmoressi,
M & Krugler, P 1998, An Evaluation of Factors Affecting Moisture Susceptibility of Pavements in
Northeast Texas, DHT-46, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, USA.
Kennedy, TW & Anagnos, JN 1984, Techniques for Reducing Moisture Damage in Asphalt Mixtures,
Research Report 253-9F, Centre for Transportation Research, Austin, Texas, USA.
Kennedy, TW, Huber, GA, Harrigan, ET, Cominsky, RJ, Hughes, CS, Von Quintus, H and Moulthrop, JS
1994, Superior performing asphalt pavements (Superpave): The product of the SHRP asphalt
research program, SHRP-A-410, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, USA.
Kennedy, TW, Roberts, FL & Lee, KW 1982 ‘Evaluation of moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures using
the Texas freeze-thaw pedestal test’, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
vol. 51, pp. 327-341.
Kennedy, TW, Roberts, FL & Lee, KW 1983, Evaluation of moisture effects on asphalt concrete mixtures,
TRR 911, Transport Research Board, pp. 134-143.
Kennedy, TW, Roberts, FL & Lee, KW 1984, Evaluating Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Mixtures Using the
Texas Boiling Test, Transportation Research Record 968, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, pp. 45-54.
Kiggundu, BM & Roberts, FL 1988, ‘The Success/Failure of Methods used to Predict the Stripping Potential
in the Performance of Bituminous Pavement Mixtures’, submitted to TRB.
Lee, IK, deVries, R, White, W & Rodway, B 1987, Stripping Failure of An Airfield Pavement, Research
Report No. 10, University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, The University of New South
Wales, Canberra, Australia.
Liu, MJ & Kennedy TW 1991, Field Evaluation of Stripping and Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements
Treated with Lime and Antistripping Agents, Research Report 441-2F, Centre for Transportation
Research, Austin, Texas, USA.
Lottman, RP 1982, Laboratory test method for Predicting moisture-induced damage to asphalt concrete,
TRR 843, pp. 88-95, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Martin, AE, Rand, D, Weitzel, D, Tedford, D, Sebaaly, P, Lane, L, Bressette, T & Maupin, Jr. GW 2003, ‘Field
Experiences’, Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt Pavements – A National Seminar, Transportation
Research Board, February 4-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 229-258.
Mathews, DH & Colwill, DM 1962, ‘The immersion wheel-tracking test’, Journal of Applied Chemistry, pp.
505-509.
Maupin, Jr. GW 1997, Follow-up Field Investigation of the Effectiveness of Antistripping Additives in Virginia,
Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, USA.
Austroads 2007
— 23 —
Nicholas, JH & Mathews, DH 1954, The immersion wheel tracking test: correlation with road performance,
Research Note RN/2182/JHN, Road Research Laboratory.
O’Connor, DL 1984, ‘Action Taken by the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation to
Identify and Reduce the Stripping Potential of Asphalt Mixes’, Proceedings of the Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, vol. 53, pp. 631-635.
Ping, WV & Kennedy TW 1991, Evaluation of Stripping and Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements Treated
with Lime and Antistripping Agents, Research Report 441-1, Centre for Transportation Research,
Austin, Texas, USA.
Pretorius, FJ, Jenkins, KJ, Hugo, F & Vietze, D 2003, ‘Innovative Asphalt Mix Design and Construction: Case
Studies on Cape Town International Airport and Kromboom Parkway’, 21st ARRB Transport Research
Conference, Caines, Queensland, Australia.
Read, JM & Whiteoak, DC 2003, Shell Bitumen Handbook, Shell UK Oil Products Limited, 5th edn, UK.
Scherocman, JA, Mesch, KA & Proctor, JJ 1986, ‘The effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycle conditioning on the
moisture damage in asphalt concrete mixtures’, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, vol. 55, pp. 213-236.
Scholz, TV 1995, ‘Durability of bituminous paving mixtures’, PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering,
University of Nottingham, October.
Scholz, TV, Terrel, RL, Al-Joaib, A & Bea, J 1994, Water sensitivity: binder validation, SHRP-A-402,
Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Shatnawi, SR 1992, Premature AC Pavement Distress – District 02 Investigation, Interim Report, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Shatnawi, SR 1995, Premature AC Pavement Distress – District 02 Investigation, Final Report, FHWA-
CA/TC-92-07, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Solaimanian, M, Harvey, J, Tahmoressi, M & Tandon, V 2003, ‘Test Methods to Predict Moisture Sensitivity
of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements’, Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt Pavements – A National Seminar,
Transportation Research Board, February 4-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 77-113.
Tahmoressi, M 1996, Evaluation of Test Method Tex-531-C, Prediction of Moisture-Induced Damage to

Bituminous Paving Materials Using Moulded Specimens, DHT-38, Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin, USA.
Takallou, H, Hicks, GR & Wilson, JE 1984, ‘Evaluation of Stripping Problems in Oregon’, Evaluation and
Prevention of Water Damage to Asphalt Pavement Materials, ASTM STP 899, ASTM Committee D-4
on Road and Paving Materials, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, pp. 22-48.
Taylor, MA & Khosla, NP 1983, Stripping of Asphalt Pavements: State of the Art, Transportation Research
Record 911, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 150-158.
Terrel, RL & Al-Swailmi, S 1994, Water Sensitivity of Asphalt – Aggregate Mixes: Test Selection, SHRP
Report A-403, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Terrel, RL & Shute, JW 1989, Summary report on water sensitivity, SHRP-A/IR-89-003, Strategic Highway
Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Austroads 2007
— 24 —
Tunnicliff, DG & Root, RE 1984, Use of antistripping additives in asphaltic concrete mixtures, NCHRP 274,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Vuorinen, MJ & Valtonen, JP 1999, ‘A new ultrasound method for measuring the resistance to stripping’,
Proceedings Eurobitume Workshop 99, Paper No. 023, Luxembourg.
Walsh, G, Jamieson, I, Thorton, J & O’Mahony, M 1996, ‘A Modified SHRP Net Adsorption Test’,
Proceedings of the 1st Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, E&E.4.069, Strasbourg.
Whiteoak, CD 1990, Shell Bitumen Handbook, Shell Bitumen UK, Surrey, UK.
Woodside, AR, Woodward, WDH, Russell, TEI & Peden, PR 1994, ‘The relationship between aggregate
mineralogy and adhesion to aggregate’, Proceedings of the First European Symposium on
Performance and Durability of Bituminous Materials, March, pp. 84-97, Leeds, UK.
Austroads 2007
— 25 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads (2007), Case Study and Test Method Review on Moisture

Damage, Sydney, A4, 33pp, AP-T76/07
Keywords:
bituminous pavement, moisture sensitivity, damage, test method, case study,

literature review, stripping, adhesion, cohesion.
Abstract:
This report presents an extensive literature review on case studies of moisture

damage in pavements and moisture sensitivity testing methods available
worldwide. It includes summaries of interviews with Australian practitioners.
Case studies generally agree on the importance of prevention of moisture

ingress and the necessity of a suitable moisture sensitivity test during the mix
design stage. The AASHTO T283 test method (also known as ‘modified
Lottman’) and variations on it are the most widely used methods at present.

Ap T76 07

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ap T76 07

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AP-T76/07

AUSTROADS TECHNICAL REPORT

Case Study and Test Method Review

First Published 2007

© Austroads Inc. 2007

Case Study and Test Method Review on Moisture Damage

Austroads Project No. TT1135

Austroads Publication No. AP–T76/07

Published by Austroads Incorporated

The two approaches to evaluating moisture sensitivity comprise a visual evaluation of

1.2 Moisture Damage of Bituminous Materials

2 CASE STUDIES OF MOISTURE DAMAGE

 laboratory accreditation and personnel training and certification.

Table 2.1: Caltrans interim guideline on moisture sensitivity treatment

No documented history of stripping in past projects.

Documented history of stripping in past projects. LSM treatment required.

Table 2.2: Caltrans environmental risk zone

≥ 70 Low None required

≤ 50 High DHL, LSM ≥ 70

≥ 75 Low None required

** Select one treatment

Actions taken in reply to the above recommendations included:

Outcomes of these studies can be summarised as follows:

Other recommendations presented by the TxDOT taskforce were:

Boiling test TSR test

Stripping potential of mix Uncoated aggregate surface TSR ratio

Nonstripping < 10% > 0.80

Marginal mix 10 ~ 20% 0.60 ~ 0.80

Stripping susceptible > 20% < 0.60

2.1.5 Other states

2.2 South Africa

3 MOISTURE SENSITIVITY TESTS

3.1 Tests on loose mixtures

Static immersion tests

Table 3.1: Stripping tests for loose aggregate

Boiling water 600 ml

Net adsorption test – 6 hrs Passing 4.75 mm, 140 ml –

Dynamic immersion tests

Rolling bottle method

Boiling water test

Ancona stripping test

Boiling water stripping test

Net adsorption test

3.2 Tests on compacted mixtures

Table 3.2: Moisture damage tests for compacted asphalt mixtures.

Distilled water @ partial vacuum of 508 mmHg

Distilled water @ partial vacuum of 508 mmHg

Partial vacuum of 510 mmHg @ 20°C for 30

Texas freeze-thaw pedestal test

Immersion compression test

Marshall stability test

Tunnicliff and Root Procedure

Modified Lottman procedure (AASHTO T283)

RTA T640 and T649 (Australia)

LINK Bitutest moisture sensitivity protocol

3.3 Moisture sensitivity tests combined with other factors

Figure 3.1: Immersion wheel tracking test

Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD)

Environmental conditioning system (ECS)

Figure 3.2: Environmental conditioning system

Saturation ageing tensile stiffness (SATS) Test

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Tahmoressi, M 1996, Evaluation of Test Method Tex-531-C, Prediction of Moisture-Induced Damage to

laboratory accreditation and personnel training and certification.