National Seminar

on
Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt
Pavements

TOPIC 4
TREATMENTS

Eric Berger
Jim Anagnos

February 4-6, 2003

 Types of Treatments

Applied to Asphalt Binder

Applied to Aggregate

2
 Applied to Asphalt Binder

Alkyl Amines (most common)

Polymers

Other Chemicals

3
 Applied to Aggregates

Lime (most common)

Portland Cement

Fly Ash

Flue Dust

Polymers

Other Chemicals
4
 Polymers

Applied to Asphalt Binders

Applied to Aggregates

5
 Aggregate A
100

90 * concentration of
polymeric additive
80
Retained Strength Ratio (%)

70
60
TS
50
MR
40
30

20
10
0
1
None 2 Lime
1.5% 3 lb/t*
0.75 1.04lb/t* 1.5 5
lb/t*

6
 Aggregate B
100
90 * concentration of
polymeric additive
80
Retained Strength Ratio (%)

70

60
TS
50
MR
40

30

20
10

0
1
None 1.5%2Lime 3 lb/t*
0.75 1.04 lb/t* 1.55lb/t*

7
Treatment Type Effectiveness

Asphalt Binder Type

Aggregate Type
Concentration
HMA Design
Time and Temperature of Storage
Test Method Used for Evaluation
Short Term Properties
Long Term Properties
8
 NATIONAL SEMINAR
On
MOISTURE SENSITIVITY OF
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
TOPIC 4
TREATMENTS

February 4-6, 2003

San Diego, California
Treatment of Asphalt
Mixtures with Liquid
Anti-Stripping Agents

James N. Anagnos
Consultant
Akzo Nobel
SHRP DSR Binder Effect With
High Performance Liquids

1.6
1.4
1.2
G*/sind, kPa

None
1
Liquid A (1.0%)
0.8
Liquid A (10.0%)
0.6 Liquid B (1.0%)
0.4
0.2
0
Binder Binder
Source A Source B
 Rut Depth, mm

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Li
qu
id
A
Li Binder Source 1 PG70-22
qu
id
A
Binder Source 2
12,100 cycles

20,000 cycles
C
on
tro
l Binder Source 2 PG76-
Li 22
qu
id
A
16,000 cycles

Binder Source 2
20,000 cycles

C
on
tro
l
Li Binder Source 3 PG70-22
qu
id
14,300 cycles

A
Binder Source
cycles

Li
20,000

qu 3
id
B
Li Binder Source
20,000 cycles

qu
id
C
Li Binder Source
20,000 cycles

qu 3
id
D
Binder Source 3
Hamburg Test Results @ 50oC

17,600 cycles
 LAS
Applied to Asphalt Cement

Refinery
On-job-site
 Block Diagram

AC LINE

CUTOFF VALVE

ANTI-STRIP
STORAGE TEMP.
REGULATOR INJECTOR PORT STATIC MIXER
TANK

HEATING OIL HEATING OIL

FLOW HEATING OIL

METER

HEATING OIL

STRAINER
Field System
Field System
 Louisiana
Field Study
Location: LA 450
Date Placed: July 1990
Contractor: Barrier Construction
Testing Agency: Barry Moore &
Associates
 Materials
Aggregate: Crushed gravel
Local field sand
Asphalt: Exxon AC-30
Additives: LAS agents
Hydrated lime
 Additives
Liquid A, % 0.8
Hydrated Lime, % 1.4
Liquid B, % 0.8
Liquid C, % 0.8
Lime/Liquid B, % 1.4/0.8
 Louisiana
Test Methods

Ross Count
Boiling Water
Modified Lottman
 Ross Count

Plant mixed material

Percent coating of +No. 4 agg.
Ross Count
 Boiling Water Test
Plant mixed material
Boil 10-minutes in distilled water
Drain and air dry
Visually determine stripping
Typical Results

Fail Pass
 Modified Lottman
AASHTO T283
Freeze Thaw Cycles
One, Three, Five, and Ten cycles
 Modified Lottman
Parameters Evaluated

Tensile Strength
Tensile Strength Ratio
Air Voids
Visual Stripping after testing
Typical Appearance

Fail Pass
Visual Stripping vs Freeze-Thaw Cycles
80
70
Visual Stripping, %

60
50
Liquid A
40 Lime
Liquid B
30
Liquid C
20 Lime/Liquid B

10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cycles
 Tensile Strength Ratio vs Freeze-Thaw
Cycles
120

100

80 Liquid A
TSR, %

Lime
60 Liquid B
Liquid C
Lime/Liquid B
40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cycles
 Wet Tensile Strength vs Freeze-Thaw
Cycles
120
Wet Tensile Strength, psi

100
80 Liquid A
Lime

60 Liquid B
Liquid C
Lime/Liquid B
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cycles
 Air Voids vs Freeze-Thaw Cycles
10

9
Air Voids, %

Linear (Lime/Liquid B)
Linear (Lime)
8 Linear (Liquid B)
Linear (Liquid C)
Linear (Liquid A)

6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cycles
 Tensile Strength Ratio vs
Air Voids
120
110
100
90
80 Linear (Lime/Liquid B)

70 Linear (Liquid B)
TSR, %

Linear (Lime)
60
Linear (Liquid C)
50 Linear (Liquid A)
40
30
20
10
0
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
Air Voids, %
 Tensile Strength vs Air Voids
120

100
Tensile Strength, psi

80 Linear (Lime/Liquid B)
Linear (Liquid B)
60 Linear (Lime)
Linear (Liquid C)
40 Linear (Liquid A)

20

0
6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5
Air Voids, %
2001
Virginia Test Method
for
Moisture Damage

Root-Tunnicliff Version
of
Modified Lottman
 Tensile Strength Ratio - Virginia
LAS Lime
120
110
100
TSR, %

90
80
70
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Virginia Plants
 Costs
Liquid Anti-strip Agent
$0.45 to $0.75 per pound of liquid or
$6.75 to $11.25 per ton of asphalt binder or
$0.30 to $0.70 per ton of hot mix

In-line Blending Equipment

$10,000 to $25,000
 Conclusions
Liquid Anti-stripping Additives

Effective high performance additives

Easy to use
Added at refinery or hot mix plant
Minimal Cost - $0.50 to $0.80/ton of hot mix
National Seminar on
Moisture Sensitivity of
Asphalt Pavements
Topic 4
Treatments Hydrated Lime

Eric Berger
 Moisture Sensitivity - Stripping

Adhesion - Poor stone/bitumen bond

Problem aggregate types - siliceous, igneous
Incompatibility with bitumen
Mechanical loading fatigue
Pore pressure & scour

Cohesion Fracture within mastic

Plastic deformation rutting
Binder stiffness/ excessive loading
Environmental conditions oxidative aging
Hardening >> fracture

Bitumen chemistry increasingly variable

2
 Benefits of Hydrated Lime

Chemically active filler

Adhesion
Mitigate aggregate surface charge/bitumen conflict
Stiffen mix reducing effects of mechanical
abrasion
1% by aggregate weight often increases full PG grade

Cohesion
Reacts with polar molecules that promote stripping
Forms insoluble calcium salts
Fine particles intercept microcracks extending
fatigue life

3
 Moisture Sensitivity Tensile Strength Ratio

100
90
80
70
60
TSR
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
Natural Aggregate Lime Treated

T-283 results - three Mississippi aggregates

4
 Influence of HL on Binder Stiffness
Figure 4. Effect of Binder Grade and Additive Type
Hamburg Whe e l Analysis (10-14-01)
45.0
Tested @ 50C
40.9
40.0 Includes all mixture types
40.0 Includes all aggregate types
Note: # of tests perf ormed
show n in parenthesis below ,
35.0
next to additive type

30.0
Rut Depth (mm)

25.0
21.5
19.9
20.0 18.5

15.0 12.9
11.0 11.3

I 10.0

4.5
5.0

0.0
PG 64-22 PG 64-22 PG 64-22 PG 70-22 PG 70-22 PG 70-22 PG 76-22 PG 76-22 PG 76-22
(None, 19) (Liquid, 24) (Lime, 36) (None, 29) (Liquid, 31) (Lime, 52) (None, 49) (Liquid, 28) (Lime, 114)

Table 6. Inflence of Binder Type on Hamburg results

Binder Additive No. of Rut

Mixes Depth, mm
Source: Texas DOT/
None 19 40 Tahmoressi
PG 64-22 Lime 36 18.5
None 29 21.5
PG 70-22 Lime 52 12.9
None 49 11
5 PG 76-22 Lime 114 4.5
 Hamburg Wheel Test
20,000 cycles (40oC)
20
18
16
Rut Depth, mm

14
12 Mix 1
10 Mix 2
8 Mix 3
6 Mix 4
4
2
0
None 1% HL LAS 1 LAS 2 LAS 3 LAS 4
Source: Colorado DOT
6
 Permanent Strain/ Fracture Toughness

0.9
Permanent Strain, %

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 Untreated
0.3 Lime Treated
0.2
0.1
0
500 1000 1500 2000 3600
Time, sec.
Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR)

Source: Mississippi DOT

7
 Effect of Lime on Age Hardening

120

100
Hardening Index

80

60
Asphalt A
40 Asphalt B
20

0
0%-HL 1%-HL 1.5%-HL 1.5%LS
Additive

HL=hydrated lime; LS=limestone

8
 Quantities of HL & Methods of Additon

160
Tensile Strength Ratio, %

140
120 No Lime
100 Dry HL
80 Dry HL to FA
60 LS
40 LS to FA
20
0
0.5 1 1.5
Lime Percent by Dry Weight of All Aggregate

Effect of method of lime marination and percent lime added to granite aggregate
[after Hansen et al (1993), ref. 47]

9
10
Tensile Strength Ratio, %

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2

No
Additive

HL
Slurry

Dry HL/

Source: Texas DOT

Wet
Agg.
Comparison of TSR

Dry HL/
Dry Agg.

Dry HL/
Wet
Method of Hydrated Lime Addition

Sand
 LCCA Cost Savings

10.9%
Utah
13.4%
10.9%
Texas 13.4%
14.1%
11.9%
South Carolina 14.1%
19.6%

Oregon
11.97% 19.6%
Nevada 11.97% No Lime
7.7%

Mississippi
18.7% 7.7% Lime

Georgia 18.7%
15.0%

Colorado 15.0% 9.5%

California 9.5%
15.4%

Arizona 15.4%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Dollars per Square Yard

Life cycle cost analysis of using lime for various states

[after Hicks et al. (2001), ref. 49]
11
 Summary

Hydrated lime improves performance of HMA

Moisture sensitivity
Rheology
Moisture sensitivity
Proven best long term performer
Adhesion between mastic and stone
Improved viscosity - stiffness and resilience
Rheology
Toughness at high and low temperatures
Active filler - captures polar molecules
Reduces oxidation and aging
Synergistic benefits

12