AP-R708-24 Anti-Stripping Additives As Alternative To Hydrated Lime

Research Report
AP-R708-24
Feasibility of Using Anti-stripping Additives as

an Alternative to Hydrated Lime
Feasibility of Using Anti-stripping Additives as an Alternative to Hydrated Lime
Prepared by Publisher
Joe Grobler, Dr Chrysoula Pandelidi and Dr James Grenfell Austroads Ltd.

Level 9, 570 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Sean Dorahy
www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

Hydrated lime is widely used in Australia to reduce the moisture Austroads is the association of Australasian road transport
susceptibility of asphalt mixes in service. However, the local asphalt and traffic agencies.
industry is concerned about the sustainability of the continued use of
hydrated lime in asphalt. Austroads’ purpose is to support our member organisations to
deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
This report presents the findings of a desktop review of the potential succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
use of alternative liquid anti-stripping agents. A literature review was transport research which underpins our input to policy
undertaken to understand the key factors affecting the moisture development and published guidance on the design,
susceptibility of asphalt mixes, identify commonly used moisture construction and management of the road network and its
susceptibility test methods and document advantages and associated infrastructure.
disadvantages of using hydrated lime and liquid anti-stripping agents.
The literature review found that both hydrated lime and liquid anti- Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
stripping agents can be effective in reducing the risk of asphalt for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
stripping; however, the effectiveness of these additives depends on consistency for road users.
the specific aggregate–binder combination being considered. There Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
are several test methods available to assess the moisture executive representatives from each of its eleven member
susceptibility of asphalt mixes containing anti-stripping additives. It is, organisations:
however, evident though in the literature reviewed that all these tests
have limitations and there is not currently consensus regarding the
• Transport for NSW
most appropriate test method to use. Therefore, an interim moisture • Department of Transport and Planning Victoria
susceptibility testing protocol comprising of multiple tests has been • Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
developed to assess the effectiveness of different anti-stripping
• Main Roads Western Australia
additives in the laboratory.
• Department for Infrastructure and Transport South Australia
Stakeholder engagement was also undertaken to determine current • Department of State Growth Tasmania
practices in Australia and New Zealand for managing the risk of
moisture damage in asphalt pavements. • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics
Northern Territory
Keywords • Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Australian Capital Territory
Moisture, susceptibility, damage, stripping, hydrated lime, liquid
anti-stripping agent, test, protocol • Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Development, Communications and the Arts
ISBN 978-1-922994-27-1 • Australian Local Government Association
Austroads Project No. APT6048 • NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.
Austroads Publication No. AP-R708-24

Publication date April 2024
Pages 68
© Austroads 2024 | 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.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants in the stakeholder engagement survey.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
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.
Summary
Hydrated lime is widely used in Australia to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes; however, the
local asphalt industry and some state transport agencies have raised concerns regarding the future
sustainability of incorporating hydrated lime in asphalt.
The purpose of Austroads project APT6048 Feasibility of Using Anti-stripping Additives as an Alternative to
Hydrated Lime was to assess the potential for using alternative anti-stripping additives (other than hydrated
lime) to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in service. A literature review was undertaken to
determine the main benefits of using hydrated lime and liquid anti-stripping agents (LAAs) in asphalt mixes,
as well as to identify appropriate test methods for evaluating the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes
containing different anti-stripping additives.
The literature review found that in addition to improving the moisture resistance of asphalt mixes, lime also
acts as a mineral filler that can assist with:
• achieving the desired aggregate particle size distribution
• reducing the plasticity of clayey particles present in the mix
• improving the deformation resistance and oxidation properties of the binder mastic.
Similar to hydrated lime, several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of different types of LAAs to
reduce the risk of moisture damage in asphalt layers. However, identifying the right combination of aggregate
and anti-stripping additive is important to reduce the risk of moisture damage occurring. Some LAAs also
reduce the compaction temperature of the asphalt mix and can, therefore, perform a dual purpose (i.e. as an
anti-stripping and warm mix asphalt additive). Concerns have, however, been raised regarding the storage
and temperature stability of some LAAs, and appropriate handling requirements should be adopted when
using these agents. LAAs were also found to have a lower global warming potential compared to hydrated
lime based on the cradle–gate (i.e. from resource extraction or manufacturing to the plant gate) emissions of
these products. A survey of stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand confirmed general support for the
use of LAAs where these products can provide adequate resistance to moisture damage in asphalt.
There are several tests in use (both locally and internationally) to assess the moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixes in the laboratory. The commonly used tests either determine the bond between the aggregate
and bituminous binder or the moisture susceptibility of the compacted asphalt mix. However, there are
several limitations associated with both types of tests, and it was evident from the literature reviewed that
there is currently not a universally accepted test that can reliably assess the in-service moisture susceptibility
of different asphalt mixes. However, of the different test methods available, the tensile strength ratio (TSR)
and Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD) tests appear to be the most commonly used to assess the
moisture susceptibility of compacted asphalt specimens in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several researchers
and practitioners raised concerns regarding the ability of these tests to reliably predict field performance.
Given the limitations of the current laboratory tests to reliably predict the field performance of different
asphalt mixes, several researchers suggest that multiple tests should be considered in combination to
assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes. It is, therefore, important that a robust moisture
susceptibility assessment protocol be adopted to assess the effectiveness of using alternative anti-stripping
additives in locally manufactured asphalt mixes.
Austroads 2024 | page i

Subsequently, an interim laboratory testing protocol was developed to assess the effectiveness of different
anti-stripping additives. The protocol comprises standard constituent materials and asphalt mix
characterisation testing, followed by a suite of moisture susceptibility tests. Given the limitations of the
current test methods, it is proposed that the moisture susceptibility assessment initially comprises both the
plate stripping and TSR test. The HWTD test is also proposed as an additional risk mitigation measure for
asphalt mixes containing high proportions of reactive clays, a high stripping value, or where the asphalt will
be used in high-risk applications.
Further research is recommended to validate the use of the plate stripping test for asphalt applications and to
investigate the use of other international test methods commonly used to assess the bond between
aggregates and a bituminous binder. It is also recommended to review the current Austroads TSR test
method (including the specimen conditioning procedures) to improve its reproducibility and ability to better
distinguish between the moisture susceptibility of different asphalt mixes in the laboratory. The use of the
HWTD could also be further investigated for Australian and New Zealand applications.
Austroads 2024 | page ii

Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Moisture Damage in Asphalt Layers ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Failure Mechanism .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Factors Affecting Asphalt Stripping ..................................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Pavement Design and Road Drainage ................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Asphalt Mix Properties ........................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Asphalt Manufacturing and Construction ............................................................................... 9
2.3.4 Environmental and Traffic Conditions .................................................................................. 10
2.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 11
3. Moisture Susceptibility Test Methods .................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Assessment of Loose Asphalt Samples ............................................................................................ 13
3.2 Assessment of Compacted Asphalt Specimens ............................................................................... 14
3.2.1 Specimen Conditioning ........................................................................................................ 14
3.2.2 Indirect Tensile Strength Tests ............................................................................................. 16
3.2.3 Compression Tests............................................................................................................... 17
3.2.4 Wheel Tracking Tests ........................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Other Moisture Susceptibility Assessment Methods ......................................................................... 19
3.4 Critical Review of Moisture Susceptibility Test Methods ................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Specimen Conditioning Procedures ..................................................................................... 24
3.4.2 Aggregate–Binder Adhesion Tests....................................................................................... 25
3.4.3 Asphalt Stripping Tests ........................................................................................................ 26
4. Asphalt Anti-stripping Additives ........................................................................................................... 29
4.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Hydrated Lime ................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Effectiveness of Hydrated Lime to Reduce the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt ..............29
4.2.2 Secondary Effects of Hydrated Lime in Asphalt ................................................................... 30
4.2.3 Safety, Environmental and Construction Considerations when Using Hydrated Lime ........32
4.2.4 Current Usage of Hydrated Lime as an Anti-stripping Additive in Asphalt ...........................33
4.3 Liquid Anti-stripping Agents .............................................................................................................. 36
4.3.1 Effectiveness of LAAs to Reduce the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt .............................37
4.3.2 Secondary Effects of LAAs in Asphalt .................................................................................. 39
4.3.3 Safety, Environmental and Construction Considerations when Using LAAs .......................40
4.3.4 Current Usage of LAAs in Asphalt........................................................................................ 41
4.4 Other Anti-stripping Additives in Asphalt ........................................................................................... 42
Austroads 2024 | page iii

5. Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 44

5.1 Survey Responses ............................................................................................................................ 44
5.2 Summary of Stakeholder Engagement Findings .............................................................................. 47
6. Interim Laboratory Assessment Protocol ............................................................................................ 48
6.1 Available Assessment Protocols ....................................................................................................... 48
6.1.1 Australia and New Zealand .................................................................................................. 48
6.1.2 International .......................................................................................................................... 49
6.2 Interim Assessment Protocol ............................................................................................................ 51
6.2.1 Standard Material and Asphalt Mix Characterisation Testing ..............................................51
6.2.2 Asphalt Performance Testing ............................................................................................... 51
6.2.3 Laboratory Assessment Protocol ......................................................................................... 53
7. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 55
7.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 55
7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 56
References ...................................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix A Stakeholder Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 66
Tables
Table 2.1: Properties that may affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt ................................................... 5
Table 2.2: Environmental conditions that may affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt .........................11
Table 3.1: Correlation between methylene blue values and asphalt performance .......................................26
Table 4.1: Australian and New Zealand standard requirements for the use of hydrated lime ......................34
Table 4.2: The use of hydrated lime in asphalt in Europe............................................................................. 36
Table 4.3: Australian and New Zealand standard requirements for LAAs ....................................................41
Table 4.4: MRWA requirements for LAA ....................................................................................................... 42
Table 6.1: Test methods used in the USA to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes ..............49
Figures
Figure 2.1: Examples of asphalt stripping along the Hume Highway ............................................................... 2
Figure 2.2: Thermal pumping in asphalt layers ................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2.3: Classification of aggregates by surface charge ............................................................................. 6
Figure 2.4: Pessimism air voids range ............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2.5: Correlation between moisture damage and binder film thickness ................................................. 9
Figure 2.6: Correlation between air voids content and permeability of dense graded asphalt mixes ............10
Figure 3.1: M.i.S.T 2 moisture conditioning device ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 3.2: ITS test setup ............................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.3: HWTD test setup .......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.4: Wheel tracking curve .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.5: Plate stripping test ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 3.6: Wilhelmy plate method, a) device, b) schematic.......................................................................... 22
Figure 3.7: DVS method, a) device, b) schematic .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.8: Goniometer or sessile drop method, a) device, b) schematic ......................................................23
Figure 4.1: Effect of filler type and content on the binder mastic ................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2: Stiffening effect of the fixed binder fraction on the binder mastic ................................................31
Figure 4.3: The use of anti-stripping additives in the USA and Canada ........................................................35
Figure 5.1: Reasons for using anti-stripping additives in Australia and New Zealand ...................................45
Figure 5.2: Reasons for using LAAs in Australia and New Zealand .............................................................. 46
Figure 5.3: Experience with using LAAs in Australia and New Zealand ........................................................46
Figure 5.4: Local barriers to using LAAs in Australia and New Zealand ........................................................47
Figure 6.1: Austroads assessment framework for recycled materials ...........................................................49
Figure 6.2: Interim Austroads laboratory assessment protocol ...................................................................... 54
Austroads 2024 | page iv

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Hydrated lime is widely used in Australia to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in service,
and its use is mandated by several state transport agencies in certain mix types. However, the local asphalt
industry and some transport agencies have raised concerns regarding the future sustainability of using
hydrated lime as an anti-stripping additive in asphalt (e.g. the risks associated with the ongoing supply of
hydrated lime to meet demand and its large carbon footprint compared to alternative anti-stripping
technologies). Liquid anti-stripping agents (LAAs) have, therefore, been suggested as a more sustainable
alternative to hydrated lime for managing the risk of moisture damage in asphalt layers.
The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the desktop review undertaken regarding the use of
alternative anti-stripping additives (other than hydrated lime) to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt
mixes in service. The report also provides an interim laboratory testing protocol that can be used to assess
the effectiveness of different anti-stripping additives in asphalt.
1.2 Scope
The aim of Austroads project APT6048 Feasibility of Using Anti-stripping Additives as an Alternative to
Hydrated Lime was to determine the feasibility of using different anti-stripping additives as an alternative to
hydrated lime in asphalt mixes manufactured in Australia and New Zealand. The study comprised a literature
review to:
• identify the main factors contributing to moisture damage in asphalt layers
• document the effects of hydrated lime and alternative anti-stripping additives on asphalt performance
(with a particular focus on LAAs)
• document the advantages and disadvantages of using different anti-stripping additives
• identify appropriate specifications and testing protocols for assessing the effects of different
anti-stripping additives on the moisture susceptibility of asphalt
• inform the development of an Austroads testing protocol to assess the effectiveness of different
anti-stripping additives in locally manufactured asphalt mixes.
1.3 Methodology
The project primarily comprised a literature review focussed on identifying current practices (both locally and
internationally) to determine and manage the risk of moisture damage in asphalt mixes. A survey of key
stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand was also undertaken to identify local experiences in assessing
the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes and risk mitigation measures used to reduce the occurrence of
moisture damage in service. Several international experts were also consulted regarding the assessment
and use of anti-stripping additives in their local jurisdictions.
The literature review and consultation process informed the development of an interim moisture susceptibility
assessment protocol to assess the effectiveness of different anti-stripping additives in locally manufactured
asphalt mixes.
Austroads 2024 | page 1

2. Moisture Damage in Asphalt Layers
This section provides an overview of the main factors that can contribute towards moisture damage in
asphalt layers.
2.1 Background
Moisture damage in asphalt (also known as stripping) is defined as the failure of the bond between the
binder and aggregates (i.e. adhesive failure) or within the binder mastic (i.e. cohesive failure) in the presence
of moisture (Alam and Aggarwal 2020). The quality of the interface between the binder and aggregates is
primarily dependent on the molecular orientation, thermodynamic balance of the interfacial forces,
mechanistic tenacity and any chemical reactions that may take place between the materials (Guha and
Kumar 2017).
Moisture damage can lead to a decrease in the durability and strength of the asphalt layer (Abed et al. 2019;
Airey & Choi 2002) and it is generally manifested through cracking, rutting, corrugation, potholes, ravelling or
shoving (Alam and Aggarwal 2020). The moisture damage typically initiates at the bottom of the asphalt layer
and progressively propagates to the surface. Amirkhanian et al. (2018) suggested that if stripping is
restricted to the coarse aggregates, the damage will generally be minimal; however, more severe damage
will occur if the stripping occurs in the fine aggregate matrix. The repair cost of asphalt pavements
experiencing moisture damage can be significant and may require the complete removal of the distressed
asphalt layer.
A series of pavement failures during the 1990s (including major moisture-related damage along sections of
the Hume Highway in New South Wales) highlighted stripping in asphalt layers as a significant issue in
Australia (Figure 2.1). It is understood that these failures resulted in several transport agencies reviewing
their mix design and construction requirements, including the implementation of additional risk mitigation
measures (e.g. mandating the use of hydrated lime for certain mix types).
Figure 2.1: Examples of asphalt stripping along the Hume Highway
Source: Kandhal and Rickards (2001).

2.2 Failure Mechanism

There are several failure mechanisms that can lead to stripping in asphalt layers including displacement,
detachment, pore pressure build-up, hydraulic scouring and spontaneous emulsification (Amirkhanian et al.
2018; Diab et al. 2017).
Displacement can occur as a result of discontinuities (e.g. rupture) in the binder film, which in turn allows
water to enter the interface between the binder and aggregate causing displacement of the bituminous
binder from the aggregates. Alternative avenues of water entry include sharp aggregate features or where
the binder film is under increased tension (Shah et al. 2022). Displacement can also occur due to changes in
the water’s pH when in contact with the aggregate surface. This change can alter the polar groups absorbed,
in turn resulting in the accumulation of opposing negatively charged double layers on the surface of both the
binder and aggregates. To achieve equilibrium, more water is attracted leading to the separation of parts of
the binder from the aggregate surface (Diab et al. 2017).
Detachment is related to the separation of the binder film from the surface of the aggregate in the presence
of water. This is mainly due to the different polarities of the binder and water. The low polarity binders are
bonded to the aggregate surface through weak dispersion forces. Therefore, the binder can easily be
replaced by the highly polar water molecules. The presence of water leads to a more thermodynamically
stable aggregate/water system with reduced surface free energy (Diab et al. 2017; Shah et al. 2022).
Spontaneous emulsification can occur when the asphalt is submerged in water, whereby the water is
diffused into the binder and creates an inverted emulsion. Moisture damage can then occur when the
emulsion is formed near the binder–aggregate interface (Shah et al. 2022). It is believed that emulsification is
a reversible process when drying occurs, occasionally allowing for the emulsion to migrate to the surface and
form fatty spots (Diab et al. 2017).
Increased pore pressures can also disrupt the binder from the surface of the aggregates. Traffic loads can
cause further densification of asphalt layers after construction, potentially resulting in the interconnected
pores (voids) being separated and causing any moisture present to become trapped in the asphalt layer. The
cyclic pore pressures generated within the asphalt layer by the trapped moisture and traffic loads may result
in moisture damage (Diab et al. 2017). It is also hypothesised that pore pressures can be generated from
thermal changes within the asphalt layer, whereby the moisture in the voids expands when the pavement
heats up causing vapour pressure and rupture of the binder (Figure 2.2). It is, therefore, not uncommon for
asphalt stripping to also occur in un-trafficked areas due to thermal pumping (Kandhal and Rickards 2001).

Figure 2.2: Thermal pumping in asphalt layers
Source: Kandhal and Rickards (2001).
Hydraulic scouring can be caused by trafficking wet asphalt. During the rotational movement of the vehicle
tyres on a wet surface, water is dragged from the front of the tyre to pass through the gaps of the asphalt
pavement and then is immediately dragged through to the back of the tyre. This dynamic flow of water is also
considered to contribute to asphalt stripping (Diab et al. 2017).
2.3 Factors Affecting Asphalt Stripping

Asphalt stripping is often the result of interactions between multiple factors including the pavement and
drainage design, traffic loads, materials used, asphalt mix design, manufacturing and construction practices
and the environment conditions (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017). As a result, predicting the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes can be challenging (Amirkhanian et al. 2018).
2.3.1 Pavement Design and Road Drainage
Moisture-related asphalt failures can occur when the pavement layer becomes saturated with moisture due
to a poorly designed pavement structure (Diab et al. 2017). This phenomenon is more likely where
permeable pavement layers are constructed above a waterproofing (i.e. impermeable) membrane or seal
(Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017). However, this does not apply to free draining (e.g. open
graded) asphalt layers where there is little risk of moisture being trapped in the surfacing layer.
Water can also enter the asphalt layers through cracks in the pavement, or from the underlying layers and
sides as a result of a high water table or from the adjacent drainage infrastructure (Putman and
Amirkhanian 2006). A study by Kandhal and Rickards (2001) of examples where asphalt stripping occurred
also concluded that the saturation of asphalt layers was the primary cause for the stripping, and the authors
highlighted the importance of adequate pavement drainage.

2.3.2 Asphalt Mix Properties
Table 2.1 provides an overview of some important asphalt mix properties that can affect the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt pavements in service.
Table 2.1: Properties that may affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt
Component Property Comment

Binder Type Binder type can influence wetting characteristics and effectiveness of
binder adhesion.
Viscosity Stiffer binders provide greater resistance to stripping.
Chemical composition Presence of phenol and nitrogen is preferable.
Oxidation Ageing can increase the stripping and decrease the healing potential;
however, in the case that stripping is due to the oxidation process, a
reverse trend may be seen.
Coarse Cleanliness Dirty aggregates, particularly clay contamination, may inhibit good
aggregates binder/aggregate coating and adhesion.
Rugosity Aggregate surface texture may have a minor influence on binder bond
and coarse-textured aggregates are therefore preferable.
Mineralogy Coarse-grained acidic rock types may benefit from adhesion
improvement provided by certain filler types or anti-stripping agents.
Surface chemistry Ability to share electrons or to form a hydrogen bond is preferable.
Surface moisture Dry aggregates are preferable.
Fine aggregates Presence of clay Plastic fines should be avoided.
Filler Chemical composition Active lime (hydrated lime) may improve adhesion with some aggregate
types.
Particle size Fine particle size (high dry compacted voids) will increase stiffness of
the binder/filler mastic.
Deleterious materials Clay and other plastic materials should be avoided.
Asphalt mix Mix permeability Very low or very high air voids content is desirable. In situ air voids are
directly related to permeability.
Avoid the critical range between 6% and 14%.
Particle size distribution Coarser grading and larger nominal size increases risk of
interconnected voids in the mix(1).
Binder content and film Higher binder contents and thicker binder films are preferable (2).
thickness
1 Birgisson, Roque and Page (2003) claimed that dense fine graded mixtures and open coarse graded mixtures are
more prone to stripping. Graf (1986) also made a similar claim for open graded mixtures.
2 According to the research, as long as the binder film thickness around the aggregate is less than 60 µm, the adhesive
strength will be less than the cohesive strength. However, the reverse is expected for a film thickness greater than
60 µm (Arambula, Masad & Epps-Martin 2007; Masad et al. 2006).
Source: Adapted from Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (2017) and Mehrara and Khodaii (2013).
Some of the more critical mix properties listed in Table 2.1 are discussed below.
Aggregate characteristics
As stripping often occurs at the interface between the binder and aggregates, it is expected that the surface
roughness, cleanliness and mineralogy of the aggregates, as well as the viscosity and chemistry of the binder
will affect the stripping potential of a particular asphalt mix (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017).
The aggregate source has also been found to significantly affect the binder–aggregate interface in the
presence of anti-stripping additives, whereby identifying the right combination of aggregate and anti-stripping
additive is important to reduce the risk of moisture damage occurring (Amirkhanian et al. 2018).

The aggregate’s characteristics (e.g. texture, shape, surface area, moisture content, porosity, angularity,
surface energy and cleanliness) need to be considered when selecting aggregates for durable asphalt
mixes. Typically, aggregates with a smooth and rounded surface will provide less mechanical interlock
between the binder and aggregate when compared to more angular aggregates with a rougher surface
texture. For the same reason, aggregates with a greater porosity and absorption capacity are also desired to
reduce the risk of moisture damage. However, highly angular aggregates are more difficult to effectively coat
and, therefore, tend to have increased moisture susceptibility (Diab et al. 2017).
The affinity of aggregates to bitumen is primarily related to the surface chemistry of the aggregates
(Austroads 2014). Aggregates with a higher silica content (i.e. acidic aggregates) are known to be hydrophilic
(i.e. water attracting) and have poorer coating ability when compared to hydrophobic (i.e. water repelling)
aggregates with a higher carbonate content such as basic aggregates (Diab et al. 2017; Gu et al. 2020). This
difference in behaviour is primarily related to the electrical charge on the surface of the minerals when in
contact with water. Most silicious aggregates (e.g. granites and sandstones) become negatively charged in
the presence of water, whereas calcareous aggregates (e.g. limestone) become positively charged, as
shown in Figure 2.3 (Austroads 2014). Bituminous binders will, therefore, have a greater affinity to positively
charged (i.e. basic) aggregates given that binders are negatively charged (i.e. acidic).
Figure 2.3: Classification of aggregates by surface charge
Source: Austroads (2014).
The surface of the aggregates should also be free of contaminants, especially clay, to allow for better adhesion
with the binder (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017). Aggregate weathering can also affect the
interface between the aggregates and the binder. Certain aggregate types (e.g. granite) can be susceptible to
weathering, which may form clay minerals on the aggregate’s surface (Moore and Gribble 1980).

Effect of fillers and additives

Fillers (i.e. mineral materials passing the 0.075 mm sieve) are an important part of any asphalt mix design as
they can be used to fill the voids, enable the specified aggregate grading to be achieved, stiffen the binder
mastic and reduce the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt (Austroads 2014). Commonly used added filler
types include hydrated lime, cement, cement kiln dust, ground limestone, ground slag, fly ash and baghouse
dust (Putman and Amirkhanian 2006).
Even though hydrated lime is widely known for its ability to increase the stiffness of the binder mastic and
reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes, ground limestone, cement kiln dust and fly ash are also
known to provide similar benefits (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017). Other additives such as
liquid anti-stripping agents (LAAs) and some warm mix asphalt (WMA) additives can also be used to change
the surface chemistry of the aggregates and thereby reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes
(Gu et al. 2020).
Binder characteristics
The properties of the base bitumen can affect both the internal cohesion strength of the bituminous binder
and the binders’ potential to adhere to the aggregates. The binders’ viscosity, surface energy and chemical
composition are, therefore, important factors to consider. The carboxylic acids present in bitumen are polar
and adhere onto the surface of the aggregates (Gu et al. 2020). However, the presence of sulfoxide and
carboxylic acids in the binder can be easily displaced in the presence of water, thereby increasing the
moisture susceptibility of the mix (Diab et al. 2017). Additionally, the chemical composition of the binder
determines the types of chemical compounds available for bonding (Curtis et al. 1992).
Stiffer (i.e. higher viscosity) binders tend to exhibit increased resistance to stripping due to the higher
concentration of polar functionalities present in these binders that more readily accepts the polar water
molecules. Aged (i.e. oxidised) bitumen also contain a higher proportion of polar molecules and, therefore,
tend to be more resistant to moisture damage compared to unaged bitumens (Gu et al. 2020).
Mixes manufactured with some polymer modified binders (PMBs) are typically more resistant to moisture
damage when compared to mixes manufactured with unmodified bitumen. Unmodified bitumen that typically
has a negative surface charge will not necessarily form an effective bond with aggregates that also have a
negative surface charge (e.g. quartzite, granite, sandstone and chert). The incorporation of polymer additives
can mitigate (to a certain degree) the negative effects of similarly charged bitumen–aggregate combinations
(Shah et al. 2022). Interestingly, these findings are more pronounced following prolonged sample
conditioning periods (Kim et al. 2012).
Asphalt type and mix design

The asphalt type and mix design (including the aggregate structure, air voids content, mix permeability and
binder content of the mix) can also affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt layers in service. In Australia
and New Zealand, the most commonly used asphalt mix types include dense graded asphalt (DGA), stone
mastic asphalt (SMA) and open graded asphalt (OGA). These mix types have different aggregate structures
and binder contents, and hence will typically have different air voids distributions and permeability.
Several studies have found a correlation between asphalt stripping and permeability, and indications are that
permeability may be a better indicator of possible moisture damage rather than the air voids content alone.
Terrel and Shute (1989) found that the damage caused by moisture is a function of the amount and nature of
the air voids in the asphalt mix. They noted that at less than approximately 4% air voids, asphalt mixes are
essentially impermeable and will, therefore, not be affected by moisture entry. Also, at very high air voids
(e.g. greater than approximately 15%), the asphalt mix becomes free draining and moisture damage typically
does not occur. However, asphalt layers are often compacted at air void contents within the ‘pessimism’
voids range shown in Figure 2.4. Asphalt layers compacted in this range are more prone to moisture damage
compared to impermeable or free draining layers due to the retention of moisture in the layer.

Figure 2.4: Pessimism air voids range
Source: Terrel and Shute (1989).
The total volume of binder and thickness of the binder film on the aggregate surface also affect the asphalt’s
susceptibility to moisture damage. For example, SMA mixes are generally considered to be less susceptible
to moisture damage compared to DGA mixes due to their gap-graded aggregate structure, which introduces
larger air voids allowing for greater amounts of binder to be present in the mix (Diab et al. 2017). Sengoz and
Agar (2007) also found that there is a strong relationship between the binder film thickness and moisture
susceptibility of a particular asphalt mix as shown in Figure 2.5. They concluded that the optimum binder film
thickness required to reduce the risk of asphalt stripping ranges between 9.5 and 10.5 μm.

Figure 2.5: Correlation between moisture damage and binder film thickness
Source: Sengoz and Agar (2007).
2.3.3 Asphalt Manufacturing and Construction
The duration of mixing the bituminous binder with the aggregates during the asphalt manufacturing process,
as well as the mixing temperature, can significantly affect the adhesion between the different asphalt
constituents. The binder–aggregate mixing time should be long enough to adequately coat the particles with
binder but not too long to cause excessive oxidation of the binder during the manufacturing process (Graham
et al. 1964).
During the mixing process, the binder penetrates the cavities on the aggregates’ surfaces allowing for both a
chemical and mechanical bond between the two materials. The presence of any moisture within the small
features on the aggregates’ surfaces can disrupt the formation of a stable bond between the binder and
aggregate (Shah et al. 2022). It is, therefore, important that the aggregates are adequately dried and coated
by the bituminous binder during the asphalt manufacturing process. The mixing time and temperature must
also be adjusted accordingly based on the viscosity of the binder to ensure that sufficient aggregate coating
occurs during the mixing process (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017).
It is also important that adequate compaction is achieved during construction to reduce the risk of water
entering the asphalt layer(s) (Amirkhanian et al. 2018). Several studies have previously found a strong
correlation between the density (i.e. in situ air voids content) of asphalt layers and water permeability (Brown
et al. 1989; Cooley 1999; Liebenberg et al. 2004). Figure 2.6 shows that both the water and air permeability
of a continuously (dense) graded asphalt surfacing mix placed on several projects in South Africa increased
exponentially with an increase in the in situ air voids content. The same study also found that the asphalt mix
was generally impermeable at an air voids content below 6.5%.

Figure 2.6: Correlation between air voids content and permeability of dense graded asphalt mixes
Source: Liebenberg, Rossmann and Fletcher (2004).
Diab et al. (2017) also found that at between 5% and 15% air voids a notable number of voids are expected
to be interconnected, allowing for water to be trapped in the layer and consequently increasing the risk of
stripping during the early stages after construction. Chen et al. (2021) also suggested the asphalt becomes
reasonably free draining due to the interconnected nature of the voids at air void contents greater than
approximately 14%.
In addition, care needs to be taken to not introduce cracks in the aggregates during compaction as these
cracks can provide pathways for water to gradually permeate and accumulate in the asphalt layer (Diab et al.
2017).
2.3.4 Environmental and Traffic Conditions
Table 2.2 provides an overview of some of the important environmental conditions during and after
construction that may affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt pavements.

Table 2.2: Environmental conditions that may affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt
Main contributor Determining characteristics Favourable properties

Prevailing conditions Environmental temperature Warm weather
during construction of the
Precipitation No snow or rainfall
pavement
Compaction Sufficient
Time period between construction of a About two summers
friction layer on a newly constructed HMA
layer
Prevailing conditions Precipitation No snow or rainfall – occurrence of dry
after construction of the periods after precipitation
pavement
Freeze–thaw cycles No freeze–thaw cycles
Temperature Mild temperature – low difference between
day and night temperature
Wet–dry cycles No wet–dry cycles at high temperatures
Subgrade water content Low water content
Drainage condition Good performance of drains
Traffic load Low traffic
Micro-organisms activity Utilising additives that can impede the
activity of micro-organisms at the binder and
aggregate interface
pH of water that flows through the Maintaining pH at low levels
pavement
Source: Adapted from Mehrara and Khodaii (2013).
Asphalt is more susceptible to stripping in areas with heavy rainfall and especially where the drainage
systems are inadequate. In addition, a combination of high in-service temperatures and heavy traffic loads
can also increase the risk of asphalt stripping (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2017).
The prevailing weather conditions during construction can affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt layers,
especially the compaction efficiency of the mix (Aschenbrener and Far 1994; Diab et al. 2017). Wet–dry
weather cycles also tend to control the water table level fluctuations underneath the pavement, while freeze–
thaw cycles increase the pore pressure due to the expansion of trapped water (Diab et al. 2017). Given the
importance of the materials’ chemistry, the pH of the water flowing through the pavement can also affect the
bitumen–aggregate interface adhesion (Diab et al. 2017).
2.4 Summary of Findings

Moisture damage in asphalt is a complex failure mechanism that can either occur due to adhesive failure of
the binder–aggregate interface or as a result of cohesive failure within the binder mastic. Asphalt stripping is
typically manifested through cracking, rutting and/or potholes and often requires expensive pavement
repairs. These risks can, however, be reduced by ensuring adequate pavement drainage, appropriate
materials selection, good construction practices and by using anti-stripping additives.

The asphalt type, constituent materials and mix design play an important role in managing the risk of
moisture damage in pavements. Even though the physical characteristics (e.g. surface texture, shape,
porosity, etc.) of the aggregates are important, the bond between bituminous binders and the aggregates
used in asphalt is primarily related to the surface chemistry of the aggregates. Aggregates with a higher
carbonate content (e.g. limestone or basalt) are known to achieve a better bond with bitumen compared to
acidic aggregates with high silica contents (e.g. granite or sandstone). The type of mineral filler used in the
mix can also affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt. Depending on the properties of the filler
(e.g. particle size distribution and air voids content), the filler can have a stiffening effect on the binder
mastic, which, in turn, can reduce the moisture susceptibility of the mix. However, fillers with a high reactive
clay content may have a detrimental effect on the moisture resistance of asphalt.
The properties of the base bitumen used in the asphalt can affect both the cohesion and adhesion strength
of the mix. Bituminous binders are typically acidic and, therefore, have a stronger affinity to basic aggregates
with a higher carbonate content. Stiffer binders and PMBs also tend to provide increased resistance to
moisture damage compared to softer or unmodified bitumens.
The asphalt type and mix design (i.e. aggregate structure, air voids content, permeability and volume of
binder in the mix) can also affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt layers in service. The permeability of
asphalt mixes is dependent on both the amount and structure of the air voids in the mix. Impermeable and
free-draining mixes are generally less susceptible to moisture damage; however, mixes with an air voids
content range between approximately 7% and 14% can be prone to stripping. The total volume of binder and
binder film thickness also affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes, whereby mixes with higher
binder contents and thicker binder films are typically more resistant to moisture damage.

3. Moisture Susceptibility Test Methods
This section provides an overview of the methods used to assess the stripping potential of a bituminous
binder–aggregate system.
As discussed in Section 2, asphalt stripping is a complex phenomenon and, therefore, evaluating the
presence and extent of moisture damage using a single test or measure can be challenging (Horak et
al. 2011). Nonetheless, assessing the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory can be done
on loose samples or compacted specimens subjected to various conditioning procedures.
3.1 Assessment of Loose Asphalt Samples

A strong bond between the bituminous binder and aggregates is critical to ensure that asphalt mixes are not
susceptible to moisture damage in service. There are several tests available to assess this bond in loose
asphalt samples, including (but not limited to) the methods discussed below.
ASTM D3625:2020 Standard Practice for Effect of Water on Asphalt-coated Aggregate Using Boiling Water,
also known as ‘the Texas boiling test’, is a relatively quick method to qualitatively assess the efficiency of the
adhesion between aggregates and a bituminous binder. During the test, uncompacted binder-coated
aggregates are submerged in boiling water for 10 minutes. The water is then drained, and the surface of the
aggregates is visually inspected to determine any loss of bitumen as a result of exposure to the boiling water
(ASTM D3625:2020). The Belgian Road Research Centre also developed a calibration curve to improve the
robustness of the Texas boiling test. Six different ratios of uncoated and coated aggregates are subjected to
a chemical attack and their acid consumption against the known uncoated aggregate percentage is used to
create a calibration curve. Two-hundred grams of the coated aggregates are then submerged in 600 ml of
boiling demineralised water for 10 minutes. Following drying, the coated aggregates are subjected to
chemical attack and the amount of stripping is determined based on the calibration curve previously
developed (Belgian Road Research Centre 1991; Choquet and Verhasselt 1993).
EN 12697-11:2020 Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods for Hot Mix Asphalt – Part 11: Determination of the
Affinity Between Aggregate and Bitumen, also known as the ‘rolling bottle method’ requires that 200 g of
aggregate particles (between 6.3 and 8 mm in size) be coated with a 0.1 mm thick binder film and then
submerged in 250 ml of deionised cold water. A glass rod is positioned in the flask and the flask is rotated at
40 RPMs for 72 hours. Similar to the Texas boiling test, the amount of bitumen stripped from the surface of
the aggregates is visually assessed against a standard chart to determine the moisture susceptibility of the
mix (Airey and Choi 2002).
EN 12697-12:2018 Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods – Part 12: Determination of the Water Sensitivity of
Bituminous Specimens also provides a procedure for determining the bond between a bituminous binder and
the aggregates used in asphalt. A representative asphalt sample is placed in a sealable graduated glass
container filled with water at 25 ±3 °C. The glass container is then rapidly turned upside down and back up
again 10 times, followed by a 60 second rest period. The 10 cycles are repeated, and the liquid is poured
through a filter paper leaving the asphalt sample in the container. The bonding value of the binder–aggregate
combination is determined as the difference between the dry mass of the filter paper containing the loose
material and the dry mass of the paper prior to testing.

TMH Method B11:2000 The Determination of the Adhesion of Bituminous Binder to Stone Aggregate by
Means of the Chemical Immersion Test (Riedel & Weber) is a method that investigates the
aggregate–bitumen adhesion by means of boiling distilled water in increasing concentrations of sodium
carbonate. Ten grams of aggregates (between 4.75 and 6.7 mm in size) are coated with bitumen and placed
in a glass beaker that contains 50 ml of boiling distilled water. After one minute, the aggregates are dried on
a filter paper and visually inspected. If no visible stripping has occurred, the procedure is repeated using
increased concentrations of sodium carbonate until stripping is observed. The Riedel & Weber value
determined is reflective of the lowest concentration at which stripping on the surface of the aggregates is
observed.
3.2 Assessment of Compacted Asphalt Specimens

Given that the moisture susceptibility of an asphalt mix is a function of the properties of the individual material
components as well as the combined mixture, it is desirable to also test the asphalt in its compacted state.
The overarching principle for testing the moisture susceptibility of compacted asphalt specimens is based on
the expectation that the strength or modulus of the specimen(s) before and after exposure to moisture will
vary and that this difference in performance is an indication of the moisture susceptibility of the mix.
3.2.1 Specimen Conditioning
Specimen conditioning (especially exposure to moisture) is an important element for determining the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory. Moisture conditioning can either be done through
vapour diffusion or by means of water infiltration. Vapour diffusion is primarily related to the potential of the
material to withhold any absorbed water and the relative humidity, whereas water infiltration is related to the
drainage conditions, rainfall and material properties. Moisture within the pavement layers is, therefore,
primarily linked to water infiltration without necessarily excluding the vapour diffusion effects (Gu et al. 2020).
The tests used to investigate the moisture susceptibility of compacted asphalt specimens can include a
combination of vapour diffusion and water infiltration or only one of the conditions.
Importantly, Epps-Martin et al. (2014) also found that the specimen preparation method (especially sample
reheating procedures) may also affect the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory. As an
example, specimens prepared with plant-mixed asphalt samples compacted onsite whilst the sample was
still hot were more sensitive to moisture damage compared to plant-mixed samples reheated in an offsite
laboratory prior to compaction.
A brief description of a selection of conditioning procedures currently being used locally and internationally is
provided below.
The two most commonly used specimen conditioning procedures cited in the literature include the ‘Lottman’
and ‘modified Lottman’ procedures. The Lottman moisture conditioning procedure was originally developed
in the 1970s to simulate the pore pressures generated in asphalt layers as a result of traffic and thermal
expansion. The procedure comprises completely saturating an asphalt specimen with an air voids content of
between 3% and 5% under a vacuum. The specimen is then subjected to a freeze–thaw cycle prior to being
tested (Aschenbrener and McGennis 1993).
The original Lottman procedure was subsequently modified to increase the air voids content of the asphalt
specimen to between 6% and 8%, which was considered to be more representative of the density of asphalt
layers soon after construction (Aschenbrener and McGennis 1993). Tunnicliff and Root (1982) also found
that the damage from excessive saturation could result in underestimating the moisture resistance of an
asphalt mix and, therefore, proposed to limit the level of saturation to between 55% and 80%. This became
known as the ‘modified Lottman’ procedure. They also recommended that the freeze–thaw cycle in the
original Lottman test be eliminated to allow for a quicker and easier test procedure. Stuart (1990) showed
that the high saturation level of specimens with low air voids and including a freeze–thaw cycle (i.e. Lottman
procedure) was comparable to the ‘modified Lottman’ procedure comprising partial saturation of specimens
with higher air voids but without the freeze–thaw cycle.

ASTM D7870/D7870M:2020 Standard Practice for Moisture Conditioning Compacted Asphalt Mixture
Specimens by Using Hydrostatic Pore Pressure is also a water infiltration method based on the use of a
pressurised chamber which simulates the effect of vehicle loads on the pavement by forcing water into the
specimen using compressed air. The conditioning procedure often requires the application of 3500 pressure
cycles at 276 kPa pressure. The test temperature is set at 50 or 60 °C, depending on the mix.
AASHTO TP140:2020 Provisional Method of Test for Moisture Sensitivity Using Hydrostatic Pore Pressure to
Determine Cohesion and Adhesion Strength of Compacted Asphalt Mixture Specimens provides a similar
procedure for subjecting specimens to hydrostatic pore pressures and moisture within an enclosed chamber.
The temperature required for testing is based on the bitumen grade, while the test also runs for 3500 cycles
at 276 kPa pressure (Shah et al. 2022). Both ASTM D7870:D7870M:20202 and AASHTO TP140:2020
determine the volume change (i.e. swell) of the specimens after conditioning which is an indication of the
moisture susceptibility of the mix. Following the conditioning procedures in ASTM D7870/D7870M:2020 or
AASHTO TP140:2020, the asphalt specimens can be subjected to further mechanical testing (e.g. indirect
tensile strength or modulus testing).
InstroTek (in the USA) developed a patented device, known as the Moisture Induced Stress Tester (M.i.S.T),
to condition asphalt specimens in accordance with ASTM D7870/D7870M:2020 or AASHTO TP140:2020.
The device (Figure 3.1) can condition multiple specimens at a time (depending on specimen size).
Figure 3.1: M.i.S.T 2 moisture conditioning device
Source: Shah, Olek and McDaniel (2022).
EN 12697-45:2020 Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods – Part 45: Saturation Ageing Tensile Stiffness
(SATS) Conditioning Test also provides a standard conditioning procedure for the preparation of asphalt
specimens prior to moisture susceptibility testing. The method was originally developed at the University of
Nottingham and is applicable to asphalt specimens (100 mm diameter by 60 mm thick) compacted to
between 6% to 10% air voids and manufactured with a hard binder (e.g. 10/20 penetration grade bitumen).
Further work by Grenfell et al. (2012) developed a procedure for testing softer grades of bitumen as well. The
specimen is saturated with water under a vacuum and then placed on a custom designed stand with a
perforated base. The specimen and stand are then placed in a heated pressure vessel which contains a
pre-determined amount of water, with the specimen placed on the bottom tray being fully immersed. The
specimen is then conditioned for 65 hours at 85 °C under 2.1 MPa pressure. Following the conditioning
process, the modulus of the conditioned specimens is determined and compared against the modulus of the
unconditioned specimens.

ASTM D4798/D4798M:2021 Standard Practice for Accelerated Weathering Test Conditions and Procedures
for Bituminous Materials, also referred to as the Xenon-Arc method, is an accelerated weathering procedure
that exposes samples to water, light and temperature in order to simulate the expected in-service
environmental conditions. The asphalt pavement weathering system designed by PRI Asphalt Technologies
Inc. uses the same principles in ASTM D4798/D4798M:2021 to condition compacted asphalt specimens
exposed to water, ultra-violet, temperature and relative humidity (Gu et al. 2020). The weathered specimens
can then be subjected to mechanical testing, as required.
Non-standard conditioning procedures aimed at simulating very cold conditions have also been developed to
assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes used in extreme environments. The method involves
submerging vacuum-saturated asphalt specimens in a concentrated sodium chloride solution for 48 hours,
followed by distilled water for another 48 hours. The specimens are then subjected to seven freeze–thaw
cycles of between −20 and 20 °C where the specimens are held for 12 hours at each temperature before
undertaking indirect tensile stiffness testing at 10 °C (Airey and Choi 2002).
3.2.2 Indirect Tensile Strength Tests
The indirect tensile strength (ITS) test is widely used locally and internationally to assess the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory (Austroads 2014; Shah et al. 2022). The procedure involves
the diametral compressive loading of cylindrical specimens at a specified temperature and loading rate
(Figure 3.2). When used to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt, the test essentially determines the
tensile strength of unconditioned and moisture-conditioned specimens in the laboratory. The tensile strength
of the conditioned specimens and/or the ratio between the tensile strength of the conditioned and
unconditioned specimens, known as the tensile strength ratio (TSR), can be used to determine the moisture
susceptibility of the mix. The indirect tensile modulus ratio can also be used as an indication of moisture
damage before and after moisture conditioning (Taylor and Khosla 1983). There are several moisture
susceptibility test methods available utilising the ITS test with different moisture conditioning protocols. Some
of the more widely used methods are described below.
Figure 3.2: ITS test setup

ATM 232:2022 Stripping Potential of Asphalt – Tensile Strength Ratio (Austroads 2022) is used in Australia
to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory. The method involves undertaking ITS
testing on two sets of three cylindrical asphalt specimens in a dry and partially saturated condition. The test
specimens are compacted to achieve an air voids content of 8% ±1%, and the moisture-conditioned
specimens are saturated under a vacuum to between 55% and 80% of the total volume of air (similar to the
modified Lottman procedure). The conditioning procedure also includes a standard freeze cycle at −18 °C for
18 hours. Following conditioning, specimens are placed on their side and subjected to a compressive load at
a constant rate of 51 ± 3 mm/min until the specimen fractures. The TSR is calculated as the per cent ratio of
the average tensile strength of the moisture-conditioned and dry specimens. Following the test, the fractured
surface of the specimens is also visually assessed for any signs of stripping (Austroads 2022).
AASHTO T283:2014 Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to
Moisture-induced Damage is similar to ATM 232 and also adopts the modified Lottman conditioning procedure.
Asphalt cylinders are compacted to an air voids content of 7 ± 0.5% and subjected to indirect tensile strength
testing at a loading rate of 50 mm/min until the specimen fractures. One set of specimens is tested in a dry
condition, and the second set is tested following moisture saturation under a vacuum to between 70% and 80%
of the total volume of air, with or without a freeze–thaw cycle. The tensile strength and TSR of the specimens
are then calculated. The test results of the specimens saturated under a vacuum only are believed to reflect the
performance of asphalt of up to 4 years in service, whereas the specimens that have also gone through the
freeze–thaw cycle are believed to be representative of up to 12 years of in-service performance (Airey and Choi
2002; Lottman 1982a; Scherocman et al. 1986; Tunnicliff and Root 1984).
ASTM D4867/D4867M-09:2014 Standard Test Method for Effect of Moisture on Asphalt Concrete Paving
Mixtures is similar to AASHTO T283:2014 but requires the moisture-conditioned specimens to be saturated
under vacuum to between 55% and 80% of the total volume of air.
EN 12697-12:2018 Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods – Part 12: Determination of the Water Sensitivity of
Bituminous Specimens provides a procedure for determining the TSR of asphalt specimens in the laboratory.
The specimens are divided into a dry and wet subset for ITS testing in accordance with EN 12697-23:2017
Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods – Part 23: Determination of the Indirect Tensile Strength of Bituminous
Specimens. The subset of specimens subjected to moisture conditioning are submerged in a vacuum
chamber filled with water. A vacuum pressure of 6.7 ±0.3 kPa is applied to the specimens for a total duration
of 40 minutes. The test method differs from ATM 232 and AASHTO T283:2014 in so far as it does not
specify a standard level of specimen saturation and does not include any freeze–thaw conditioning cycles.
3.2.3 Compression Tests
Compression tests are similar to ITS tests but instead measure the reduction in compressive strength of the
asphalt specimen due to moisture damage (Gu et al. 2020).
ASTM D1075-07:2011Standard Test Method for Effect of Water on Compressive Strength of Compacted
Bituminous Mixtures is another water infiltration method that uses a temperature-controlled water bath in
which the specimens are submerged at 60 °C for 24 hours (other methods allow temperatures ranging
between 40 and 60 °C for different submersion times). The specimens are then transferred to a different
water bath at 25 °C for 2 hours prior to being tested under compressive loading. The index of retained
strength (defined as the ratio of the moisture-conditioned compressive strength to the dry compressive
strength) is used to assess the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mix (Gu et al. 2020).
AASHTO T245:2022 Standard Method of Test for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Asphalt Mixtures Using
Marshall Apparatus can also be used to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory.
Similar to the aforementioned tests performed on compacted asphalt mixes, the specimens are separated
into two sets. The Marshall stability is then determined for the first set of specimens in a dry condition and
then for the second set following some form of moisture conditioning.

NF P98-251-1:2022 Test Relating to Pavements – Static Test on Bituminous Mixtures – Part 1: DURIEZ Test
on Hot Mix is a method used in France to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt cylinder specimens in
the laboratory. The specimens are statically compacted under 12 MPa pressure and then separated into two
subsets. One subset is tested under unconfined compression loading at a rate of 1 mm/s at 18 °C without
conditioning while the other subset is tested under the same conditions after having been submerged under
water at 18 °C for 7 days. The susceptibility of the asphalt to moisture damage is quantified as the ratio
between the unconfined compressive strength of the unconditioned and conditioned specimens (Airey and
Choi 2002; Corte and Serfass 2000). Similar to NF P 98-251-1:2022, EN 12697-12:2018 also provides a
procedure for determining the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory using compression
testing.
3.2.4 Wheel Tracking Tests
The Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD) was initially developed in the 1970s to assess the rutting
performance of asphalt, however, it was later found to be suitable for the assessment of the overall stability
of asphalt mixes including their susceptibility to moisture damage (Figure 3.3). A typical specimen comprises
a 260 mm wide by 320 mm long slab with a thickness of between 40 and 150 mm, however, 150 mm
diameter cores can also be tested. During the test, a stress of 730 kPa is applied via a moving wheel load
which is comparable to that applied by one rear tyre of a dual-axle truck (Coomer and Beecroft 2020).
Figure 3.3: HWTD test setup
Source: Controls (n.d.).
As the test takes place in a water bath, it is generally accepted that the presence of any distinct change in
the rut depth versus number of passes curve (as shown in Figure 3.4) is assumed to be due to moisture-
induced damage. This point is often referred to as the stripping inflection point (SIP). In general, the higher
the SIP the better the resistance of the asphalt mix to moisture damage.

Figure 3.4: Wheel tracking curve
Source: Courtesy ARRB.
AASHTO T324:2022 Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-track Testing of Compacted Asphalt
Mixtures provides a procedure for assessing the deformation resistance and moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixes using the HWTD. During the test, the asphalt specimens are submerged in a
temperature-controlled water bath (between 25 °C and 70 °C) while a 47 mm wide steel wheel with a 705 N
load passes over the slabs 50 times per minute. Each specimen is either loaded 20 000 times or until a
deformation of 20 mm is observed. The test results are summarised in a single curve including the creep
slope (which relates to rutting), the stripping slope (which relates to the severity of the moisture damage),
and the stripping inflection point (which relates to the specimen’s resistance to moisture damage)
(Aschenbrener and Far 1994). There are several modifications to AASHTO T324:2022 available, including
the method developed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TEX-242-F Hamburg Wheel-tracking
Test) which has previously been used in Queensland for research undertaken by the National Asset Centre
of Excellence (Coomer and Beecroft 2020).
3.3 Other Moisture Susceptibility Assessment Methods

There are several other less commonly used methods available to assess the bond between the binder and
aggregates and the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory, including the:
• methylene blue absorption test
• plate stripping test
• pneumatic adhesion tensile testing instrument (PATTI)
• binder bond strength (BBS) test
• ‘peel test’
• Texas freeze–thaw pedestal test
• ultrasonic moisture conditioning (UAMC) test
• net absorption test
• surface free energy concept.

AS 1141.66:2022 Methods for Sampling and Testing Aggregates. Methylene Blue Absorption Value of Fine
Aggregate and Mineral Fillers can be used to detect the presence of reactive clays (i.e. smectites) on the
surface of fine aggregates (i.e. 100% passing the 75 μm sieve) that are used in concrete and asphalt
applications. The presence of these reactive clays is known to adversely affect the moisture resistance of
asphalt mixes (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2013). The test is based on the principal that clay minerals are
negatively charged and can be detected by the ion exchange that takes place between the clay ions and
methylene blue dye cations (Pitre 2012). AS 1141.66:2022 is based on the “spot” method whereby 1 g of
filler material is collected and placed in a beaker, followed by the addition of 30 g distilled water. The
suspension is then stirred, and a methylene blue solution is added at 0.5 mL increments until the filler can no
longer absorb the dye (known as the endpoint). The methylene blue value of the filler material is defined as
the concentration of dye required to reach the test endpoint.
The plate stripping test can also be used to assess the adhesion strength between coarse aggregates and
bituminous binders in the presence of moisture and is used for sprayed sealing applications in Australia
(Austroads 2019). The test comprises embedding aggregates into a hot binder on a plate, conditioning the
specimen in an oven and then immersing the plate in a water bath for a standard period of time. Following
the conditioning period, the aggregates are pulled from the binder and the degree of binder coating
(stripping) is visually assessed (Figure 3.5). Examples of local plate stripping test methods include:
• AS 1141.50:1998 Methods for Sampling and Testing Aggregates. Resistance to Stripping of Cover
Aggregates from Binders
• TP 705:2015 Determination of Aggregate Stripping by the One Day Plate Stripping Test
• T230:2012 Resistance to Stripping of Aggregates and Binders
• Q212B:2018 Bitumen Stripping Value – Modified Plate
• WA 720.1:2010 Assessment of Liquid Adhesion Agents.
Figure 3.5: Plate stripping test

The PATTI was initially developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and provides a
more sophisticated method than the plate stripping to assess the bond between a bituminous binder and
aggerates. The device was initially developed to assess the strength of the adhesive bond between two
materials (Kanitpong and Bahia 2003). A modified version of the test (known as PATTI 110) was
subsequently developed for pavement applications based on the procedures in ASTM D4541:2022 Standard
Test Method for Pull-off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers. The test apparatus includes
a portable pneumatic adhesion tester, a reaction plate, a pull stub, a pressure hose, and a piston. A 0.2 mm
thick film of bituminous binder is applied to the pull stub and pressed onto the surface of the substrate (e.g.
asphalt aggregate). The specimen is then dried at ambient temperature for 24 hours or submerged in
distilled water for 4, 8, 24, or 48 hours at 25 °C prior to testing. During the test, air pressure is transmitted to
the piston located over the pull stub. The reaction plate is placed on the piston and screwed onto the pull
stub. Air pressure is then used to push the gasket of the piston causing the reaction plate to move upwards.
The test is concluded when failure of the bond between the bitumen film and the substrate occurs, and the
air pressure at which failure occurs is indicative of the adhesion strength between the binder and aggregates
(Jakarni 2012).
AASHTO T361:2022 Standard Method of Test for Determining Asphalt Binder Bond Strength by Means of
the Binder Bond Strength (BBS) test is a modified version of the PATTI test that takes place under controlled
environmental conditions. The test method quantifies the tensile load required to detach a pull-off stub
adhered onto an aggregate substrate using any bituminous binder of choice (Moraes et al. 2011).
Similar to the PATTI test, the peel test is used in various engineering industries as a method to assess the
adhesion of composite materials (Jakarni 2012). Blackman et al. (2013) developed a peel test procedure for
assessing the adhesion strength between coarse aggregates and a bituminous binder. An aggregate
substrate is manufactured from a boulder with dimensions of 150 mm x 20 mm x 10 mm. A method to use
coarse crushed aggregates, as commonly used for asphalt manufacturing, was also developed. A 20 mm x
12 mm x 75 μm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) film is placed at one end of the substrate and the substrate is
covered by a 0.25 mm thick binder film. An aluminium peel arm is then bonded to the substrate via the
bitumen and pulled by a loading head of a tensile tester from the end where the PTFE film was placed
(Zhang et al. 2016).
The Texas freeze–thaw pedestal test is performed on small (19 mm thick by 14 mm diameter) compacted
cylindrical specimens manufactured using aggregates between 0.5 and 0.85 mm in size. The specimens are
cured at 23 °C for 72 hours and then placed on a pedestal acting as a fulcrum. The specimens are
submerged in water and then subjected to thermal cycling (comprising freezing at −12 °C for 15 hours,
followed by placement in 23 °C water for 45 minutes and then in an oven at 49 °C for 9 hours) until cracks
are observed. The asphalt mix is classified as being susceptible to moisture damage if the specimen cracks
within 10 cycles, whereas specimens that can withstand more than 20 cycles are classified as being
moisture resistant (Kennedy et al. 1982).
The UAMC test can also be used to assess the moisture susceptibility of loose asphalt samples. The test
utilises ultrasonic energy to assess the loss of adhesion between the bituminous binder and aggregates in
the asphalt mix. The loose mix is submerged in an ultrasonic water bath at 60 °C for 5 hours. The mass loss
of the mix is continuously monitored during the test and used to assess moisture susceptibility (Gu et al.
2020). Previous studies have indicated that the test is comparable to the more widely used TSR test (Gu et
al. 2020; McCann and Sebaaly 2001). A different version of the test method uses a 20 mm x 80 mm polished
stone coated with 0.12 mm of binder submerged in water and subjected to ultrasound generated vibrations.
Negative pressure leads to the formation of microscopic bubbles that cause the bitumen to strip from the
stone surface. Stripping is quantified by the mass difference before and after the test (Airey and Choi 2002).

The absorptive behaviour of bituminous binders onto aggregates can be assessed by means of the net
absorption test (Gu et al. 2020). The test involves a temperature-controlled column connected to a peristaltic
pump in a recirculating system. The aggregates are placed in the column while a binder-toluene solution is
allowed to flow through the aggregate matrix. The absorption of the binder by the aggregates can be
quantified through changes in the concentration of binder as measured by visible light spectroscopy. An
adsorption isotherm is then developed using the initial concentration of the binder in the solution, while
Beer’s Law is used to determine the concentration of the binder in the solution after the completion of the
test. Distilled and deionised water are then added for the desorption of the bitumen from the aggregates. The
amount of bitumen in the toluene solution is then measured again. The Langmuir model is then fitted to the
adsorption and desorption data and the monolayer surface coverage, the equilibrium constants, and
importantly the Gibbs free energy of adsorption can be determined. The latter is part of the total energy with
which the bitumen is attached to the surface of the aggregate and is found to represent the safety factor of
the bitumen–aggregate interface against stripping (Curtis et al. 1992). A modification to the net absorption
test was proposed by Airey and Choi (2002) to better assess the affinity and resistance to stripping in a
specific material system. The proposed changes include specific grading of the aggregates and the
calculation of an initial absorption value.
The surface free energy (SFE) is an intrinsic property of a material and is defined as the energy required for
a new unit surface area to be created under vacuum. The van Oss-Chaudhury-Good SFE can be used to
determine the surface energy components of solid surfaces by measuring their work of adhesion with liquids.
The total surface energy of a material is divided into a nonpolar (van der Waals) component, Lewis acid
component and a Lewis base component (Bhasin and Little 2007). In principle, the sum of these components
gives the thermodynamic work of adhesion by means of quantifying the energy available for adhesion
(Arabani and Hamedi 2014). For road applications, the SFE method can be used to determine the adhesion
between aggregates and a bituminous binder related to each component’s surface energy. Given the choice,
aggregates will preferentially interact with water over bitumen (given that water has a lower surface tension)
and hence, reduce the SFE of the system to a thermodynamically stable condition of minimum surface
energy (Taylor & Khosla 1983). The adhesive bond strength in dry conditions is referred to as the ‘work of
adhesion’, whereas bond strength in wet conditions is referred to as the ‘work of debonding’. The cohesive
bond strength is estimated to be twice the total SFE (Zaidi et al. 2020).
Commonly, the Wilhelmy plate (Figure 3.6) is used to determine the SFE of bituminous binders and the
universal sorption device (USD) or dynamic vapor sorption (DVS) device (Figure 3.7) is used for aggregates
(Alam and Aggarwal 2020).
Figure 3.6: Wilhelmy plate method, a) device, b) schematic
Source: Adapted from Ahmad (2011).

Figure 3.7: DVS method, a) device, b) schematic
The Wilhelmy plate method requires a thin plate of filter paper, platinum or glass to be vertically submerged
halfway into the bituminous binder. Near the contact line of the three phases, the binder surface is at
approximately 90°, and hence, the surface tension exerts a downward force. The force required to prevent
the plate from being drawn into the binder can then be measured and is an indication of the surface tension
(Butt et al. 2003). The USD employs three probe vapours (e.g. methyl propyl ketone, n-hexane, and water) to
determine the adsorption isotherm of the aggregate, which in turn is used to calculate the aggregate’s SFE
(Bhasin and Little 2007). A sessile drop device has also been used for the same purpose (Figure 3.8). During
the latter, a drop of a probe liquid whose SFE value is known, is poured on the surface of either of the
constituents and its morphology upon contact is captured, typically by means of a camera. Using image
processing tools, it is possible to determine the contact angle of the component of interest within the system,
in this case either the bitumen or aggregate surface in question. The surface energy of that component can
then be calculated utilising a set of simultaneous equations and the SFE values of the probe liquid (Alam and
Aggarwal 2020). The SFE can also be determined from gas sorption isotherms. Apeagyei et al.(2014) used a
DVS equipped with an octane as a probe to obtain a series of sorption isotherms. The octane gas absorbed
at 25 °C and a pressure ranging between 5 and 95% was measured obtaining the isotherms. The authors
confirmed the suitability of the selected specific surface area (SSA) model for distinguishing differences
between the total SFE of granite and limestone and also for providing an indication of their internal porosity
(Apeagyei et al. 2014).
Figure 3.8: Goniometer or sessile drop method, a) device, b) schematic

3.4 Critical Review of Moisture Susceptibility Test Methods
3.4.1 Specimen Conditioning Procedures
The specimen conditioning procedure plays an important role in assessing the moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixes in the laboratory. Given the complex nature of moisture damage in the field, it is difficult (if not
impossible) to fully simulate the anticipated field conditions in the laboratory. As discussed in Section 3.2.1,
various conditioning methods have been developed to simulate the effects of moisture and traffic on the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt layers. However, it is evident (based on the literature reviewed) that there is
no consensus regarding the most appropriate conditioning method to use.
The Lottman and modified Lottman procedures are the most widely used methods to condition asphalt
specimens prior to undertaking TSR testing, including in Australia and New Zealand. As mentioned
previously, ATM 232 uses the modified Lottman procedure (including a freeze–thaw cycle) to condition
specimens prior to TSR testing. Watson et al. (2012) noted, based on the early work done by
Lottman (1982b), that vacuum-saturated specimens are more representative of short-term moisture damage.
Conversely, moisture-conditioned specimens subjected to a freeze–thaw cycle are more representative of
long-term damage due to environmental and traffic effects. This observation is consistent with the anecdotal
experience of some local road agencies (including the Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads and Transport for New South Wales).
Several researchers have raised concerns regarding the reliability of the TSR test (including the moisture
conditioning procedures used) to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory (e.g.
Bahia and Ahmad 1999, Hicks 1991; Kanitpong and Bahia 2003; Khosla et al. 2000; Kiggundu and Roberts
1988). A proficiency study by the Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA) also found that the TSR
determined for the same asphalt mix by 15 different laboratories ranged between 78% and 103%, with
median value of 90% and a standard deviation of 5.94%. The average degree of saturation of the vacuum-
saturated specimens varied between 55.3% and 79.5%, with a median value of 67.4% and a standard
deviation of 6.67% (Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2018). All the degree of saturation values were
within the limits specified by the standard Austroads test method (i.e. 55% to 80%). Khosla, Birdsall and
Kawaguchi (2000) also assessed the reliability of the TSR test using AASHTO T283:2014 by manufacturing
specimens at each of the allowable limits for air voids and saturation. They observed that specimens that
were manufactured at the upper limits for air voids content and degree of saturation levels failed to meet the
specification requirement, whereas the specimens manufactured at the lower limits passed the specification
criteria. Therefore, they concluded that the allowable range for air voids content and degree of saturation in
AASHTO T283:2014 should be narrowed for a more reliable assessment of moisture susceptibility.
Considering the above, it is possible that the poor reproducibility of the TSR test observed in the AAPA study
could (in part) be due to the variability in the degree of saturation achieved. It is also worth noting that the
latest version of AASHTO T283 specifies a narrower degree of saturation range of between 70% and 80%.
A long-term study of eight highway sections in Texas incorporating hydrated lime, LAAs and pavements
without any anti-stripping additives found that the TSR results of the extracted cores from the asphalt
pavements did not correlate well with the field performance observed by Solaimanian et al. (1993). No
difference was also noted in the field performance for the sections which had TSR values less than 70% and
the sections with TSR values greater than 70%.
A study by Watson et al. (2012) considered the effect of increasing the number of freeze–thaw cycles in the
TSR test. The study found that both 5 and 10 freeze–thaw cycles were significantly more discriminating
compared to a single cycle. It was, therefore, recommended that 5 freeze–thaw cycles be considered for
moisture susceptibility testing, especially for aggregate sources with a known history of stripping issues.
It is believed that the Lottman and modified Lottman conditioning procedures mainly simulate adhesive
failure. Alternative conditioning procedures were, therefore, developed in an attempt to provide laboratory
conditions that were more representative of field conditions, most notably the hydrostatic pore method
pressure (using the M.i.S.T device) developed in the USA and the SATS test (developed in the UK).

The hydrostatic pore pressure method (also known as the M.i.S.T test) specified in
ASTM D7870/D7870M:2020 and AASHTO TP140:2020 was developed in an attempt to measure both the
adhesive and cohesive behaviour of moisture-conditioned asphalt mixes in the laboratory. As mentioned in
Section 3.2.1, asphalt specimens are first soaked in water and then subjected to cyclic hydraulic pumping to
simulate the stresses caused by traffic loads. Following completion of the conditioning process, the specimens
can be subjected to further moisture susceptibility testing, including the TSR test. A laboratory investigation by
Tayebali et al. (2019) concluded that the M.i.S.T test was better at simulating both adhesive and cohesive
failure compared to the modified Lottman procedure (without a freeze–thaw cycle). Another benefit of the
M.i.S.T test is that the conditioning procedure typically takes 24 hours, which is significantly less than the
approximately 5 days required for the modified Lottman procedure with a freeze–thaw cycle. It does, however,
require specialised equipment (e.g. M.i.S.T device) that is not currently available in Australia and New Zealand.
The SATS test was developed to simulate the combined effects of moisture and binder ageing on the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes (Choi 2005). The original conditioning procedure was developed for hard graded
binders but has subsequently been modified to include softer binder grades (Grenfell et al. 2012). For hard
grade binders, cylindrical asphalt specimens are first saturated under a vacuum and then subjected to 2.1 MPa
pressure at 85 °C in water for 65 hours to simulate binder ageing of approximately 10 years in service. Softer
binders are subjected to 0.5 MPa pressure at 85 °C for 24 hours, which is a similar test duration compared to
the hydrostatic pore pressure method. A benefit of the SATS test is that it can be undertaken using a more
commonly available pressure ageing vessel (PAV). The test also uses the same specimens to determine the
modulus ratio of the mix, reducing the variability associated with preparing separate specimens for
unconditioned and moisture conditioned specimens. However, it does not consider the effect of traffic loading
on the moisture susceptibility of the mix. It is also worth noting that that the SATS test uses 100 mm diameter
specimens, which is smaller than the 150 mm specimens produced by the new Austroads gyratory compaction
test method ATM 212:2021 Gyratory compactor test method (Austroads 2021).
3.4.2 Aggregate–Binder Adhesion Tests
The rolling bottle, Texas boiling and chemical immersion tests described in Section 3.1 are all qualitative in
nature given that the results are reliant on the interpretation of the stripping potential based on the
experience of the laboratory technician undertaking the test. However, more advanced imaging and light
reflection techniques (e.g. asphalt compatibility tester and colorimeter device) can be used to better quantify
the degree of binder loss and remove some of the subjectivity and operator variability associated with these
tests. European test method EN 12697-12 also appears to be more quantitative compared to the rolling
bottle and Texas boiling tests given that the bonding value is a measured quantity of the binder displaced
from the aggregates. Nonetheless, these tests do not consider the properties of the combined asphalt
mixture (i.e. permeability, gradation and void structure) and they are, therefore, not necessarily able to
assess all the mechanisms that govern asphalt stripping. These tests also generally have a poor correlation
to field performance (Diab et al. 2017; Gu et al. 2020). They do, however, provide a quick and inexpensive
indication of the compatibility between the proposed aggregate and bituminous binder, including a qualitative
assessment of the effects of different anti-stripping additives.
Of the more fundamental tests presented in Section 3.3, several studies identified the SFE concept as a
promising approach to assess the adhesion between bituminous binders and aggregates (e.g. Alam and
Aggarwal 2020; Arabani and Hamedi 2014; Diab et al. 2017; Grenfell et al. 2014; Jakarni 2012; Mehrara and
Khodaii 2013; Shah et al. 2022). Unlike the qualitative test methods commonly used, this method offers a
scientific and quantitative approach to determine the adhesion behaviour of a specific binder–aggregate
combination. However, at the time of writing this report, the SFE concept lacked sufficient data to link the test
results with field performance (Shah et al. 2022). Also, similar to the qualitative tests on loose asphalt
samples, the SFE test does not consider the properties of the combined asphalt mixture. At present, the SFE
method also requires sophisticated equipment and analysis techniques and may, therefore, not necessarily
be suited for routine product approval, mix design and/or quality control testing at this stage.

Porot et al. (2018) summarised the findings and recommendations of round robin tests which assessed the
rolling bottle, boiling water, BBS and SFE tests’ ability to assess the susceptibility of asphalt mixes to
moisture damage. It was found that the test results were primarily affected by the aggregate type, while the
binders mainly affected the findings at elevated temperatures. Overall, the results from the rolling bottle,
boiling water and BBS test did not provide consistent outcomes, which was primarily attributed to the degree
of coating, sample preparation method and test conditions rather than the visual nature of the tests. The SFE
findings were consistent for the binders but not necessarily for the aggregates. It was noted though that the
laboratories that performed SFE analysis used different theoretical models which may have affected the
variability in the results (Porot et al. 2018).
The methylene blue value is widely used in Australia to determine the presence of deleterious clay particles
on the surface of the aggregates used in asphalt. Table 3.1 shows a correlation between the methylene blue
value and anticipated asphalt performance (Aschenbrener et al. 1994).
Table 3.1: Correlation between methylene blue values and asphalt performance
Methylene blue value (mg/g) Expected performance

5–6 Excellent
10–12 Marginally acceptable
16–18 Problems or possible failure
20+ Failure
Source: Adapted from Aschenbrener, Terrel and Zamora (1994).
The values in Table 3.1 generally align with local experience, whereby fillers with a methylene blue value of
greater than 10 mg/g is considered to be moisture susceptible.
3.4.3 Asphalt Stripping Tests
The TSR test (using different moisture conditioning procedures) and the HWTD test are the most widely
used moisture damage simulation tests identified in the literature. These tests aim to simulate the effects of
traffic and moisture on asphalt mixes in service and are typically considered to be more performance-based
assessment methods compared to the tests on the constituent materials discussed above.
The TSR test on specimens conditioned using the Lottman or modified Lottman procedures appears to be
one of the most predominant methods used to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the
laboratory, both locally and internationally. It is currently the standard test used in Australia and New Zealand
for mix design purposes (Austroads 2014) and is also the most widely used moisture susceptibility test in the
USA (Shah et al. 2022). The standard specimen conditioning procedures in ATM 232 and AASHTO
T283:2014 include a freeze–thaw cycle, but this step is omitted by some jurisdictions due to concerns
regarding the severity of the test and its applicability to local climatic conditions where very cold
temperatures generally does not occur (Taylor and Khosla 1983). It is, however, important to note that the
purpose of the freeze–thaw cycle was not originally included to simulate cold climatic conditions but rather as
a mechanism to simulate the effects of pore pressure build-up in the asphalt layers due to traffic loads and
thermal expansion (refer Section 3.2.1).
Nonetheless, several researchers have raised concerns regarding the correlation between the TSR test and
field performance, especially for asphalt mixes with marginal moisture susceptibility (Bahia and Ahmad 1999;
Little and Bhasin 2007; Rani et al. 2022; Shah et al. 2022). This observation is supported by the findings
from the stakeholder engagement discussed in Section 5.

As mentioned previously, Watson et al. (2012) found that using five freeze–thaw cycles instead of a single
cycle improved the TSR test’s ability to better distinguish between the moisture susceptibility of different
asphalt mixes, especially for aggregate sources with a known history of stripping issues. The same study
concluded that the TSR results (based on more than one freeze–thaw cycle) were more consistent and more
definitive for establishing pass/fail moisture damage criteria compared to the HWTD. Kandhal and Rickards
(2001) investigated several case studies where asphalt pavement moisture damage was observed in the
USA and Australia. They found that the asphalt layers were almost fully saturated with water, which was
higher than the 55% to 80% saturation levels often specified for the TSR test, including in ATM 232. It was
also noted that the pore pressures generated by the traffic loads also mechanically scoured the binder off the
aggregate. Kandhal and Rickards (2001), therefore, concluded that a laboratory test that better simulates
these conditions is required (e.g. testing saturated specimens using wheel tracking type test devices). Rani
et al. (2022) also recommended that the TSR test be combined with methods investigating the fundamental
properties of the binder–aggregate system (e.g. the SFE method).
The HWTD continues to gain popularity as a method to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in
the laboratory and is the second most common test used in the USA (Shah et al. 2022). There are also
several HWTDs locally available in Australia. A benefit of wheel tracking devices is that they are more
representative of the traffic loads applied to asphalt pavements in service and are, therefore, able to better
simulate the cyclic pore pressures being generated within an asphalt layer. However, one of the main
criticisms against the HWTD is that the test does not necessarily identify mixes that are susceptible to
moisture damage only given that it combines the effects of both traffic load and moisture in the same test. It
is, however, possible to isolate damage resulting from load related deformation by undertaking duplicate
testing on dry specimens (Shah et al. 2022). Yin et al. (2014) also developed an analytical procedure to
isolate the deformation resistance from the moisture susceptibility of the mix.
Also, in some cases a clear SIP cannot readily be identified using the rut depth versus cycles plot obtained
from the HWTD test, and the user must visually determine the inflection point or use software developed by
the equipment suppliers, which can potentially result in different stripping values for the same mix (Shah et
al. 2022). It can, however, be argued that the absence of a clearly defined SIP is an indication that the
asphalt mix is not susceptible to moisture damage.
Nonetheless, several researchers found a strong correlation between the HWTD test and field performance
(Aschenbrener 1995; Izzo and Tahmoressi 1999). Aschenbrener and Currier (1993) also found that the
HWTD can be used to assess the effectiveness of anti-stripping additives in an asphalt mix. However, Lu
and Harvey (2008) found that even though the HWTD test can identify the effect of anti-stripping additives,
the test may overestimate the performance of conventional binders and underestimate the performance of
asphalt mixes manufactured with PMBs. The same study also found a poor correlation between the HWTD
results and field performance, whereby false positive and false negative results occurred. Coomer and
Beecroft (2020) also conducted a comparative assessment of stripping results obtained using the TSR and
an HWTD in Queensland. The study did not find a strong correlation between the HWTD and TSR test
results.

It is clear from the literature reviewed that there is not a universally accepted test method currently available
to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory. The different tests being used assess
different failure mechanisms (i.e. adhesive and/or cohesive failure) by means of moisture, simulated traffic
and/or oxidative ageing. It was also noted that many of the standard tests assess the moisture susceptibility
based on short-term conditions and a strong correlation between the laboratory results and longer-term field
performance is, therefore, difficult to establish. Therefore, there is still a need to develop a repeatable test
that reflects not only the moisture susceptibility but also other aspects of pavement performance (Little and
Epps 2001).

The most common methods being used to assess the bond between the bituminous binder and aggregates
of loose samples appears to be the rolling bottle or boiling water tests. The TSR test (on specimens
conditioned using either the Lottman or modified Lottman procedure) and the HWTD test are also widely
used to determine the stripping potential of the compacted asphalt mix. However, both the current TSR and
HWTD tests have limitations, and there is, therefore, a need to further investigate potential modifications to
these tests (including possible changes to the moisture conditioning procedures) to provide a more reliable
measure of the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes, especially if aggregates with marginal performance
are being considered or if the effectiveness of different anti-stripping additives needs to be assessed.
Until such time that a single test method is developed to reliably predict the moisture susceptibility of different
asphalt mixes, consideration should be given to adopting a combination of different tests where the historic
performance of the asphalt mix or anti-stripping additive is not well established.

4. Asphalt Anti-stripping Additives
This section provides an overview of the different types of anti-stripping additive most commonly used to
reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes.
4.1 Background
Various types of anti-stripping additives have been successfully used to reduce the moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixes, including various types of mineral fillers, solid additives and liquid agents. A review of the
most commonly used types of anti-stripping additives is provided below.
4.2 Hydrated Lime

There are three forms of lime that can be added to asphalt mixes, including limestone filler, quicklime, and
hydrated lime (Putman and Amirkhanian 2006). Limestone is a naturally occurring sedimentary rock that
contains high levels of calcium and/or magnesium carbonate and/or dolomite. Crushed limestone is heated
in a kiln (a process known as calcining) to form calcium oxide (CaO), also known as quicklime, and carbon
dioxide (CO2). In turn, the crushed quicklime can be mixed with water to produce hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2).
Hydrated lime has been used in the manufacture of asphalt pavements to improve adhesion since 1910
(Watson et al. 2012). The hydrated lime can be added to the asphalt mix as a dry filler or as a slurry to the
moist aggregates (Shah et al. 2022). Hydrated lime can have multiple functions when used in asphalt, i.e. the
lime acts as a mineral filler in the aggregate matrix, affects the chemistry of the aggregates’ surfaces to
promote its adhesion with bituminous binders and increases the long-term durability of the binder mastic
(Little and Epps 2001; Pickering et al. 1992). Its effectiveness as an anti-stripping additive is primarily due to
the calcium present in the lime. The calcium replaces the hydrogen, potassium, sodium and other acidic
components present on the surface of the aggregate and assists with neutralising the acids found in
bitumen. The organic acids react with the now calcium-rich surface of the aggregates to form a water-
resistant surface (Watson et al. 2012).
Hydrated lime can also reduce the plasticity of deleterious clays present on the aggregate that may
adversely affect the bond with the bituminous binder (Little and Epps 2001).
4.2.1 Effectiveness of Hydrated Lime to Reduce the Moisture Susceptibility of

Asphalt
The effectiveness of hydrated lime as an anti-stripping additive is well established and widely documented in
the literature (Airey et al. 2008; European Lime Association 2011; Lesueur et al. 2013; Little and Epps 2001;
Little et al. 2006; Zaidi et al. 2020).
In a study by Pickering et al. (1992), the effectiveness of different types of anti-stripping additives was
investigated, including hydrated lime and two different LAAs. The additives were combined with two different
types of aggregates (i.e. limestone and a ‘Helms’ aggregate with known stripping potential) and tested for
both resilient modulus and tensile strength in an unconditioned state and following modified Lottman
conditioning. The addition of the hydrated lime was found to reduce the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt
mixes in the laboratory, irrespective of the type of aggregate used.

Another study by Sebaaly et al. (2003) in the USA assessed the performance of lime-treated and untreated
asphalt mixes sourced from two locations in Nevada. The incorporation of lime overall improved the moisture
resistance of the mixes assessed, which became more resistant to multiple freeze–thaw cycles when
compared to the untreated mixes. Given that the properties of the lime-treated asphalt mixes were excellent
in the wheelpath and between wheelpaths, it was concluded that the lime improved the performance of the
asphalt under both traffic and environmental stresses. Sebaaly et al. (2003) also concluded that the overall
performance of the asphalt pavements treated with hydrated lime was superior to that of the untreated
pavements with an expected increase in life expectancy of approximately 38% when hydrated lime was
incorporated into the asphalt.
Watson et al. (2012) also undertook a laboratory investigation comprising laboratory prepared samples,
plant-mixed samples and field cores extracted from in-service pavements. The investigation included TSR,
HWTD, dynamic modulus and flow number testing of asphalt mixes incorporating hydrated lime and LAAs.
The study concluded that hydrated lime was the most effective anti-stripping additive, even for TSR
specimens subjected to up to 10 freeze–thaw cycles. Based on the findings from the study, the authors
recommended that the use of hydrated lime should continue on all state routes in Georgia, USA. Similarly,
Sebaaly et al. (2010) found that the incorporation of hydrated lime improved the TSR of hot mix asphalt when
tested in accordance with AASHTO T283:2014.
Hydrated lime is also effective in reducing the plasticity of clayey materials that could negatively affect the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes (Little and Epps 2001). The lime reacts with the clay minerals
causing an ion exchange, flocculation and agglomeration of the clay particles.
4.2.2 Secondary Effects of Hydrated Lime in Asphalt
Incorporating hydrated lime in asphalt does not only reduce moisture susceptibility but can also improve the
crack resistance, deformation resistance and resistance to binder oxidation of asphalt mixes (Shah et al.
2022). Furthermore, the lime alters the oxidation dynamics of the binder mastic and can act as an antioxidant
(Little and Epps 2001).
The type of mineral filler (i.e. material passing the 0.075 mm sieve) used can significantly affect the
performance of asphalt mixes in service, especially in mixes with higher filler–binder (mastic) contents,
e.g. SMA (Alfaqawi et al. 2017). Both the filler-to-binder ratio and the voids in the filler (i.e. Rigden voids) can
have a significant effect on the stiffness of the binder mastic (Austroads 2013). A study by Bryant (2009)
demonstrated the effect of both filler type and filler content on the viscosity of a typical PMB in Australia.
Figure 4.1 shows the difference in the visual appearance of a binder mastic prepared with different filler
types for the same filler–binder ratio.

Figure 4.1: Effect of filler type and content on the binder mastic
Source: Bryant (2009).
The difference in visual appearance observed was also supported by changes in the viscosity of the different
mastics measured with a Brookfield device (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2: Stiffening effect of the fixed binder fraction on the binder mastic
Source: Bryant (2009).

Spies (1996) also found that the stiffening effect of fillers was related to the fraction of binder absorbed by
the filler (known as the fixed binder fraction). The fraction of fixed binder is dependent on the volume of air
voids in the dry compacted filler, whereby fillers with a higher Rigden voids content will result in a higher
fixed binder fraction and, hence, a higher binder mastic stiffness.
A desktop study by the European Lime Association (2011) found that the inclusion of hydrated lime in
asphalt reduced binder oxidation in service. However, the effects of hydrated lime on the modulus of the
mixes were not found to be consistent with some findings in the literature reporting an increase in modulus,
while other showed no change. Similarly, approximately half of the results demonstrated an increase in
strength. In most cases investigated, though, hydrated lime was found to decrease rutting. It was, therefore,
concluded that hydrated lime has a more pronounced impact on the binder stiffness at higher temperatures
(European Lime Association 2011).
An assessment of hydrated lime and granite filler containing bitumen mastics conducted by Alfaqawi (2018)
and Alfaqawi et al. (2022) also showed less ageing of the mastic when hydrated lime was incorporated into
the binder.
4.2.3 Safety, Environmental and Construction Considerations when Using Hydrated

Lime
Safety
A review of safety data sheets (SDSs) for hydrated lime found that its use may be associated with several
health hazards, mainly due to its small particle size. These hazards may include respiratory and skin
irritation, eye damage, cancer (if inhaled) and other damage to organs due to prolonged exposure. It is worth
noting that these risks are likely to be similar for other mineral filler types with very small particle sizes.
Relating to worker safety, engineering controls, such as exhaust systems, and the use of personal protective
equipment (including safety glasses, gloves, cotton overalls, respirators and chemical resistant aprons) are,
therefore, recommended in the SDSs cited.
Environment
The environmental impact (i.e. emissions generated) from using hydrated lime is mainly associated with the
processes required to produce hydrated lime from limestone. It is believed that approximately two-thirds of
the emissions generated are from the chemical reactions during the calcination of the calcium carbonate to
produce calcium oxide and the ‘slaking’ process to produce hydrated lime (Laveglia et al. 2022). The
remainder of the emissions are generated during the production process (e.g. combustion of fuels in the kiln,
electricity requirements and material transport). Laveglia et al. (2022) found that 0.94 kgCO2eq of greenhouse
emissions are generated for every kilogram of hydrated lime produced in Europe. The Australian National
Life Cycle Inventory Database (AusLCI) also provides a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 0.85 kgCO2eq for
every 1 kg of hydrated lime produced in Australia. In comparison, ground limestone and lime kiln dust have
an estimated GWP of 0.04 kgCO2eq and 0.01 kgCO2eq, respectively. It is, however, important to note that
GWP values provided do not include the environmental impact of the entire life cycle of the asphalt
pavement and, therefore, do not consider the longer-term durability benefits of using lime in asphalt.
Several SDSs cited also recommend that hydrated lime not be disposed of in locations where it might come
in contact with aquatic environments as its high pH may result in acute ecotoxicity.
Construction
Hydrated lime can be incorporated into asphalt using various methods, including in its pure form at the
asphalt plant, as a mixed filler or as a slurry added to the aggregates. The incorporation of hydrated lime in a
continuous drum-mix asphalt plant may require the modification of equipment so that mass losses are
avoided. In addition, in some cases where marination of the aggregates with hydrated lime is required, a
maximum marination duration is specified as hydrated lime has a risk of re-carbonation (European Lime
Association 2011).

The literature reviewed suggests that hydrated lime is most effective when applied as a slurry to the
aggregate before heating and drying (Taylor and Khosla 1983). It was also found that the method of lime
incorporation is important and if not added correctly could be blown out of the mixing drum and not properly
mixed into the asphalt. It is, therefore, preferable that the moisture susceptibility of an asphalt mix containing
hydrated lime should also be assessed on the plant-mix and not only on laboratory prepared samples.
4.2.4 Current Usage of Hydrated Lime as an Anti-stripping Additive in Asphalt
Australia and New Zealand

Hydrated lime is specified extensively in Australia to reduce the risk of moisture damage in asphalt mixes
and is often mandated in certain mix types. The lime must comply with the requirements in AS 1672.1:1997
Limes and Limestones. Limes for Building. Several road agencies also specify additional requirements for
hydrated lime used in asphalt, including the available lime content, sieve residue (percentage retained on the
300 µm sieve) and moisture content. In New Zealand, added mineral fillers used in asphalt must comply with
ASTM D242:2019 Standard Specification for Mineral Filler for Asphalt Mixtures.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of a selection of jurisdictional specifications in Australia and New Zealand that
require the use of hydrated lime in asphalt.

Table 4.1: Australian and New Zealand standard requirements for the use of hydrated lime
Jurisdiction Specification Limits

Queensland MRTS30:2022 DGA containing baghouse dust must contain 1 wt.% hydrated lime
Department of
DGA not containing baghouse dust must contain 1.5 wt.% hydrated
Transport and Main
lime
Roads (TMR)
SMA must contain minimum 1 wt.% hydrated lime if methylene blue
> 10 mg/g and ≤ 18 mg/g
OGA must contain 1 wt.% hydrated lime minimum
MRTS32:2022 EME2 must contain minimum 1 wt.% hydrated lime if methylene blue
> 10 mg/g and ≤ 18 mg/g
Transport for New R116:2021 Heavy duty DGA must contain a minimum of 1.5 wt.% hydrated lime
South Wales (TfNSW)
R121:2020 SMA must contain minimum 1.5 wt.% hydrated lime
R119:2020 OGA must contain 1 wt.% hydrated lime minimum
R126:2020 EME2 may contain hydrated lime or adhesion agent
Northern Territory Standard All DGA mixes must contain adhesion agent or hydrated lime
Department of Specification for
Infrastructure, Planning Roadworks
and Logistics (DIPL) V5.1:2022
Main Roads Western Specification DGA and OGA must include a minimum of 1.5 wt.% hydrated lime
Australia (MRWA) 502:2022 &
504:2022
Specification Intermediate DGA and OGA must contain 1.5 wt.% hydrated lime
510:2022
Crumb rubber modified asphalt must include a minimum of 1 wt.%
hydrated lime
South Australia RD-BP-S2:2022 All wearing courses must contain 1 wt.% hydrated lime
Department for
Infrastructure and
Transport (DIT)
Victoria Department of RC500.01:2021 All wearing courses must contain minimum 1 wt.% added filler,
Transport and Planning which may comprise of hydrated lime, cement kiln dust, ground
(DTP) limestone, ground granulated blast furnace slag, Portland cement or
fly-ash
Any asphalt containing aggregates of coarse or medium grained
acid igneous rocks (e.g. granite, adamellite, granodiorite, quartz
porphyry) shall contain not less than 1 wt.% hydrated lime filler
Waka Kotahi New NZTA M10:2020 Anti-stripping additives (including hydrated lime) may be used in
Zealand Transport NZTA M27:2020 asphalt mixes
Agency (NZTA) NZTA M32:2021
TNZ P/11:2007
Several road agencies (including TMR, TfNSW and MRWA) mandate the use of hydrated lime in DGA and
OGA mixes. TfNSW also mandates the use of hydrated lime in SMA mixes. DIT mandates the use of
hydrated lime in wearing courses only, whereas DTP requires all wearing course mixes to include 1% of
added filler (which does not necessarily have to be lime).
TMR also mandates the use of hydrated lime in SMA and EME2 if the methylene blue value of the combined
filler (excluding hydrated lime) is greater than 10 mg/g, whereas DTP mandates the use of hydrated lime in
all asphalt mixes manufactured with acidic igneous aggregates.
DIPL and NZTA allow for the use of either hydrated lime or LAAs. It is, however, understood that LAAs are
the preferred additive type in both these jurisdictions.

International
Shah, Olek and McDaniel (2022) surveyed current practices in the USA and Canada to reduce the risk of
stripping in asphalt mixes. A summary of the use of anti-stripping additives by the jurisdictions included in the
survey is shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: The use of anti-stripping additives in the USA and Canada
The study found that 36% of the respondents require the use of anti-stripping additives in all their mixes,
whereas 34% require the use of additives based on laboratory testing. Only 20% of the respondents specify
anti-stripping additives for mixes containing moisture-susceptible aggregates and 10% do not require the use
of any anti-stripping additive in their mixes.
Of the 50 responses received, including responses from 48 state departments of transport (DoTs), the
District of Columbia and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 26 respondents indicated that they allow the
use of either hydrated lime or LAAs in their asphalt mixes. Five state DoTs (i.e. Mississippi, Montana, South
Dakota, Nevada and Colorado) only allow for hydrated lime to be used as an anti-stripping additive. The
hydrated lime is either added to the aggregate in a pugmill, injected into the mixing drum, pre-mixed with
moist aggregate or incorporated into the mix as a slurry (Shah et al. 2022).
In South Africa, hydrated lime can also be used to improve the moisture resistance of asphalt mixes. It is,
however, recommended that the hydrated lime be limited to a maximum of 1% of the total aggregate to
ensure that the workability of the binder mastic is not adversely affected (Sabita 2021).
In Europe, the use of hydrated lime in asphalt mixes dates back to the 1980s (Bouron et al. 2021;
Lesueur 2010). Lime is regarded as a filler material and is mainly used to reduce the moisture susceptibility
of asphalt but also to improve the permanent deformation resistance and durability of asphalt mixes
(European Lime Association 2011). Table 4.2 provides a summary of hydrated lime contents and
applications of across 19 European countries. It should be noted that the information in the table below is
more than a decade old, and an updated status regarding the use of hydrated lime could not be found.
Nonetheless, a survey of several practitioners in Europe undertaken as part of this Austroads project found
that the use of hydrated lime in asphalt mixes is still prevalent in some regions, but practices vary depending
on the available aggregates and past experience. Lesueur et al. (2016) also noted that even though the
European experience with hydrated lime is not as well established as in the USA, its usage is increasing due
to the performance benefits it provides as an added filler in asphalt mixes, especially in Austria, France, the
Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland.

Table 4.2: The use of hydrated lime in asphalt in Europe
Content of Incorporation Applications

Country hydrated lime in method
HMA (wt.%)
Austria 1.5–3.5 Pure Asphalt concrete, SMA, porous asphalt
Belgium 1.5 As a mixed filler SMA, porous asphalt (asphalt rubber)
Czech 1.5 Pure Asphalt concrete, porous asphalt (asphalt rubber)
Republic
Denmark 1–1.5 Pure Asphalt concrete
Finland 1–2 Pure or as a Asphalt concrete, SMA, cold mix asphalt
mixed filler
France 1–1.5 Pure or as a Asphalt concrete, cold mix asphalt, porous asphalt,
mixed filler porous asphalt (asphalt rubber), very thin asphalt layer
Germany 1–3 Pure or as a Asphalt concrete, SMA

mixed filler
Hungary 2 Pure Asphalt concrete
Ireland 2 Pure Porous asphalt
Italy 1–2 As a mixed filler SMA, porous asphalt
The 2 As a mixed filler Porous asphalt
Netherlands
Poland 1–3 As a mixed filler Asphalt concrete
Portugal 1–2 Pure Porous asphalt (asphalt rubber)
Romania 2 As a mixed filler Asphalt concrete, SMA
Slovakia 2 Pure or as a –
mixed filler
Spain 1–2 Pure SMA
Sweden 1 Pure Asphalt concrete
Switzerland 1.5 Pure Porous asphalt, asphalt concrete, SMA
UK 1–2 Pure Asphalt concrete
Source: Adapted from European Lime Association (2011).
4.3 Liquid Anti-stripping Agents

The use of LAAs dates back to the 1930s and extensive research has been undertaken on their
effectiveness to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes (Mirzababaei, Nejad & Naderi 2018).
Generally, LAAs facilitate aggregate–binder bonding by reducing the surface tension between the two
components, hence some of these agents are also referred to as surfactants. The reduction in surface
tension is achieved by modifying the electric charge and chemical composition of the binder (Diab et al.
2017).
Curtis (1990) suggested that the ideal LAA should:

• be heat stable
• improve the bond between the bituminous binder and aggregates
• have no detrimental effect on the binder and asphalt properties, health and the environment
• be easy to use and economical.

There are several types of LAAs, including amine- and silane-based agents, as well as phosphate esters.
The effectiveness of the different types of agents differs based on the aggregate-binder combination used
(Mirzababaei et al. 2018). The reported benefits of using LAAs include (Australian Flexible Pavement
Association 2021; Shah, Olek and McDaniel 2022):
• lower asphalt manufacturing costs compared to hydrated lime
• negating the need for two filler silos at asphalt plants to produce DGA and SMA mixes
• a lower carbon footprint compared to hydrated lime
• negating the need for an offset factor when using an ignition oven to determine the binder content of
asphalt mixes.
When given the opportunity to choose between hydrated lime and LAA, contractors often prefer the latter
due to the ease in application and lower cost. The manufacturers of LAA are also continuously improving the
properties of these agents, including temperature and storage stability (Amirkhanian et al. 2018).
4.3.1 Effectiveness of LAAs to Reduce the Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt
LAAs are typically in the form of cationic surface-active agents and are commonly amines derived from
ammonia (Arabani and Hamedi 2014). The polar species forming part of the LAAs have a strong affinity to
the silica compounds found on the surface of some aggregates and with the associated long hydrocarbon
chains renders the aggregate surface lipophilic (Diab et al. 2017). The now lipophilic aggregate surface has
a stronger affinity to the bitumen compared to water (Shah et al. 2022).
Silane-based LAAs yield silanol in the presence of water, which is condensed and converted into
hydrophobic siloxanes in the bitumen. The inorganic part is bonded with the hydroxylated surface of the
aggregates via hydrogen bonds which are either collapsed or condensed to produce water and a covalently
bonded metal siloxane. This allows for the formation of a cross-linked siloxane film structure over the surface
of the aggregates (Mirzababaei et al. 2018).
The effectiveness of a specific LAA is dependent on both its type in combination with the aggregates used,
as well as the amount of agent added to the asphalt mix (Amirkhanian et al. 2018; Putman and Amirkhanian
2006). Given that LAAs are speciality products, some agents are designed to be more effective in hot mix
asphalt (HMA), whereas other agents are more effective with cutback binders and bitumen emulsions (Shah
et al. 2022).
Several researchers have previously investigated the effectiveness of LAAs to reduce the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes (Cuadri et al. 2015; Curtis 1990; Hamedi et al. 2019; Lamperti et al. 2015).
However, it is important to note that these agents are proprietary products and any studies undertaken on
their effectiveness as an anti-stripping additive are product specific. Caution should, therefore, be exercised
when making any general conclusions regarding the effectiveness of LAAs.
Arabani and Hamedi (2014) investigated the effectiveness of two amine-based LAAs in combination with two
different aggregate sources (i.e. granite and limestone). The study determined the SFE of the binder–
aggregate combinations and undertook dynamic modulus testing on unconditioned asphalt specimens and
partially saturated specimens subjected to a freeze–thaw cycle. Based on the dynamic modulus ratio
between the dry and moisture-conditioned specimens and the SFE values, it was concluded that the addition
of the LAAs reduced the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixes tested. The study also found a
difference in the performance between the two LAAs used.
Another study by Shankar et al. (2018) also found that the addition of a commercially available LAA in India
improved the TSR and stripping value of three asphalt mixes tested in the laboratory. Similarly, Mirzababaei
et al. (2018) determined that the incorporation of two silane-based LAAs improved the moisture susceptibility
of asphalt mixes based on HWTD, TSR and Marshall Immersion testing. The study also concluded that the
LAAs used performed better than the two mineral fillers tested (i.e. Portland cement and hydrated lime).

More recently, Alam and Aggarwal (2020) examined the moisture susceptibility of the bitumen–aggregate
interface when using amine- and silane-based LAAs. The study comprised TSR (using the modified Lottman
procedure in AASHTO T283), SFE and Texas boiling testing. The LAAs improved the interface between the
binder and aggregates, with the silane-based agent yielding better adhesion when compared to the amine-
based agent (irrespective of the test method used).
Several studies cited in the literature review also compared the performance of LAAs against hydrated lime,
as discussed below.
Pickering et al. (1992) investigated the effectiveness of hydrated lime and two different LAAs (liquid 1 and
liquid 2) on asphalt mixes manufactured with two sources of aggregates obtained from California and
Nevada. The moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixes was assessed using resilient modulus and ITS
testing under various levels of moisture conditioning (including a freeze–thaw cycle) and temperature. The
study concluded that:
• Liquid 1 provided a significant increase in the unconditioned resilient modulus of the asphalt mixes
tested. However, the resilient modulus of the moisture-conditioned specimens was significantly lower
compared to the unconditioned specimens. A similar trend was observed for the ITS values. Based on
the laboratory test results, the authors did not consider liquid 1 to be an effective anti-stripping agent.
• Even though liquid 2 provided some increase in the resilient modulus and TSR values, the authors
questioned its suitability as an anti-stripping agent due to some inconsistencies in the test results.
Solaimanian et al. (1993) reported the results from long-term studies of eight highway sites across Texas.
The study involved various binders and aggregates; and the pavements were exposed to a wide range of
environmental and traffic conditions given that the sites were located in various districts across the state.
Asphalt pavements incorporating hydrated lime, LAAs and pavements without any anti-stripping additives
were evaluated. Interestingly, the study did not find any improvement in the moisture resistance of the
sections treated with different anti-stripping additives compared to the untreated sections. However, the
authors did conclude that none of the additives appeared to have adversely affected the moisture
susceptibility of the asphalt.
Sebaaly et al. (2007) conducted a comparative assessment of the mechanical properties of asphalt mixes
containing hydrated lime and LAAs. Laboratory-prepared asphalt specimens were assessed in their dry and
moisture-conditioned state using cyclic loading. The resilient modulus, compressive and tensile dynamic
modulus were determined for the different mixes. It was found that the mixes containing hydrated lime were
better performing overall. The hydrated lime mixes were also less susceptible to rutting, more stable and less
prone to moisture-related damage compared to the mixes containing the LAAs. Similarly, Putman and
Amirkhanian (2006) noted an improvement in the resistance to moisture damage when using both hydrated
lime and LAAs. The hydrated lime was, however, found to provide superior results compared to the LAAs.
Sebaaly et al. (2010) also investigated the effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the dynamic modulus of asphalt
specimens containing hydrated lime, a LAA and specimens without any anti-stripping aditive. It was found
that the thermal cycling notably decreased the dynamic modulus of the untreated and LAA-treated
specimens, while the specimens containing hydrated lime maintained a higher modulus for all 15 cycles,
irrespective of the material source. The hydrated lime also improved the rutting resistance of the asphalt,
while the effect of the LAA was dependent on the constituent materials used. Regardless, the LAA
specimens were found to have improved rut resistance when compared to the untreated specimens. The
thermal cracking of specimens was improved when either of the additives was incorporated; however, in the
case of hydrated lime, the specimens showed notably greater improvements (Sebaaly et al. 2010).

Watson et al. (2012) undertook a study in Georgia, USA, to evaluate the effectiveness of different additives
(including hydrated lime, an LAA and a WMA additive) to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt
pavements. The study comprised laboratory testing of plant-produced asphalt samples, laboratory-prepared
samples and cores extracted from in-service pavements. Up to four different aggregate sources (including
granite and limestone) were used in the study. A series of TSR tests using multiple freeze–thaw cycles was
undertaken on the laboratory-prepared samples. The field performance assessment comprised testing cores
extracted from 20 projects (10 with lime and 10 with LAAs), with an average age of 8.2 years and 8.4 years
for the LAA and lime projects, respectively. The laboratory testing on the field cores included TSR (with
multiple freeze–thaw cycles), HWTD (with some field cores subjected to a single freeze–thaw cycle),
dynamic modulus and Flow Number testing. The authors of the study concluded that:
• there was a strong correlation between aggregate type, additive type and the interaction between the
two variables
• the TSR results (including multiple freeze–thaw cycles) for the limestone mixes with hydrated lime were
significantly better compared to the mixes manufactured with the LAA and WMA additive
• the granite mixes with hydrated lime also performed better than the mixes with the LAA and WMA
additives in the TSR test; however, all three additive types resulted in TSR values greater than 80%
• the field cores with hydrated lime had a 50% higher tensile strength after three freeze–thaw cycles
compared to the cores with the LAA
• the HWTD testing on the field cores found that all the mixes manufactured with hydrated lime passed
the SIP criteria, whereas only 60% of the mixes with the LAA passed the stripping criteria.
4.3.2 Secondary Effects of LAAs in Asphalt
In addition to reducing the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes, some LAAs can also be used as a WMA
additive to lower the compaction temperature of asphalt (Alam and Aggarwal 2020). For example, Onoja and
Alhassan (2019) demonstrated that a reduction in production temperature from 163 to 115 °C can
successfully be achieved without adversely affecting the engineering properties of the asphalt when a
particular amine-based LAA was incorporated into the mix. However, another study by Epps-Martin et
al. (2014) found that some LAAs may not necessarily be compatible with specific types of WMA additives,
which may adversely affect the performance of the asphalt mix. The compatibility between the specific LAA
and other additives used in the same asphalt mix should, therefore, be considered.
Mirzababaei et al. (2018) also found that the addition of silane-based LAAs used in their study reduced the
temperature susceptibility of the binder based on the Penetration Index (PI); however, the LAAs slightly
increased the temperature sensitivity of the binder based on the PVN (Pen-Vis number) index. The LAAs did
not have any meaningful effect on the softening point, penetration index and viscosity of the binder, and the
authors, therefore, concluded that the effect of these agents on the temperature sensitivity of an 85/100
penetration grade bitumen is unknown.
It is important to note that the concentration of LAA in the binder blend needs to be carefully controlled, as
higher concentrations may reduce the viscosity of the binder and result in asphalt mixes that may be more
susceptible to permanent deformation (Gu et al. 2020).
Finally, care should be taken when incorporating LAAs in binders that contain polyphosphoric acid (PPA) as
a temperature stabiliser. Certain combinations of PPA and LAAs have been found to be detrimental to the
binder’s properties (e.g. binder stiffness). However, these adverse effects can be overcome by selecting the
correct type of LAA in combination with the PPA to be used (Shah et al. 2022).

4.3.3 Safety, Environmental and Construction Considerations when Using LAAs
Safety
A review of SDSs for locally available LAAs was undertaken and most warn users against contact with the
skin and eyes as irritation is probable (if not certain) upon contact. These agents can also be dangerous if
swallowed and may cause harm to various internal organs (e.g. lungs, kidneys and liver). Users are also
warned against inhaling the product as this may lead to irritation of the respiratory tract. To protect workers
from unnecessary exposure, the SDSs cited recommend that handling of LAAs should be undertaken in
areas with good ventilation. It is also advisable that the users wear eye protection, chemical-resistant gloves
and clothing and, if necessary, thermal protective clothing and respirators.
Environment
The purpose of APT6048 was not to undertake a detailed environmental assessment of using LAAs in
asphalt mixes; however, a comparative high-level analysis was undertaken to determine the equivalent CO2
emissions generated from hydrated lime and a generic LAA.
The environmental impact from using LAAs is mainly associated with the additive manufacturing process.
The Australian Flexible Pavement Association (2021) states that the carbon footprint from using hydrated
lime in asphalt is 52 times greater than using LAAs. This comparison was based on an analysis undertaken
by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry between a commercially available LAA, hydrated lime and cement
(Lofnertz 2001).
The AusLCI suggests a GWP value of 4.17 kgCO2eq per 1 kg of a locally available amine-based LAA, which
is significantly higher than the GWP value provided for hydrated lime (i.e. 0.85 kgCO2eq per 1 kg). However,
the typical dosage rate for LAAs ranges between 0.5% and 1.5% by mass of the bituminous binder, which is
significantly lower that the dosage rate for hydrated lime (e.g. between 1% and 1.5% by mass of the total
asphalt mix). Therefore, the total emissions generated when using LAAs is expected to be significantly less
than the emissions generated when using hydrated lime given the lower quantity of additive required per
tonne of asphalt produced. For example, assuming a compacted asphalt density of 2400 kg/m3, a binder
content of 5% and a typical dosage rate of 0.5% for an LAA (by mass of the binder) and 1% for hydrated lime
(by mass of the asphalt mix), the estimated GWP is 1.04 kgCO2eq and 8.5 kgCO2eq per tonne of asphalt
produced for LAAs and hydrated lime, respectively. It is, however, important to note that this comparison
does not consider the total life-cycle emissions associated with using these different additive types and is an
indication of the cradle-to-gate emissions only.
Based on several SDSs cited, some LAAs are also reported to be harmful to aquatic environments and users
are advised to avoid exposure to soils, waterways, drains and sewers.
Construction
LAAs can be supplied in both a liquid or solid form and can be added to the bitumen or directly to the
aggregates. Although the latter is perceived as more effective, as it ensures direct contact of the agent with
the aggregate surface, it can be more expensive due to the higher dosage rates required (Shah et al. 2022).
Incorporating LAAs directly into the binder is, therefore, more common practice internationally (Gu et al.
2020). Adding the LAA directly to the bituminous binder at the binder supplier’s facility (i.e. terminal blend) is
also the preferred approach in the USA (Shah et al. 2022).
As LAAs are usually blended with the bituminous binder, some researchers suspect that only a portion of the
agent-affected binder comes in contact with the aggregates (Diab et al. 2017). On the contrary, Putman and
Amirkhanian (2006) argued that the same issue could apply when the LAA is added directly to the
aggregates given that the typical dosage rate ranges between 0.5% and 1.5% by weight of the binder, which
may not be sufficient to fully coat the aggregates.
Concerns have been raised regarding the storage and temperature stability of some LAAs and it is,
therefore, important to consider the stability of these agents during the binder supply and asphalt
manufacturing process (Amirkhanian et al. 2018; Putman and Amirkhanian 2006).

Another potential challenge associated with the use of LAAs is the ability to accurately quantify the amount
of LAA in the binder or asphalt mix. In response, the StripScan method was developed by InstroTek Inc. to
quantify the amount of LAA present. The method involves heating the bituminous binder or asphalt mix and
allowing the LAA to evaporate and react with a litmus paper. The litmus paper can then be analysed using
spectroscopy to quantify the amount of liquid agent in the asphalt mix or binder (Amirkhanian et al. 2018).
4.3.4 Current Usage of LAAs in Asphalt
Australia and New Zealand

The use of LAAs (also referred to as adhesion agents) in asphalt is permitted by several road jurisdictions.
Some transport agencies provide specific requirements regarding the dosage rates or the timing for adding
these agents to the binder. A summary of local specification requirements for LAAs is provided in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Australian and New Zealand standard requirements for LAAs
Jurisdiction Specification Limits/Notes

Queensland Department of MRTS30:2022 Adhesion agent may be added (maximum 1% by
Transport and Main Roads (TMR) mass of the binder)
MRTS32:2022
Transport for New South Wales R116:2021 Adhesion agent may be added (maximum 1% by
(TfNSW) mass of the binder)
Northern Territory Department of Standard Specification All DGA mixes must contain adhesion agent or
Infrastructure, Planning and for Roadworks v5.1:2022 hydrated lime
Logistics (DIPL)
Main Roads Western Australia Specification 502:2022 Allowed
(MRWA)
Specification 504:2022 Where the use of hydrated lime is impractical
outside of Perth, adhesion agents may be used
Specification 510:2022 Allowed
Crumb rubber modified asphalt may include
adhesion agents but not as a substitute for hydrated
lime
Specification 511:2023 Where the use of hydrated lime is impractical
outside of Perth, adhesion agents may be used
LAAs shall be added to the binder no more than 48
hours prior to asphalt production
South Australia Department for RD-BP-S2:2022 Adhesion agent may be added
Infrastructure and Transport (DIT)
Victoria Department of Transport RC 500.01:2021 No reference to LAAs
and Planning (DTP)
Waka Kotahi New Zealand NZTA M10:2020 Anti-stripping additives (including LAAs) may be
Transport Agency (NZTA) NZTA M27:2020 used in asphalt mixes
NZTA M32:2021
TNZ P/11:2007
Only MRWA provides specific technical requirements for the use of LAAs in asphalt. In WA, LAAs must be a
concentrate that is miscible with bituminous binders, easy to pour and not deteriorate during storage. In
addition, LAAs must meet the requirements in Table 4.4. (MRWA 2010).

Table 4.4: MRWA requirements for LAA
Property Requirement
Visual assessment(1) The adhesion agent shall remain clear and not segregate or separate during storage, shall
show no signs of crusting, hardening or formation of a crystalline appearance
Pourability(1) The adhesion agent shall be fluid and pour readily at the test temperature of 5 °C
Stripping consistency(1) The maximum % stripping for each of the three conditioning periods shall not be greater
than 10%
Flashpoint(2) The flashpoint shall be greater than 100 °C
1 Assessment to be undertaken by MRWA.

2 Testing to be undertaken by a NATA-accredited laboratory.
Source: MRWA (2010).
International
As noted previously, Shah et al. (2022) surveyed current practices in the USA and Canada to reduce the risk
of stripping in asphalt mixes. The majority of DoTs surveyed use LAAs, and 13 of the 50 respondents only
allow LAAs to be used in their mixes.
In Georgia, the use of LAAs was required as early as the 1960s; however, as stripping continued to occur a
policy was introduced in 1982 to replace LAAs with hydrated lime on heavily trafficked roads (Gu et al. 2020).
Current practice regarding the use of LAAs in Europe is not well documented. However, a survey undertaken
of several practitioners in Europe as part of project APT6048 indicated that the use of LAAs is common in
certain countries (e.g. Sweden, where it is mandated). A lack of availability of hydrated lime as well as its
potential compatibility with recycled asphalt appears to be some of the main drivers for this choice. In
contrast, countries like Norway and Finland select not to use LAAs as they are reluctant to introduce
additional chemicals into their pavements.
In South Africa, LAAs are also allowed to improve the moisture resistance of asphalt mixes in service
(Sabita 2021).
4.4 Other Anti-stripping Additives in Asphalt

Although hydrated lime and LAAs appear to be the most popular additives used to reduce the risk of
moisture damage in asphalt, other fillers such as fly ash, flue dust, ground limestone and Portland cement
are also being used (Austroads 2014, Putman and Amirkhanian 2006).
Portland cement and fly ash can reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes given the calcium
present in the cement; albeit, fly ash is considered to be a more sustainable solution compared to cement.
Similar to the other anti-stripping additives, the effectiveness of these additives is dependent on the mix
design and constituent materials used (Rosner et al. 1981).
Kim et al. (2012) also assessed the potential for fly ash to replace hydrated lime in asphalt mixes. The
assessment included various aggregate types, an unmodified bitumen and a PMB. Several laboratory tests
were undertaken, including the PATTI test, TSR test (AASHTO T283:2014), the boiling test, and the asphalt
pavement analyser test on specimens submerged in water. Overall, it was found that the results obtained for
the mixes containing hydrated lime and fly ash were comparable (Kim et al. 2012).
The use of steel slag filler as an anti-stripping additive has also previously been assessed by means of the
water immersion test, the Marshall stability test and the TSR test (including freeze–thaw conditioning). The
study showed that the steel slag filler can reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt, but the slag was not
as effective as hydrated lime (Xiao et al. 2019).

Ground limestone has also successfully been used as an added filler in asphalt mixes, including in Australia
and New Zealand. Apart from acting as a conventional mineral filler in the mix, the calcium present assists
with neutralising the acid interaction between some aggregates and the bitumen resulting in a less moisture
susceptible asphalt mix (Crabb 2021).
Polymeric anti-stripping agents (like organosilanes) are also gaining popularity as a means to prevent
moisture damage in flexible road pavements. These types of agents are most effective when added to mixes
containing siliceous aggregates. They act by forming strong covalent bonds with the binder (including PMBs
and crumb rubber modified binders) and their organo-functional group bonds with the aggregates which
promotes adhesion. Some of these polymeric anti-stripping agents can also form a waterproof barrier on the
aggregate surfaces (Shah et al. 2022).

Anti-stripping additives are commonly used to reduce the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes. Based on
the literature reviewed, hydrated lime and LAAs are the predominant additives used locally and
internationally.
Hydrated lime has a long history of successful use as an anti-stripping additive in asphalt mixes, including in
Australia. Several transport agencies also mandate the use of hydrated lime in certain mix types. In addition
to reducing the moisture susceptibility of asphalt, the lime can also stiffen the binder mastic, improve the
durability of the mix and neutralise any deleterious clayey particles that may be present in the aggregates.
Notwithstanding the benefits of hydrated lime in asphalt, concerns have been raised regarding the cost,
availability and environmental impacts of using hydrated lime in asphalt.
LAAs have been identified as a potentially more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative
additive to hydrated lime in asphalt mixes. LAAs are widely used internationally, including in New Zealand.
DIPL in the Northern Territory also exclusively uses LAAs to reduce the moisture susceptibility of their
asphalt mixes. Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of using LAAs; however, the effectiveness of
these agents is material dependent. Most of the studies cited also indicated that hydrated lime typically
provided improved moisture resistance compared to LAAs, however, both additives can reduce the risk of
moisture damage in asphalt layers. LAAs also have a lower GWP compared to hydrated lime when used in
asphalt as an anti-stripping additive.

5. Stakeholder Engagement
This section provides a summary of the stakeholder engagement undertaken to identify current practices
in Australia and New Zealand to manage the risk of moisture damage in asphalt pavements.
A survey of industry stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand was undertaken to identify current practices
and challenges associated with managing the risk of moisture damage in asphalt pavements. The questions
included in the survey are provided in Appendix A and were mainly aimed at:
• determining the prevalence of asphalt stripping in Australia and New Zealand, including any risk
mitigation measures being specified
• the main test methods being used to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the
laboratory, including their limitations
• current usage of anti-stripping additives, especially hydrated lime and LAAs
• issues related to the supply of hydrated lime.
A total of 17 survey responses were received from six road agencies, seven asphalt manufacturers, two
binder suppliers and two additive suppliers. A summary of the responses is provided below.
5.1 Survey Responses

Forty-seven per cent of the respondents noted that they have experienced issues with asphalt stripping over
the last five years. However, all respondents noted that the stripping was not necessarily widespread. The
causes for the stripping varied between aggregate type selection, site conditions (including poor drainage),
pavement type and pavement age. In isolated cases, non-compliant mixes based on road agency
requirements were also noted as a cause for the stripping observed.
Based on the responses received, several different test methods are being used to assess the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes in Australia and New Zealand. Although the TSR test was the most commonly
used method, there does not appear to be consensus whether the freeze–thaw conditioning cycle is
necessary. The HWTD is also emerging as a means to assess the stripping potential of asphalt, however, its
use appears to be limited at the time of preparing this report. Other methods such as the boiling test and
methylene blue value were also mentioned, but only by two respondents.
Approximately half of the respondents found that the test(s) they currently employ have a strong link with
field performance, especially in assisting with identifying problematic aggregates or poor mix designs. The
remainder of the respondents believed their selected test(s) is marginally or moderately appropriate, or not
appropriate at all (with two responders noting the latter). A similar distribution of responses was received
when the question was asked as to whether these tests are effective in assessing variances among different
additive types. It was also recognised that the materials and laboratory test conditions need to be carefully
monitored and the limitations of the tests should be understood when interpreting the results.
Most of the respondents rely on specification requirements (e.g. mandatory use of anti-stripping additives,
moisture susceptibility testing criteria, maximum air voids limits) to reduce the risk of stripping occurring. One
of the respondents also noted the importance of providing adequate binder film thickness (i.e. above 7 μm)
to reduce the risk of stripping. The use of hydrated lime as an effective risk mitigation measure was also
specifically noted.

The main reasons provided for using anti-stripping additives in locally manufactured asphalt mixes are
shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Reasons for using anti-stripping additives in Australia and New Zealand
The reasons for using anti-stripping additives provided in the ‘other’ category include customer requirements,
materials with known poor performance (e.g. granite), ensuring that the specified performance requirements
can be achieved, and manufacturability in the case of LAAs.
Thirteen of the 17 respondents either specify or are required to use hydrated lime as an anti-stripping
additive in their asphalt mixes. Fifty-three per cent of the respondents acknowledged the benefits associated
with hydrated lime for reducing the risk of stripping. However, several disadvantages of using hydrated lime
were also noted, including its high cost, large carbon footprint and uncertainty around future supply.
Importantly, 12 of the respondents reported to have faced issues with the supply of hydrated lime over the past
five years and 10 respondents believe that such issues are likely to continue. The reasons given for the supply
issues varied between the demand for lime exceeding supply capacity, disruptions caused by natural disasters
and a malfunction at a production plant approximately two years ago. However, as supply is directly linked to
demand, future project requirements are expected to dictate whether there are likely to be issues with the
supply of hydrated lime. Some foresee that demand will increase, while others expect that, due to the industry’s
focus on increasing sustainable practices, demand for hydrated lime may decrease in future.
Aside from the recent supply uncertainty, challenges related to the incorporation of hydrated lime during
construction and plant capacity were also reported. Importantly, safety concerns were raised associated with
the size of hydrated lime, which can become airborne and be inhaled or cause irritation to the eyes in case of
contact. Notably, one of the respondents did not find any benefits to the use of hydrated lime as an
anti-stripping additive while another respondent did not necessarily identify any risks associated with using
hydrated lime.
All respondents were supportive of using LAAs given that they are successfully used internationally, with
76% having had experience in using these agents in the past (including amine-, silane- and bio-based
products). The main reasons for using LAAs are shown in Figure 5.2. Importantly, the reasons provided in
the ‘other’ category included safety benefits and practicality.

Figure 5.2: Reasons for using LAAs in Australia and New Zealand
It is also worth noting that 69% of the respondents have used LAAs for dual purposes (i.e. as both an
anti-stripping and WMA additive).
Eighty-five per cent of the respondents that have had experience with LAAs reported satisfactory
performance (Figure 5.3). Those that found LAAs to perform poorly quoted experiences where full-depth
asphalt pavements showed signs of stripping. Others did not achieve the same level of improvement as with
hydrated lime. The significance of correct dosing and appropriate application were also noted, as well as the
effectiveness of these agents based on aggregate geology.
Figure 5.3: Experience with using LAAs in Australia and New Zealand
In line with the findings in Section 4.3, ease of construction, cost and sustainability was identified as the main
benefits for using LAAs compared to hydrated lime. Notably, in some cases an LAA was able to reduce the
moisture susceptibility of the asphalt where hydrated lime was not effective. However, several respondents
did note the lack of field performance data and independent assessments of the sustainability of LAAs in
Australia. It was also recognised that, given their benefits, LAAs may disrupt the future supply of hydrated
lime and potentially cause issues for asset owners if these agents are for any reason no longer readily
available.

The main disadvantages and risks reported for the use of LAAs include:
• equipment constraints at older plants to accurately dose the LAA into the binder prior to use and the
costs associated with upgrading current equipment
• the lack of locally available long-term field performance and sustainability data.
Figure 5.4 provides an overview of the main barriers identified for the wider adoption of LAAs. It is evident
that the main barriers are the lack of technical guidance, specifications and assessment protocols.
Figure 5.4: Local barriers to using LAAs in Australia and New Zealand
5.2 Summary of Stakeholder Engagement Findings

The stakeholder engagement was primarily aimed at identifying current practices in Australia and New
Zealand to reduce the risk of moisture damage in asphalt pavement. The main findings from the survey
responses are:
• Even though asphalt stripping is still occurring, its prevalence is not necessarily widespread due to the
various risk mitigation measures already in place.
• The anti-stripping benefits of hydrated lime is well established; however, several respondents identified
the ongoing reliable supply of hydrated lime as a concern.
• The use of LAAs as an alternative to hydrated lime is generally supported where their effectiveness can
be demonstrated.
• The main reported benefits of using LAAs include lower cost and lower environmental impacts
compared to hydrated lime. However, the lack of local performance experience and concerns regarding
the ability to confirm the dosage rates were identified as some of the main concerns when using LAAs.
• The TSR is the most commonly used test to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the
laboratory; however, the HWTD has also been identified as a promising assessment method.
• Even though the TSR test is widely used, its correlation with field performance was identified as being
questionable and several respondents do not believe that the current test method can reliably
distinguish between the performance of different anti-stripping additives.
Importantly, the stakeholder feedback is generally in line with the literature review findings documented in
Section 3 and Section 4.

6. Interim Laboratory Assessment Protocol
This section provides an interim laboratory testing protocol that may be used to assess the effectiveness
of different anti-stripping additives in asphalt.
6.1 Available Assessment Protocols
6.1.1 Australia and New Zealand
In Australia and New Zealand, the stripping potential of asphalt mixes is primarily assessed in the laboratory
by means of ITS testing of unconditioned and moisture-conditioned specimens. All the specifications
reviewed require that the asphalt mix must have a minimum TSR of either 75% or 80% (depending on the
jurisdiction) and some transport agencies also require a minimum moisture-conditioned tensile strength to
reduce the risk of moisture damage occurring. Importantly, some of the transport agencies (e.g. DIPL, TMR,
TfNSW and MRWA) require that the specimens be subjected to a freeze–thaw conditioning cycle, whereas
others (e.g. NZTA, DIT and DTP) do not have this requirement. Where these requirements are not achieved,
asphalt manufacturers can incorporate anti-stripping additives (including hydrated lime or adhesion agents)
to achieve the minimum specified moisture susceptibility requirements.
At the time of preparing this report, there was no standard assessment protocol available in Australia and
New Zealand for the use of LAAs in asphalt. However, as discussed in Section 4.3.4, MRWA developed an
in-house protocol to assess the suitability of different LAAs for use in asphalt mixes. According to MRWA, the
proposed LAA must be a concentrate that is miscible with bituminous binders, easy to pour and not
deteriorate during storage. LAAs are also subjected to a visual and pourability assessment, as well as plate
stripping and flashpoint testing.
Although not directly applicable to assessing the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes, Austroads (2022)
published a high-level assessment framework to determine the suitability of using recycled materials in road
pavements. The assessment framework is shown in Figure 6.1 and comprises engineering, environmental,
health and safety, and project management performance assessments. Even though this framework was
developed for assessing recycled materials, it could equally be appropriate for assessing any new materials,
including LAAs.

Figure 6.1: Austroads assessment framework for recycled materials
Austroads (2022) recommends that the engineering performance assessment for recycled materials
considers the following elements:
• quality processes, storage, and handling requirements for the proposed new material(s)
• standard laboratory testing appropriate for the proposed application
• assessing the potential impacts on the long-term performance of the pavement material.
6.1.2 International
Table 6.1 provides a summary of the main laboratory tests used in the USA to assess the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes and, notably, the TSR test is the most widely used followed by the HWTD.
Table 6.1: Test methods used in the USA to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes
Method Limits/Notes
Modified Lottman test (AASHTO T283) CA, CO, CT, DC, IL, IN, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NJ,
NY, OK, ONT (Canada), PA, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Hamburg wheel-track test (AASHTO T324) CA, GA, IA, ID, IL, LA, MA, ME, MT, OK, UT, VT, WA
Boiling water test (ASTM D3625) GA, TN
Static immersion test (AASHTO T182:2002) AK
Immersion–compression test (AASHTO ID
T165:2002)
State-devised or modified test method AL, AR, FL, GA, KS, MS, NV, OH, OR, SC, SD, TX
Other AK, AZ, FL, KY, MD, MO, SD, WA
Source: Shah, Olek & McDaniel (2022).

Some US state DoTs also rely on ‘approved product’ registers to manage the use of different anti-stripping
additives in their local asphalt mixes. For example, Florida DoT has a product approval register for LAAs,
whereby anti-stripping agents can be placed on an approved list if they meet a minimum TSR value (i.e. 80%)
when tested in eight common mix types and aggregates used throughout the state (Shah et al. 2022).
The AASHTO Product Evaluation and Solutions scheme (previously known as the National Transportation
Product Evaluation Program) in the USA was established to evaluate materials, products and devices that
are of common interest to the state DoTs. The program is aimed at reducing the need for duplicate testing by
the various departments and manufacturers. AASHTO undertakes the laboratory and field testing of the
products submitted and shares the results with its member organisations. Importantly, the scheme does not
approve or endorse the products for use, and it remains the responsibility of the individual DoTs to assess
the test results against their local requirements.
The scheme developed an assessment protocol for WMA technologies and anti-stripping additives (National
Transportation Product Evaluation Program 2022). The evaluation protocol comprises the following
laboratory tests:
• additive ‘fingerprint’ testing using attenuated total reflectance-Fourier infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR)
• binder testing, including the grade, complex shear modulus, phase angle, non-recoverable creep and
creep recovery of the base binder as well as the binder modified with the LAA
• testing of two different aggregate sources (i.e. limestone and granite) used for the laboratory
assessment, including particle size distribution, bulk specific gravity, absorption, stockpile moisture
content, coarse aggregate angularity, fine aggregate uncompacted void content, flat and elongated
particles and the sand equivalent value
• asphalt volumetric and compactibility testing of the control specimens and specimens manufactured with
the modified binder
• asphalt performance testing of the control specimens and the specimens manufactured with the
modified binder, including wheel tracking testing using the HWTD, TSR testing and the boiling test.
The laboratory testing must be undertaken on laboratory-mixed and compacted (LMLC) specimens. The
specimens used for the deformation testing must be subjected to short-term ageing, whereas the specimens
used for the TSR testing must be subjected to long-term ageing in accordance with AASHTO R30:2022
Standard Practice for Laboratory Conditioning of Hot Mix Asphalt.
Epps-Martin et al. (2016) also developed a protocol to assess the moisture susceptibility of WMA mixes in
the laboratory. The proposed assessment protocol comprises either TSR or HWTD testing, depending on
equipment availability, cost and/or past experience. Prior to testing, the specimens are moisture conditioned
based on the requirements in AASHTO T283:2014 (i.e. modified Lottman), in the M.i.S.T device (at 60 °C
and 276 kPa for 1000 cycles), or soaked for 3 days in the HWTD at 60 °C. The protocol assesses both the
risk of moisture damage during the early life of the asphalt mix and after the mix has gone through a summer
period (i.e. the binder has had time to stiffen sufficiently). Where the mix meets the early-life criteria
specified, it is acceptable for use. However, if the mix fails to meet the early-life criteria, the asphalt can be
modified by adding an anti-stripping additive or changing the constituent materials and re-tested.
Alternatively, the same mix can be evaluated after being subjected to long-term oven ageing to assess the
moisture susceptibility of the asphalt in the longer term. If the mix passes the long-term assessment criteria,
it is suitable for use if it will be subjected to at least one summer in service. However, if the mix does not
pass the short-term and long-term assessment, it is considered to be moisture susceptible and not suitable
for use.

6.2 Interim Assessment Protocol

Based on the literature reviewed and the feedback received from the survey, it is evident that there is no
consensus regarding the most appropriate laboratory test method to reliably predict the moisture susceptibility
of asphalt mixes in service. All the different test methods in use have limitations, and it is, therefore, preferable
to assess the performance of different anti-stripping additives using a standard evaluation protocol that
comprises more than one method. In addition, a holistic evaluation protocol should ideally also include health,
safety and environmental considerations, which is beyond the scope of this project.
Given the proprietary nature of some of the LAAs, it is not necessarily feasible or appropriate to specify
standard quality control, storage, and / or handling requirements for the different agents. It is, therefore,
proposed that the asphalt manufacturer nominates these requirements in their project-specific asphalt quality
plan (AQP). Nonetheless, the following critical elements have been identified that should preferably be
included in the AQP:
• the quality management system used to ensure that a consistent product is supplied
• details regarding the product that are not subjected to proprietary constraints (e.g. product description,
type of technology (i.e. amine, silane, etc.), recommended dosage rates, any secondary benefits, etc.)
• the product storage and handling requirements (including storage and temperature stability details,
health and safety and environmental requirements)
• the proposed method of dosage and how the dosage rate will be monitored for quality control purposes.
6.2.1 Standard Material and Asphalt Mix Characterisation Testing
The following standard material and asphalt mix characterisation testing should preferably be undertaken
when considering the use of anti-stripping additives in asphalt:
• Binder testing (if the anti-stripping additive is blended with the bituminous binder) to confirm compliance
with the relevant binder specification. The testing should preferably be undertaken on the base binder
(without any anti-stripping additive) and the binder modified with the anti-stripping additive to assess the
effect of the additive on the properties of the binder.
• Methylene blue value testing of the total combined filler (excluding any hydrated lime) of aggregate
sources known to contain (or potentially containing) reactive clays.
• Volumetric testing (e.g. air voids content) of the asphalt mix with and without the anti-stripping additives,
especially for additives that also reduce the compaction temperature of the binder (e.g. WMA additives).
It is also proposed that the ‘fingerprint’ of the LAA be determined as part of the assessment protocol using
ATR-FTIR. This information could be used to monitor the composition of the product for quality control
purposes. However, given that LAAs are typically proprietary products, measures should be implemented to
keep this data confidential.
6.2.2 Asphalt Performance Testing
In addition to the standard material and asphalt mix characterisation tests listed above, it is proposed that the
effectiveness of different anti-stripping additives be assessed using the binder–aggregate adhesion and
stripping tests discussed below.
Where the proposed anti-stripping additive is expected to affect the stiffness of the binder or the deformation
resistance of the asphalt mix, consideration should also be given to undertaking additional deformation
resistance testing of the asphalt mix with and without the proposed additive.

Binder–aggregate adhesion
The literature review identified several test methods currently being used locally and internationally to assess
the adhesion between bituminous binders and aggregates. The test methods can generally be divided into
the following categories:
• qualitative methods (such as the rolling bottle, boiling water and plate stripping tests)
• quantitative methods (such as the UAMC, SFE and net absorption tests).
Some important concerns raised regarding the qualitative methods listed above include the reproducibility of
the test methods, subjectiveness of the assessment process and robustness of the link between the test
results and field performance. However, most of the quantitative methods are still mainly used for research
or product development purposes and are not widely adopted in standard specifications.
It is, therefore, recommended that in the interim, the assessment protocol includes one of the qualitative
methods to assess the effectiveness of the proposed LAA. The preferred test method should ideally be cost
effective, repeatable, linked to field performance and based on locally available test equipment (where
possible).
Given Australia’s experience with the plate stripping test for sprayed sealing applications, it is recommended
that this test be initially included as a screening tool in the interim assessment protocol. In the absence of
any published research on the appropriate acceptance criteria when using the plate stripping test for asphalt
applications, it is proposed that a maximum plate stripping value (SV) of 10% specified by MRWA be
adopted in the interim. However, further research is recommended to confirm this value for asphalt
applications. Furthermore, the sample conditioning procedures used for the plate stripping test vary across
the different standard test methods and further research is, therefore, required to harmonise the test
methods.
As mentioned previously, a limitation of the plate stripping test is that it only assesses the adhesion
properties of the coarse aggregate component and a robust link between the test results and field
performance of asphalt mixes has not yet been established. It is, therefore, recommended that further
research work be undertaken to assess the appropriateness of the current plate stripping test method to
assess the effectiveness of LAAs in asphalt. It is also recommended that the rolling bottle and boiling tests
be further investigated to possibly align future assessment protocols with international practices.
Asphalt stripping
The binder–aggregate adhesion assessment methods noted above are proposed as an initial screening tool
only given that they do not assess the moisture susceptibility of the entire asphalt mix. It is, therefore,
recommended that the assessment protocol also include testing of compacted asphalt specimens in the
laboratory.
Given that the TSR test is widely used in Australia and New Zealand, it is recommended to include
Austroads test method ATM 232 in the interim assessment protocol. However, given the concerns raised
regarding the TSR test’s ability to distinguish between mixes with marginal performance or its questionable
link with field performance, it is recommended that the HWTD (or a similar test) also be included in the
protocol as a secondary test to verify the moisture susceptibility of aggregates with a high methylene blue
value or as an optional additional risk mitigation measure. In the absence of local acceptance criteria for the
HWTD, it is proposed that transport agencies develop acceptance criteria based on their local mixes or
benchmark the test results against a control mix with hydrated lime in the interim.
Ideally, the assessment protocol will rely on a single test to assess the moisture susceptibly of asphalt mixes
with different types of anti-stripping additives, and it is, therefore, recommended that further work be
undertaken to investigate potential modifications to improve the repeatability and robustness of ATM 232
(e.g. possible changes to the moisture conditioning protocol). Alternatively, the suitability of the HWTD to
distinguish between the performance of different anti-stripping additives could also be further investigated.

It is, therefore, envisaged that future updates to the interim protocol will include a single test for asphalt
stripping if future studies are able to improve test method ATM 232 (including possible changes to the
moisture conditioning protocol) or demonstrate that the HWTD is a more suitable method to assess the
moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes in the laboratory.
Deformation resistance
Given that some LAAs can affect the binder viscosity (depending on the type of additive used and dosage
rate), it is recommended the deformation resistance of the asphalt mix containing these alternative
anti-stripping additives be verified as part of the assessment protocol or mix design registration process. The
small-scale laboratory wheel tracking test (ATM 231:2023 Deformation Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures by the
Wheel Tracking Test) is currently used in Australia and New Zealand to assess the deformation resistance of
asphalt mixes in the laboratory. Alternatively, where the HWTD test is used as an additional moisture
damage control measure, the deformation results from this test could be used to verify the deformation
resistance of the mix.
6.2.3 Laboratory Assessment Protocol
The draft interim laboratory assessment protocol presented in this report is largely based on the testing
protocol developed by the AASHTO Product Evaluation and Solutions scheme for anti-stripping additives
(refer Section 6.1.2). The AASHTO protocol has, however, been modified based on local practices, materials
and test methods.
Several transport agencies have identified hydrated lime as a primary control measure to reduce the risk of
moisture damage in asphalt mixes containing aggregates with a high methylene blue value. It is, therefore,
recommended that the laboratory assessment protocol adopts a risk-based approach based on the
methylene blue value of the aggregates. Where the aggregates have a high methylene blue value (i.e. > 10),
additional moisture susceptibility testing using the HWTD is recommended. Where the methylene blue value
of the aggregates is less than or equal to 10, the HWTD test is only recommended if an additional risk
mitigation measure is required (e.g. higher risk applications or unknown aggregate source performance), or
where the binder–aggregate combination has a high SV.
The proposed interim laboratory assessment protocol comprises two components, as follows:
• Component 1: Standard material and asphalt mix characterisation testing as per Section 6.2.1
• Component 2: Standard binder adhesion and asphalt performance testing as per Figure 6.2.
The assessment protocol can be used on a project-specific basis (e.g. as part of the mix design approval
process) or as a generic assessment (e.g. for project approval lists/registers). For the latter scenario, the
assessment should ideally be undertaken on a standard binder (e.g. Class 320), a minimum of two
aggregate types with a range of different surface chemistry (e.g. limestone and granite) and include a control
mix without any anti-stripping additives, if required. The plate stripping test can also be omitted from the
assessment protocol where mineral fillers (e.g. Portland cement, fly ash, etc.) are being considered as an
anti-stripping additive.

Figure 6.2: Interim Austroads laboratory assessment protocol

7. Conclusions and Recommendations
This section summarises the findings of the desktop review undertaken regarding the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes and commonly used anti-stripping additives. Recommendations for an
interim laboratory assessment protocol and further research work are also provided.
7.1 Conclusions
Moisture damage in asphalt is a complex mechanism that can occur due to failure between the binder–
aggregate interface or within the binder itself. Asphalt stripping is typically manifested through pavement
failures (including cracking, rutting, corrugation, potholes and shoving) and can be costly to repair. The risk
of stripping can be reduced by ensuring adequate pavement drainage, appropriate materials selection, good
construction practices and using anti-stripping additives.
Hydrated lime is the most commonly used anti-stripping additive in Australia and is mandated by several
transport agencies for certain mix types. However, the Australian asphalt industry raised concerns regarding
the sustainability of using hydrated lime in locally manufactured asphalt mixes and suggested that LAAs
could be a suitable alternative to hydrated lime. The desktop review undertaken confirmed that LAAs are
used in the Northern Territory, New Zealand and internationally to reduce the moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixes. Nonetheless, given the long history of successfully using hydrated lime as an anti-stripping
additive in Australia, this project investigated the benefits of hydrated lime and LAAs in asphalt mixes based
on the available literature, as well as appropriateness of test methods to evaluate the moisture susceptibility
of asphalt containing different anti-stripping additives.
Hydrated lime has a well-documented history of reducing the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes. In
addition, the lime acts as a filler in the mix and reduces the plasticity of clay particles, as well as improves the
deformation resistance and oxidation properties of the binder mastic. Several studies also demonstrated the
effectiveness of different types of LAAs to reduce the risk of stripping in asphalt; however, indications are
that these types of additives are more sensitive to the specific binder–aggregate combination being used in
the mix. Some types of LAAs also reduce the compaction temperature of the asphalt and can, therefore,
perform a dual purpose (i.e. as an anti-stripping and WMA additive). Concerns have been raised regarding
the storage and temperature stability of some LAAs and appropriate handling requirements should,
therefore, be adopted when using these additives. LAAs were also found to have a lower GWP compared to
hydrated lime based on their cradle–gate emissions.
A survey of stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand confirmed general support for the use of LAAs if
these products can adequately reduce the risk of moisture damage occurring. However, several stakeholders
raised concerns regarding the ability of the current laboratory moisture susceptibility test methods to reliably
predict field performance or distinguish between the performance of asphalt mixes containing different
additives. These concerns were confirmed by the literature review, whereby it was found that there is no
universally accepted moisture susceptibility test method currently in use (both locally and internationally). Of
the different test methods available, the TSR and HWTD tests appear to be the mostly used to assess the
moisture susceptibility of compacted asphalt specimens in the laboratory. However, several limitations were
identified with these tests, including the specimen conditioning procedures and the link between the test
results and field performance.

There are also several tests available to assess the bond between the aggregates and bituminous binder
(including the rolling bottle, boiling water and plate stripping tests); however, these tests are typically
qualitative and subjective in nature. The SFE method has also been identified as a promising test to quantify
the bond between the aggregates and bituminous binder, but it is still mainly used for research purposes due
to the sophisticated equipment and analysis required.
Given the limitations with the current laboratory tests to predict the field performance of different asphalt
mixes, it is important that a robust moisture susceptibility assessment protocol be adopted to assess the
effectiveness of alternative anti-stripping additives.
7.2 Recommendations
A draft interim laboratory testing protocol was developed to assess the appropriateness of using alternative
anti-stripping additives. The protocol comprises standard materials and asphalt mix characterisation testing,
followed by a suite of moisture susceptibility tests. Ideally, a performance-based protocol will rely on a single
test parameter only; however, given the limitations of the current test methods, it is proposed that the
moisture susceptibility assessment initially comprises the plate stripping and TSR test. The HWTD test is
also proposed as an additional risk mitigation measure for mixes containing reactive clays, a high SV, or for
mixes used in higher risk applications.
Further research is also recommended to assess the appropriateness of using the plate stripping test for
asphalt applications, or to consider the use of international tests (such as the rolling bottle or boiling water
test) to assess the bond between the aggregates and bituminous binder. There are also several versions of
the plate stripping test available in Australia and it is, therefore, recommended to standardise on a single
national method for asphalt applications, including harmonised sample preparation methods.
It is also recommended to review the TSR test to improve its reproducibility and ability to reliably distinguish
between the performance of different asphalt mixes in the laboratory. Some test parameters identified for
review include the degree of saturation specified in the test method, number of freeze–thaw cycles applied to
the specimens or adopting alternative conditioning procedures (such as the M.i.S.T or SATS procedures).
Consideration could also be given in the short-term to narrow the range specified in ATM 232 for the degree
of saturation and air voids content of the test specimens, similar to the requirements in AASHTO T283. The
use of the HWTD to assess the moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes could also be further investigated for
Australian and New Zealand applications.

References
Abed AH, Qasim ZI, Al-Mosawe H and Norri HH (2019) 'The effect of hybrid anti-stripping agent with polymer
on the moisture resistance of hot-mix asphalt mixtures', Cogent Engineering 6(1):
doi:10.1080/23311916.2019.1659125.
Ahmad N (2011) Asphalt mixture moisture sensitivity evaluation using surface energy parameters [PhD
thesis], University of Nottingham.
Airey GD and Choi Y-K (2002) 'State of the art report on moisture sensitivity test methods for bituminous
pavement materials', Road materials and pavement design 3(4):355–72,
doi:10.1080/14680629.2002.9689930.
Airey GD, Collop AC, Zoorob SE and Elliott RC (2008) ‘The influence of aggregate, filler and bitumen on
asphalt mixture moisture damage’, Construction and Building Materials 22(9): 2015–2024,
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.009.
Alam MN and Aggarwal P (2020) 'Effectiveness of anti stripping agents on moisture susceptibility of
bituminous mix', Construction and Building Materials (264):120274,
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120274.
Alfaqawi RMS (2018) Investigation into ageing and the effect of hydrated lime on mastics and mixture ageing
[PhD thesis], University of Nottingham.
Alfaqawi R, Airey GD and Grenfell J (2017) ‘Effects of mineral fillers and bitumen on ageing of asphalt
mastics’, 10th International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields
(BCRRA), pp. 427–38.
Alfaqawi R, Fareed A Zaidi SBA, Airey GDA and Rahim A (2022) ‘Effect of hydrated lime and other mineral
fillers on stiffening and oxidative ageing in bitumen mastic’, Construction and Building Materials
315(17):125789 DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125789.
Amirkhanian S, Xiao F and Corley M (2018) Laboratory performance of liquid anti-stripping agents in asphalt
mixtures used in South Carolina, FHWA-SC-18-01, South Carolina, USA.
Apeagyei AK, Grenfell JRA and Airey GD (2014) 'Moisture-induced strength degradation of
aggregate-asphalt mastic bonds', Road materials and pavement design 15(1):239–62,
doi:10.1080/14680629.2014.927951.
Arabani M and Hamedi GH (2014) 'Using the surface free energy method to evaluate the effects of liquid
antistrip additives on moisture sensitivity in hot mix asphalt', International Journal of Pavement
Engineering 15(1):66–78, doi:10.1080/10298436.2013.778410.
Arambula E, Masad E and Epps-Martin A (2007) ‘Influence of air void distribution on the moisture
susceptibility of asphalt mixes’, American Society of Civil Engineers 19(8):655–64.
Aschenbrener T (1995) ‘Evaluation of Hamburg wheel-tracking device to predict moisture damage in hot-mix
asphalt’, Transportation Research Record, 193–201.
Aschenbrener T, Currier G (1993) Influence of testing variables on the results from the Hamburg
wheel-tracking device, CDOT-DTD-R-03-22, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, USA.
Aschenbrener T and Far N (1994) Influence of compaction temperature and anti-stripping treatment on the
results from the Hamburg wheel-tracking device, CDOT-DTD-R-94-9, Colorado Department of
Transportation, CDoT, Denver, Colorado.
Aschenbrener T and McGennis RB (1993) Investigation of the modified Lottman test to predict the stripping
performance of pavements in Colorado, CDOT-DTD-R-93-3, Colorado Department of Transportation,
CDoT, Denver, Colorado.

Aschenbrener T, Terrel RL and Zamora RA (1994) Comparison of the Hamburg wheel-tracking device and
the environmental conditioning system to pavements of known stripping performance, CDOT-DTD-R-94-
1, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, USA.
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (2017) Asphalt moisture sensitivity, Advisory Note 19, AAPA,
Australia.
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (2018) 2018 National proficiency testing round, Ver. 1.3, AAPA,
Australia.
Australian Flexible Pavement Association (2021) Position paper on the use of liquid antistrip additives
(LAA’s) as an alternative to using hydrated lime in dense graded asphalt, national asphalt sub-committee,
AfPA, Australia.
Austroads (2013) Mastic performance in stone mastic asphalt, AP-T219-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2014) Guide to pavement technology part 4b: asphalt, AGPT04B-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads (2019) Performance of asphalt and spray grade PMBs in sprayed seals, AP-T345-19, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Bahia H and Ahmad S (1999) Evaluation and correlation of lab and field tensile strength ratio (TSR)
procedures and values in assessing the stripping potential of asphalt mixes, Report number:
WI/SPR-10-99, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin, US.
Belgian Road Research Centre (1991) Boiling water stripping test on coarse aggregates coated with
bituminous binder, BRRC, ME 65/91.
Bhasin A and Little DN (2007) ‘Characterization of aggregate surface energy using the universal sorption
device’, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 19(8):634–41,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:8(634).
Birgisson B, Roque R and Page GC (2003) Evaluation of water damage using hot mix asphalt fracture
mechanics, Asphalt paving technology: association of asphalt paving technologists – proceedings of the
technical sessions, vol. 72, pp. 516–62.
Blackman BRK, Cui S, Kinloch AJ and Taylor AC (2013) ‘The development of a novel test method to assess
the durability of asphalt road-pavement materials’, International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 42:1–
10, doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.10.013.
Bouron S, Hammoum F, Ruat H, Métais P and Lesueur D (2021) Improving the durability of asphalt mixtures
with hydrated lime: Field results from highway A84 Case, Studies in Construction Materials,
14(2021):e00551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00551.
Brown ER, Collins R and Brownfield JR (1989) ‘Investigation of segregation of asphalt mixtures in the state
of Georgia’, Transportation Research Record, no. 1217, pp. 1–8.
Bryant PN (2009) ‘A simple improvement to dust-to-binder ratio that incorporates the influence of filler type’,
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland.
Butt H-J, Graf K and Kappl M (2003) Physics and chemistry of interfaces, Wiley-VCH GmbH & Co. KgaA.
Chen S, You Z, Yang S-L, Garcia A and Rose L (2021) ‘Influence of air void structures on the coefficient of
permeability of asphalt mixtures’, Powder Technology, 377:1–9, doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2020.08.082.
Choi YK (2005) ‘Development of the saturation ageing tensile stiffness (SATS) test for high modulus base
materials, University of Nottingham, UK.
Choquet FS and Verhasselt AF (1993) ‘An objective method of measuring bitumen-aggregate adhesion’,
Proceedings of the 5th Eurobitume Congress, no. 1.50, Stockholm.

Cooley LA (1999) Permeability of Superpave mixtures: evaluation of field permeameters, NCAT report 99-1,
National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Alabama, USA.
Coomer J and Beecroft A (2020) Use of Hamburg wheel tracking device in performance-based testing of
asphalt, contract report P61, prepared for Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads under
the NACoE program, ARRB, Port Melbourne, Vic.
Corte J-F and Serfass J-P (2000) ‘The French approach to asphalt mixture design: a performance-related
system of specifications’, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technology 69:794–834.
Crabb J (21 November 2021) ‘Hydrated lime and limestone filler in hot mix asphalt: a durable solution’,
Roads & Infrastructure Australia, pp. 44–45.
Cuadri AA, Partal P, Ahmad N, Grenfell J and Airey G (2015) ‘Chemically modified bitumens with enhanced
rheology and adhesion properties to siliceous aggregates’, Construction and Building Materials
93:766-774.
Curtis CW (1990) A literature review of liquid antistripping and tests for measuring stripping,
SHRP-A/UIR-90-016, Strategic Highway Research Program, Auburn University, Alabama, USA.
Curtis CW, Lytton RL and Brannan CJ (1992) ‘Influence of aggregate chemistry on the absorption and
desorption of asphalt’, Transportation Research Record, 1362:1–9.
Diab A, Singh D and Pais JC (2017) ‘Moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures: A literature review’, 4th
Conference of Transportation Research Group of India, CTRG, Mumbai, India.
Epps-Martin AE, Arambula E, Yin F, Cucalon LG, Chowdhury A, Lytton R, Epps J, Estakhri C and Park ES
(2014) Evaluation of the moisture susceptibility of WMA technologies, Report 763, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA.
Epps-Martin AE, Arambula E, Yin F and Park ES (2016) Validation of guidelines for evaluating the moisture
susceptibility of WMA technologies, Report 817, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, TR, Washington, D.C., USA.
European Lime Association (2011) Hydrated lime: A proven additive for durable asphalt pavements, UK.
Graf PE (1986) Factors affecting moisture susceptibility of asphalt concrete mixes, Asphalt paving
technology: association of asphalt paving technologists – proceedings of the technical sessions 55:175–
213.
Graham MD, Burnett WC, Thomas J, Clark WH (1964) Reduced mixing time for asphalt concrete mixes, 47th
Annual meeting, Committee on Construction Practices, New York State Department of Transportation,
New York, USA.
Grenfell J, Ahmad N, Airey GD, Collop AC and Elliott R (2012) ‘Optimising the moisture durability SATS
conditioning parameters for universal asphalt mixture application’, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering 13(5):433–50, doi:10.1080/10298436.2012.655740.
Grenfell J, Ahmad N, Liu Y, Apeagyei A, Large D and Airey G (2014) ‘Assessing asphalt mixture moisture
susceptibility through intrinsic adhesion, bitumen stripping and mechanical damage’, Road Materials and
Pavement Design 15(1):131–52, doi:10.1080/14680629.2013.863162.
Gu F, Moraes R, Yin F, Watson D, Taylor A and Chen C (2020) Study on anti-strip additives on granite
based FC-5 asphalt mixtures, Auburn, Alabama.
Guha SK and Kumar A (2017) ‘A literature review on anti-stripping additives in asphalt mixture’, International
Journal of Science and Research 7(8):438–45, doi:10.21275/ART201963.
Hamedi GH, Sakanlou F and Sohrabi M (2019) ‘Laboratory investigation of using liquid anti-stripping
additives on the performance characteristics of asphalt mixtures’, International Journal of Pavement
Research and Technology 12:269–76, doi:10.1007/s42947-019-0033-0.

Hicks RG (1991) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice, Moisture Damage in Asphalt Concrete, Issue
Number: 175, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Horak E, Olivier P, Emery S and Pretorius P (2011) ‘Early identification of durability and stripping issues in
asphalt bases and surfacings’, 10th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for South Africa, South Africa,
vol. 13.
Izzo RP and Tahmoressi M (1999) ‘Use of the Hamburg wheel-tracking device for evaluating moisture
susceptibility of hot mix asphalt’, Transportation Research Record, 99-0955: 76–85.
Jakarni FM (2012) Adhesion of asphalt mixtures, The University of Nottingham, UK.
Kandhal PS and Rickards IJ (2001) Premature failure of asphalt overlays from stripping: case histories,
Report 01-01, National Centre of Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Alabama, USA.
Kanitpong K and Bahia HU (2003) ‘Role of adhesion and thin film tackiness of asphalt binders in moisture
damage of HMA’, Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 72:502–28.
Kennedy TW, Roberts FL, Lee KW and Anagnos JN (1982) Texas freeze-thaw pedestal test for evaluating
moisture susceptibility for asphalt mixtures, FHWA/TX-81/47+253-3, Texas State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation.
Khosla NP, Birdsall BG and Kawaguchi S (2000) ‘Evaluation of moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures:
Conventional and new methods’, Transportation Research Records: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1728(1):doi:10.3141/1728-07.
Kiggundu B and Roberts FL (1988) Stripping in HMA Mixtures: State of the Art and Critical Review of Test
Methods, NCAT Report No. 88-2.
Kim Y-R, Pinto I and Park S-W (2012) ‘Experimental evaluation of anti-stripping additives in bituminous
mixtures through multiple scale laboratory test results’, Construction and Building Materials 29:386–93,
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.012.
Lamperti R, Grenfell J, Sangiorgi C, Lantieri C and Airey GD (2015) ‘Influence of waxes on adhesion
properties of bituminous binders’, Construction and Building Materials 76:404-412.
Laveglia A, Sambataro L, Ukrainczyk N, De Belie N and Koenders E (2022) ‘Hydrated lime life-cycle
assessment: current and future scenarios in four EU countries’, Journal of Cleaner Production
369:133224, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133224.
Lesueur D (2010) Hydrated lime: A proven additive for durable asphalt pavements – Critical literature review,
Brussels: European Lime Association (EuLA). Retrieved from http://www.eula.eu.
Lesueur D, Denayer C, Ritter H-J, Kunesch C, Gasiorowski S and d’Alto A (2016) ‘The use of hydrated lime
in the formulation of asphalt mixtures: European case studies’, 6th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress,
Prague, Czech Republic.
Lesueur D, Petit J and Ritter HJ (2013) ‘The mechanisms of hydrated lime modification of asphalt mixtures: a
state-of-the-art review’, Road Materials and Pavement Design 14(1):1-16
Liebenberg JJE, Rossmann D and Fletcher E (2004) ‘Asphalt mix design and construction: a selection of
possible pitfalls’, Proceedings of the 8th conference on asphalt pavements for Southern Africa, CAPSA’04,
Sun City, South Africa.
Little DN and Bahsin A (2007) Using surface energy measurements to select materials for asphalt pavement,
NCHRP RRD 316, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Little DN and Epps JA (2001) The benefits of hydrated lime in hot mix asphalt, National Lime Association,
USA.

Little D, Epps-Martin JA and Sebaaly PE (2006) The benefits of hydrated lime in hot mix asphalt, National
Lime Association, USA.
Lofnertz K (2001) Comparison between lime, cement & Wetfix I, Environmental Development, Akzo Nobel
Surface Chemistry.
Lottman RP (1982a) ‘Laboratory test method for predicting moisture-induced damage to asphalt concrete’,
Transportation Research Record 843, TRB, Washington, D.C.
Lottman R (1982b) Predicting moisture-induced damage to asphaltic concrete: field evaluation, NCHRP
Report 246, TRB/NAS, Washington, D. C.
Lu Q and Harvey J (2008) Investigation and conditions for moisture damage in asphalt concrete and
appropriate laboratory test methods, Report No. UCPRC-RR-2005-15, University of California-Berkeley
Pavement Research Center, California, USA.
Main Roads Western Australia (2010) Assessment of liquid adhesion agents, Test method WA 720.1,
MRWA, WA.
Masad E, Zollinger C, Bulut R, Little D, Lytton R (2006) ‘Characterization of HMA moisture damage using
surface energy and fracture properties’, J Assoc. Asphalt Pav Technol (AAPT) 2006;46:919–53.
McCann M and Sebaaly PE (2001) ‘Quantitative evaluation of stripping potential in hot-mix asphalt, using
ultrasonic energy for moisture-accelerated conditioning’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1767(1):48–59, doi:10.3141/1767-07.
Mehrara A and Khodaii A (2013) ‘A review of state of the art on stripping phenomenon in asphalt concrete’,
Construction and Building Materials 38:423–42, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.033.
Mirzababaei P, Nejad FM and Naderi K (2018) ‘Effect of liquid silane-based anti-stripping additives on
rheological properties of asphalt binder and hot mix asphalt moisture sensitivity’, Road materials and
pavement design 21(2):570–85, doi:10.1080/14680629.2018.1507920.
Moore IC and Gribble CD (1980) ‘The suitability of aggregates from weathered Peterhead granites’,
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 13(4):305–13,
doi:10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1980.013.04.08.
Moraes R, Velasquez R and Bahia HU (2011) ‘Measuring the effect of moisture on asphalt-aggregate bond
with the bitumen bond strength test’, Transportation Research Record 2209(1):70–81, doi:10.3141/2209-09.
Mukhopadhyay AK, Pitre B, Russell A, Arambula E, Estakhri C and Deng Y (2013) Treatments for clays in
aggregates used to produce cement concrete, bituminous materials, and chip seals, Report No.
FHWA/TX-13/0-6444-1, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas, USA.
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (2022) NTPEP Committee work plan for evaluation of
warm mix asphalt technologies and anti-strip additives, NTPEP, WMA-22-01.
Onoja AA and Alhassan HM (2019) ‘The effect of Evotherm on hot mix asphalt’, Engineering 11(9):557–75,
doi:10.4236/eng.2019.119039.
Pickering K, Sebaaly PE, Stroup-Gardiner M and Epps-Martin JA (1992) ‘Evaluation of new generation of
antistripping additives’, Transportation Research Record, 1342: 26–34.
Pitre BT (2012) Application of the modified methylene blue test to detect clay minerals in coarse aggregate
fines [MEng thesis], Texas A&M University.
Porot L, Soenen H, Apeagyei A, Grenfell J, Vansteenkiste S and Chailleux E (2018) ‘Recommendation of

RILEM TC 237-SIB on affinity between aggregates and bitumen’, Materials and Structures 51(173):
doi:10.1617/s11527-018-1297-6.

Putman BJ and Amirkhanian SN (2006) Laboratory evaluation of anti-strip additives in hot mix asphalt,
FHWA-SC-06-07, South California Department of Transportation, SCDoT, accessed 25 September 2022.
Rani S, Ghabchi R, Ali SA, Zaman M and O’Rear EA (2022) ‘Moisture-induced damage potential of asphalt
mixes containing polyphosphoric acid and antistripping agent’, Road materials and pavement design
23(12):2818–38, doi:10.1080/14680629.2021.2002180.
Rosner JC, Pavlovich RD and Chehovits JG (1981) Fly ash as a mineral filler and anti-strip agent for asphalt
concrete, FHWA/AZ-81/173, Arizona Department of Transportation, ADoT, Arizona.
Sabita (2021) Design and use of asphalt in road pavements, Manual 35 / TRH 8, South Africa.
Scherocman JA, Mesch KA and Proctor JJ (1986) ‘The effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycle conditioning on
the moisture damage in asphalt concrete mixture’, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologies, vol. 55, pp. 689–96.
Sebaaly PE, Hajj EY, Little DN, Shivakolunthar S, Sathanathan T and Vasconcelos K (2010) Evaluating the
impact of lime on pavement performance, UoN, Reno, Nevada, accessed 18 January 2023.
<https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/4915>.
Sebaaly PE, Hitti E and Weitzel D (2003) ‘Effectiveness of lime in hot-mix asphalt pavements’,
Transportation Research Record 1832(1):34–41, doi:10.3141/1832-05.
Sebaaly PE, Little D and Bhasin A (2007) ‘Impact of lime and liquid antistrip agents on properties of Idaho
hot-mix asphalt mixture’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
1998(1):doi.org/10.3141/1998-08.
Sengoz B and Agar E (2007) ‘Effect of asphalt film thickness on the moisture sensitivity characteristics of
hot-mix asphalt’, Building and Environment 42(10):3621–28, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.006.
Shah A, Olek J and McDaniel R (2022) Practices for assessing and mitigating the moisture susceptibility of
asphalt pavements: A synthesis of highway practice, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, Washington, DC.
Shankar RAU, Sarang G, Lekha BM and Carlton-Carew CA (2018) ‘Investigation of the effect of anti stripping
additives on the moisture sensitivity of bituminous concrete’, International Congress and Exhibition
“Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology”, Materials for Sustainable
Infrastructure, pp. 228–39.
Solaimanian M, Kennedy TW and Elmore WE (1993) Long-term evaluation of stripping and moisture damage
in asphalt pavements treated with lime and antistripping agents, FHWA/TX-94+1286-1F, TexDoT, Austin,
Texas.
Spies R (1996) Understanding the role of asphalt fillers, Queensland Main Roads Technology Transfer
Forum, Brisbane, Qld.
Stuart KD (1990) Moisture damage in asphalt mixtures – a state of the art report, FHWA-RD-90-019, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Virginia.
Tayebali AA, Guddati M, Yadav S and LaCroix A (2019) Use of moisture induced stress tester (M.i.S.T.) to
determine moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixtures, FHWA/NC/2017-01, State of Nort Carolina Department
of Transportation, North Carolina.
Taylor MA and Khosla NP (1983) ‘Stripping of asphalt pavements: State of the art’, Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 911:150–58.
Terrel RL and Shute JW (1989) Water sensitivity, SR-OSU-A-003A-89-3, Oregon State University, Oregon.
Tunnicliff DG and Root RE (1982) Anti-stripping additives in asphalt concrete-state-of-the-art 1981,

Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 52:265–293.

Tunnicliff DG and Root RE (1984) Use of antistripping additives in asphaltic concrete mixtures, NCHRP 274,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Watson D, Moore JR and Taylor AJ (2012) Effectiveness of anti-strip agents in asphalt mixtures,
FHWA-GA-12-0623, Atlanta, Georgia.
Xiao Z, Chen M, Wu S, Xie J, Kong D, Qiao Z Niu C (2019) ‘Moisture susceptibility evaluation of asphalt
mixtures containing steel slag powder as filler’, Materials 12(19):3211, doi:10.3390/ma12193211.
Yin F, Arambula E, Lytton R, Epps-Martin A and Garcia Cucalon L (2014) ‘Novel method for moisture
susceptibility and rutting evaluation using Hamburg wheel tracking test’, Journal of Transportation
Research Record (2446):1–7, doi:10.3141/2446-01.
Zaidi SBA, Airey GD, Grenfell J, Ahmad N and Ahmed I (2020) ‘Moisture susceptibility assessment of
hydrated lime modified asphalt mixture and surface energy’, International Journal of Pavement
Engineering 23(3):599–611, doi:10.1080/10298436.2020.1763347.
Zhang J, Airey GD, Grenfell J, Apeagyei AK and Barrett M (2016) ‘Development of a composite substrate
peel test to assess moisture sensitivity of aggregate-bitumen bonds’, International Journal of Adhesion &
Adhesives 68: 133–41, doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.02.013.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standards
AASHTO R30:2022, Standard practice for laboratory conditioning of hot mix asphalt.
AASHTO TP140:2020, Provisional method of test for moisture sensitivity using hydrostatic pore pressure to
determine cohesion and adhesion strength of compacted asphalt mixture specimens.
AASHTO T165:2002, Standard method of test for effect of water on compressive strength of compacted
bituminous mixtures
AASHTO T182:2002, Standard method of test for coating and stripping of bitumen-aggregate mixtures
AASHTO T245:2022, Standard method of test for resistance to plastic flow of asphalt mixtures using
Marshall apparatus.
AASHTO T283:2014, Standard method of test for resistance of compacted asphalt mixtures to
moisture-induced damage.
AASHTO T324:2022, Standard method of test for Hamburg wheel-track testing of compacted asphalt
mixtures.
AASHTO T361:2022, Standard method of test for determining asphalt binder bond strength by means of the
binder bond strength (BBS) test.
ASTM International Standards
ASTM D1075-07:2011, Standard test method for effect of water on compressive strength of compacted
bituminous mixtures.
ASTM D242/D242M:2019, Standard specification for mineral filler for asphalt mixtures.
ASTM D3625/D3625M:2020, Standard practice for effect of water on asphalt-coated aggregate using boiling
water.
ASTM D4541:2022, Standard test method for pull-off strength of coatings using portable adhesion testers.
ASTM D4798/D4798M:2021, Standard practice for accelerated weathering test conditions and procedures
for bituminous materials (Xenon-Arc method).

ASTM D4867/D4867M-09:2014, Standard test method for effect of moisture on asphalt concrete paving
mixtures.
ASTM D7870/D7870M:2020, Standard practice for moisture conditioning compacted asphalt mixture
specimens by using hydrostatic pore pressure.
Australian and New Zealand Standards
AS 1141.50:1998, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates. Resistance to stripping of cover aggregates
from binders (Reconfirmed 2016).
AS 1141.66:2022, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates. Methylene blue adsorption value of fine
aggregate and mineral fillers.
AS 1672.1:1997, Limes and limestones. Limes for building.
Austroads Test Methods
ATM 231:2023, Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel tracking test.
ATM 232:2022, Stripping potential of asphalt – Tensile strength ratio.
ATM 212:2021, Gyratory compactor test method.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics Standards
Standard Specification for Roadworks v5.1:2022
Department of Transport and Main Roads Western Australia Standards
Specification 502:2022, Stone mastic asphalt.
Specification 504:2022, Asphalt wearing course.
Specification 510:2022, Asphalt intermediate course.
Specification 511:2023, Materials for bituminous treatments.
WA 720.1:2010, Assessment of liquid adhesion agents.
European Standards
EN 12697-11:2020, Bituminous mixtures. Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 11: Determination of the
affinity between aggregate and bitumen.
EN 12697-12:2018, Bituminous mixtures. Test methods – Part 12: Determination of the water sensitivity of
bituminous specimens.
EN 12697-23:2017, Bituminous mixtures. Test methods – Part 23: Determination of the indirect tensile
strength of bituminous specimens.
EN 12697-45:2020, Bituminous mixtures. Test methods – Part 45: Saturation ageing tensile stiffness (SATS)
conditioning test.
NF P98-251-1:2022, Test relating to pavements – Static test on bituminous mixtures – Part 1: DURIEZ test
on hit mix.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Standards
MRTS30:2022, Asphalt pavements.
MRTS32:2022, High modulus asphalt (EME2).
Q212B:2018, Bitumen stripping value – modified plate.
South African Bitumen Association (SABITA) Standards
TMH Method B11:2000, The determination of the adhesion of bituminous binder to stone aggregate by
means of the chemical immersion test (Riedel & Weber).
South Australia Department for Infrastructure and Transport Standards
RD-BP-S2:2022, Supply of asphalt.
TP 705:2015, Determination of aggregate stripping value by the one day plate stripping test.
Texas Department of Transportation Standards
TEX-242-F, Hamburg wheel-tracking test.
Transport for New South Wales Standards
R116:2021, Heavy duty dense graded asphalt.
R119:2020, Open graded asphalt.
R121:2020, Stone mastic asphalt.
R126:2020, High modulus asphalt (EME2).
T230:2012, Resistance to stripping of aggregates and binders.
Victoria Department of Transport and Planning
RC 500.01:2021, Registration of bituminous mix designs.
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Standards
NZTA M10:2020, Specification for dense graded asphaltic concrete.
NZTA M27:2020, Specification for stone mastic asphalt.
NZTA M32:2021, Specification for high modulus asphalt (EME2).
TNZ P/11:2007, Specification for open graded porous asphalt.

Appendix A Stakeholder Questionnaire

Q1: What is your name?
Q2: What is the name of your organisation?
Q3: What is your email address?
Q4: What type of organisation do you represent?

a. Road agency
b. Asphalt manufacturer
c. Binder supplier
d. Additive (liquid anti strip or lime) supplier
e. Other (please specify)
Q5: Do you currently, or have in the past 5 years, experienced issues with asphalt stripping?
a. No
b. Yes (if yes, please provide further details)
Q6: What test method(s) do you currently use to assess the stripping potential of asphalt?
Q7: Do you believe the test method(s) listed in (6) has a strong link with field performance?
Q8: Do you believe the test method(s) listed in (6) is suitable to differentiate between the performance of
different anti-stripping agents?
Q9: What control method(s) do you currently have in place to reduce the risk of asphalt stripping?
Q10: What are the main reasons you use asphalt anti-stripping agents?
a. Known issues with asphalt stripping
b. Asphalt performance testing indicates potential stripping issues
c. Specifications require the use of an anti-stripping agent
d. Purely risk mitigation measure
Q11: Are you currently specifying or using hydrated lime as an asphalt anti-stripping agent?
Q12: What do you consider to be the main benefits of using hydrated lime as an anti-stripping agent?
Q13: What do you consider to be the main disadvantages of using hydrated lime as an asphalt anti-stripping
agent?
Q14: Have you experienced any issues with the supply of hydrated lime over the past 5 years?
a. No

Q15: Other than potential supply issues, are there any other risks associated with using hydrated lime as an
asphalt anti-stripping agent?
Q16: Do you foresee any issues with the supply of hydrated lime over the next 5 years?
a. No
Q17: Do you support the use of alternative asphalt anti-stripping agents to lime if they can provide
appropriate protection against stripping?
a. No
b. Yes
Q18: Do you currently, or have in the past 5 years, used any form of asphalt anti-stripping agent other than
lime?
a. No
b. Yes (if yes, what type?)
Q19: If yes to Q18, on what basis did you select the type of alternative anti-stripping agent?
Q20: What is your experience with the use of asphalt liquid anti-stripping agents?
a. No experience
b. Satisfactory performance
c. Poor performance (if poor performance, please provide further details)
Q21: What do you consider to be the main benefits of using liquid anti-stripping agents?
a. Ease of construction
b. Cost
c. Sustainability
d. Performance
Q22: What do you consider to be the main disadvantages of using liquid anti-stripping agents?
Q23: What do you consider to be the main risks of using liquid anti-stripping agents?
Q24: What do you consider to be the main barriers to using asphalt liquid anti-stripping agents as an
alternative to lime?
a. Lack of technical guidance, specifications, and assessment protocols
b. Prescriptive specifications
c. Lack of client acceptance
d. Lack of historic performance
e. Availability of alternative products
f. Equipment constraints
g. Cost
h. Other (please specify)

Q25: Do you have any experience with dual use of liquid additives serving a dual purpose (i.e. anti-stripping
and warm mix additive)?
a. No


AP-R708-24 Anti-Stripping Additives As Alternative To Hydrated Lime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

AP-R708-24 Anti-Stripping Additives As Alternative To Hydrated Lime

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-R708-24 Anti-Stripping Additives As Alternative To Hydrated Lime

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Report

Feasibility of Using Anti-stripping Additives as

Joe Grobler, Dr Chrysoula Pandelidi and Dr James Grenfell Austroads Ltd.

Abstract About Austroads

Austroads Publication No. AP-R708-24

Austroads 2024 | page i

Austroads 2024 | page ii

Austroads 2024 | page iii

5. Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 44

Austroads 2024 | page iv

Austroads 2024 | page 1

2. Moisture Damage in Asphalt Layers

Figure 2.1: Examples of asphalt stripping along the Hume Highway

Source: Kandhal and Rickards (2001).

Austroads 2024 | page 2

2.2 Failure Mechanism

Austroads 2024 | page 3

Figure 2.2: Thermal pumping in asphalt layers

Source: Kandhal and Rickards (2001).

2.3 Factors Affecting Asphalt Stripping

2.3.1 Pavement Design and Road Drainage

Austroads 2024 | page 4

2.3.2 Asphalt Mix Properties

Component Property Comment

Austroads 2024 | page 5

Figure 2.3: Classification of aggregates by surface charge

Source: Austroads (2014).

Austroads 2024 | page 6

Effect of fillers and additives

Asphalt type and mix design

Austroads 2024 | page 7

Figure 2.4: Pessimism air voids range

Source: Terrel and Shute (1989).

Austroads 2024 | page 8

Source: Sengoz and Agar (2007).

2.3.3 Asphalt Manufacturing and Construction

Austroads 2024 | page 9

Source: Liebenberg, Rossmann and Fletcher (2004).

2.3.4 Environmental and Traffic Conditions

Austroads 2024 | page 10

Main contributor Determining characteristics Favourable properties

Source: Adapted from Mehrara and Khodaii (2013).

2.4 Summary of Findings

Austroads 2024 | page 11

Austroads 2024 | page 12

3. Moisture Susceptibility Test Methods

3.1 Assessment of Loose Asphalt Samples

Austroads 2024 | page 13

3.2 Assessment of Compacted Asphalt Specimens

3.2.1 Specimen Conditioning

Austroads 2024 | page 14

Figure 3.1: M.i.S.T 2 moisture conditioning device

Source: Shah, Olek and McDaniel (2022).

Austroads 2024 | page 15

3.2.2 Indirect Tensile Strength Tests

Figure 3.2: ITS test setup

Source: Shah, Olek and McDaniel (2022).

Austroads 2024 | page 16