ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ADDIS ABABA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

THE EFFECT OF HYDRATED LIME ADDITIVES ON MOISTURE SENSITIVITY

AND OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF HOT MIX ASPHALT MIXTURES

By

Asres Simeneh

A Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of
Master of Science
In
Road and Transport Engineering

Advisor
Dr. Bikila Teklu

December, 2013
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 Addis Ababa University
School of Graduate Studies
Department of Civil Engineering

THE EFFECT OF HYDRATED LIME ADDITIVES ON MOISTURE

SUSCEPTIBILITY AND OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF HOT MIX ASPHALT
MIXTURES

By

Asres Simeneh

A Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of
Master of Science
In
Road and Transport Engineering

Approved by Board of Examiners:

Dr.Bikila Teklu ________________ _______________

Advisor Signature Date

____________________ ________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

____________________ ________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

____________________ ________________ _______________

Chair Person Signature Date
DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my original work performed under the supervision of my
research advisor Dr. Bikila Teklu and has not been presented as a thesis for a degree in any other
university. All sources of materials used for this thesis have also been duly acknowledged.

Name Asres Simeneh

Signature _____________

Place Addis Ababa Institute of Technology

Addis Ababa University,

Addis Ababa.

Date December, 2013

ABSTRACT

Well-designed asphalt mixtures can be expected to serve successfully for many years under a variety
of loading and environmental conditions. However, Stripping is one of the common types of
pavement failure found in asphaltic pavements. Besides high traffic impact stress, climatic factor such
as temperature and moisture have also profound effect on the durability of hot mix asphalt pavements.
One of this research’s goal is to evaluate and compare the stripping performance of unmodified and
lime modified hot mix asphalt using two different types of lime application.
The research study utilized laboratory evaluations to study effects of hydrated lime additive on
moisture susceptibility and important physical properties of Hot Mix Asphalt mixtures. The evaluation
involved six mix designs from two aggregate sources and one bitumen source. Out of the six, two are
used as control and the other four are checked for the advantages of hydrated lime additives.
Laboratory testing was accomplished in the first phase with the production of Marshall compacted
specimens to determine the performance of Hot Mix Asphalt using Marshall Mix design methods and
parameters such as air voids, voids in mineral aggregate, voids filled with asphalt cement, Marshall
Stability and flow are measured. The result shows superior advantage on hydrated lime additive on
stability and other important physical properties of Hot Mix Asphalt. Beside this, the optimum asphalt
content is determined for phase two test.
For the selected optimum bitumen content on the second phase, six samples from each mix were
prepared to conduct the moisture susceptibility test. Three of the six samples are conditioned with
saturation and freeze-thaw cycles and the other three were unconditioned. Finally the tensile strength
test for each group was conducted. The tensile strength ratio according to AASHTO T 283 proved
that that hydrated lime additive has an advantage on moisture susceptibility
The research concludes that adding hydrated lime in Hot Mix Asphalt improves the performance of
mixtures and increases the life of highways. Furthermore, both dry lime and lime slurry hydrated lime
application methods used in this research have good results compared with the unmodified samples.
Key Words
Hot Mix Asphalt, Moisture damage, Moisture susceptibility, Stripping, Anti-strip additives, Lime,
Marination, Asphalt, Marshall Mix design.

i
 To
Engineer Yitatek Alamirew

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my family and all the people whose patience, advice, encouragement and support that
helped me to complete this thesis. My deepest gratitude goes to my Advisor, Dr. Bikila Teklu, who has provided
me with the knowledge in all procedure of this research, I have great appreciation for his guidance, wisdom
and patience. Thank you for your encouragement, support, and expert advice. I am appreciative for your
inspiration for me to finish this research with in short time.

I would also like to thank Mr. Ephraim G/egziabher from Core consulting Engineers for providing the required
asphalt bitumen used for laboratory tests. I am also grateful for Mr. Abeselom Demeke from sunshine
construction for supplying the laboratory materials and his interesting collaboration. I would like also to
acknowledge Mr. Abate from construction design S.C and Mr. Abnet from Enei construction.

Thanks also go to Mr. Tsega Sisay who has helped me with a tremendous amount of laboratory work. Finally,
without my students support in laboratory this thesis would have been a very long slog, so thanks indeed for
all the good times.

Last but not least, I am grateful to Eng. Yitatek Alamirew who has always guided me towards a better life
including the accomplishment of this MSc degree. Your passion for me to be academician and professional
engineer has been inspiring. I am further appreciative for your support and encouragement for me always to
be hard worker and esteem others.

iii
Table of contents
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................... iii
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the problem ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Objective of the study...................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 4
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Moisture Susceptibility................................................................................................................ 4
2.3. Stripping Mechanisms ................................................................................................................ 5
2.3.1. Molecular-level...................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.2. Macro-level ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.4. Physical Factors Affecting Stripping .......................................................................................... 8
2.5. Engineering and Construction Considerations ....................................................................... 10
2.5.1. Inadequate Pavement Drainage ........................................................................................ 10
2.5.2. Inadequate Compaction ..................................................................................................... 11
2.5.3. Excessive Dust Coating on the Aggregate ....................................................................... 12
2.5.4. Action of the Traffic ........................................................................................................... 12
2.5.5. Inadequate Drying of Aggregates ..................................................................................... 12
2.5.6. Weak Aggregates ................................................................................................................ 12
2.5.7. Water Proofing Membranes and Seal Coats ..................................................................... 12
2.6. Techniques for limiting moisture susceptibility ..................................................................... 13
2.6.1. Anti-Stripping Agents ......................................................................................................... 14
2.6.2. Liquid Anti-Stripping Agents ............................................................................................ 14
2.6.3. Lime Additives .................................................................................................................... 14
2.7. Impact of Lime on Pavement Life and Life Cycle Costs (LCC) ............................................ 17
CHAPTER THREE : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS ................................... 19
3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 19
3.2. Experimental design ................................................................................................................. 19
3.3. Materials selection ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.4. Aggregate Tests and preparation ............................................................................................. 20
3.5. Asphalt binder test and result ................................................................................................... 23
3.5.1. Asphalt Specifications and Grades .................................................................................... 24

iv
 3.6. Un-compacted Asphalt Mix Test ............................................................................................. 26
3.7. Asphalt mix design .................................................................................................................... 27
3.7.1. Marshall Mix design ........................................................................................................... 27
3.7.2. Specimen preparation ......................................................................................................... 27
3.7.3. Weight Volume relationships on compacted hot mix asphalt and volumetric analysis 29
3.8. Methods used to add lime to HMA .......................................................................................... 35
3.8.1. Dry Lime on dry aggregate. ............................................................................................... 36
3.8.2. Dry Lime on Moist Aggregate ........................................................................................... 36
3.8.3. Slurry Method ..................................................................................................................... 36
3.8.4. Laboratory procedure of adding hydrated lime ................................................................ 37
3.9. Moisture conditioning ............................................................................................................... 38
3.9.1. Evaluation of the Moisture Sensitivity of the Mixture ..................................................... 38
3.9.2. Testing procedure............................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER FOUR: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ........................................................................ 41
4.1. Optimum Asphalt Content Determination .............................................................................. 42
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 46
5.1. Analysis on physical properties of compacted HMA. ............................................................. 46
5.2. Analysis of Moisture Susceptibility test results ....................................................................... 50
5.2.1. Tensile strength .................................................................................................................. 50
5.2.2. Tensile Strength Ratios (TSR) ........................................................................................... 52
5.3. Statistical Analysis of Tensile Strength Using ANOVA ......................................................... 54
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 59
6.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 59
6.2. Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 60
References .................................................................................................................................................. 61

v
List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Aggrigate gradiation chart for ASTM Specification …………………………………... 23

Figure 3.2: Flowchart of the asphalt mix design procedure………………………………………. 28
Figure 3-3. Definition of volume terms used in volumetric analysis……………………………… 30
Figure 5.1: Stability comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples………………………...46
Figure 5.2: Flow comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples …………………………...47
Figure 5.3: Bulk sp. Gr comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples ……………………48
Figure 5.4: Air void comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples………………………. 48
Figure 5.5: VMA comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples ………………………….49
Figure 5.6: VFA comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples ………………………….. 50
Figure 5.7: Dry and Wet tensile strength of lime modified and unmodified samples of Aggregate A
before and after conditioning ……………………………………………………………………. 51
Figure 5.8: Comparison of tensile strength for different sample conditioning (lime modified and
unmodified samples) of Aggregate B …………………………………………………………….. 51
Figure 5.9: Comparison of dry and wet TS of each group of lime treatment of aggregate A ………..52
Figure 5.10: Comparison of dry and wet TS of each group of lime treatment of aggregate B ………52
Figure 5.11: Tensile strength ratio of each cases on aggregate A …………………………………..53
Figure 5.12: Tensile strength ratio of each cases on aggregate B …………………………………...53
Figure 5.13: TSR compared with Control condition of aggregate A (No lime)……………………..54
Figure 5.14: TSR compared with Control condition of aggregate B (No lime) ……………………..54

vi
List of Tables

Table 2.1: Factors contributing to moisture related distress…………………………………….. ..11

Table 3.1: quality tests of the aggregates used for laboratory test ………………………………....21
Table 3.2: ASTM specification for surface hot mix asphalt surface layer …………………………23
Table 3.3: Laboratory test result of 85 – 100 asphalt binder…………………………………….....25
Table 3.4: Void in the mineral aggregate (ERA manual)………………………………………..…32
Table 3.5: Maximum tensile stress corresponding to the width of the flattened area…………....…40
Table 4.1: Test Result of Marshall mixture for aggregate A ……………………………………….41
Table 4.2: Test Result of Marshall mixture for aggregate B………………………………………..42
Table 4.3: Suggested Marshall Test Criteria (ERA Manual) ……………………………………… 43
Table 4.4: Optimum binder content for aggregate A …………………………………………….. 44
Table 4.5: Optimum binder content for aggregate B …………………………………………….. 44
Table 4.6: Moisture susceptibility (tensile strength) test result of aggregate A ……………………. 45
Table 4.7: Moisture susceptibility (tensile strength) test result of aggregate B ……………………. 45
Table 5.1: Statistical analysis of unconditioned tensile strength of aggregate A using ANOVA……55
Table 5.2: Statistical analysis of tensile strength (after conditioning) of aggregate A using ANOVA.56
Table 5.3: Statistical analysis of unconditioned tensile strength of aggregate B using ANOVA……57
Table 5.4: Statistical analysis of tensile strength (after conditioning) of aggregate B using ANOVA.57

vii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
Hot Mix Asphalt pavements serve in a multitude of traffic and environmental conditions, demanding
that the materials and design meet specific engineering requirements. Therefore the main objective of
HMA mix design is to determine the combination of asphalt cement and aggregate that will give long
lasting performance as part of the pavement structure. Mix design involves laboratory procedures
developed to establish the necessary proportion of materials for use in the HMA. These procedures
include determining an appropriate blend of aggregate sources to produce a proper gradation of
mineral aggregate, and selecting the type and amount of asphalt cement to be used as the binder for
that gradation.
Well-designed asphalt mixtures can be expected to serve successfully for many years under a variety
of loading and environmental conditions. However, Stripping of aggregate from asphalt binder has
been a common problem that results in premature pavement [01].In addition to this rutting most
commonly occurs early in a pavement’s life. Also moisture affects asphalt pavements in two important
ways. First, moisture can enter the interface between the bitumen and aggregate destroying the bond
between those two key components of the pavement. Second, moisture can penetrate the bitumen
itself softening it and reducing its cohesive strength. Both damage mechanisms can reduce the
pavement’s integrity and shorten its effective life [02].
Moisture induced damage of HMA pavement can drastically reduce a pavement’s expected design life.
Once the HMA mixture is damaged, a significant reduction in the HMA’s internal strength occurs.
The moisture damage within the asphalt pavement’s structure can manifest into various types of
pavement distresses such as rutting, and raveling.
Furthermore fatigue cracking occurs when pavements are excessively stiff or the structural layers are
too thin to support the traffic that they carry. Fatigue results from excessive tension in the pavement
structure often caused by overweight vehicles, shear stresses caused by traffic movement, or by rapid
temperature change in the pavement
For over thirty years it has been well established that hydrated lime reacts with acid components of
bitumen to produce beneficial changes to reduce the above effects and for contribution to the creation
of high performance asphalt mixes [03]. Adding lime in HMA improve the mixtures in many ways and
increasing the life of highways. Lime contributes to both the mechanical and rheological properties of
asphalt mixtures, improving moisture sensitivity resistance and fracture toughness along with reducing
the rate of oxidative aging for many types of bitumen. Considerable laboratory research has been
performed to quantify the benefits of hydrated lime.
It is possible to add lime either of on the aggregate with different moisture and marination condition
or on the HMA mix. Studies have shown that lime reduces the potential for moisture to disrupt the

1
adhesive bond that exists between the asphalt binder and aggregate. Some individuals attribute the
increase in adhesive strength to changes in the surface chemistry or molecular polarity of the aggregate
surface. The result is a stronger bond at the interface between the aggregate and asphalt binder.
This thesis provides a conclusive investigation of different test methods to evaluate moisture
sensitivity of HMA mixes. The goal of this study was to determine the moisture damage resistance of
compacted asphalt specimens modified with hydrated lime. The effectiveness of lime additives were
evaluated by comparing test results conducted on unmodified (virgin) and hydrated lime modified
specimens. The different performance tests were conducted on the aggregate, asphalt binder, and
uncompact specimens. All tests on aggregate, asphalt binder, loose mixtures, and compacted
specimens were conducted according to respective testing standards which is applicable in Ethiopia.
In addition to this a statistical analysis is used to determine the best method of introducing lime into
a HMA mix as an aggregate additive to mitigate moisture damage. The laboratory tests evaluated
various materials (i.e., aggregates, binders, and Lime) using multiple test methods and conditioning
procedures.

1.2. Statement of the problem

For over a century, paved roadways have been constructed using asphalt concrete mixes across the
world. However, a major problem still exists involving premature distresses and pavement failures,
e.g. rutting, cracking, potholes etc. In spite of the fact that the highway engineers discover different
methods and procedures of mix design over years, up to now it couldn’t be imaginable to avoid
premature distresses and pavement failures.
Stripping of aggregate from asphalt binder has been a common and the core problem that results in
premature pavement failures in Ethiopia. Ethiopia being in tropical climate receives seasonal and a
significant amount of sun light and rainfall within the year. Besides climatic factor such as temperature
and moisture, high traffic impact stresses also have profound effect on the durability of Hot Mix
Asphalt pavements against stripping failures.
Stripping happens when water infiltrates between an asphalt film and the aggregate surface, and
replaces the asphalt aggregate's coating. This situation causes a loss of bond between the aggregate
and the asphalt cement. The most serious consequence of stripping is the loss of strength and integrity
of the pavement. Stripping failures within the asphalt pavement structure can facilitate or translate
into various types of pavement failure such as fatigue cracking, rutting, raveling and potholes. This
condition makes driving dangerous, and driving comfort and safety are often compromised. The
damage of asphalt pavements due to moisture also can significantly increase the maintenance costs of
a pavement and ultimately, reduce the life of the pavement [04].
Due to these problems, it has been seen increased interest to improve HMA mixture properties for
better performance and safe riding comfort. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate stripping performance
on modified binder with the addition of hydrated lime as anti-stripping additive to an HMA mix.

2
The need for evaluating the effectiveness of hydrated lime additives to the HMA mixes is an important
consideration in order to reduce stripping and related problems and to create high pavements
performance, and also to find mixtures that can resist stripping problems due to moisture damage.
To date, field data and laboratory evaluations of tensile strength in accordance with AASHTO T-283
which is also accepted by ERA and AACRA still provide the most accurate prediction of moisture
sensitivity. Although widely accepted as the standard, this laboratory evaluation has a low correlation
to actual performance. Test methods need to be developed that couple the laboratory evaluation of
moisture sensitivity to the observed field behavior of fatigue cracking, rutting, and raveling.
After adopting the use of lime as an aggregate additive in HMA, many researchers has observed a
reduction in HMA field distresses. However, a quantifiable mechanism to measure the enhanced
bonding between the aggregate and asphalt binder continues to elude researchers. In addition, the
method of introducing the lime as an aggregate additive to the HMA mix is also subject to question.
This is because of in the field; the application of dry lime to moist aggregates does not always result
in uniform coverage on the aggregate's surface. So that, the research doing for this thesis trying to
consider these effects.
As part of their pavement structure, currently a large portion of surfaced roads in Ethiopia constructed
using asphalt. These surfacing, and to some extent base layers, are used in a large variety of traffic
loading and environmental conditions.
1.3. Objective of the study
This thesis presents a study of the numerous benefits of adding hydrated lime to asphalt mixtures. It
will highlight current work evaluating lime’s unique characteristics as active mineral filler as they relate
to moisture sensitivity, rutting, fatigue, and oxidative aging. The primary objective of this research is
to evaluate the stripping, strength and other HMA performance under different mix proportions with
addition of lime. In achieving the main objective, the secondary objectives of the research are;
i. To evaluate stripping performance or moisture susceptibility of unmodified and lime modified
binder of HMA mix using statistical methods.
ii. To investigate the changes on overall physical properties such as stability, flow, Va, VMA etc...
Performance of both asphalt mixes with and without lime additives.
iii. To investigate the feasibility of using hydrated lime additives for the improvement of paving
mixture quality through laboratory examination.

3
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
The best efforts of highway engineers in the design and construction of asphalt pavements are often
undermined by environmental factors such as water, temperature variations, sunlight, etc. These
individual factors are not individually harmful, but when coupled with large volumes of traffic, they
frequently lead to significant problems with the durability of the pavements. In this case, moisture can
be a major environmental contributor to the premature deterioration of asphalt pavements. Its effects
can be minimized in some cases, eliminated by proper construction practices that emphasize good
design, mixing, and compaction. Despite these efforts, when a highway failure occurs, most of the
time water is cited as the prime suspect. In addition, many other factors such the material’s
characteristics affect the performance of the mixtures. Some binder/aggregate combinations are
simply more susceptible to moisture induced damage.
Water affects asphalt concrete in various ways. It may act directly and literally strip binder from the
aggregate. However, generally, the effects are more subtle. Water weakens the structure to a point
where the mix can no longer sustain the traffic it was designed to support, and finally fails under the
repeated loading.
Stripping produces several forms of distress, including localized bleeding, rutting, shoving, etc., and
ultimately the complete failure of the asphalt pavement. Although it is not completely understood why
stripping occurs in some pavements and not in others, it is not hard to conclude that stripping reduces
the pavement’s performance, increases its maintenance cost, produces an inferior riding quality, and
ultimately produces an overall higher life cycle cost. For this reason, many highway agencies are
requiring the use of Anti Strip Additives in the asphalt pavements to prevent the moisture induced
damages. For many years, hydrated lime was widely used as an Anti-stripping additive to reduce the
problem of stripping in the HMA. Different liquid Anti-stripping additive, have also been reported to
produce results comparable to the hydrated lime, with easier application, safer operation and lower
costs [5]. Based on a research conducted in the 1980s, different department of transportation in U.S
specifies the use of hydrated lime as an Anti-Stripping Additives (ASA).
However practically in our country Ethiopia, it is not well experienced to use efficiently some
important type of Anti-stripping additive including lime. The reason may be due to shortage of
knowledge or skilled problems associated with applying mechanisms or else. Thus, for a better
performance of roads a new initiation of evaluating these anti-stripping agents particularly hydrated
lime with local aggregates is essential in order to applying during a time of construction.
2.2. Moisture Susceptibility
Moisture susceptibility is the tendency of HMA toward stripping. The loss of integrity of an HMA
mix through the weakening of the bond between the aggregate and the binder is known as stripping.
When a weakening in the bond occurs, loss of strength of the HMA can be sudden [6]. Stripping usually

4
begins at the bottom of the HMA layer, and gradually travels upward. A typical situation is the gradual
loss of strength over the years, which causes many surface manifestations like rutting, corrugations,
shoving, raveling, cracking, etc. This makes identification of stripping very difficult. Also, it may take
many years for the surface indicators to appear. To prevent moisture susceptibility, proper mix design
is essential. However, even with a proper mix design, if the mix is not compacted properly, it may still
be susceptible to moisture damage. Thus, HMA should be tested in a situation where moisture can
infiltrate into the air voids of the mixture. For this reason, the tests for moisture susceptibility are done
on mixes containing 7 ± 1 percent air voids. [7]
The presence of water in an asphalt pavement is unavoidable. Several sources can lead to the presence
of water in the pavement. Water can infiltrate the pavement from the surface via cracks in the surface
of the pavement, via the interconnectivity of the air-void system or cracks, from the bottom due to
an increase in the ground water level, or from the sides.
2.3. Stripping Mechanisms
Stripping is a major distress occurring in HMA pavements in various parts of the world. Pavement
performance is adversely affected by stripping and unforeseen increases in maintenance are often
incurred. Environmental factors such as temperature and moisture can have a profound effect on the
durability of hot mix asphalt pavements. When critical environmental conditions are coupled with
traffic and poor materials, premature failure may occur as a result of stripping of the asphalt binder
from the aggregate particles. [8]
Moisture affects asphalt pavements in two important ways. First, moisture can enter the interface
between the bitumen and aggregate destroying the bond between those two key components of the
pavement. Second, moisture can penetrate the bitumen itself softening it and reducing its cohesive
strength. Both damage mechanisms can reduce the pavement’s integrity and shorten its effective life.
[9], [10]

Adhesive failure is the most commonly recognized result of moisture damage. It has long been
observed that siliceous or igneous aggregates that contain large silica components are particularly
susceptible to moisture damage in asphalt pavements. Those aggregates have an acid component that
is incompatible with the acid components of bitumen, leading to relatively weak bonds [11].
Current research looking at the thermodynamics of aggregate/bitumen bonding has established that
the several components of the surface free energy of the bitumen and the aggregate determine the
strength of the bond connecting them. It has also shown that the free energy of water will dominate
those adhesive bonds causing them to break apart [9].
Cohesive failure is more subtle. Bitumen was long thought to be impermeable to water which is not
true. Several mechanisms can drive water into the binder causing it to soften. Once in the bitumen
water will react with some acid components of the bitumen creating water soluble soaps which weaken
the binder and, in turn, weaken the bonds between the binder and aggregate
Stripping usually begins in the bottom of the HMA layer, and travels upward. A typical situation is a
gradual loss of strength over a period of years, which allows rutting and shoving to develop in the

5
wheel path. Many times, if the stripping is begins in the bottom of the HMA layer, it difficult to
identify because surface indicators may take years to show. Also, many surface indicators are possible
and may include: rutting, shoving, corrugations, raveling, and cracking. It is necessary to look at the
cores of the HMA mix to identify stripping. In some cases of stripping, a HMA mix has lost so much
adhesion between the aggregate and asphalt that a core cannot be removed in one piece. [7]In general
stripping of asphalt pavements can occur either of at the molecular level or macro-level. Each incidents
discussed as below.
2.3.1. Molecular-level
Stripping of asphalt pavements occurs at the molecular level and is not entirely understood in spite of
extensive research. It is thought to be associated with either one or both of the following two
phenomena. First, water can interact with asphalt binder to cause a reduction in cohesion with
subsequent reduction in stiffness and strength of the mix. Second, and more commonly believed,
water can get between the asphalt film and the aggregate, break the adhesive bond, and strip the
asphalt binder from the aggregate. [12]
The nature of the adhesive bond between the asphalt binder and aggregate is a subject of some debate.
Adhesion is defined as that physical property or molecular force by which one body sticks to another.
Several factors affect the adhesion of the asphalt binder to the aggregate, including: interfacial tension
between the asphalt binder and the aggregate, chemical composition of the asphalt binder and
aggregate, binder viscosity, surface texture of the aggregate, aggregate porosity, aggregate cleanliness,
aggregate temperature and moisture content at the time of mixing.
Four general theories of adhesion exist to explain the adhesion of asphalt binder to aggregates. These
include the Mechanical Interlocking Theory, the Chemical Reaction Theory, the Surface Energy
Theory, and the Molecular Orientation Theory. The actual nature of adhesion is not fully explained
by any one of these theories, but is partially explained in each theory. [12]
i. Chemical Reaction
The reaction of acidic and basic components of asphalt and aggregate form water insoluble
compounds that resist stripping. A chemical bond forms that allows an asphalt-aggregate mix to resist
stripping. The use of basic instead of acidic aggregates can lead to better adhesion of asphalt to
aggregates.
ii. Surface Energy and Molecular Orientation
Surface energy can be described by how well asphalt or water coats aggregate particles. Water is a
better wetting agent because of its lower viscosity and lower surface tension than asphalt. The
structuring of asphalt molecules at an asphalt-aggregate interface is molecular orientation. The
adhesion between asphalt and aggregate is facilitated by a surface energy reduction at the aggregate
surface where asphalt is adsorbed onto a surface
iii. Mechanical Adhesion
Mechanical adhesion is a function of various aggregate physical properties, such as surface texture,
porosity, absorption, surface coatings, surface area, and particle size. In short, an aggregate with

6
desirable properties that will not show a tendency to moisture damage within an HMA is wanted.
Just as additive theories also different researches are done on the cohesive properties of HMA.
Cohesion is developed in a mastic and is influenced by the rheology of the filled binder. The cohesive
strength of mastic is a function of the interaction between the asphalt cement and mineral filler, not
just of the individual components alone. The cohesive strength of mastic is weakened due to the
presence of water through increased saturation and void swelling or expansion. The cohesive strength
can be damaged in various mixtures by the diffusion of water into asphalt mastics. [03]
2.3.2. Macro-level
On macro level moisture can damage HMA basically in two ways:
(1) Loss of bond between asphalt cement or mastic and fine and coarse aggregate or
(2) Weakening of mastic due to the presence of moisture.
There are several ways that moisture affects bituminous mixtures. Once moisture accesses the mix,
the mix structure is weakened. The mix losses stiffness and it fails under repeated traffic loading. There
are five mechanisms for the asphalt film to be stripped from an aggregate surface. These mechanisms
may act individually or together. A brief description of each mechanism follows.
i. Detachment
Detachment is the separation of an asphalt film from an aggregate surface by a thin film of water
without an obvious break in the film. Adhesive bond energy theory explains the rationale behind
detachment. In order for detachment not to happen, a good bond must develop between asphalt and
aggregate; this is known as wettability. The binder will then peel cleanly from the aggregate. The thin
film of water probably results from either aggregate that was not completely dried, interstitial pore
water which vaporized and condensed on the surface, or possibly water which permeated through the
asphalt film to the interface. As free surface energy of adhesion or surface tension decreases, the bond
between the aggregate and asphalt increases. Consider a three-phase system of aggregate, asphalt, and
water. Water reduces the surface energy of a system because aggregate surfaces have a stronger
preference for water than asphalt. [12]
ii. Displacements
Displacement can occur at a break in the asphalt film at the aggregate surface where water can intrude
and displace asphalt from aggregate. The break in an asphalt film can come from an incomplete coating
of aggregate particles, inadequate coating at sharp edges of aggregates, or pinholes in the asphalt film.
The pH of water at the point of film rupture can increase the process of displacement thereby
increasing the separation of asphalt from aggregate. [12]
iii. Spontaneous Emulsification
Spontaneous emulsification occurs when an inverted emulsion of water droplets in asphalt cement
forms rather than the converse. Investigators have noted that this process can be exacerbated under
traffic on mixtures laden with free water and with the presence of clays and asphalt additives in the
mix. Some experts conducted important experiments to demonstrate the formation of an emulsion

7
and observed that once the emulsion formation penetrated to the substrate, the adhesive bond was
broken. Many investigators have observed the formation of a brownish color on the surface of asphalt
films in severely stripped mixtures as well as on asphalt films submerged in water. [13]
iv. Film rupture
Film rupture is reported to initiate stripping when film fissures occur at sharp aggregate contact, or
points due to dust particles on the aggregate surface. The rupture may occur due to construction loads,
operating traffic during service conditions, or could be environmentally induced by freeze-thaw
cycling. Once a break in the film occurs, moisture has access to the interface and initiates stripping. [13]
v. Pore pressure
This mechanism precipitates from the presence of water in the pore structure of the HMA locations
where segregation is prevalent at layer boundaries when heavy traffic loadings occur and during freeze-
thaw cycling. Due to pore pressure, pavement layers are known to strip at the interfaces, pavement
layers have been observed to disintegrate usually from bottom upward, and in a few instances
disintegration within a layer in both directions. In a majority of cases, the binder layers disintegrate
first followed by surface layers. Some researchers postulated a pore pressure mechanism produced the
deterioration of the asphalt. [14]
Water and/or water vapor enters into the pavement overlay from underneath, primarily through the
longitudinal and transverse joints cracks in the PCC pavement. Water vapor accumulated in the
pavement layers during the day condenses during the night resulting in saturation of the asphalt
overlay. With saturation, the pore water pressure developed by differential thermal expansion and
cyclic stresses from the traffic ruptures the asphalt-aggregate bond causing stripping.
vi. Hydraulic scouring
Hydraulic scour (stripping) occurs at a pavement surface and is a result of repeated traffic tires on a
saturated pavement surface. Water is sucked into a pavement by tire rolling action. Hydraulic scour
may occur due to osmosis or pullback. Osmosis is the movement of water molecules from an area of
high concentration to an area of low concentration. In the case of HMA, osmosis occurs in the
presence of salts or salt solutions in aggregate pores. The movement of these molecules creates a
pressure gradient that sucks water through the asphalt film. The salt solution moves from an area of
high concentration to an area of low concentration. Some researchers showed that there is a
considerable amount of water that diffuses through the asphalt cement and that asphalt mastics can
hold a significant amount of water. [14]

2.4. Physical Factors Affecting Stripping

Based on different researches conducted in all over the world, many factors contribute to affecting
the moisture susceptibility and stripping of HMA. Some of the main physical factors are discussed
below.

8
2.4.1. Influence of Aggregate
Due to the aggregate problem there are number of factors that influence the asphalt aggregate bond,
surface texture, penetration of pores and cracks with asphalt, aggregate angularity, aging of the
aggregate surface through environmental effects, adsorbed coatings on the surface of the aggregate,
and the nature of dry aggregates versus wet aggregates.
Surface texture of the aggregate affects its ability to be properly coated, and a good initial coating is
necessary to prevent stripping. Besides the importance of a good mechanical bond promoted by the
surface texture, stripping has been determined to be more severe in angular aggregates because the
angularity may promote bond rupture of the binder or mastic, leaving a point of intrusion for the
water.
The coarse and fine aggregate characteristics are important factors related to moisture damage. There
is some evidence that moisture damage can be minimal if stripping is restricted only to the coarse
aggregate. If the fine aggregate strips, severe damage can occur because the fine aggregate constitutes
the basic matrix of the mixture.
2.4.2. Void Content
The overall performance of a pavement is also dependent on the void content of the HMA. The
chance of stripping increases as the percentage of air voids increases, as there is more room for
moisture to enter the mix and induce hydrostatic forces in the mix.
Most mix designs specify an air void content of 3 to 5 percent. When the air void content is below 5
percent, HMA materials have been shown to be almost impervious to water. During construction,
compaction control is not always good and high air void contents are a result. If an air void content
is above 8 percent, water can readily seep into the material and finally it cause a problem stripping.
2.4.3. Addition of anti-strip additives (ASAs)
There are many ASAs available and they all work differently in improving the bond between the
aggregate and the binder film. Thus, the use of a particular type of ASA also affects stripping in HMA.
Also, each ASA has a different effect on various aggregate sources. Thus, this variability also effects
stripping in HMA relative to the type of ASA used.
2.4.4. Mixing Temperature
Sometimes, the aggregates are not heated for sufficient time in an asphalt plant, which can lead to
lower mixing temperatures. At lower mixing temperatures, the viscosity of the binder is lower, and
thus, the binder will not be able to form a uniform film thickness around the aggregate.
2.4.5. HMA Storage Time
Every time a truck is loaded, there is a possibility that air gets into the storage silos. This air oxidizes
the binder, thereby making it hard and brittle. Thus, it can easily strip off the aggregate.

9
2.4.6. PH Instability
Studies by Kennedy, Scott, and others have indicated that the stripping is also effected by the pH of
the water coming in contact with the HMA [15]. The pH of contact water can cause the value of the
contact angle to shift, thereby affecting the wetting characteristics of the interface region. The results
indicated that coating retention decreased as the pH increased. These results strongly suggest that
stabilization of the pH sensitivity at the binder/aggregate interface would minimize the potential for
bond breakage, providing strong durable bonds and hence reducing stripping.
Factors such as temperature, air, and water have harmful effects on the durability of HMA. Other
mechanisms, such as a high water table, freeze/thaw cycles, and aging of binder or HMA, can affect
the durability of HMA. Other considerations, such as construction (segregation and raveling) and
traffic, are also important.

2.5. Engineering and Construction Considerations

Moisture related distresses are also accelerated by mix design or construction issues, including those
given in Table 2.1 below. The initiation of one or more of the previously described stripping
mechanisms is attributable to engineering and/or construction problems. [12]
Research conducted at the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) under the Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP) A-003B Project has shown that the physicochemical surface
properties of mineral aggregate are more important for moisture induced stripping of the HMA
compared to the properties of the binder. Some of the aggregates are inherently susceptible to
stripping. However, there are also other external factors and in-place properties that lead to the
deterioration of the HMA. These problems include, but are not necessarily limited to, inadequate
pavement drainage, inadequate compaction, excessive dust coating on the aggregate, inadequate drying
of aggregates, weak and friable aggregates, and the use of waterproofing membranes and seal coats.
Each factor will be briefly described below. [12], [16]
2.5.1. Inadequate Pavement Drainage
Inadequate surfaces or sub-surfaces drainage produce water or moisture vapor, which is the necessary
catalyst to induce stripping. There have been case histories where stripping was not a general
phenomenon occurring on the entire project site but only in areas that were over-saturated with water
due to inadequate drainage.[16]
Inadequate surface drainage and/or subsurface drainage allow the water that is necessary for stripping
to occur to remain in the pavement system. Water can enter the pavement layers in numerous ways.
Surface water can percolate down from the surface, usually through surface cracks. It can also seep in
from the sides and bottom from sources such as ditches or high groundwater. Water can also enter
the bottom of the pavement system by the upward forces of capillarity or as rising vapor condensation
due to water in the subgrade or subbase. [12]
Inadequate surface drainage and/or subsurface drainage allow the water that is necessary for stripping
to occur to remain in the pavement system. Water can enter the HMA pavement in many ways. It can

10
enter as surface runoff from cracks and other openings. It can also enter from the sides and the bottom
as seepage from ditches or from a high water table. Water often moves upward by the capillary action
from the bottom of the pavement. Many sub-bases and sub-grades in the existing highways lack the
desired permeability, and are therefore, saturated with capillary moisture. The air voids in the HMA
can become saturated with water, even from the vapor condensation from water in the sub-grade and
the sub-base. A temperature rise after this saturation, and traffic stresses can lead to significant void
pressure when the voids are saturated. [12]
Table 2.1 Factors contributing to moisture related distress [17]
• Binder and aggregate chemistry
• Binder content
Mix Design • Air voids
• Additives
• Percent aggregate coating and quality of passing the No. 200 sieve
• Temperature at plant
Production • Excess aggregate moisture content
• Presence of clay
• Compaction—high in-place air voids
• Permeability—high values
Construction • Mix segregation
• Changes from mix design to field production (field variability)
• High-rainfall areas
Climate • Freeze–thaw cycles
• Desert issues (steam stripping)
• Surface drainage
Other • Subsurface drainage
Factors • Rehab strategies chip seals over marginal HMA materials
• High truck ADTs.
If the HMA is permeable, water could flow out from the voids under the pressure and relieve the
developed pressure. If not, the tensile stresses developing can break the bond between the binder and
the aggregate. This damage due to void water pressure is internal and the exterior sides of the specimen
do not show any signs of stripping unless they are opened for visual examination.
2.5.2. Inadequate Compaction
High air voids present in the asphalt layers allow the movement of water through these pore spaces.
Studies have shown that at less than 4% to 5% air void content, the voids are generally not
interconnected and, therefore, impervious to water. However, if good compaction control is not
exercised, the pavement would have higher air content, leading to the ingress of water, causing
moisture damage to the pavement. While most asphalt mixes are designed to have 3% to 5% air voids,
many agencies allow a maximum air void content of 8% at construction assuming that the remaining
compaction will occur under 2 to 3 years of traffic. If the pavement remains pervious for an extended
period of time, stripping is likely to occur due to ingress of water and hydraulic pore pressures induced
by traffic. [12], [16]

11
2.5.3. Excessive Dust Coating on the Aggregate
The problem created by excessive dust coating on the aggregate is two-fold. First, the presence of dust
and clay coatings on the aggregate inhibits intimate contact between the binder film and the aggregate,
thereby forming channels for penetrating water and complete wetting of the aggregate by the asphalt
cement. Because the asphalt is adhered to the dust coating and not the aggregate itself, the binder is
easily stripped from the aggregate. Some very clayey material may cause stripping by emulsifying the
binder in the presence of water. Second, the presence of dust particles enhances the action of scouring
under the effects of traffic. [12]
2.5.4. Action of the Traffic
After any rain shower, the water in the pavement is pressed into the underlying layer by truck tires.
This causes tremendous hydrostatic stresses, leading to the breaking of the bond between the binder
and the aggregate. This is especially severe in the case of open graded friction courses due to the high
air content.
Stripping can also be caused by the mechanism of hydraulic scouring; however, this is applicable only
to the surface courses. Scouring starts at the surface and progresses downward. The water gets forced
down into the pavement in the front of the tire, and it is immediately suctioned out of the pavement
from behind the tire. This compression – tension cycle causes hydrostatic stresses leading to the
stripping of the binder film from the aggregate surface.
2.5.5. Inadequate Drying of Aggregates
When the aggregate is coated with binder, a dry aggregate surface will better adhere to the binder than
a wet surface. Aggregate that absorbs or adsorbs water will strip easily if not properly dried. As the
hot binder is introduced to the wet aggregate surface, the moisture on the surface of the aggregate
vaporizes and does not allow the binder to coat the aggregate well. This results from the asphalt being
displaced from the aggregate by the thin layer of water already present. A dry aggregate surface will
have increased adhesion with the asphalt cement compared to a moist or wet surface.
2.5.6. Weak Aggregates
If weak and friable aggregates are used in an asphalt mix, degradation takes place during rolling and
later under heavy traffic loads. Degradation and delamination exposes new uncoated aggregate
surfaces that can absorb moisture and initiate stripping problems.
2.5.7. Water Proofing Membranes and Seal Coats
If the source of moisture is from below the pavement, which is usually the case, the application of a
water proofing membrane or a seal coat can be detrimental. The moisture that reaches the bottom of
the pavement from ground water, shoulders, median, etc., migrates through the pavement by capillary
action. Above the capillary fringe, the water moves as vapor, and if its movement is obstructed by a
seal coat or a water proofing membrane, the vapor condenses under the sealing layer. It is again

12
converted to vapor, when heated by the sun light, causing significant vapor pressure and leads to
stripping in the pavement. [12]
Several additional factors have been suggested to also contribute to stripping, including the use of
open-graded friction courses, the use of excess anti-strip additives, the use of siliceous aggregates,
inadequate drying of aggregate; weak aggregate; overlays on deteriorated concrete pavements and the
use of aggregates that have relatively high surface potentials, those that impart a high pH value to
water in contact with their surfaces.
Weather conditions during construction have been related to stripping behavior. If the weather is cool
and wet during construction, moisture damage is more likely to occur. During a pavement’s life,
environmental factors such as temperature fluctuations, freeze-thaw cycles, and wet-dry cycles have
been suggested to influence stripping. All other factors being equal, it is suggested that increased
repetitions of traffic loading accelerate stripping. There are many possible causes of stripping;
however, all involve excess moisture in the HMA. There are many ways in which moisture can enter
the HMA pavement layers: capillary action from the water table, run off from the road surface, and
seepage from surrounding areas are a few examples. If adequate drainage is not present, air voids in
the HMA may become saturated with moisture, thereby increasing pressure and weakening the bond.

2.6. Techniques for limiting moisture susceptibility

When subject to moisture, water-sensitive pavements may suffer accelerated damage leading to a
reduced pavement life. If asphalt pavement does suffer from water sensitivity, serious distresses may
occur. The best way to prevent stripping will be to test the mixture in the laboratory and to use an
aggregate/binder combination that does not strip. However, this will not always be possible due to
many reasons such as, lack of suitable aggregates, increased costs in the transportation of certain
aggregates, political constraints, etc. Even in spite of having the mix not be susceptible to moisture in
the laboratory, there is not much certainty that the mix will behave the same in the field. To make sure
that a mix behaves the same in the field as in the lab, proper care should be taken in the construction
of the pavement, such as providing proper drainage, especially sub-surface drainage, using proper
compaction techniques and providing an adequate number of roller passes at the proper compaction
temperature, etc.
Different types of aggregate pre-treatments have also shown to improve the moisture susceptibility of
the mix. Some of the pre-treatments include pre-heating the aggregate to remove any excess moisture
by evaporate the moisture, weathering, washing to remove very fine surface dirt, crushing, etc. It has
also been shown that aggregates coated with asphalt or other recycled materials are better at resisting
the moisture damage in the HMA than are virgin materials. [7]
However, even after taking all the above precautions, there is still a chance that a pavement will suffer
damage due to moisture. One good way to alleviate or control this problem, various liquid or solid
anti-stripping additives have been developed, which can be used to promote adhesion between asphalt
and aggregate or increasing the resistance of the mix to moisture damage. However, the addition of
an Anti-stripping Agent (ASA) from an approved list of sources should not be considered as

13
“insurance” as some ASAs are aggregate and binder specific, and therefore, may not be effective in all
mixes; they could even be detrimental at times. Thus, a proper study of the mix should be done by
systematically testing the mix for moisture susceptibility by tests such as Indirect Tension Testing
(ITS), Lottman’s Laboratory Test, the Boiling Water Test, etc. in the laboratory.
2.6.1. Anti-Stripping Agents
Anti-stripping agents may be necessary if a particular mix design has been shown to be susceptible to
moisture-induced damage. They are substances designed to chemically improve the adhesion between
the asphaltic binder and the aggregates. They are available in both liquid and solid forms. Hydrated
lime has been widely used as an ASA for reducing the moisture susceptibility of HMA. Some other
solid ASAs used are Portland cement, fly-ash, flue dust, etc. The liquid ASAs used include liquid
amines and diamines, liquid polymers, etc. However, if an additive is used when it is not needed or if
it is used incorrectly, adverse effects may occur, including an increased economic cost and early
maintenance and/or rehabilitation. [18]
2.6.2. Liquid Anti-Stripping Agents
Liquid anti-stripping agents are chemical compounds that contain amines. Recently, with the advent
of new liquid ASAs in the market, and because of its cheaper cost and ease of application, liquid ASAs
are gaining popularity. The mechanism by which liquid ASAs work is by reducing the surface tension
between the aggregate surface and the asphalt binder. When surface tension is reduced, increased
adhesion of the binder to the aggregate is promoted. Thus, most liquid anti-stripping agents are
surface-active agents [19]. They are normally added in doses between 0.5 and 1.5 percent by weight of
the binder (as recommended by the manufacturer).
The liquid ASA may be added either to the aggregate directly, or to the heated binder. Both of these
procedures have certain concerns. An economical method of mixing the liquid anti-stripping agent
with the asphalt is by heating the asphalt to a liquid state. The liquid asphalt commonly is mixed with
the liquid anti-stripping agent prior to adding aggregate to the mix. [19] If added to the heated binder,
care should be taken to ensure that the liquid ASA is heat stable, and will not disintegrate at such high
temperatures. However, a more successful method of adding the additive is to apply it directly to the
aggregate prior to the addition of the binder [7]. The main problem concerning added the liquid
additives directly to the aggregate is that, uniform coating of all the aggregates is not ensured due to
such a small quantity of the ASA.
2.6.3. Lime Additives
A number of additives including the liquid additives are used to reduce moisture sensitivity and
stripping in all over the world. However know a day the most widely used anti-strip additive is hydrated
lime. Pavement contractors usually prefer liquid anti-strip additives as they are relatively easy to use.
By using diverse testing mechanisms especially in U.S state departments of transportation different
researches were conducted to understand the relative effect or advantages of lime versus various liquid
anti-strip agents. From these researches it is found or proved that lime is beneficial than other anti-
stripping agents.

14
Addition of lime is the most accepted way to reduce the moisture susceptibility of HMA in many parts
of the world. The anti-stripping mechanism of lime additives is not well understood. However, it is
assumed that the mechanism by which hydrated lime improves the moisture susceptibility of the HMA
involves a chemical interaction between the calcium in the lime with the silicates in the aggregate [5].
Depending upon how hydrated lime is introduced into the asphalt mixture it may coat the aggregate
surface changing its bonding sites from acidic to basic. That transformation promotes strong bonds
between the bitumen and aggregate preventing water from breaking them apart. In addition, hydrated
lime reacts with the acid components of the bitumen forming water insoluble calcium salts. The
removal of those acid components further protects the adhesive bond by eliminating the possibility
of damaging soaps forming in the binder [11].
The general practice is to add 1 to 1.5 percent of lime by dry weight of aggregate to the mix. Hydrated
lime has proven to work effectively in a wide variety of aggregate sources. If an aggregate has more
fines present, it may be necessary to use more lime additive due to the increased surface area of the
aggregate. Three forms of lime are used: hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2), quick lime (CaO), and Dolomitic
limes.[19] Recent studies were evaluated the changes in rheology, aging kinetics, and oxidative hardening
created by adding lime to HMA. Extensive binder and mixture tests measured improvements in high
temperature performance (rutting resistance), fatigue cracking resistance, and low temperature
fracture.
Researches done in all over the world show that hydrated lime has additional advantages other than
moisture susceptibility. Researchers conducted in U.S indicate that the addition of hydrated lime to
HMA increases stiffness. This helps to distribute and reduce the stresses and strains in the pavement
structure created by traffic loads and generally reduce rutting (permanent deformation) potential. The
results of laboratory wheel tracking tests conducted in Colorado, Georgia and Oregon State University
indicate that hydrated lime increases resistance to rutting and permanent deformation. Creep tests in
Texas also clearly show that hydrated lime promotes high temperature stability, thereby increasing
resistance to rutting [02].
Rutting most commonly occurs early in a pavement’s life. Its causes include specification of a binder
that is too soft for the traffic conditions, excessive air voids, or lack of stone-on-stone contact in the
mixture. Over time the mixture will stiffen as traffic further compacts the pavement and
environmental conditions oxidize the bitumen increasing its viscosity. However, for the first several
years that a pavement is in service it must be sufficiently stiff to resist rutting.
The fine particle size of hydrated lime (often 50% smaller than 5) contributes significantly to
stiffening the mastic of the asphalt mixture. The mastic is the combination of bitumen and particles
finer than 75 that coat the aggregate and fill the spaces within the stone skeleton of the mixture. The
lime is more effective filler than equivalently sized stone fillers due to its chemical activity [11].
As can be seen in tests measuring dynamic modulus (E), an important test in mixture design and
prediction of life cycle performance, hydrated lime is superior to inert fillers in stiffening asphalt
mixtures at high temperatures. While it is important for mixtures to be stiff at high pavement
temperatures it is critical that the bitumen is able to relax at low temperatures to avoid thermal

15
cracking. At low temperatures the chemical activity of hydrated lime is reduced. In that state it
contributes to improved pavement toughness, and an increased capacity for the mastic to relax during
times when thermal cracking is an issue [20].
Similarly Researches conducted in German prove and accept the practical effectiveness of hydrated
lime in HMA to improve moisture sensitivity and stiffening. Field research on two road sections
confirms that the addition of 1.0 to 1.5 percent hydrated lime by weight of the mixture can
substantially improve rut resistance [02]. Also researches done in Czech under The Institute for Road
Construction in Prague studied the influence of hydrated lime on HMA and constructed several test
pavement sections to determine the long-term behavior of hydrated lime in HMA. About 18.5 percent
hydrated lime by weight of the binder was added to mixtures and tested with the Nottingham Asphalt
tester and by rutting tests. The results clearly show that hydrated lime improves stability and increases
rutting resistance due to the filler effect, especially at elevated temperatures of between 300C and 400C.
This program will continue and will be complemented with field pavement performance and cost
evaluations [02].
Fatigue results from excessive tension in the pavement structure often caused by overweight vehicles,
shear stresses caused by traffic movement, or by rapid temperature change in the pavement. It can
also occur when a binder that is too stiff for traffic and climatic conditions is specified for the
pavement. As pavement age’s oxidation of the bitumen causes it to become brittle which also
contributes to fatigue cracking.
As chemically active filler hydrated lime not only contributes to stiffening asphalt mixtures but also
extends their fatigue life. Although, in general, stiffer asphalt mixes crack more readily, the addition
of lime improves fatigue characteristics and reduces cracking. Cracking often occurs due to the
formation of micro cracks. These micro cracks are intercepted and deflected by tiny particles of
hydrated lime. Repeated experiments at the Texas Transportation Institute and elsewhere have
demonstrated this phenomena under both dry and wet conditions [11].
One mechanism that explains hydrated lime’s ability to extend fatigue life in pavements, at the same
time stiffening them is called “crack pinning”. The tiny hydrate particles intercept and deflect micro
cracks as they form preventing them from merging into macro cracks that can reflect through the
pavement layer. Because of lime’s chemical activity it adsorbs acid components from the bitumen to
its surface, increasing the effective volume of the particles making them more effective than inert
fillers at intercepting the micro cracks [20].
Lime reduces cracking more than inactive fillers because of the reaction between the lime and the
polar molecules in the asphalt cement, which increases the effective volume of the lime particles by
surrounding them with large organic chains [21]. Consequently, the lime particles are better able to
intercept and deflect micro cracks, preventing them from growing together into large cracks that can
cause pavement failure.
In addition to these for over thirty years it has been well established that hydrated lime also reacts with
acid components of bitumen to produce beneficial changes that contribute to the creation of high
performance asphalt mixes. Extensive research in U.S shows that age hardening of many bitumen’s

16
or asphalt can be reduced by the addition of hydrated lime. As little as one-half of one percent hydrated
lime, by dry weight is needed to achieve a reduction in age hardening. This reduction in hardening has
been confirmed in a field study conducted by the Utah DOT [20].
Not only do acid components in the bitumen contribute to moisture sensitivity problems, they also
react over time with the environment and are transformed into viscosity building asphaltenes which
stiffen the bitumen and make it more brittle. When chemically active hydrate comes into contact with
bitumen it quickly reacts with acid components of the binder to transform them into insoluble salts.
When the acid components of the bitumen are removed its viscosity increases much more slowly over
time. The lower viscosity insures that the pavement will remain ductile and able to withstand the
rigors of traffic and climate without deteriorating [11].
In Belgium one Centre of researchers (CRR) verified that lime creates a significant improvement in
adhesion between binders and aggregates and also identifies an improvement in resistance to the
effects of oxidative hardening. The most significant research in Belgium monitored 15 test zones on
the wearing course of selected road for up to 10 years following construction. In cooperation with a
Dutch workgroup, Belgian researchers determined that after about seven years the asphalt zones that
had been modified with hydrated lime were in significantly better condition than zones made with
unmodified conventional bitumen’s. [02]
The broad array of benefits that result from the addition of hydrated lime to hot mix asphalt work
together to produce a superior and high performance product. Though the benefits have been
described individually, all of them work synergistically, contributing in multiple ways to the
improvement of the final product. Synergistic benefits also accrue when lime is used in conjunction
with polymer modifiers. Research has shown that in some situations lime and polymers used together
can produce improvements greater than each of them used alone.
2.7. Impact of Lime on Pavement Life and Life Cycle Costs (LCC)
The numerous benefits gained from adding hydrated lime to hot mix asphalt have a positive impact
upon the life cycle costs of asphalt pavements. The impact on pavement life and its life cycle costs is
the ultimate measure by which the effectiveness of an additive can be assessed. Regardless of how
effective the additive is in improving the properties of the various components or the entire HMA
mix, the ultimate challenge is to construct a less expensive pavement that will last longer. Therefore,
the final link in assessing the effectiveness of lime on HMA pavements is to take the improvements
that lime introduces on the various components and translate them into extension in pavement life
and lower life cycle costs. This task is huge and requires evaluating multiple levels of material
properties, pavement designs, and long term field performance.
Currently, there are two studies that have attempted to achieve such a goal using two different
approaches. These studies are summarized below.
Scientists developed a life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) model to compare the life cycle costs for HMA
pavements with and without lime [22]. The researchers surveyed in US on ten state DOTs and collected
data on the topics of reasons for using lime in HMA mixtures, the cost of adding lime in HMA
mixtures and the field performance of HMA mixtures. Reducing stripping was the most important

17
attribute of using lime in HMA mixtures for all DOTs followed by altering the properties of fines.
Improve aging resistance, stiffening the binder, and improve fracture toughness were ranked as lower
importance which may be a direct result of the lack of information on the impact of lime on these
properties. The cost of adding lime does not significantly vary among locations, but it significantly
varies between non-marinated and marinated mixtures. The research developed a computerized
LCCA model that incorporates initial costs, maintenance costs, and salvage values along with the
performance of HMA pavements with and without lime to compare the effectiveness of adding lime.
The study was based on data gathered from states that use lime to treat HMA mixtures with known
stripping problems. The LCCA data showed that the anti-stripping benefits of using lime in HMA
mixtures results in a wide range of savings with an approximate average saving of $2.00/yd2.This
translates into an approximate saving of $20/ton of HMA mix which compares very favorably with
the average additional costs of using lime of $1.25/ton for non-marinated and $4.00/ton for
marinated.
The researchers also conducted probabilistic LCCA of HMA pavements with and without lime. The
probabilistic analysis accounts for the inherent variability in materials properties and cost and in the
predicted field performance. The probabilistic analysis showed similar results to the deterministic
analysis with one additional finding: in 79 to 96 percent of the time, the life cycle costs of HMA
pavements with lime are less expensive than the life cycle costs of HMA pavements without lime. In
other words, there is a 79 to 96 percent chance that using HMA mixtures with lime will be less
expensive than using HMA mixtures without lime. [04]
In U.S the state of Nevada, a state with climatic zones ranging from desert to mountains,
commissioned a study to quantify the benefits that accrue from the use of hydrated lime. The study
examined equivalent lime treated and untreated pavements from both severe climatic zones, evaluating
both pavement and laboratory samples as well as pavement histories as reflected in the state’s
maintenance management program. The study concluded that Nevada gained an average of three
years additional life from pavements containing hydrated lime. That additional life translated into a
38% cost saving as compared to a 10% higher first cost of the asphalt mixtures. [20]
Additional studies are underway to evaluate the long-term performance of lime treated asphalt
pavements. Based upon the results to date and testimonials from the many states of U.S that specify
lime in their pavements the addition of hydrated lime is an inexpensive way to increase the life of
asphalt pavements.

18
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
3.1. Introduction
The goal of this study was to determine the moisture damage resistance of compacted asphalt
specimens modified with lime. The effectiveness of this additives were evaluated by comparing test
results conducted on unmodified (virgin) specimens. The test used in this study to compare the
moisture damage resistance were the modified Lottman indirect tensile test (AASHTO T 283). In
addition, other performance tests were conducted on the aggregate, asphalt binder, and un-compacted
specimens. All tests on aggregate, asphalt binder, loose mixtures, and compacted specimens were
conducted according to respective ERA, AASHTO and ASTM testing standards.
3.2. Experimental design
In this study, the effects of lime additive on HMA were evaluated in the laboratory. The research
evaluated various materials (i.e., aggregates, binders, and lime) using multiple test methods and
conditioning procedures.
Two aggregate sources were used with single type of asphalt binder (with penetration grade of 85 –
100) is used to formulate two aggregate asphalt binder combinations. Each of the two aggregate
asphalt binder combinations as then subdivided into three mixtures that were defined by the method
of lime application for same marination time. One of the three mixes was the control and did not
utilize lime in the mix design. This mix is referred as "no-lime". The other two mixes were fabricated
with lime treated aggregates dry lime to moist aggregates, lime slurry to dry aggregates with receiving
a 48 hour marination time.
3.3. Materials selection
Several materials were required for producing asphalt specimens. Since the main objective of the study
was to investigate the performance of lime with respect to overall parameters and moisture
susceptibility of various mixtures, it was important to evaluate not only lime, but also various aggregate
and binder sources. Usually certain aggregates have performed better than others with regard to
moisture susceptibility. For this reason, two crushed stone aggregates obtained locally from two
different sources.
The first one is get from quarry site of Enei Construction P.L.C around kality (kiliminto). This
aggregate used for construction of different road projects in Addis Ababa such as Shola - lem hotel
etc, in addition to that it also supplied to different construction purposes including the condominium
houses found in production nearby areas. The second aggregate is taking from Ethiopian Railway
Cooperation (ERC) used for construction of LRT project in Addis Ababa.
Both Aggregates are natural aggregates extracted from larger rock formations through an open
excavation (quarry) reduced to usable sizes by mechanical crushing. The aggregates geology can be
classified under igneous rocks specifically under the category of basalt. Igneous rocks are primarily

19
crystalline and are formed by the cooling of molten rock material beneath the earth’s crust (magma).
Since basalt stones are effectively hard, resistant to stripping, tough, good surface texture and crushed
shape usually we used them for hot mix asphalt mixture. Up to 150kg of aggregate from each source
was used to produce over 200 asphalt specimens tested in this study.
The asphalt binder used for testing was obtained from CORE consulting engineers. Approximately
30 liters of penetration grade 85 – 100 binder was required to produce the specimens. The 85 – 100
penetration grade is a common type of asphalt used locally on the Addis Ababa roads since the climate
is relatively mild. The asphalt was then heated and separated into small trays on a weekly basis to allow
for quicker heating during asphalt mixing. The hydrated lime additive used in testing were produced
in sankale lime factory and supplied to the market on local vendors.
3.4. Aggregate Tests and preparation
Important properties and performance tests were conducted when selecting aggregates for the asphalt
mix design. First, the bulk and apparent specific gravities were calculated for the range of aggregates.
Then performance tests for durability, angularity, and clay content were conducted.
Because of about 85% of the volume or around 95% in mass of dense graded HMA is made up of
aggregates, HMA pavement performance is greatly influenced by the characteristics of the aggregates.
Aggregates in HMA can be divided into three types according to their size: coarse aggregates, fine
aggregates, and mineral filler. Coarse aggregates are generally defined as those retained on the 2.36-
mm sieve. Fine aggregates are those that pass through the 2.36-mm sieve and are retained on the
0.075-mm sieve. Mineral filler is defined as that portion of the aggregate passing the 0.075-mm sieve.
Mineral filler is a very fine material with the consistency of flour and is also referred to as mineral dust
or rock dust.
Gravel refers to a coarse aggregate made up mostly of rounded particles. Gravels are often dredged
from rivers and are sometimes mined from deposits. Because of the rounded particle size, gravels are
not suitable for use in HMA mixtures unless they are well crushed. Poorly crushed gravels will not
interlock when used in HMA, and the resulting mixture will have poor strength and rut resistance.
Crushed stone is coarse aggregate that is mined and processed by mechanical crushing. It tends to be
a very angular material and, depending on its other properties, can be well suited for use in HMA
pavements. One potential problem with crushed stone is that the particles sometimes will tend to be
flat, elongated, or both, which can cause problems in HMA mixtures.
Ideally, the particles in crushed stone aggregate should be cubicle and highly angular. The fine
aggregate, or sand, used in HMA can be natural sand, manufactured sand, or a mixture of both types.
Natural sand is dredged from rivers or mined from deposits and is then processed by sieving to
produce a fine aggregate having the desired particle size distribution. Manufactured sand is produced
by crushing quarried stone and, like natural sand, sieving to produce the desired gradation.
The particles in manufactured sands tend to be more angular than those in natural sand and often will
produce HMA mixtures having greater strength and rut resistance compared to those made with

20
natural sand. However, this is not always true, and care is needed when selecting fine aggregate for
use in HMA mixtures.
Pavement engineers have worked for many years to relate specific aggregate properties to HMA
performance. Rutting, raveling, fatigue cracking, skid resistance, and moisture resistance have all been
related to aggregate properties. It is essential that engineers and technicians responsible for HMA mix
design thoroughly understand aggregate properties, how they relate to HMA pavement performance,
and how aggregate properties are specified and controlled as part of the mix design process.
Generally aggregates for HMA are required to be resistant to abrasion, sound, clean, and hydrophobic.
In addition to this the aggregate should be Toughness and Abrasion Resistance Aggregates through
internal friction and must transmit the wheel loads to the underlying layers and also be resistant to
abrasion and polishing due to traffic. Aggregates are subject to crushing and abrasive wear during
manufacturing, placing, and compaction of HMA. They must be hard and tough to resist crushing,
degradation; disintegration when stockpiled fed through a HMA facility, placed with paver, compacted
with rollers, and travelled over with trucks.
As stated previously for this research two different sources of aggregates were used and the
corresponding physical characteristics of each type of aggregate were as shown the table below.
Table 3.1: quality tests of the aggregates used for laboratory test
Type of tests Aggregate A Aggregate B Specification (ERA)
< 30 (wearing course)
LAA (%), Grading A (AASHTO T 96) 13 14 < 35 (other)
Elongation Index (%), (BS 812 Part 105.1) 22 21
Flakiness Index (%), (BS 812 Part 105.1) 24 23 < 45 per cent
Soundness loss by NaSO4 (%), (AASTO T 104) 3.3 4.1 < 12 percent
ACV (%), (BS 812 Part 110) 12 15 < 25 For weaker
TFV Dry (KN) (BS 812 Part 111) 275 265
TFV Wet (KN) (BS 812 Part 111) 180 160
19 mm pass - 4.75 mm retained
Bulk specific gravity AASHTO T 85 2.577 2.784 N/A
Bulk specific gravity (SSD) AASHTO T 85 2.635 2.850 N/A
Apparent specific gravity AASHTO T 85 2.736 2.983 N/A
Water Absorption (%) AASHTO T 85 2.250 2.400 <1
4.75 mm pass – 0.075 mm retained
Bulk specific gravity AASHTO T 84 2.543 2.755 N/A
Bulk specific gravity (SSD) AASHTO T 84 2.621 2.831 N/A
Apparent specific gravity AASHTO T 84 2.757 2.982 N/A
Water Absorption (%) AASHTO T 84 3.050 2.750 <2
Aggregate A = source from ERC LRT project, Aggregate B = Source from Enei construction
Average Aggregate Specific Gravity. Because the aggregate used in producing asphalt concrete is
almost always a blend of two or more aggregates, usually having different values for bulk specific
gravity, volumetric calculations such as the ones described below must be done using an average bulk

21
specific gravity for the aggregate blend. This average value can be calculated using the following
equation:
𝐏𝐬𝟏 +𝐏𝐬𝟐 +𝐏𝐬𝟑 + …
𝐆𝐬𝐛 = 𝐏𝐬𝟏 𝐏 𝐏 …………………….. eq. 3.1
(𝐆 )+(𝐆 𝐬𝟐 )+(𝐆 𝐬𝟑 )+ …
𝐬𝐛𝟏 𝐬𝐛𝟐 𝐬𝐛𝟑
Where
Gsb=overall bulk specific gravity for aggregate blend
Ps1= volume % of aggregate 1 in aggregate blend
Gsb1= bulk specific gravity for aggregate 1
Ps2=volume % of aggregate 2 in aggregate blend
Gsb2= bulk specific gravity for aggregate 2
Ps3 =volume % of aggregate 3 in aggregate blend
Gsb3= bulk specific gravity for aggregate 3
The particle size distribution, or gradation, of an aggregate is one of the most influential aggregate
characteristics in determining how it will perform as a pavement material. In HMA, gradation helps
determine almost every important property including stiffness, stability, durability, permeability,
workability, fatigue resistance, frictional resistance and moisture susceptibility. Because of this,
gradation is a primary concern in HMA mix design and thus most agencies specify allowable aggregate
gradations.
Gradation is usually determined by sieve analysis. Sieve analysis involves passing the material through
a series of sieves stacked with progressively smaller openings from top to bottom, and then weighing
the material retained on each sieve. The gradation normally is expressed as total percent passing
various sieve sizes. It is unlikely that a single natural or quarried material will meet the specifications
necessary. Two or more aggregates of different gradations are typically blended to meet specification
limits. The nature of particle size distribution can be examined by graphically representing the
gradation by a cumulative percent passing on a semi-log scale.
Sieves typically used for sieve analysis and gradation specifications for aggregates in HMA are 2 inches
(50.8 mm), 1.5 inches (38 mm), 1 inch (25.4 mm), 0.75 inch (19mm), 0.5 inch (12.5mm), 0.375 inch
(9.5mm), No. 4 (4.75mm), No. 8 (2.36mm), No. 16 (1.18mm), No. 30 (0.6mm), No. 50 (0.3mm), No.
100 (0.15mm), and No. 200 (0.075mm) respectively.
Theoretically, it would seem reasonable that the best gradation for HMA is one that gives the densest
particle packing. The gradation having maximum density provides increased stability through
increased inter-particle contacts and reduced voids in the mineral aggregate. However, there must be
sufficient air void space to permit enough asphalt cement to be incorporated to ensure durability,
while still leaving some air space in the mixture to avoid bleeding and/or rutting. A tightly packed
aggregate (low voids in mineral aggregate) also results in a mixture that is more sensitive to slight
changes in asphalt content.
Specification of aggregate gradation for HMA mix is established on different manuals such as ASTM,
AASHTO, etc. and also in our country on manuals of Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA) and Addis
Ababa City Road Authority (AACRA).

22
Asphaltic concrete (AC) is a dense, continuously graded mix which relies for its strength on both the
interlock between aggregate particles and, to a lesser extent, on the properties of the bitumen and
filler. The mix is designed to have low air voids and low permeability to provide good durability and
good fatigue behavior but this makes the material particularly sensitive to errors in proportioning, and
mix tolerances are therefore very narrow[23]. The following table indicates of particle size distributions
for wearing course material specified by ASTM to produced workable mixes that have not generally
suffered from deformation failures.
Table 3.2: ASTM specification for surface hot mix asphalt surface layer

Test sieve Percent passing test sieve

(mm) Fine Average Coarse Specification
19 100 100 100 100
12.5 100 95 90 90 - 100
9.5 - - - -
4.75 74 59 44 44 - 74
2.36 58 43 28 28 - 58
0.3 21 13 5 5 - 21
0.075 10 6 2 2-6

100
90
80
Cummulative pass

70
Course
60
50 Dense
40
Fine
30
20
10
0
75 μm 300 μm 2.36 mm 4.75 mm 12.5 mm 19 mm
sive size

Figure 3.1: Aggregate gradation chart for ASTM Specification

Based on the specification for gradation indicated on the above table and figure, for this reaserch or
thesis a nominial size of mix aggrigate is selected to be 12.5 mm.

3.5. Asphalt binder test and result

Asphalt binders, sometimes referred to as asphalt cement binders or simply asphalt cement, are an
essential component of asphalt concrete they are the cement that holds the aggregate together. Asphalt
binders are a co-product of refining crude petroleum to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oils,

23
and many other petroleum products. Asphalt binder is produced from the thick, heavy residue that
remains after fuels and lubricants are removed from crude oil.
This heavy residue can be further processed in various ways, such as steam reduction and oxidation,
until it meets the desired set of specifications for asphalt binders. For demanding, high-performance
applications, small amounts of polymers are sometimes blended into the asphalt binder, producing a
polymer-modified binder. In general asphalts can be classified into three general types:
 Asphalt cement
 Asphalt emulsion
 Cutback asphalt
Cutbacks and emulsions are used almost entirely for cold mixing and spraying and will not use
for hot mix asphalt mixture. Because of its chemical complexities, asphalt specifications have
been developed around physical property tests, such as penetration, viscosity and ductility. These
tests are performed at standard test temperatures, and the results are used to determine if
the material meets the specification criteria.
Asphalt binders have been mixed with crushed aggregate to form paving materials for over 100 years.
They are a very useful and valuable material for constructing flexible pavement worldwide. However,
asphalt binders have very unusual engineering properties that must be carefully controlled in order to
ensure good performance. One of the most important characteristics of asphalt binders that must be
addressed in test methods and specifications is that their precise properties almost always depend on
their temperature.
Asphalt binders tend to be very stiff and brittle at low temperatures, thick fluids at high temperatures,
and leathery/rubbery semi-solids at intermediate temperatures. Such extreme changes in properties
can cause performance problems in pavements. At high temperatures, a pavement with a binder that
is too soft will be prone to rutting and shoving. On the other hand, a pavement that contains a binder
that is too stiff at low temperatures will be prone to low-temperature cracking.
There is an extreme change in modulus that occurs in asphalt binders over the range of temperatures.
Specifications for asphalt binders must control properties at high, low, and intermediate temperatures.
Furthermore, test methods used to specify asphalt binders usually must be conducted with very careful
temperature control; otherwise, the results will not be reliable. Asphalt binders are also very sensitive
to the time or rate of loading. When tested at a fast loading rate, an asphalt binder will be much stiffer
than when tested at a slow loading rate. Therefore, time or rate of loading must also be specified and
carefully controlled when testing asphalt binders.
3.5.1. Asphalt Specifications and Grades
Asphalt cements can be graded according to four different systems
 Penetration
 Viscosity
 Viscosity after aging
 Performance grade (PG)

24
Penetration grading describes relative hardness based on the penetration test. In penetration
grading, the higher the number the softer the asphalt. A 200-300 penetration grade asphalt is softer
than a 40-50 penetration grade.
The viscosity grading use a numbering system to describe relative viscosity. The higher the number
the more viscous (or thicker) the asphalt. In the viscosity after aging system asphalt is classified after
it has been artificially aged. The performance grade, or PG system, describes asphalt based on the
pavement temperatures under which the asphalt is expected to perform. The PG system is a part of
the superpave system. A PG 64-28 asphalt is designed for pavement temperatures as high as 64oC
and as low as -28°C.
For this research experimental works bitumen of penetration grade 85/100 is used and collected from
CORE consulting Engineers P.L.C. The main reason of using this grade is because of its common
type of asphalt that widely use in most road projects in our country to construct roads especially places
where relatively mild climates like Addis Ababa.
Approximately 20 Kg binder was consuming to produce more than 200 specimens. A series of tests
including penetration, specific gravity, softening point, flash point, ductility, and solubility in carbon
tetrachloride were conducted for the basic characterization properties of penetration grade asphalt.
The test results are shown in Table 3.3, which complies with the requirement of ERA specifications.
Table 3.3: Laboratory test result of 85 – 100 asphalt binder
Specification
Test Name Result For 80/100
AASHTO T 44
Solubility in Trichloroethylene (%) 99.8 99.0 min
AASHTO T 47, Loss on Heating (%) 20 100 max
AASHTO T 48, Flash point, oF 590 232 min
AASHTO T 49
Penetration at 25 oC, 100g, 5sec 90 85 - 100
AASHTO T 51, Ductility at 25 oC (Cm) 100+ 100+
Penetration of residue percent of
original, at 25 oC, 100g, 5sec 89 50 min.
Ductility of residue, cm 100+ 75 min.
o
AASHTO T 53, Softening Point ( C) 52.5 42 - 51
AASHTO T 228-06, Specific gravity at
25 oC (Kg/m3) 1022 1020 ±
In addition to aggregate and asphalt binder, the hydrated lime used was added constantly in 1.5% in
the total weight of the AC mixes. This value of lime additive is selected because of it is a common
practice of using Hydrated Lime Content between 1% and 3% (percent of dry weight of aggregate).20
For example the required hydrated lime application rate in the Nevada DOT specification is not less

25
than 1 percent and not more than 2.5 percent of the mass of the dry aggregate.26 Most of the time this
range contracted specifically with in the gap of between 1 percent and 2 percent.
For this research 1.5% of hydrated lime is selected as most U.S DOTs recommend or specify the
required hydrated lime application rate is not less than 1 percent and not more than 2.5 percent of the
mass of the dry aggregate [26]. Therefore for each of the samples prepared for marshal test specimens
1.5% of 1200gm (total mass of aggregate) which is 18gm of hydrated lime is used. The only test done
on the lime additive is determination of specific gravity and it is obtained as 2.747. Which can be used
to find the average aggregate specific gravity.
Similar to the aggregate source, the binder source will also affect the ability of lime to prevent or
minimize moisture induced damage of asphalt pavements. Asphalt cement generally is obtained from
distillation of crude petroleum using different refining techniques. At ambient temperatures asphalt
cement is a semi-solid material that must be heated to mix with an aggregate. Asphalt is strong and
durable cement with excellent adhesive and waterproofing characteristics.
3.6. Un-compacted Asphalt Mix Test
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density (AASHTO T 209)
The theoretical maximum specific gravity of an asphalt concrete mixture is the specific gravity of the
mixture at zero air void content. It is one of the most difficult tests performed in paving materials
laboratories and also one of the most important. Like bulk specific gravity, theoretical maximum
specific gravity in and of itself does not affect the performance of a paving mixture. However, it is
essential in determining volumetric factors that are good indicators of performance, such as air void
content, VMA and the amount of binder absorbed by the aggregate particles.
Maximum specific gravity is determined by measuring the specific gravity of the loose paving mixture,
after removing all of the air entrapped in the mixture by subjecting the mixture to a partial vacuum
(vacuum saturation). The loose mix is prepared by gently heating the sample in an oven until it can be
easily broken apart. The mixture is then removed from the oven and occasionally stirred while cooling,
to make sure that it remains broken up as much as possible into separate particles of asphalt-coated
aggregate.
For this test, asphalt mix specimens for each mix variation were prepared and cured for two hours.
Mixes were then cooled in a loose, un-compacted state and placed in a vacuum container filled with
distilled water. A high vacuum pump attached to the container and activated for at least 15 minutes,
removing entrapped air.
Shaking of the container was required to remove air bubbles. After vacuum saturation, the container
was removed from the pump and filled to the calibrated level with water. Then the mass of the
container, specimen, and water was determined. This value, along with the dry mass of the specimen
and mass of the container filler with just water, was used to determine the theoretical maximum
specific gravity by the following equation:
Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity = A/ (A + D – E)…………………….. eq. 3.2

26
Where:
A = mass of oven dry specimen (g);
D = mass of container filled with 25°C water (g);
E = mass of container filled with specimen and water (g);
The theoretical maximum specific gravities of each mix design is shown in the tables used for air
voids calculation.
3.7. Asphalt mix design
3.7.1. Marshall Mix design
For this study the Marshall Mix Design method for HMA mixtures was used to identify the optimum
asphalt binder contents for all mixtures. Therefore preparing Marshall Specimens using the Marshall
procedures for individual specimens are necessary. Dry and sieve aggregates into sizes (preferably
individual sizes) and store in clean sealable containers. Separate enough material to make 2 (types of
aggregate) × 15 (samples for five bitumen and three samples for each bitumen) × 3 (Three lime
application) = 90 specimens of approximately 1200gm each. Next weigh out aggregate for each lime
treated conditions of specimens placing each in a separate container and heat to mixing temperature
determined from the asphalt property. Then heat sufficient asphalt cement to prepare the total
specimens on each step. Asphalt contents should be selected at 0.5 percent increments with at least
two asphalt contents above "optimum" and at least two below "optimum."
It is necessary to mix asphalt cement and aggregate until all the aggregate is coated. It is helpful to
work on a heated table. Mixing can be by hand, but a mechanical mixer is preferred. Also it is essential
to check temperature of freshly mixed material; if it is above the compaction temperature, allow it to
cool to compaction temperature; if it is below compaction temperature, discard the material and make
a new mix.
3.7.2. Specimen preparation
A total of 6 mix designs were developed: (two aggregate sources) x (one asphalt binder) x (three lime
treatments). Therefore it is necessary to prepare the proper materials before go into the mix procedure.
Aggregates should be oven dry after the lime application.
There was a significant amount of testing conducted throughout the progression of this study and, as
such, there were several procedures followed for mix design, sample preparation, sample conditioning,
and physical testing. The laboratory sampling plan consisting of preparing both lime treated and non-
lime treated samples. The following flow chart shows the procedure of asphalt mix design.

27
 Dry and seive the aggregate into
individual size fraction.

Prepare the aggregate gradation in

accordance to ASTM, Table 3.2.

The selected aggregate were placed in a

160 0C oven overnight.

Apply lime additives and marinate for

48 hours.

The binder was heated to the mixing

temperature (Table 3.4) in an oven.

keeping compaction temprature, placed

The appropriate mass of binder was
loose mixture into a 150 mm mold and
added to the hot aggregate and mixed
compacted with 75 blows usnig marshall
with a mechanical bucket mixer.
compactor. ( For heavy traffic )

Gmm is determined as per AASHTO T 209

When the mold is cool at room and the bulk specific gravity and void
temprature the samples were extracted content for each mix design sample was
from the molds and wait 24 hr for measured per AASHTO T 166.
stability and flow test.
(As ERA recommend)

The optimum binder content was

determined at a void content of 3 - 5%.

If No Adjust aggregate gradation.

Does the mix meet the specifications in

Table 3.8 at the OBC?

If Yes Prepare moisture susceptibility

samples.

Figure 3.2: Flowchart of the asphalt mix design procedure.

28
The temperature to which the asphalt must be heated to produce viscosities of 170 ± 20 centistokes
kinematic and 280 ± 30 centistokes kinematic shall be established as the mixing temperature and
compaction temperatures, respectively. These temperatures can be estimated from a plot of the
viscosity (log-log centistokes scale) versus temperature (log degrees Rankine scale, oR= oF+ 459.7)
relationship for the asphalt cement to be used.
3.7.3. Weight Volume relationships on compacted hot mix asphalt and volumetric analysis
Asphalt concrete primarily consists of three different components or phases: aggregate, asphalt binder
and air. Materials like concrete, which consist of particles held together by a cement of any type, are
called composites. Some asphalt concrete mixtures contain small amounts of other additives, such as
cellulose fibers, mineral fibers, ground rubber, and polymers. Although such additives may affect
workability and performance significantly, these additives almost always represent a very small
percentage of the overall volume and mass of the asphalt concrete. Engineers and technicians should
remember the three major components of asphalt concrete aggregate, asphalt, and air. These three
components are the key to understanding volumetric analysis. The composition of asphalt concrete
can be described in terms of either weight or volume.
The asphalt binder content of a mixture, for example, is often given in terms of percent of total mix
weight, whereas air void content is always given as a percent of total volume. It must be given this
way, since the mass of air voids in an asphalt concrete specimen is essentially zero. Although
composition of asphalt concrete mixtures can be given in terms of weight, traditionally the most
common and most important method of describing and analyzing asphalt concrete composition is by
volume. This is what it meant by the term “volumetrics” or “volumetric analysis” of asphalt concrete
characterizing the composition of an asphalt concrete mixture by relative proportions by volume of
aggregate, asphalt, and air voids. Although this may sound like a simple task, it can become quite
complicated when absorption of asphalt by the aggregate must be accounted for or when only
incomplete information on a mixture is available. It is essential that engineers and technicians
responsible for developing asphalt concrete mix designs or performing quality control operations have
a thorough understanding of volumetric analysis.
Figure 3-3 illustrates the definitions of variables used to define various volumes as used in volumetric
analysis. The volume of permeable pores in the aggregate surface containing asphalt shows up in three
different terms: the aggregate bulk volume (Vsb), the total asphalt volume (Vb), and the absorbed
asphalt volume (Vba). Also, in this manual the convention adopted for volume terms is that the capital
letter V followed by a subscript denotes the absolute volume of a particular component, whereas V
followed by capital letters denotes a percentage by volume. Thus, VMA represents the absolute
volume of voids in the mineral aggregate (in units of cm3, for example), whereas VMA indicates the
voids in the mineral aggregate as a volume percentage. A set of variables similar to those given in
Figure 3-3 can be defined for the mass terms used in volumetric analysis:

29
 Mbe = Mass of effective asphalt binder
Mba = Mass of absorbed asphalt binder
Ms = Mass of aggregate, total
Mb = Mass of asphalt binder, total
Mse = Mass of aggregate, effective (excluding surface
pores filled with asphalt)
Ma = Mass of air voids
Mmb = Mass of specimen, total
V be = Volume of effective asphalt binder
VBE = Effective asphalt content, percent by volume
V ba = Volume of absorbed asphalt binder
VBA = Absorbed asphalt binder, percent by total mix
volume
Vma = Volume of voids in mineral aggregate
VMA = Voids in mineral aggregate, percent by volume
Vsb = Volume of aggregate, bulk (including all permeable surface pores)
Vb = Volume of asphalt binder, total
VB = Total asphalt binder content, percent by volume
Vse = Volume of aggregate, effective (excluding surface pores filled with asphalt)
Va = Volume of air voids
Va = Air void content, volume percent
Vmm = Volume of aggregate and asphalt
Vmb = Volume of specimen, total
Figure 3-3: Definition of volume terms used in volumetric analysis.
Typical asphalt concrete mixtures, as designed in the laboratory, contain about 84 to 90% aggregate,
6 to 12% asphalt binder, and about 4% air voids by volume. Asphalt concrete is mostly composed of
aggregate. If the volume percentage of two of these components is known, the other can be
determined by subtraction. For example, if we know that a mixture is to be designed with 4% air voids
and 10% asphalt binder by volume, we can calculate the amount of aggregate required as 100 −(4 +
10) = 86% by volume.
When a sample paving mixture is prepared in the laboratory, it can be analyzed to determine its
probable performance in a pavement structure. The analysis focuses on four characteristics of the
mixture and the influence those characteristics are likely to have on mix behavior. They are:
• Mix density
• Air Voids
• Voids in the mineral aggregate
• Asphalt content
Mix Density
The density of the compacted mix is its unit weight or the weight of a specific volume of mix.
Density is particularly important because high density of the finished pavement is essential for
lasting pavement performance. In mix design testing and analysis, density of the compacted
specimen is usually expressed in kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3). It is calculated by multiplying
the bulk specific gravity of the mix by the density of water (1,000 kg/m3).

30
The bulk specific gravity of a mixture refers to the specific gravity of a specimen of compacted
mixture, including the volume of air voids within the mixture. It is equivalent to the mass of a given
specimen in grams, divided by its total volume in cubic centimeters. The bulk specific gravity of an
asphalt concrete mixture can be determined using either laboratory compacted specimens or cores
or slabs cut from a pavement.
The standard procedure for determining the bulk specific gravity of compacted asphalt concrete
involves weighing the specimen in air and in water. The following formula is used for calculating bulk
specific gravity of a saturated surface-dry specimen:
Gmb=A/ (B-C) …………………….. eq. 3.3
Where
Gmb= bulk specific gravity of compacted specimen
A = mass of the dry specimen in air, g
B = mass of the saturated surface-dry specimen in air, g, and
C = mass of the specimen in water, g
The specimen density and the maximum theoretical density, both of which are determined in the
laboratory, are each used as standards to determine if the density of the finished pavement meets
specification requirements.
Air Voids
Air voids are small pockets of air between the coated aggregate particles in the final compacted HMA.
Air void content does not include pockets of air within individual aggregate particles, or air contained
in microscopic surface voids or capillaries on the surface of the aggregate. A certain percentage of air
voids is necessary in the finished HMA to allow for a slight amount of compaction under traffic and
a slight amount of asphalt expansion due to temperature increases. The allowable percentage of air
voids in laboratory specimens is between 3 percent and 5 percent for surface and base courses,
depending on the specific design.
The durability of an asphalt pavement is a function of the air void content. Therefore designing and
maintaining the proper air void content in HMA and other mix types is important for several reasons.
When air void contents are too high, the pavement may be too permeable to air and water, resulting
in significant moisture damage and rapid age hardening. When air void contents are too low, the
asphalt binder content may be too high, resulting in a mixture prone to rutting, bleeding and shoving.
In Marshall Mix design method of HMA, the allowable range for air void content in laboratory mix
designs is range between 3.0 to 5.0%. However the in-place air void content of HMA pavement is
often assumed to be about 7%, but recent research suggests that immediately after construction the
air void content of HMA pavements typically ranges from about 6 to 11%, with a median value
between 8 and 9% [25]. Cores taken from a newly constructed pavement will generally have air void
contents in this range. However, once the pavement is opened to traffic, the repeated loading as trucks
pass over the pavement will tend to further compact the material in the wheel paths of the pavement.
Determining air void content is one of the main purposes of volumetric analysis. Unfortunately, there
is no simple direct way to determine the air void content of an asphalt concrete specimen. Air void

31
content is determined by comparing the specific gravity (or density) of a compacted specimen with
the maximum theoretical density of the mixture used to make that specimen. For example, if the
compacted density of an asphalt concrete specimen is 95.3% of the theoretical maximum specific
gravity, the air void content is 100 − 95.3 = 4.7%.
Density and air void content are directly related. The higher the density is the lower the void in the
mix will be, and vice versa. Job specifications usually require the pavement compaction achieve an air
void content of less than 8 percent and more than 3 percent. Air void content is calculated from the
mixture bulk and theoretical maximum specific gravity:
Gmb
Va = 100 [1 − ]…………………….. eq. 3.4
Gmm
Where
Va = Air void content, volume %
Gmb=Bulk specific gravity of compacted mixture
Gmm=Theoretical maximum specific gravity of loose mixture
For this research Air void in the mix is one factor of comparison between limes treated and untreated
conditions. Also, the moisture susceptibility test is done for 7±1% air void as stated in AASHTO T
283.
Voids in the Mineral Aggregate (VMA)
It is the inter-granular void spaces that exist between the aggregate particles in a compacted paving
mixture. VMA includes air voids and spaces filled with asphalt. VMA is a volumetric measurement
expressed as a percentage of the total bulk volume of a compacted mix.
VMA represents; the space that is available to accommodate the effective volume of asphalt (i.e., all
of the asphalt except the portion lost by absorption into the aggregate) and the volume of air voids
necessary in the mixture. The more VMA in the dry aggregate, the more space is available for the films
of asphalt. The durability of the mix increases with the film thickness on the aggregate particles.
Therefore, specific minimum requirements for VMA are recommended and specified as a function of
the aggregate size.
Table 3.4: Void in the mineral aggregate (ERA manual)
Nominal maximum Minimum void in
particle size (mm) mineral aggregate, %
7.5 12
28 12.5
20 14
14 15
10 16
5 18
Minimum VMA is necessary to achieve an adequate asphalt film thickness, which results in a durable
asphalt pavement. Increasing the density of the gradation of the aggregate to a point where below-
minimum VMA values are obtained leads to thin films of asphalt and a low-durability mix. Therefore,

32
economizing in asphalt content by lowering VMA is actually counter-productive and detrimental to
pavement quality. Table 3.4 shows specification for VMA in ERA manual.
VMA is simply the sum of the air void content and the effective asphalt binder content by volume:
VMA = Va − Vbe or
𝐆𝐦𝐛 (𝟏−𝑷𝒃 )
𝐕𝐌𝐀 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 (𝟏 − )…………………….. eq. 3.5
𝑮𝒔𝒃
Where
VMA =Voids in the mineral aggregate, % by total mixture volume
Va= Air void content, % by total mixture volume
Vbe= Effective binder content, % by total mixture volume
Binder Content
Binder content is one of the most important characteristics of asphalt concrete. Use of the proper
amount of binder is essential to good performance in asphalt concrete mixtures. Too little binder will
result in a dry stiff mix that is difficult to place and compact and will be prone to fatigue cracking and
other durability problems. Too much binder will be uneconomical, since asphalt binder is, by far, the
most expensive component of the mixture and will make the mixture susceptible to rutting and
shoving. Typical asphalt binder contents range from 3.0% or less (for lean base course mixtures) to
over 6.0% (for surface course mixtures and rich bottom layers), which are designed for exceptional
durability and fatigue resistance [25].
Asphalt binder content can be calculated in four different ways: total binder content by weight,
effective binder content by weight, total binder content by volume, and effective binder content by
volume. Total asphalt content by volume is calculated as the percentage of binder by total mix mass:
𝐌𝐛
𝐏𝐛 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 ( )…………………….. eq. 3.6
𝐌𝐬 +𝐌𝐛
Where
Pb= Total asphalt binder content, % by mix mass
Mb= Mass of binder in specimen
Ms = Mass of aggregate in specimen

Total asphalt binder content by volume can be calculated as a percentage of total mix volume using
the following formula:
𝑷𝒃 𝑮𝒎𝒃
𝑽𝒃 = …………………….. eq. 3.7
𝑮𝒃
Where
Vb= Total asphalt binder content, % by total mix volume
Pb= Total asphalt binder content, % by mix mass
Gmb= Bulk specific gravity of the mixture
Gb=Specific gravity of the asphalt binder
The absorbed asphalt binder content by volume is also calculated as a percentage of total mix volume:

33
 𝐏 𝐏𝐬 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝐕𝐛𝐚 = 𝐆𝐦𝐛 [( 𝐛 ) + ( )−( )]…………………….. eq. 3.8
𝐆𝐛 𝐆𝐬𝐛 𝐆𝐦𝐦
Where
Vba = Absorbed asphalt content, % by total mixture volume
Gmb= Bulk specific gravity of the mixture
Pb= Total asphalt binder content, % by mix mass
Gb= Specific gravity of the asphalt binder
Ps = Total aggregate content, % by mix mass
= 100 - Pb
Gsb= Average bulk specific gravity for the aggregate blend
Gmm= Maximum specific gravity of the mixture
The effective asphalt by volume is found by subtracting the absorbed asphalt content from the total
asphalt content:
𝑽𝒃𝒆 = 𝑽𝒃 − 𝑽𝒃𝒂 …………………….. eq. 3.9
Where
Vbe= Effective asphalt content, % by total mixture volume
Vb= Total asphalt binder content, % by mixture volume
Vba, = Absorbed asphalt content, % by total mixture volume
The effective and absorbed asphalt binder contents can also be calculated as percentages by weight,
once the volume percentage has been calculated:
𝐕𝐛𝐞
𝐏𝐛𝐞 = 𝐏𝐛 ( )…………………….. eq. 3.10
𝐕𝐛

𝐏𝐛𝐚 = 𝐏𝐛 − 𝐏𝐛𝐞 …………………….. eq. 3.11

Where
Pbe= Effective asphalt binder content, % by total mass
Pb= Asphalt binder content, % by total mass (see Equation 5-5)
Vbe= Effective asphalt binder content, % by total mixture volume (see Equation 5-8)
Vb= Asphalt binder content, % by total mixture volume (see Equation 5-6)
Pba= Absorbed asphalt binder, % by total mixture mass
Voids Filled with Asphalt
Voids filled with asphalt (VFA) is the percentage of inter-granular void space between the aggregate
particles (VMA) that contains or is filled with asphalt. VFA is used to ensure that the effective asphalt
part of the VMA in a mix is not too little (dry, poor durability) or too great (wet, unstable). The
acceptable range of VFA varies depending upon the traffic level for the facility. Higher traffic requires
a lower VFA, because mixture strength and stability is more of a concern. Lower traffic facilities
require a higher range of VFA to increase HMA durability. A VFA that is too high, however, will
generally yield a plastic mix.
In designing asphalt concrete mixtures, VFA is closely related to both VMA and Vbe. This is because
with the design air void content constant at about 4.0%, as VMA increases, Vbe increases and VFA
also increases. Therefore, in most cases VFA should be thought of as simply an indicator of mix
richness, like VMA or Vbe. If design voids are fixed or allowed to vary only over a narrow range, there
is little point in simultaneously controlling VMA, Vbe, and/or VFA.

34
It is not entirely clear what aspects of performance are related to VFA that are not also strongly related
to other volumetric factors, especially Vbe. Some engineers have proposed that fatigue resistance
increases with increasing VFA. However, VFA and Vbe are strongly related.
Recent research strongly suggests that Vbe is a somewhat better overall indicator of fatigue resistance
in asphalt concrete mixtures. Therefore, in order to control or evaluate fatigue resistance, engineers
and technicians should either use Vbe, or VMA at a constant design air void content.
VFA is the effective binder content expressed as a percentage of the VMA:
Vbe
VFA = 100 ( ) or
VMA
𝐕𝐌𝐀−𝐕𝒂
𝐕𝐅𝐀 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 ( )…………………….. eq. 3.12
𝐕𝐌𝐀

Where VFA is the voids filled with asphalt, as a volume percentage.

Apparent Film Thickness
“Film thickness,” when applied to asphalt concrete mixtures, refers to the average thickness of binder
coating aggregate particles in the mixture. Some engineers and researchers have proposed that this is
an important characteristic related to several aspects of pavement performance. Mixtures with low
film thickness will be brittle and prone to durability problems, while mixtures with high film thickness
will have too much asphalt and may be prone to rutting and shoving.
3.8. Methods used to add lime to HMA
Hydrated lime can be added to hot mix asphalts in a variety of ways. This may range from adding dry
lime to the drum mixer at the point of asphalt binder entry, to adding lime to aggregate followed by
“marination” for several days. Quicklime should not be added to HMA unless it first has been
completely hydrated. If quicklime remains un-hydrated in the HMA, it will change to Ca(OH)2 when
it comes into contact with water during the service life of the pavement. This reaction (i.e., changing
from CaO to Ca(OH)2) is expansive and will create a volume change in the HMA and losses in
strength and performance.
Lime may also added by sprinkling it over the pre-wetted coarse aggregate as it passes over the
conveyer belt, or it may be added in the form of slurry. However, there are problems with both
techniques. When added in the dry form, the main concern is the coating of the aggregate. Also, adding
the lime in a drum mix plant is ineffective as much of the lime is lost before the addition of the binder.
If lime is added in a slurry form, it will increase the amount of fuel needed to heat the aggregate, and
thus increase the production cost. Also, some of the other concerns regarding the addition of the lime
are health hazards due to inhalation and skin exposure. As a general rule, the application rate is one
percent by weight of the mix, though in cases where severe stripping is anticipated the application
amount may increase. Each of the most commonly used methods of lime addition are described as
follow.

35
3.8.1. Dry Lime on dry aggregate.
Mostly hydrated lime is added to the drum at the same time as the mineral filler. The hydrated lime
comes in contact with the aggregate itself, directly improving the bond between the bitumen and the
stone, while the balance enters the bitumen. The lime in the bitumen can react with the polar molecules
that contribute to both stripping and oxidation, while simultaneously stiffening and toughening the
mix. The dry method is the simplest and commonly used application methods.
3.8.2. Dry Lime on Moist Aggregate
This method is the one most commonly used throughout the U.S. It involves metering the lime onto
a cold feed belt carrying aggregate that has been wetted to approximately 1-3% over its saturated
surface dry (SSD) condition. The lime treated aggregate is then run through a pug mill to insure
thorough mixing before it is fed into the plant [21].
Lime is applied to damp aggregate in order to insure more complete coverage of the stone than is
achieved using the dry method. Lime that does not adhere to the stone is dispersed throughout the
mix where it will contribute to the other improvements that have been described. The “dry on damp”
method of adding hydrated lime to hot mix is also relatively simple, but driving off the water required
by the process uses additional fuel and may slow down plant production to some degree. At least one
state that uses this method requires the aggregate to be marinated in stockpile before use to provide
additional time for the lime to react with the surface of the stone and further improve anti-stripping
performance.
After mixing, the lime-treated aggregate is usually placed on the weigh belt in a drum mixer operation
or on a charging belt for the dryer of the batch mixer. Some agencies allow the introduction of lime
into the drum after the aggregate has been mostly dried and just prior to the application of the asphalt
cement. This method may increase the resistance of the mixture to stripping; however, the maximum
benefit of using lime will be achieved when it is mixed with the aggregate in the presence of water.
3.8.3. Slurry Method
This method utilizes a slurry mixture of lime and water that is applied at a metered rate to the aggregate,
insuring superior coverage of the stone surfaces. After the slurry is applied, the aggregate can either
be fed directly into the plant or marinated in stockpile for some period of time, allowing the lime to
react with the aggregate. Because the lime is bound to the stone, this method results in the least
dispersion of the lime throughout the rest of the mix [21].
The use of lime slurries has several advantages: improved resistance of the treated hot mix to stripping;
reduced dusting associated with the addition of dry lime to the aggregate; and improved distribution
of the lime on the aggregate.
Lime slurries made from hydrated lime or quicklime has also been used. Lime-slurried aggregates are
conveyed directly to the drying and mixing portion of the HMA facility or placed into stockpiles for
marination. However, the use of lime slurries adds more water than is typically used for conventional
lime applications and can substantially increase the water content of the aggregate prior to entering

36
the drying and mixing portions of the HMA facility.so that, it increased fuel consumption and reduced
HMA production can result. The use of lime slurries also requires purchasing or renting specialized
equipment to prepare the lime slurry at the site of the mixing operation.
Marinating or stockpiling treated aggregate prior to re-entry into the HMA facility is fairly common
in different states of U.S like California, Nevada, and Utah. The advantages of marination include: a
reduction in moisture content while the aggregate is stockpiled; the lime treatment can be performed
separately from the HMA production with some economic advantage; and an improvement in the
resistance to moisture can result (particularly when aggregates have clays present in their fines or have
clay coatings). The treatment of aggregates followed by marination also allows for the use of the lime
on only problematic or strip-prone aggregate. For example, a fine aggregate may be highly water
sensitive while coarse aggregates may not be water sensitive [02].
Disadvantages of marination include: additional handling of the aggregate; additional space for both
lime-treated and untreated stockpiles; and lime can be washed from the aggregate during marination.
Carbonation of the lime in stockpiles of aggregate does not appear to be a major problem, as it usually
occurs only on the surface of the stockpile.
Adding dry lime to the asphalt binder and storing the lime-modified binder prior to mixing with the
aggregate has not been practiced in the field. However, recent research demonstrates the potential
effectiveness of this approach.
In general hydrated lime has been renowned for many years as the premier asphalt modifier to correct
stripping (moisture sensitivity) problems. As its use has grown, many other benefits have been
identified, both in laboratory and field projects across the world. The need to produce high
performance asphalt pavements increases the importance of lime as a multi-functional asphalt
modifier.
3.8.4. Laboratory procedure of adding hydrated lime
The objective of this study was to evaluate HMA mixture with the addition of lime. Of the three
techniques for this research two of them with and without marination were used before preparing
HMA samples. The first one (Dry lime on moist aggregate) refers to a technique of adding water to
dry aggregates and distributing the moisture by mixing and hydrated lime at a rate of 1.5 percent is
then mixed with the moistened aggregates. The second method (lime slurry method) also resulted in
1.5 percent hydrated lime being added to the aggregates, but the lime was introduced in the form of
lime-water slurry.
A 48 hour marination time was used to allow for any pozzolanic reaction that might occur between
the aggregates and lime. During this time the moist aggregates and lime were sealed in a plastic
container. At the end of the marination period, the aggregates were dried in preparation for mixing.
The main objective of this task is to evaluate the effectiveness of lime in reducing the moisture
sensitivity of HMA mixtures and to identify the most effective method of adding lime to HMA
mixtures. Therefore, to summarize, the experiment evaluated the following three methods of adding
lime to HMA mixtures:

37
 1. No lime is added.
2. Dry lime added to wet aggregate with 48 hours marination.
3. Lime slurry added to aggregate with 48 hours marination.
It is important to dry the aggregate in an oven before it adds with bitumen to prepare the HMA mix
samples.
3.9. Moisture conditioning
Moisture conditioning is an important step in the evaluation of moisture damage of HMA mixtures.
This research evaluates the moisture damage of HMA mixtures by comparing the various properties
of the mix before and after moisture conditioning. The properties prior to moisture conditioning are
typically referred to as “dry” or “unconditioned” while the properties after moisture conditioning are
typically referred to as “wet” or “conditioned”. The most commonly used moisture conditioning
process is the one recommended by AASHTO T-283 test method entitled: “Resistance of Compacted
Bituminous Mixtures to Moisture Induced Damage.”
The moisture conditioning process consists of compacting HMA samples at air-voids between 6 and
8 %, saturating half of the samples to a level between 55 and 80%, then subjecting the saturated
samples to a freeze-thaw cycle consisting of freezing at 0oF for 16 hours followed by 24 hours thawing
at 140oF and 2 hours at 77oF.
On this research a destructive test (a test that destroys the sample) is used to evaluate the tensile
strength test of the HMA mixtures. Therefore the unconditioned and conditioned properties will have
to be measured on two different sets of samples having very close air-voids.
3.9.1. Evaluation of the Moisture Sensitivity of the Mixture
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Tensile
Strength Ratio test (AASHTO T-283) is commonly used to evaluate improvements gained by the
addition of moisture sensitivity additives. The test compares the strengths of samples both dry and
after subjecting moisture conditioned samples to at least one freeze/thaw cycle. For construction
purposes common specification requires a retained strength ratio after one freeze/thaw cycle to equal
or exceed 75 percent.
Evaluation according to AASHTO T 283 has a major advantage to account effects of the mix physical
and mechanical properties, water/traffic action, and pore pressure effects. And also have major
disadvantages of these tests are the requirement of more elaborate testing equipment, longer testing
times, and more laborious test procedures. Even with this disadvantage it has a better advantage that
of loose mix test.
The goal of these tests on this research is to compare the properties of the lime-treated and untreated
mixtures at the dry and moisture conditioned stages under single freeze-thaw cycles. Before goes to
testing samples of HMA it is necessary to group the samples based on the aggregate sources.
Within this research to investigate the advantages of lime additives on moisture susceptibility, the
laboratory program evaluated the Dry and Wet tensile strength after one freeze-thaw cycle for the
selected optimum asphalt content.

38
The TS test is a destructive test which means that the sample is damaged after the conduct of the test.
Therefore, the TS test cannot be conducted on the same sample before and after freeze-thaw cycling.
This experiment evaluated the TS property of the HMA samples at the dry stage and after one freeze-
thaw cycle. It should be noted that the dry and wet TS properties were evaluated on different sets of
samples. Table 4.5 summarize the data generated from this experiment.
3.9.2. Testing procedure
At least six specimens are prepared and compacted. The compacted specimens are expected to have
air void contents between six percent and eight percent. The higher percentage of air voids helps to
accelerate moisture damage on the cores. Two groups for each three specimens are used.
The first group is the control group. The second group is saturated between 55 and 80percent with
water and is placed in the freezer (0°F or –18°C) for 16 to 18 hours. The frozen cores then are moved
to a water bath at 140°F (60°C) for 24 hours.
After conditioning, remove the specimen from the bath and place it on its side between the bearing
plates of the testing machine such that the load was applied along the diameter of the specimen with
a loading rate of 2 in/min.
It is recommended that steel loading strips be placed between the specimen and the bearing plates as
this will simplify the calculation of the tensile strength. Apply the load to the specimen by forcing the
bearing plates together at a constant rate of 50 mm per minute.
If steel loading strips are used, record the maximum load, then continue to load the specimen until it
cracks. Stop the machine, remove the specimen and break it apart at the crack. Look at the inside of
the specimen and estimate the percent of stripped aggregate. Record the observations.
If steel loading strips are not used, stop the machine when the maximum load is observed. Record the
maximum load. Remove the specimen from the machine and measure and record the width of the
flattened area on each side of the specimen. Return the specimen to the machine and continue loading
until the specimen cracks. Stop the machine, remove the specimen and break it apart at the crack.
Look at the inside of the specimen and estimate the percent of stripped aggregate. Record the
observations.
When steel loading strips are used the load was applied at a constant rate of movement of the testing
machine head of 50 mm per minute. The maximum load was recorded and placed in the equation (3-
13) in order to calculate tensile strength.
St = 2000P/ (πtD) …………………….. eq. 3.13
Where St = tensile strength (kPa),
P = Maximum load (N),
t = Specimen thickness (mm), and
D = Specimen diameter (mm).
For this research in the course of testing the tensile strength since the tensile strength machine in
our laboratory is not available with steel loading strips, I used the universal testing machine. So that

39
the steel loading strips is not functional. Consequently the following little modified equation is used
to calculate the tensile strength as per recommendation of FHWA. [27]
St = S10 P/ (44000t) …………………….. eq. 3.14
Where:
St = tensile strength, Pa
S10 = maximum tensile stress corresponding to the width of the flattened area from table 4.5
P = maximum load, Newton
t = specimen thickness, mm
Table 3.5: Maximum tensile stress corresponding
to the width of the flattened area27
Width of Flattened Maximum Tensile
area in mm stress, S10, Kpa
0.0 11307
2.5 11232
5.0 11163
7.6 11073
10.2 10997
12.7 10832
15.2 10618
17.8 10397
20.3 10135
22.9 9915
25.4 9687
Tables 4.5 show the results of compacted asphalt specimens tested for tensile strength. The strengths
for each of both the unconditioned and moisture conditioned sets along with the tensile strength ratios
(TSR’s)for both sources of aggregate indicated in the table. Tensile strength ratios represent the
proportion of tensile strength retained between the moisture damaged and unconditioned sets of a
specific additive concentration. TSR’s were calculated using the following equation:
Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) = S2/S1 …………………….. eq. 3.15
Where:
S2 = average tensile strength of the conditioned (moisture damaged) set (Kpa);
S1 = average tensile strength of the unconditioned set (Kpa).

40
 CHAPTER FOUR: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 are summarizing the mixtures properties versus Asphalt binder content
evaluated in this study. Where
Gmb= Bulk specific gravity, Pbe=Effective asphalt content (% mass of mix),
Gmm= Theoretical maximum specific gravity, Va= Void in the total mix,
Vb= Percentage volume of total Asphalt, VMA= Voids in the mineral aggregate and
Vba= Percentage volume of absorbed asphalt, VFA = Void filled with asphalt
Vbe= Percentage volume of effective asphalt,
Table 4.1: Test Result of Marshall mixture for aggregate A
No Lime (Controlled condition)
Binder Stability Flow Vb Vba Vbe Pbe Va VMA VFA
Gmb Gmm
content (N) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
4.50 7.70 - 2.225 2.464 9.82 6.68 93.32 4.20 9.70 18.86 48.56
5.00 9.45 2.73 2.281 2.452 11.18 7.91 92.09 4.60 6.97 17.26 59.64
5.50 10.55 3.55 2.309 2.436 12.45 7.83 92.17 5.07 5.23 16.70 68.69
6.00 10.67 3.85 2.328 2.425 13.69 9.06 90.94 5.46 3.99 16.44 75.73
6.50 8.37 4.43 2.331 2.402 14.86 6.91 93.09 6.05 2.94 16.77 82.48
Dry Lime – (After 48 Hour Marination)
Binder Stability Flow Vb Vba Vbe Pbe Va VMA VFA
Gmb Gmm
content (N) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
4.50 7.65 2.80 - 2.469 10.00 8.46 91.54 4.12 - - -
5.00 9.89 3.10 2.231 2.441 10.94 4.25 95.75 4.79 8.605 19.08 54.89
5.50 11.07 3.90 2.297 2.432 12.39 6.61 93.39 5.14 5.550 17.12 67.58
6.00 10.74 4.90 2.343 2.425 13.78 9.13 90.87 5.45 3.375 15.90 78.77
6.50 8.36 6.88 2.342 2.407 14.92 8.15 91.85 5.97 2.688 16.39 83.60
Slurry Lime - (After 48 Hour Marination)
Binder Stability Flow Gmb Gmm Vb Vba Vbe Pbe Va VMA VFA
content (N) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

4.50 9.17 3.15 2.277 2.477 10.05 11.41 88.59 3.99 8.072 16.97 52.44
5.00 10.42 3.40 2.310 2.442 11.28 11.26 88.74 4.44 5.405 16.21 66.65
5.50 11.87 3.83 2.337 2.430 12.60 5.98 94.02 5.17 3.827 15.68 75.58
6.00 10.23 4.51 2.349 2.420 13.79 7.82 92.18 5.53 2.954 15.69 81.17
6.50 8.24 5.29 2.352 2.409 14.99 8.88 91.12 5.92 2.375 16.03 85.19

41
 Table 4.2: Test Result of Marshall mixture for aggregate B
No Lime (Controlled condition)
Binder Stability Flow Gmm Gmb Vb Vba Vbe Pbe Va VMA VFA
content (N) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
4.00 9.46 2.95 2.71 2.51 9.74 2.13 7.62 3.13 7.46 15.08 50.51
4.50 10.34 3.07 2.68 2.53 11.03 1.84 9.19 3.75 5.78 14.97 61.39
5.00 11.01 2.66 2.66 2.55 12.36 1.86 10.50 4.25 4.24 14.74 71.23
5.50 9.87 3.08 2.64 2.54 13.59 1.88 11.71 4.74 3.49 15.20 77.02
6.00 7.78 3.15 2.62 2.55 14.83 2.01 12.82 5.19 2.79 15.61 82.15
Dry Lime - 48 Hour Marination
Binder Stability Flow Gmm Gmb Vb Vba Vbe Pbe Va VMA VFA
content (N) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

4.00 12.03 2.93 2.75 2.42 9.40 3.29 6.12 2.60 11.93 18.05 33.89
4.50 12.43 4.95 2.71 2.48 10.84 2.77 8.07 3.35 8.36 16.43 49.14
5.00 13.49 5.53 2.67 2.51 12.19 2.19 10.00 4.10 5.87 15.88 63.01
5.50 11.79 4.21 2.65 2.57 13.73 2.53 11.20 4.49 3.13 14.33 78.18
6.00 9.50 6.95 2.64 2.56 14.94 2.87 12.06 4.85 2.94 15.00 80.41
Slurry Lime - 48 Hour Marination

Binder Stability Flow Gmm Gmb Vb Vba Vbe Pbe Va VMA VFA
content (N) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
4.00 10.54 3.40 2.73 2.44 9.46 2.75 6.71 2.84 10.82 17.53 38.28
4.50 12.22 2.83 2.70 2.49 10.86 2.53 8.32 3.45 8.00 16.32 51.00
5.00 11.21 4.36 2.67 2.53 12.29 2.28 10.02 4.07 5.14 15.16 66.07
5.50 10.83 5.45 2.64 2.56 13.67 1.89 11.78 4.74 2.92 14.70 80.13
6.00 9.75 5.60 2.60 2.59 15.06 1.47 13.60 5.41 0.69 14.29 95.16
4.1. Optimum Asphalt Content Determination
It is common practice to design the mix using the Marshall Test (ASTM D1559) and to select the
design binder content by calculating the mean value of the binder contents for (a) maximum stability,
(b) maximum density, (c) the mean value for the specified range of void contents and (d) the mean
value for the specified range of flow values. The following two methods are commonly used to
determine the optimum asphalt content from the plots:
Method I-NAPA Procedure
1. Determine the asphalt content which corresponds to the specification's median air void
content (4 percent typically). This is the optimum asphalt content.

42
 2. Determine the following properties at this optimum asphalt content by referring to the plots:
 Marshall stability
 Flow
 VMA and
 VFA.
3. Compare each of these values against the specification values and if all are within the
specification, then the preceding optimum asphalt content is satisfactory. If any of these
properties is outside the specification range, the mixture should be redesigned.
Method 2-Asphalt Institute Method
1. Determine:
(a) Asphalt content at maximum stability
(b) Asphalt content at maximum density
(c) Asphalt content at midpoint of specified air void range (4 percent typically)
2. Average the three asphalt contents selected above.
3. For the average asphalt content, go to the plotted curves and determine the following
properties:
 Stability;
 Flow;
 Air voids; and
 VMA.
4. Compare values from Step 3 with criteria for acceptability given in Table 4.3 and Table 3.5.
Since ERA manual recommend the second method, for this research the Asphalt Institute Method is
selected to determine the optimum asphalt binder. The properties of the mix design at this design
binder content with recommended Marshall Criteria is then shown in Table 4.3
Table 4.3: Suggested Marshall Test Criteria (ERA Manual)
Total Traffic (106 ESA) < 1.5 1.5 - 10.0 > 10.0
Traffic Class T1, T2, T3 T4, T5, T6 T7, T8
Minimum Stability (KN at 60 0C) 3.5 6 7
Minimum flow (mm) 2 2 2
Compaction level (Number of blow) 2 x 50 2 x 75 2 x 75
Air void (percent) 3-5 3-5 3-5
VMA Show Table 3.5

Table 4.4 & 4.5 summarizes the selected optimum asphalt binder contents using the Marshall Mix
design criteria. The selected optimum binder content (OBC) and volumetric properties of each of all
mixtures are included with in the table.

43
 Table 4.4: Optimum binder content for aggregate A
Max Corresponding Check at Required
Criteria OBC Criteria Remark
result Bitumen cont. OBC Specification
No lime
Stability 10.67 6.00 Stability 10.09 > 7 KN Ok!
Bulk Sp.Gr 2.328 6.00 Air Void 3.99 5-Mar Ok!
Air Void 4% 6.00 6.00 Flow 3.85 2 - 4mm Ok!
VMA 16.44 > 15 % Ok!
Avg bitumen = 6.0
VFA 75.73 70 - 85 Ok!
Dry Lime (After 48 Hr. Marinating)
Stability 11.07 5.50 Stability 10.88 > 7 KN Ok!
Bulk Sp.Gr 2.34 6.00 Air Void 4.29 5-Mar Ok!
Air Void, % 4.00 5.86 5.79 Flow 4.58 2 - 4mm Not ok!
VMA 16.00 > 15 % Ok!
Avg bitumen = 5.79
VFA 74.07 70 - 85 Ok!
Lime Slurry (After 48 Hr. Marinating)
Stability 11.87 5.50 Stability 11.38 > 7 KN Ok!
Bulk Sp.Gr 2.35 6.00 Air Void 3.57 5-Mar Ok!
Air Void, % 4 5.46 5.65 Flow 4.03 2 - 4mm Fair!
VMA 15.69 > 15 % Ok!
Avg bitumen = 5.49
VFA 77.40 70 - 85 Ok!

Table 4.5: Optimum binder content for aggregate B

Max Corresponding Check at Required
Criteria result Bitumen cont. OBC Criteria OBC Specification Remark
No lime
Stability 11.010 5.00 Stability 10.12 > 7 KN Ok!
Bulk Sp.Gr 2.546 6.00 Air Void 3.66 3 - 5% Ok!
Air Void, % 4.000 5.16 5.39 Flow 2.99 2 - 4 mm Ok!
VMA 15.10 > 15 % Ok!
Avg bitumen = 5.39
VFA 75.75 70 - 85 Ok!
Dry Lime 48 Hr Marination
Stability 13.490 5.00 Stability 12.54 > 7 KN Ok!
Bulk Sp.Gr 2.571 5.50 Air Void 4.34 3 - 5% Ok!
Air Void, % 4.000 5.34 5.28 Flow 4.79 2 - 4 mm Not ok!
VMA 15.01 > 15 % Ok!
Avg bitumen = 5.28
VFA 71.51 70 - 85 Ok!
Lime Slurry 48 Hr Marination
Stability 12.220 4.50 Stability 11.02 > 7 KN Ok!
Bulk Sp.Gr 2.586 6.00 Air Void 4.03 3 - 5% Ok!
Air Void, % 4.000 5.26 5.25 Flow 4.91 2 - 4 mm Not ok!
VMA 14.93 > 15 % Ok!
Avg bitumen = 5.25
VFA 73.10 70 - 85 Ok!

44
As stated on previous topics the outputs of this research include the changes of important physical
properties of HMA samples after the application of lime additives. Therefore the table stated here
applies for all samples made in laboratory as crisscross indications in addition to moisture susceptibility
tests.
The moisture damaged tensile strength of each lime application was also compared with the
unconditioned control tensile strength shown in the last column of table 4.6 & 4.7 for each of
respective aggregates.

45
 CHAPTER FIVE
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter concentrated on evaluating the impact of lime treatment on the overall physical
properties and moisture sensitivity of laboratory prepared mixtures. The experiment evaluated two
methods of adding lime into HMA mixtures which were produced using two sources of aggregates.
This section summarizes the data developed during the laboratory evaluation. The purpose of these
tests was to compare the mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures and prediction of stripping
potential using AASHTO T 283 test method. For moisture sensitivity the laboratory program
evaluated dry tensile strength at 25 0C and wet tensile strength at 25 0C after one freeze-thaw cycle
5.1. Analysis on physical properties of compacted HMA.
The application of hydrated lime additives on both aggregate has noticeable effects on the moisture
sensitivity and important physical properties of HMA. The following section analyze and discuss the
result collected with in the laboratory under control conditions.
5.1.1. Stability
Stability is generally a measure of the mass viscosity of the aggregate-asphalt cement mixture and is
affected significantly by the angle of internal friction of the aggregate and the viscosity of the asphalt
cement. Anything that increases the viscosity of the asphalt cement increases the Marshall stability.
In addition to that the filler effect of the lime in the asphalt reduces the potential of the asphalt to
deform at high temperatures, especially during its early life when it is most susceptible to rutting.
Furthermore, the lime makes the HMA less sensitive to moisture effects by improving the aggregate-
asphalt bond. As the HMA ages due to oxidation, hydrated lime reduces not only the rate of oxidation
but also the harm created by the products of oxidation.

Stability Comparison of Agg. A Stability comparison of Agg.B

13.0 14.0
12.0 13.0
Stability, KN
Stability, KN

12.0
11.0
11.0
10.0 10.0
9.0 9.0
8.0 8.0
7.0 7.0
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Pb, % of aggregate Pb, % of aggregate
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime

Fig 5.1: Stability comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples

46
The small percentage of lime additives have the effects on stability of both aggregates as shown in
figure 5.1. This may be due to making the asphalt cement and dust combination act as a more viscous
binder thus increasing the Marshall stability. Therefore the hydrated lime filler stiffens the asphalt film
and reinforces it.
The filler properties of lime additive increases the stiffness and decreases the rut depth. This effect
keeps the asphalt from hardening excessively and from becoming highly susceptible to cracking
(through fatigue and low temperature or thermal cracking). So that, the filler effect of the hydrated
lime dispersed in the asphalt improves fracture resistance and further improves cracking resistance.
5.1.2. Flow
Flow refers that the vertical deformation of the sample (measured from start of loading to the point
at which stability begins to decrease) in 0.25mm. High flow values generally indicate a plastic mix that
will experience permanent deformation under traffic, whereas low flow values may indicate a mix with
higher than normal voids and insufficient asphalt for durability and one that may experience premature
cracking due to mixture brittleness during the life of the pavement
The flow value has a general trend of consistently increases with increasing asphalt content. For 75-
blow Marshall designs that are used on high volume roads, the flow value is usually specified to be in
the range of 2 – 4 mm. Fig 5.2 shows that the lime modified samples are increases in flow compared
with the unmodified samples. For both aggregate, application of hydrated lime have negative effect
on the flow number. The increased flow no out of the required specification range exposed the HMA
for permanent deformation during their time of service.

Flow comparison of Agg A Flow comparison of Agg. B

7.50 8.00
6.50 7.00
Flow, mm

Flow, mm

5.50 6.00
5.00
4.50 4.00
3.50 3.00
2.50 2.00
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Pb, % of aggregate Pb, % of aggregate
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime No lime Dry lime Slurry lime

Fig 5.2: Flow comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples

5.1.3. Bulk specific gravity (Gmb)

In the Marshall Mix design procedure, the density varies with asphalt content. Density increases
initially as the asphalt content increases because the hot asphalt cement lubricates the particles allowing
the compacting effort to force them closer together. The density reaches a peak and then begins to
decrease because the additional asphalt cement produces thicker films around the individual
aggregates, thereby pushing the aggregate particles further apart and resulting in lower density.
Anything that decreases the in-place air voids will increase the percent density.

47
Since lime has an effect as filler and some part of the in place air void is enclosed by the lime, it is
expected to have the lime modified HMA samples always greater bulk specific gravity compared with
no lime case. However, this is true only for aggregate A. Because as observed in figure 5.3 application
of hydrated lime on aggregate A increases the bulk specific gravity under all bitumen content, on the
other hand on aggregate B it is greater than no lime case starting from around the middle point of 5.0
& 5.5 percent bitumen content. Yet the bulk specific gravity of lime modified samples from aggregate
B greater than no lime samples at OBC. So that, the effect of hydrated lime on increasing of the bulk
specific gravity vary on the aggregate type & properties.

Gmb comparison of Agg A Gmb comparison of Agg. B

2.360 2.60

Bulk Sp. Gr, Gmb

Bulk sp. Gr., Gmb

2.56
2.320
2.52
2.280
2.48
2.240 2.44
2.200 2.40
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Pb, % of aggregate Pb, % of aggregate
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime No lime Dry lime Slurry lime

Fig 5.3: Bulk sp. Gr comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples
5.1.4. Total void in the mix (Va)
Total void in the mix refers that the total volume of the small pockets of air between the coated
aggregate particles throughout a compacted paving mixture, expressed as percent of the bulk volume
of the compacted paving mixture.
As observed in the figure 5.4 the lime additives have an advantage of mineral filler. The samples of
aggregate A contain lime additives were always less air void compared with the normal condition. This
might be due to the filler effect of hydrated lime. However the same thing is not working on aggregate
B. the Va of lime modified samples on aggregate B show higher void compares with no lime samples
up to it reaches on the middle point of 5.0 and 5.5 bitumen content and then after it decrease.

Va comparison of Agg A Va comparison of Agg B

12.0 15.00
Va, % of total mix
Va, % of total mix

10.0
8.0 10.00
6.0
4.0 5.00
2.0
0.0 0.00
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Pb, % of aggregate Pb, % of aggregate
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime No lime Dry lime Slurry lime

Fig 5.4: Air void comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples

48
5.1.5. Void in Mineral Aggregate
VMA is the total volume of voids within the mass of the compacted aggregate. This total amount of
voids significantly affects the performance of a mixture because if the VMA is too small, the mix may
suffer durability problems, and if the VMA is too large, the mix may show stability problems and be
uneconomical to produce.
When aggregate particles are coated with asphalt binder, a portion of the asphalt binder is absorbed
into the aggregate, whereas the remainder of the asphalt binder forms a film on the outside of the
individual aggregate particles. Since the aggregate particles do not consolidate to form a solid mass,
air pockets also appear within the asphalt-aggregate mixture. Therefore the four general components
of HMA are: aggregate, absorbed asphalt, asphalt not absorbed into the aggregate (effective asphalt),
and air. Air and effective asphalt, when combined, are defined as VMA.
Therefore it is not likely to hypothesize application of hydrated lime increase or decrease the VMA.
Consequently, as figure 5.5 shows on aggregate A, for all bitumen content the VMA is decreases in
the case of lime modified samples. In this case the resulting change in aggregate gradation due to the
addition of lime modifier can contribute to a drop in VMA. Whereas on aggregate B the VMA
increases for some bitumen content and decrease for another. Since the amount of variation from the
control condition is not noteworthy, it has not have significant effects of durability on the overall mix.

VMA comparison of aggregate A VMA comparison of aggregate B

20.00 19.00
VMA, % of total mix

VMA, % of total mix

19.00 18.00
18.00 17.00
17.00 16.00
16.00 15.00
15.00 14.00
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Pb, % of aggregate Pb, % of aggregate
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime No lime Dry lime Slurry lime

Fig 5.5: VMA comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples

5.1.6. Voids filled with Asphalt (VFA)

Voids filled with asphalt (VFA) is the percentage of inter-granular void space between the aggregate
particles (VMA) that contains or is filled with asphalt. Most specifications include percent VFA
requirements range from 70 - 85 percent. Since VFA depends on both VMA and Va, the cumulative
effects of these two variables are shown on Figure 5.6. The lime modified samples of aggregate A
have higher VFA compared with no lime. But as in the case of VMA and Va the effect of hydrated
lime on VFA of aggregate B vary with bitumen content.

49
 VFA comparison of agg A VFA comparison of Agg B
95.0 100.0

VFA, % of total void (Va)

VFA, % of total void (Va) 90.0
85.0 80.0
75.0 70.0
60.0
65.0
50.0
55.0 40.0
45.0 30.0
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Pb, % of aggregate Pb, % of aggreagte
No lime Dry lime Slurry lime No lime Dry lime Slurry lime

Fig 5.6: VFA comparison of lime modified and unmodified samples

5.2. Analysis of Moisture Susceptibility test results

The evaluation or comparison of this thesis consisted of laboratory testing of prepared HMA samples.
This task concentrated on evaluating the impact of lime treatment on the moisture sensitivity of
laboratory prepared mixtures. The experiment evaluated two methods of adding hydrated lime into
HMA mixtures which were produced from each of the two sources of aggregates.
5.2.1. Tensile strength
Tensile strengths of dry and wet conditioned specimens subjected to a freeze-thaw cycle were tested
for tensile strength. Both conditioned specimens were averaged and organized to produce the result
on figures 5.7 to 5.14. The tensile strength results of conditioned samples have different values as
compared to unconditioned specimens. For example the average tensile strength of no lime groups of
both aggregate A and B dropped from 852.2 kpa to 732.02 kpa and 952.40 kpa to 685.70 kpa
respectively after moisture conditioning.
The moisture susceptibility test of control groups of aggregate A have visible variation before and
after moisture conditioning. After single freeze and thaw the tensile strength reduced from 852.2 to
732.06 kpa. The advantage of lime is clearly observed when comparing the tensile strength of lime
modified samples with no lime (control) groups. In both cases before and after moisture conditioning
the results of lime modified samples are showed some improvement over no lime samples.
Before moisture conditioning both dry lime and lime slurry groups have a value of 904.8 and 931.0
kpa respectively. Which is greater than 852.2kpa of no lime groups. Similarly after moisture
conditioning dry lime groups have average tensile strength of 802.51 and lime slurry have 844.18kpa.
Again both values are greater than 732.06kpa from no lime group. Just as aggregate A similar effects
observed on aggregate B. In general, Figure 5.7 and 5.8 summarizes the strength gain of the three
groups before and after conditioning.

50
 Dry and Wet TS, Kpa of Agg A
1000 904.8 931
852.2 844.18
802.51

Tensile strength, kpa

800 732.06

600

400

200

0
No Lime Dry Lime Slurry Lime
Dry TS Wet TS

Figure 5.7: Dry and Wet tensile strength of lime modified and unmodified samples of
Aggregate A before and after conditioning
From the result shown on figure 5.7 and 5.8, the lime additives that generates a higher tensile strength
of the HMA mix at the dry and moisture conditioned stages will improve the long-term performance
of the HMA pavement.

Dry and Wet TS, Kpa of Agg B

1200
1051.7
998.6
1000 952.4 936
Tensile strength , Kpa

858.8
800 685.7

600

400

200

0
No Lime Dry Lime Slurry Lime
Dry TS Wet TS

Figure 5.8: Comparison of tensile strength for different sample conditioning (lime modified
and unmodified samples) of Aggregate B
The above figures explain the part of the statistical figures which compares the similar mixtures as
they are subjected to different moisture conditioning processes. The other part of the statistical figures
of fig 5.9 and 5.10 compares the tensile strength of the three mixtures groups as they are subjected to
similar conditioning processes. For example, in figure 5.9 looking on the left comparison of the
unconditioned no lime, dry lime and lime slurry mixture of aggregate A. The moisture conditioned
samples also indicates on the right side of figure 5.9.

51
 Dry and Wet TS, Kpa of Agg A
1000

Tensile strength, kpa

800

600

400

200

0
Dry TS Wet TS

No Lime Dry Lime Slurry Lime

Figure 5.9: Comparison of dry and wet TS of each group of lime treatment of aggregate A
The data presenting on figures 5.9 and 5.10 provide the quick reference to evaluate the impact of lime
additive and method of application on the moisture sensitivity of typical HMA mixtures. The test
result indicates that in all cases (control and lime modified), both dry and wet tensile strength of lime
modified samples have higher value compared with no lime or control condition. This shows the
benefit of lime additives on moisture susceptibility of hot mix asphalt.

Dry and Wet TS, Kpa of Agg B

1200

1000
Tensile strength, Kpa

800

600

400

200

0
Dry TS Wet TS

No Lime Dry Lime Slurry Lime

Figure 5.10: Comparison of dry and wet TS of each group of lime treatment of aggregate B
In general the tensile strength of no-lime mixture exhibits lower tensile strength than the other two
groups after one freeze-thaw cycle. This is because lime enhances the bitumen-aggregate bond and
improves the resistance of the bitumen itself to water-induced damage.
5.2.2. Tensile Strength Ratios (TSR)
Tensile strength ratio was another method used to analyze the indirect tensile strength data. The tensile
strength ratio evaluated the amount of tensile strength retained after subjecting specimens to a freeze-
thaw cycle as described in chapter 3.

52
 Tensile strength ratio of conditioned to unconditioned
1.00

0.89 0.91
0.80 0.86

0.60
TSR

0.40

0.20

0.00
No Lime Dry Lime Slurry lime

Figure 5.11: Tensile strength ratio of each cases on aggregate A

The TSR of all discrete specimens prepared for moisture susceptibility tests used in this research are
shown in table 4.6 & 4.7. The result are indicated that TSR of HMA samples made from both aggregate
treated with hydrated lime showed increase in all cases compared with no lime (control) conditions.
The average TSR of lime treated with dry lime and lime slurry of aggregate A have a value of 0.89 and
0.91, which are greater than 0.86 of no lime (control conditions) result. Likewise on aggregate B the
average TSR of lime treated with dry lime and lime slurry have value of 0.86 & 0.89. Which is also
greater than no lime too. In addition to that between the two application methods little change is
existing as shown in Figures 5.11 to 5.12.

Tensile strength ratio of conditioned to unconditioned

1.00

0.80 0.86 0.89

0.72
0.60
TSR

0.40

0.20

0.00
No Lime Dry Lime Slurry lime

Figure 5.12: Tensile strength ratio of each cases on aggregate B

Comparing the percentage of TSR strength attainment of lime modified samples with unmodified
(control) using TSR, it is obviously verify that the TSR of modified samples have always superiority

53
on unmodified samples. The figure 4.13 and 4.14 shows the ratios of the average TSR of modified
samples with unmodified

TSR compared to No lime for Agg A

1.20

1.00 1.03 1.06

1
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
No Lime Dry Lime Slurry lime

Figure 5.13: TSR compared with Control condition of aggregate A (No lime)

TSR compared to No lime for Agg B

1.40
1.20 1.24
1.19
1.00
1
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
No Lime Dry Lime Slurry lime

Figure 5.14: TSR compared with Control condition of aggregate B (No lime)
5.3. Statistical Analysis of Tensile Strength Using ANOVA
Following the laboratory procedures and data collection described in the previous topics, to evaluate
the significance of hydrated lime additive, a statistical analysis was performed on tensile strength results
performed using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
A one-way ANOVA in terms of partitioning the total variation of all sample scores used in to between
group and within group variation. The three groups of independent variables (no lime, dry lime and

54
lime slurry) are considered. An individual result of the group on the dependent variable can be
expressed in terms of three additive components. Therefore for this analysis the statistical model was:
Yik= μ + αk+ eik
Where
Yik= ithscore in thekthgroup
μ = Grand mean of the population.
αk = μk– μ = effect of belonging to group k
eik= Random error associated with this group
This linear model is an estimation of the component of one score in the population.
Testing the null hypothesis
On this research the analysis of ANOVA consists of three random samples from each of three
independent groups. And the null hypothesis (Ho) is that the three methods of lime treatment (one is
‘no lime’) are equally effective. This refer that, there are no differences in the average performance of
tensile strengths with in the three group of treatment. Therefore the null hypothesis can be set as:
Ho: μ1 = μ1= μ2 ....= μk
Ha: μ1 ≠μk for some i, k
In terms of the linear model, the null hypothesis could also be written
Ho: α1 = α1= α2 ....= α k= 0
Ha: μk-μ≠0 for some i, k
That is, there is no group effect. The null hypothesis is not rejected if the difference between the mean
tensile strength of each group is attributable only to random sampling fluctuation. Using this analysis
testing of the hypothesis is done at 0.05 level of significance.
The test statistics for one way ANOVA is the F ratio. Which is defined as the ratio of between group
variance and within group variance (MSB/MSW). For each of the two aggregates there are three
groups of lime treatment (including no lime group) and comparing of these three groups of lime
treatment on individual aggregates, to use F test the collected data has 3 - 1 = 2 degree of freedom
associated with MSB and 9 – 3 = 6 degree of freedom associated with MSW.
Table 5.1 to 5.4 shows the ANOVA results of aggregate A and aggregate B of three lime treatments
before and after moisture conditioning of single freeze – thaw cycle.
Table 5.1: Statistical analysis of unconditioned tensile strength of aggregate A using ANOVA
Method of treatment
NL DL LS
856.98 881.13 920.46
825.24 928.05 941.85
874.23 905.28 930.81
nk 3.00 3.00 3.00 N = 9.00

55
 𝑇2
𝑻𝒌 2556.45 2714.46 2793.12 T = 8064.03 = 7,225,397.7
𝑁
̅̅̅̅𝒌
𝑿 852.15 904.82 931.04 𝑥̅ = 896.00
𝒏𝒌

∑ 𝑿𝟐𝒊𝒌 2,179,713.87 2,457,198.76 2,600,735.29 ∑3𝑘=1 ∑3𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑘

2
= 7,237,647.92
𝒊=𝟏

𝑻𝟐𝒌⁄ 2,178,478.87 2,456,097.70 2,600,506.44 𝑇𝑘2

𝒏𝒌 ∑3𝑘=1 = 7,235,083.01
𝑛𝑘
Calculation of sum of squares in ANOVA, one-way classification
SSB = (2556.45)2 (2714.46)2 (2793.12)2 (8064.03)2
+ + -
3 3 3 9
= 7,235,083.01 – 7,225,397.76
= 9,685.25
SSW = 7,237,647.92 – 7,235,083.01 = 2564.91
SST= 7,237,647.92 – 7,225,397.76 =12250.16

Summary of ANOVA
Source SS df MS F Fcv (for a=0.05)
Between 9,685.25 2 4,842.62 11.33 5.99
With in 2,564.91 6 427.48
Total 12,250.16 8
Table 5.2: Statistical analysis of tensile strength (after conditioning) of aggregate A using ANOVA
Method of treatment
NL DL LS
699.87 787.77 837.62
755.73 815.96 866.50
740.58 803.80 828.42
nk 3.00 3.00 3.00 N = 9.00
𝑇2
𝑻𝒌 2,196.18 2,407.54 2,532.54 T = 7,136.26 = 5,658,469.17
𝑁
̅̅̅̅𝒌
𝑿 732.06 802.51 844.18 𝑥̅ = 792.92
𝒏𝒌

∑ 𝑿𝟐𝒊𝒌 1,609,404.52 1,932,481.79 2,138,711.82 ∑3𝑘=1 ∑3𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑘

2
= 5,680,598.14
𝒊=𝟏

𝑻𝟐𝒌⁄ 𝑇𝑘2
𝒏𝒌
1,607,735.97 1,932,081.83 2,137,922.15 ∑3𝑘=1 = 5,677,739.95
𝑛𝑘
Calculation of sum of squares in ANOVA, one-way classification
(2196.18)2 (2407.54)2 (2532.54)2 (7136.26)2
SSB = + + -
3 3 3 9
= 5,677,738.10 – 5,658,467.42
= 19,270.68
SSW = 5,680,598.14 – 5,677,739.95 = 2,858.19
SST = 5,680,598.14 – 5,658,469.17=22,128.97

Summary of ANOVA
Source SS df MS F Fcv (for a=0.05)
Between 19,270.68 2 9,635.39 20.23 5.99
With in 2,858.19 6 476.37
Total 22,128.97 8

56
 Table 5.3: Statistical analysis of unconditioned tensile strength of aggregate B using ANOVA
Method of treatment
NL DL LS
948.30 1064.70 1084.50
922.80 972.80 1021.20
986.10 958.30 1049.40
nk 3.00 3.00 3.00 N = 9.00
𝑇2
𝑻𝒌 2857.20 2995.80 3155.10 T = 9008.10 = 9016207.29
𝑁
̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝒌 952.40 998.60 1051.70 𝑥̅ = 1000.90
𝒏𝒌

∑ 𝑿𝟐𝒊𝒌 2723225.94 2998264.82 3320230.05 ∑3𝑘=1 ∑3𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑘

2
= 9041720.8100
𝒊=𝟏

𝑻𝟐𝒌⁄ 𝑇𝑘2
𝒏𝒌
2721197.28 2991605.88 3318218.67 ∑3𝑘=1 = 9031021.8300
𝑛𝑘
Calculation of sum of squares in ANOVA, one-way classification
(2857.20)2 (2995.80)2 (3155.10)2 (9008.10)2
SSB = + + -
3 3 3 9
= 9031021.83 – 9016207.29
= 14814.54
SSW = 9041720.8100 – 9031021.8300 = 10698.98
9041720.8100 – 9016207.29= 25513.52
SST=

Summary of ANOVA
Source SS df MS F Fcv (for a=0.05)
Between 14814.54 2.00 7407.27 4.15 5.99
With in 10698.98 6.00 1783.16
Total 25513.52 8.00
Table 5.4: Statistical analysis of tensile strength (after conditioning) of aggregate B using ANOVA
Method of treatment
NL DL LS
688.40 864.50 954.30
666.10 823.10 895.70
702.60 888.80 958.00
nk 3.00 3.00 3.00 N = 9.00
T = 7441.50 𝑇2
𝑻𝒌 2057.10 2576.40 2808.00 = 6152880.25
𝑁
̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝒌 685.70 858.80 936.00 𝑥̅ = 826.83
𝒏𝒌

∑ 𝑿𝟐𝒊𝒌 1411230.53 2214819.30 2630730.98 ∑3𝑘=1 ∑3𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑘

2
= 6256780.8100
𝒊=𝟏

𝑻𝟐𝒌⁄ 𝑇𝑘2
𝒏𝒌 1410553.47 2212612.32 2628288.00 ∑3𝑘=1 = 6251453.7900
𝑛𝑘
Calculation of sum of squares in ANOVA, one-way classification
(2057.10)2 (2576.40)2 (2808.00)2 (7441.50)2
SSB = + + -
3 3 3 9
= 6251453.79 – 6152880.25
= 98573.54
SSW = 6256780.8100 – 6251453.7900= 5327.02
SST= 6256780.8100 – 6152880.25 = 103900.56

57
 Summary of ANOVA
Source SS df MS F Fcv (for a=0.05)
Between 98573.54 2.00 49286.77 55.51 5.99
With in 5327.02 6.00 887.84
Total 103900.56 8.00
The decision to accept or reject the null hypothesis (Ho) is made by comparing the test statistics
(computed F ratio) with critical value from the table. If the computed F ratio is exceeds the critical
value, the hypothesis is rejected; if not, the hypothesis is not rejected.
The ANOVA result of tensile strength data collected in laboratory on both aggregates before and after
conditioning indicates that, on all cases except the unconditioned F value of aggregate B the observed
value of the test statistics, the F ratio exceeds the critical value at 0.05 level of significance, and
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. Hence this research accepted that lime additive on HMA have
an effects on the moisture susceptibility of HMA.

58
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study evaluated the use of lime additive to improve the resistance of HMA against moisture-
induced damage and important physical properties of HMA. Using standardized testing procedures,
aggregate was tested for all the necessary quality tests including specific gravity, absorption, abrasion
resistance, void content, and gradation. Similarly important quality tests of bitumen were conducted
in a laboratory and all the results were pass the necessary specifications.
The scope of this thesis was a bit large in terms of the number of tests conducted on lime additive.
For each of the two aggregate 3 mix designs were prepared to select the optimum bitumen content.
Then after for the selected optimum bitumen content the moisture susceptibility test of specimens
were complete for modified and unmodified samples.
The goal of this research analysis was to assess the impact of adding lime on the tensile strength
properties of the HMA mixtures regardless of the method of application. This analysis will try to
answer the question of whether lime is effective in increasing the performance and reducing the
moisture sensitivity of the HMA mixtures irrespective of which application method is used. On the
basis of test results and analysis obtained in a controlled laboratory, the following conclusions and
recommendations are presented:
6.1. Conclusions
1. In all study comparisons with in the controlled laboratory, moisture conditioned lime treated mixes
had an improved ability to retain the mechanical property of tensile strength and the untreated
mixtures to some extent lower than the properties of the lime-treated mixtures. Therefore based
on these data, it can be concluded that for selected aggregate the lime treatment was effective in
reducing the moisture sensitivity of hot mixtures asphalt irrespective of which application method
is used.
2. The result of stability on this research has exhibited that hydrated lime improve the resistance of
the HMA to permanent deformation damage at high temperatures, especially during its early life
when it is most susceptible to rutting. This is due to filler effect of the lime with in the asphalt and
it gives extra power to improve an advantage on rut resistance.
3. Both dry and slurry lime treated samples had higher stability than control or no lime methods. In
addition to that, tensile strength ratios of both dry lime and slurry lime were higher than those for
the control for all variations. However, comparing the application of dry lime and lime slurry, the
result on both groups have not large deviation to each other, therefore it is not conclusive evidence
weather dry lime or lime slurry marinated for 48 hours, as a superior technique for the introduction
of hydrated lime into a HMA mix.
4. In general from this research there is an indication that, hydrated lime is an additive that increases
pavement life and performance through multiple mechanisms.

59
 6.2. Recommendation
Asphalt pavements are a crucial part of our nation’s strategy for building a high performance
transportation network for the future. Asphalt construction is fast and relatively simple, it is
economical and the materials to make it are widely available. Based on this important assets of HMA
the following recommendation are given for further research.
 The advantage of hydrated lime conducted on this research evaluate the additive based solely
on short term retained strengths following moisture conditioning (AASHTO T 283). This
does not represent long term performance of an asphalt, which is influenced by factors other
than reduced moisture sensitivity such as resistance to load induced fatigue cracking or low
temperature cracking. There is a pressing need for a simple and repeatable test that can
evaluate the effects of hydrated lime additives on the pavement performance.

 Hydrated lime may be added in the HMA production process in several ways. Many different
methods have been used successfully. Even though the result finding on this research shows
that adding lime as dry lime on moist aggregate or slurry lime on dry aggregate have good
result it is more preferable to use slurry lime. This is because of all aggregate surface have a
chance to coat uniformly. But it shouldn’t forget that it needs high energy to dry the aggregate
and special equipment for preparation of the slurry.

 In general, the researcher believes that modifying hot mix asphalt with hydrated lime will add
years to pavement life. However, this advantages of hydrated lime additive is not well
understood and used in our country. Therefore highway engineers and contractors all other
concerned bodies should consider hydrated lime’s role in improving the long-term
performance and durability of pavements.

 Further research should be performed to study effectiveness of the hydrated lime especially
on the moisture related failures of HMA mixtures and the effect in durability, rutting and etc...

60
References
1. Patrick Lavin,A Comparison of Liquid Antistrip Additives and Hydrated Lime Using AASHTO
T 283, Construction Chemicals Technical Director ARR-MAZ Products.

2. Dallas N. Little & Jon A. Epps, The benefits of hydrated lime in hot mix asphalt, Prepared
for national lime association, 2001
3. Dallas N. Little and David R. Jones IV, Chemical and Mechanical Processes of Moisture
Damage in Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements
4. Peter E. Sebaaly, Ph.D., Comparison of Lime and Liquid Additives on the Moisture Damage of
Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures, Pavement Specialist Reno, Nevada USA, Prepared for the National Lime
Association, April 2007
5. Selim, A.A. (1997), “Cost EffectiveUser Friendly Anti-Stripping Additives in HMA,” Quartzite
Quotes, Quartzite Rock Association, March 1997.
6. Bradley J. Putman and Serji N. Amirkhanian, Laboratory Evaluation of Anti-Strip Additives in
Hot Mix Asphalt, Clemson University Civil Engineering Department 110 Lowry Hall Clemson,
SC 29634-0911, Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration
7. Jones, G.M., “The Effect of Hydrated Lime on Asphalt in Bituminous Pavements,” NLA
Meeting, Utah DOT, May 22, 1997.
8. Petersen, J.C., Plancher, H., and Harnsberger, P.M., “Lime Treatment of Asphalts to Reduce Age
Hardening and Improve Flow Properties,” Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 56, pp. 632-653, 1987.
9. Cheng, D.X., Little, D.N., Lytton, R.L., Holste, J.C., “Moisture Damage Evaluation of Asphalt
Mixture by Considering Both Moisture Diffusion and Repeated Load Conditions,”
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003.
10. 28 Shah B.D. Evaluation of Moisture Damage within Asphalt Concrete Mixes, Texas A&M
University, College station, August 2003, Texas.
11. Petersen, J.C., Plancher, H., and Harnsberger, P.M., “Lime Treatment of Asphalt to Reduce Age
Hardening and Improve Flow Properties,” AAPT, Volume 56, 1987.32 Hot Mix Asphalt Material
Mixture Design and Construction(Edn2) NCAT(1996)
12. HMA Pavement Mix Type Selection Guide, Information Series 128, National asphalt pavement
association (NAPA).
13. Petersen, J.C., “Mechanism of the Hydrated Lime-Asphalt Reaction: Its Effect on
Pavement Moisture Resistance, asphalt Age-Hardening and Physical Properties,”
Presentation at North Carolina State University, February 2005.
14. Kiggundu B. M. and F. L. Roberts, September 1988, Stripping in HMA Mixtures State-of-The Art
And Critical Review of Test Methods, NCAT, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, Report No.
15. Petersen, J.C., Plancher, H., and Harnsberger, P.M., “Lime Treatment of Asphalts to Reduce Age
Hardening and Improve Flow Properties,” Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, Vol. 56, pp. 632-653, 1987.

61
16. Kandhal P. S., May 1992, Moisture susceptibility of HMA mixes identification of problem and
recommended solutions, Auburn University, Alabama, NCAT Report No. 92-1.

17. Altan Yilmaz, SebnemSargin, water effect on deteriorations of asphalt pavements,

mehmetakifersoy university, department of construction technology, burdur/turkey, online
journal of science and technology- january 2012, volume 2, issue 1
18. Tunnicliff, D.G. and Root, R., “Antistripping Additives in Asphalt Concrete - State of the Art,”
Proceedings, Association of Asphalt Paving Technologist, Vol. 51, Technical Sessions, Kansas City,
Missouri, 1982.
19. Roberts F.L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R. Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy, Hot Mix Asphalt Materials,
Mixture Design, and Construction, NAPA Education Foundation, Lanham, Maryland, 1996
20. Eric Berger and Fred Huege, The Use of Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt

21. Hydrated Lime, A Solution for High Performance Hot Mix Asphalt, Fact sheet, National Lime
Association
22. R.G. Hicks, P.E. and Todd V. Scholz, Life Cycle Costs for Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt,
prepared for National Lime Association, Arlington, Virginia, April 2003
23. Design and Construction standards technical specifications, Addis Ababa city road authority,
November 2003.
24. Laboratory Testing Manual 2000, Central Materials Laboratory, the United Republic of Tanzania
Monastery of Work
25. A Manual for Design of Hot Mix Asphalt with Commentary, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 673, Transport research board of the National Academy.
26. How to Add Hydrated Lime to Asphalt An Overview of Current Methods, National Lime
Association, September 2003

27. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Technician Training Manual, Developed by FHWA Multi-Regional
Asphalt Training and Certification Group, 1999
28. Aschenbrener, T. and Far, N., “Influence of Compaction Temperature and Antistripping
Treatment on the Results from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device,” Report #
CDOTDTD-R-94-9, Colorado Department of Transportation, July 15, 1994.
29. Epps, J. A., “Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt mixture”Presentation Manual, FHWA,
AASHTO, NLA,
30. Petersen, J.C., “Mechanism of the Hydrated Lime-Asphalt Reaction: Its Effect on Pavement
Moisture Resistance, asphalt Age-Hardening and Physical Properties,” Presentation at North
Carolina State University, February 2005.
31. K. Wayne Lee, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE Satish Kumar Gundapuneni, M.S. Ajay Singh, M.S, Effects of
asphalt binder grade on the performance of Rhode Island Hot-mix asphalt, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881.
32. Lesueur, D. and Little, D.N., “Effect of Hydrated Lime on Rheology, Fracture, and Aging of
Bitumen,” Transportation Research Record No. 1661, pp. 93-105, 1999.

62
33. Petersen, J.C., “Mechanism of the Hydrated Lime-Asphalt Reaction: Its Effect on Pavement
Moisture Resistance, asphalt Age-Hardening and Physical Properties,” Presentation at North
Carolina State University, February 2005.
34. Little, D. N., “Hydrated Lime as a Multi-Functional Modifier for Asphalt Mixtures,” Presented
at the HMA in Europe Lhoist Symposium, Brussels, Belgium, October 1996.
35. Lottman, R. P., “Predicting Moisture Induced Damage to Asphalt Concrete,” NCHRP Report
192, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1978.
36. Verhasselt, A., “Use of Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt in Belgium,” presented at the Lhoist Conference
on Lime in HMA, Brussels, Belgium, 1996.
37. Freddy L. Roberts, Prithvi S. Kandhal, E. Ray Brown ,National Center for Asphalt Technology
Auburn University, Alabama Dah-Yinn Lee Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa Thomas W.
Kennedy, University of Texas Austin, Texas “ Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and
Construction”,Second Edition 1996, National Asphalt pavement Association Research and
Education Foundation Lanham, Maryland
38. Pavement Design manual, volume 1 flexible pavements and gravel roads, Ethiopian Road
authority, 2002.
39. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
40. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications
for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 1998.
41. A single copy of British standard Licensed to: derisraelcameoshay , University of Derby, 21 January
2004, Uncontrolled Copy, (c) BSI

63