You are on page 1of 8

Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Comparison of Wilhelmy plate and Sessile drop methods to rank


moisture damage susceptibility of asphalt Aggregates combinations
Ayyanna Habal, Dharamveer Singh
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India

h i g h l i g h t s
 The CA measurement by SD method showed high variability compared to the WP method.
 The SFE of asphalt measured by the SD method had higher values than that of WP.
 SD method found to be less sensitive to capture acidic component of SFE of asphalt.
 CR value of 0.25 by SD method would be approximately equal to 0.5 by WP method.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 November 2015
Received in revised form 26 February 2016
Accepted 14 March 2016

Keywords:
Surface free energy
Moisture damage
Compatibility
Moisture susceptibility
Wilhelmy plate
Sessile drop

a b s t r a c t
The present study compares two techniques namely Wilhelmy plate (WP) and Sessile drop (SD) methods
to rank moisture damage susceptibility of twelve different asphalt-aggregate combinations. Three asphalt
binders: unmodified (VG30), polymer modified (PMB40), and crumb rubber modified (CRMB60) binders,
and four aggregates (basalt, limestone, granite, and sandstone) were selected in this study. The contact
angle of selected asphalt binders was measured using both WP and SD techniques. Thereafter, surface
free energy (SFE) components of asphalt binders, bonding energy and compatibility ratio (CR) of selected
asphalt-aggregate combinations were estimated. The results showed that the SD method showed a high
variability in measurement of contact angle of asphalt binders compared to the WP method. The SD
method found to be less sensitive to capture acid component of SFE of asphalt binders. Both the methods
showed that PMB40-basalt, VG30-basalt, PMB40-limestone combination can have least susceptible to
moisture damage. However, in majority of the cases (9 out of 12 asphalt-aggregates combinations,
excluding PMB40-basalt, VG30-basalt, PMB40-limestone), both the methods resulted in different moisture damage ranking of asphalt-aggregates combinations. Currently set a minimum threshold value of
CR as 0.5 based on the WP method for screening moisture damage susceptibility of asphalt-aggregate
combination may not be applicable to the SD method. The present study develops a correlation between
the CR of asphalt-aggregate combination estimated from the WP and SD methods.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The moisture damage causes premature failure of asphaltic
pavements. Many laboratory test methods namely, retained indirect tensile strength ratio, Hamburg wheel tracking, water immersion have been developed to evaluate moisture susceptibility of
asphalt mixes. Though these tests are simple and easy to conduct,
they exhibited a poor correlation with field performance [1,2]. Further, none of these tests describe a mechanism behind bonding and
debonding of aggregates-asphalt system [1,2]. Recently, research Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ayyanna.habal@gmail.com (A. Habal), dvsingh@civil.iitb.ac.in
(D. Singh).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.060
0950-0618/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ers reported that surface free energy (SFE) of asphalt binder and
aggregates can be a promising parameter in identifying a moisture
resistant mix [38]. The SFE of aggregate and asphalt binder is used
to estimate dry and wet adhesion energy and compatibility ratio
(CR) to evaluate moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes. The SFE
of asphalt binder is estimated based on measurement of contact
angle. The two methods namely, Wilhelmy plate (WP) and Sessile
drop (SD) are being successfully used by many researchers to measure contact angle of asphalt binders [1,4,6,9,10]. Both the WP and
SD methods have different principle of measuring contact angle of
asphalt binders. For example, WP method measured dynamic contact angle derived by principle of force difference, whereas the SD
method measures static contact angle based on an image of a drop.

352

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358

The SD method is quick and simple to conduct compared to the


WP method. The WP method is being used by many researchers to
study effects of antistripping agent, warm mix additives on SFE of
asphalt binder and to determine compatibility ratio (CR) of different types of asphalt-aggregate combinations [37,11]. A good correlation between the CR estimated from the WP method and
laboratory tests has been reported by Bhasin and Little [4]. Similarly, Wei et al. [12], Wasiuddin et al. [7], Lambert et al. [13], Koc
and Bulut [10] used the SD method to quantify effects of different
type of additives on moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixes. These
studies reported that the SFE concept can be used to select the
appropriate treatment to minimize moisture damage in asphalt
mixes.
A study by Little and Bhasin [1] suggested a minimum threshold
value of CR as 0.5 to screen moisture resistant mix. A mix with a CR
below 0.5 indicates high moisture damage potential and vice versa.
However, this threshold value of CR was established based on SFE
components of asphalt binder measured using the WP method.
Therefore, it is important to understand if the set threshold value
(CR = 0.5 based on the WP method) would work if the SFE components of asphalt binders are measured using the SD method. The
present study shows that both methods can rank moisture sensitivity of an asphalt-aggregate combination in a different order.
Though both the techniques are promising, limited studies
[16,17] have been conducted to compare these methods for different types of asphalt binders and aggregates. Therefore, the present
study was undertaken to compare the WP and SD methods to measure contact angle, SFE, dry and wet adhesion energy and CR of different asphalt-aggregate combinations. In addition, the present
study first time evaluates performance of crumb rubber modified
binder with varieties of aggregates. Three different types of binders
(virgin, polymer modified, and crumb rubber modified) and four
different aggregates (basalt, limestone, granite, and sandstone)
were studied in the present study. A total of 12 aggregatesasphalt binder combinations (3 binders  4 aggregates) were evaluated in this study. The contact angles of asphalt binders were
measured using the WP and SD methods, and thereafter their SFE
components were estimated. The SFE of different types of selected
aggregates were adopted from literature [4]. Further, moisture susceptibility rank of different asphalt-aggregate combination was
established based on the WP and SD methods. The study presents
how both methods can differ in measurement of contact angle, SFE
components and energy parameters. It is expected that the present
study will be helpful in selection of an appropriate method for
measurement of contact angle of asphalt binders and compatibility
check of asphalt-aggregate combination to minimized moisture
damage of pavements.

2. Background on surface free energy (SFE)


The SFE of a material is work required to create a unit area of
new surface in vacuum [1]. According to the acid-base theory
[14], SFE of any material is divided into three components namely:
Non-polar or Lifshitz-van der Waals component (cLW), Lewis acid
component (c+), and Lewis base component (c). These components are used to estimate total SFE (c) of a material as per Eqs.
(1) and (2) [1]. Further, bonding energy of a material in presence
and absence of water and CR are estimated based on SFE
components.

c cLW cAB

p
where; cAB 2 c c

2.1. Bonding energy between aggregate and asphalt binder


2.1.1. Cohesion energy (WBB)
The bonding within asphalt binder is known as a cohesive bond.
The cohesion energy (WBB) is calculated using Eq. (3) [1].

W BB 2cB

where, cB = total SFE of asphalt binder.


2.1.2. Dry adhesion energy (WAB)
The dry adhesion energy (WAB) is work required to detach coating of asphalt binder from aggregate surface in a dry state (Eq. (4))
[1].

q
q
q
LW
W AB 2 cLW
cA cB 2 cA cB
A cB 2

where, cLW
and cLW
A
B = Lifshitz-van der Waals component of aggre
gate and asphalt binder, respectively, c
A and cB Lewis acid compo
nent of aggregate and asphalt binder, respectively, and, c
A and cB
Lewis base component of aggregate and asphalt binder,
respectively.


2.1.3. Wet adhesion energy wwet
ABW
The presence of water makes coating of asphalt binder to sepa

rate from aggregate. The wet adhesion energy W wet
ABW of asphaltaggregate combination can be estimated using Eq. (5) [1].

W wet
ABW cAW cBW  cAB

where, cAW , cBW , and cAB are interfacial energy between aggregatewater, asphalt binder-water and aggregate-asphalt binder,
respectively.

1.1. Objectives
The objectives of this research were to:
 Compare contact angle and SFE components of polymer modified, crumb rubber modified and unmodified asphalt binders
measured using the WP and SD methods.
 Compare bonding compatibility of modified and unmodified
asphalt binders with four different aggregates (basalt, limestone, granite and sandstone) using dry adhesion energy, wet
adhesion energy and CR estimated from the WP and SD
methods.
 Determine moisture susceptibility rank of different combinations of asphalt binders and aggregate based on CR value estimated from the WP and SD methods.

2.1.4. Compatibility ratio (CR)


Little and Bhasin [1] and Hossein et al. [9] suggested to estimate
a compatibility ratio of aggregate-asphalt binder combination
based on dry and wet adhesion energy. The CR is defined as ratio


of wettability (WAB  WBB) to the wet adhesion energy W wet
ABW as
shown in Eq. (6) [1]. Little and Bhasin [1] reported that asphalt
mix with CR below of 0.5 considered to have a poor moisture damage resistance.



W  W 
 AB
BB 
CR 



W wet
ABW

353

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358


3. Materials and experimental methodology
Three types of asphalt binders: one unmodified (VG30), one polymer (3.5% SBS)
modified (PMB40), and one crumb rubber (size of 100% and 80% passing from a
sieve number of 30 and 80, respectively) modified (CRMB60) binders and four different types of aggregates: basalt, limestone, granite and sandstone were selected in
the present study. These asphalt binder and aggregates types are generally used in
India for construction of flexible pavements. Therefore, a total of 12 asphaltaggregate combination (3 binders  4 aggregates) were tried in this study. As

shown in the experimental plan (Fig. 1), the first step was to measure contact angles
of the selected asphalt binders using the WP and SD methods, and estimating the
SFE components. The SFE components of selected aggregates were adopted from
the literature [4]. Thereafter the following parameters: dry adhesion energy, wet
adhesion energy and CR were estimated for each combination of selected asphalt
and aggregate.
3.1. SFE of asphalt binders
The SFE of asphalt binder can be estimated based on its contact angle. The contact angle of asphalt binders were measured using the WP and SD methods. The
contact angles of binders should be measured using at least three probe liquids of
known SFE components. In this study, three probe liquids namely: distilled water,
glycerol and formamide were used [3,7,11,12,15] to measure contact angle of
selected asphalt binders. Thereafter, the SFE components of asphalt binders were
calculated using the acid-base theory (Eq. (8)). Many of the recent studies reported
SFE measurement of unaged asphalt samples [1,3,57,911,15], considering that
initial coating/bonding of asphalt binder over aggregates occurs at the initial stage
of mix production, prior to start of aging of binder. Thus, SFE of unaged asphalt binders was measured in the present study.
3.1.1. Wilhelmy plate (WP) method
The WP method measures dynamic contact angle of asphalt binders. The DCAT11 instrument from Dataphysics was selected in this study. The device was calibrated with standard probe liquids to ensure its proper working conditions. The
Fig. 2a shows schematic of the WP device. The microscope cover glass plates of size
24 mm  50 mm  0.15 mm were coated with asphalt binder. The asphalt coated
glass plate was immersed into a selected probe liquid (i.e. distilled water, glycerol,
and formamide) at constant speed of 40 lm/s at room temperature. Change in force
(DF) was measured, which is used to estimate dynamic contact angle (h) between
asphalt coated glass plate surface and a probe liquid using Eq. (7) [1]. A minimum
of four replicate of asphalt binder samples with each probe liquid were tested for
contact angle. Thereafter, the SFE components of asphalt binders were estimated
using the acid-base theory (Eq. (8)) [14].

cos h

DF V im ql  qair g
Pt cTot
L

where, Pt = perimeter of asphalt binder coated plate in m, cTot


= total SFE of liquid in
L
mJ/m2, Vim = volume of immersed portion in cc, ql = density of the liquid in g/cc,
qair = density of air in g/cc, and g = local acceleration due to gravity in m/s2.

0:5cli 1 cos hi

cLW
cLW
s
li

cli cs

p


cli cs

Fig. 1. Experimental plan.

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of the WP device, and (b) the SD device and contact angle measurement from a typical image.

354

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358

Table 1
The SFE components of aggregates from literature [4].

Basalt
Limestone
Granite
Sandstone

SFE components, mJ/m2

cLW (non-polar)

c+ (acid)

c (base)

cAB (polar)

cTotal

52.3
44.1
48.8
58.3

0.64
2.37
0.00
14.60

164
259
412
855.0

20.49
49.55
0.00
223.5

72.8
93.6
48.84
281.8

Contact angle ()

Aggregate
type

(a) Distilled water


120
100

102.297.2

105.9
96.8

104.498.5

80
60

WP

40

SD

20

where, hi = Contact angle of ith probe liquid. Superscript LW, + and  indicates
Lifshitz-van der Waals, Lewis acid and Lewis base components, respectively. Subscript li indicates ith probe liquid and subscript s refers to the solid surface.

3.1.2. Sessile drop (SD) method


The SD method measures static contact angle of asphalt binders. The Digidrop
instrument from GBX was used to measure contact angles. The instrument was calibrated with standard angle drops (calibration kit) to ensure its proper working
conditions. The Fig. 2b shows the SD device. The samples were prepared by pouring
a small amount of hot asphalt binder over a preheated glass slides of size
25 mm  75 mm. A small drop (35 lL) of a selected probe liquid (i.e. distilled
water, glycerol and formamide) is dispensed over sample using microsyringe. The
test was conducted at room temperature. An image of drop over surface is captured
with the help of a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera (Fig. 2b). The contact angle
is estimated with the help of image processing softwares. Thereafter, the SFE components of asphalt binder were estimated using Eq. (8).

100

VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

Contact angle ()

(b) Formamide
89.7

84.1

89.6 89.9

93.4

87.7

80
60
WP
40
SD
20
0
VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

3.2. SFE of aggregates

4. Results and discussions

(c) Glycerol

120

Contact angle ()

Due to unavailability of instrument, the SFE of aggregates (i.e., limestone, basalt,


granite sandstone) was not directly measured in the present study, else the values
were adopted from literature [4]. The adopted SFE of aggregates were measured
using the sorption method considering three probe vapors namely, water, nhexane, and methyl propyl ketone (MPK) [4]. Many researchers had reported successful measurement of SFE of aggregates using sorption device [1,36,11]. However, unavailability and expensiveness of the sorption device had also forced
many other researchers [3,6] to select SFE of aggregates from literature. Table 1
summarizes SFE of aggregates adopted from literature [4]. It can be seen that sandstone has the highest SFE acidic component followed by limestone, basalt, and granite (Table 1). Likewise, basic SFE component of sandstone was maximum followed
by granite, limestone and basalt. The total SFE of sandstone was maximum while it
was minimum for granite.

100

89.5 92.6

90.7 93.8

95.5 96.3

80
60

WP

40

SD

20
0

VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

Fig. 3. Contact angle of asphalt binders measured for (a) distilled water, (b)
formamide, and (c) glycerol.

4.1. Contact angle of asphalt binders


Wetting of asphalt binder to a surface can be studied by knowing its contact angle. A contact angle greater than 90 indicates a
poor wettability (poor coating potential), while contact angles less
than 90 shows a better coating potential of a material. The Fig. 3
shows plot of contact angle for different asphalt binders measured
with the WP and SD methods. The error bars in Fig. 3 indicates
standard deviation of four replicate samples. The results show that
the SD method had high variability compared to the WP method
which is in agreement with literature [1]. The contact angle for
all the binders was found to be greater than 90, indicating a
hydrophobic nature of asphalt binder. In most of the cases (except
for PMB40 with formamide) contact angle measured using the WP
method was higher for water and formamide, compared to the SD
method. However, an opposite trend was observed for glycerol,
which may be due to viscous nature or change in surface tension
of probe liquid. The difference in contact angle measurement by
both methods (SD and WP) may be because of the following reasons (i) the principle of measuring contact angle is different for
SD and WP methods. For example, in the WP method, contact angle
is derived by principle of force difference using Eq. (7), whereas in
the SD method, contact angle is measured based on image of a drop
by image processing technique, (ii) the SD measure static contact
angle while the WP method gives dynamic contact angle, (iii) in

the SD method, interaction of probe liquids to binder sample is


for a small area (4 mm2) where as in the WP method the contact
area is more (500 mm2).

4.2. SFE components of asphalt binders


The SFE components of asphalt binders were estimated based
on contact angle, measured using the WP and SD methods. The
Fig. 4 shows the plot of SFE of asphalt binders.
The SD method resulted in a higher Non-polar (LW), basic, and
total SFE for all the asphalt binders compared to the WP method.
For example, LW component for VG30 binder measured using the
WP and SD methods was found to be 3.35 mJ/m2 and 24.14 mJ/
m2, respectively. Likewise, total SFE for VG30 binder measured
using the WP and SD methods was found to be 10.90 mJ/m2 and
25.29 mJ/m2, respectively. Koc and Bulut [10] and Little et al. [1]
also reported that the SD method estimates high value of total
SFE. A similar trend was observed for PMB40 and CRMB60 binders.
However, the SFE acidic component measured using the WP
method was significantly higher than that of the SD method. For
example, SFE acidic component for VG30 binder measured using
the WP and SD methods was found to be 6.00 mJ/m2 and
0.08 mJ/m2, respectively.

355

(a) LW component

(a) Basalt

24.14

23.46

20

WP
SD

10.72
10

4.87

3.35

PMB40

CRMB60

4.87

4.17

WP
SD

2.68

2.38
2

0.97
VG30

PMB40

70.7

76.4

60

WP

40

SD

20
0

CRMB60

100

VG30

PMB40

107.9

CRMB60

103.6

80.6

75.6

80

85.7 88.6

60

WP

40

SD

20
0

VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

(c) Granite

4.90

WP
SD

2.20
2

0.56

0.29

PMB40

CRMB60

0.08
0
VG30

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

125.0

200

183.0

(d) Total SFE

20

14.59

10.90

10

9.23

11.00

94.8

WP
SD

0
PMB40

76.2

89.7
WP
SD

VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

(d) Sandstone

5
VG30

120.7

80.1

25.85

25.29

25

CRMB60

Fig. 4. The SFE components of asphalt binders (a) LW (b) basic (c) acidic, and (d)
total SFE.

Dry adhesion, mJ/m2

Total SFE, mJ/m2

87.5

80

120

6.00

15

90.2

81.6

(c) Acidic component

30

91.7

(b) Limestone

6.63

100

(b) Basic component

Dry adhesion, mJ/m2

Acidic component, mJ/m2

VG30

Dry adhesion, mJ/m2

6.14

Dry adhesion, mJ/m2

30

Basic component,mJ/m2

LW component, mJ/m2

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358

170.6
137.1

150
107.2

113.6

122.6
WP

100

SD
50
0

VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

Fig. 5. Dry adhesion energy of asphalt binders with: (a) basalt, (b) limestone, (c)
granite, and (d) sandstone.

The result from the WP method shows that VG30 is most


acidic binder followed by PMB40 and CRMB60. However, the SD
method shows reverse trend, and ranks PMB40 as the most acidic
binder followed by CRMB60 and VG30. A low value of acidic component estimated from the SD method indicates that, this method
is not sensitive enough to capture acidic SFE component of
asphalt binders. Similarly, the ranking of asphalt binders based
on SFE basic component measured using the WP methods shows
that PMB40 binder is the most basic in nature followed by
CRMB60 and VG30, however, the SD method shows a different
trend where CRMB60 is the most basic followed by VG30 and
PMB40. Therefore, it can be seen that both methods give different
ranking of binders based on acid and basic components of SFE.
Interestingly, trend for total SFE of different binders was found
to be same for both the WP and SD methods. For example, both
methods indicated that CRMB60 had the highest SFE followed by
VG30 and PMB40.

4.3. Dry adhesion of asphalt binder-aggregate combination


Higher dry adhesion energy of asphalt-aggregate combination is
preferred for moisture damage resistant mix. The Fig. 5 presents
dry adhesion energy for selected 12 combinations of asphalt
binder-aggregate (3 asphalt binder  4 aggregates), estimated
based on the WP and SD methods.
It can be seen that dry adhesion energy estimated based on the
WP method found to be higher compared to the SD method except
for CRMB60 binder where it is either equal or lower. The acidic
component of asphalt binder is multiplied with basic component
of aggregate for estimating dry adhesion energy (refer Eq. (4)). As
discussed earlier, the SD method resulted in negligible value of
acidic component of binders, which finally resulted in smaller
magnitude of dry adhesion energy.

A lower absolute value of wet adhesion for an asphalt-aggregate


combination indicates better moisture damage resistance and vice
versa [4]. The Fig. 6 presents wet adhesion energy of selected 12
different combination of aggregates-asphalt binders estimated by
the WP and SD methods.
The wet adhesion energy calculated from the SD method is significantly higher compared to the WP method (Fig. 6). Interestingly, both the WP and SD methods showed the same order for
wet adhesion energy for four aggregates with three binders
(VG30, PMB40 and CRMB60) except for one case (VG30 by the
WP method). The results showed that the basalt had the strongest
bond while it was the weakest for granite aggregate. The order of
wet adhesion energy for basalt, limestone, granite, and sandstone
aggregates estimated from the WP method was found to be maximum for CRMB60 followed by VG30 and PMB40. The results
showed that CRMB60 may have a poor bond with selected aggregates, while PMB40 showed a tendency to have a good bond. On
the other hand, the SD method showed opposite trend, i.e.,
CRMB60 binder may provide a good bond with selected aggregates
while PMB40 could result in a poor bond. Thus, it can be seen that
both the methods showed opposite trend for PMB40 and CRMB60
binders based on wet adhesion energy. Bhasin and Little [4]
reported that ranking an aggregate-asphalt binder combination
merely based on dry or wet adhesion energy may not reflect a clear
picture about their moisture damage performance. The cohesion
and wettability of asphalt binder plays important role in stripping,
therefore, Bhasin and Little [4] recommended a compatibility ratio
(CR) to rank moisture damage performance of asphalt-aggregate
combination. The present study estimates CR for different combinations of asphalt-aggregates which is discussed in below
paragraph.
4.5. Compatibility ratio (CR)
The CR value for different combinations of asphalt-aggregates
estimated based on the WP and SD methods are summarized in
Table 2. A higher value of CR for an asphalt-aggregate combination
indicates better resistance against moisture damage and vice versa
[4]. It can be seen that CR values estimated based on the WP
method are higher than the SD method. For example, CR ranges
from 0.65 to 3.24, and 0.25 to 0.80 for the WP and SD methods,
respectively. As discussed earlier, the total SFE estimated from
the SD method was lower compared to the WP method, thus the
SD method is resulting in a low value of CR.
Both the WP and SD methods showed that for basalt aggregates,
PMB40 can have the highest CR ratio followed by VG30 and
CRMB60. The results show that basalt aggregate-PMB40 combina-

-50

-52.8
-47.1

-44.9
-37.5

-40
-30

-25.1

WP

-22.1

-20

SD

-10
VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

(b) Limestone

-100

Wet Adhesion, mJ/m2

4.4. Wet adhesion of asphalt binder-aggregate combination

(a) Basalt
-60

-83.2

-83.1

-78.9

-80
-63.5
-60

-44.0

-43.8

WP

-40

SD

-20
0
VG30

Wet Adhesion, mJ/m2

The dry adhesion energy for basalt, limestone, granite, and


sandstone aggregates estimated from the WP method was found
to be maximum for VG30 followed by PMB40 and CRMB60. However, in the SD method, CRMB60 found to have maximum dry
adhesion energy followed by VG30 and PMB40 for basalt, limestone and granite aggregates. The WP method showed lowest
energy for CRMB60, while it is maximum for the SD method. Interestingly, both WP and SD methods showed the highest value of dry
adhesion energy for VG30 compared to PMB40 except for sandstone aggregate. For sandstone aggregate, the WP method showed
maximum value for VG30 and minimum value for CRMB60, while
it was an opposite trend (i.e., minimum for VG30 and maximum for
CRMB60) in the SD method. Both the SD and WP methods showed
maximum and minimum dry adhesion energy for sandstone and
basalt aggregates, respectively. The dry adhesion energy alone cannot be used to quantify moisture damage resistance of a mix [3,4].

Wet Adhesion, mJ/m2

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358

PMB40

CRMB60

(c) Granite
-120

-113.9

-112.5

-100

-107.9
-84.4

-80
-60

-57.0

-56.9
WP

-40

SD

-20
0
VG30

Wet Adhesion, mJ/m2

356

-80

PMB40

CRMB60

(d) Sandstone
-70.8

-76.1

-67.3
-60.0

-60
-44.4

-42.6

-40

WP
SD

-20
0
VG30

PMB40

CRMB60

Fig. 6. Wet adhesion energy of asphalt binders with: (a) basalt, (b) limestone, (c)
granite and (d) sandstone.

tion would have better moisture resistance, while basalt-CRMB60


combination would be the worst. The basalt-VG30 combination
performs better than basalt-CRMB60. However, for other three
aggregates: limestone, granite and sandstone aggregates, the WP
and SD method give different order of CR. For example, the WP
method showed that for limestone, granite and sandstone aggregates with VG30 could have better moisture resistance than that
of PMB40, while CRMB60 showed least CR value indicating poor
performance. On the other hand, the SD method shows that limestone, granite and sandstone aggregate with VG30 could have poor
moisture resistant, while aggregates with PMB40 could be a stronger combination. Therefore, the CR results obtained from both the
WP and SD methods are contradictory for limestone, granite, and
sandstone aggregates. The results from both the methods show
that considering four types of aggregates (basalt, limestone, granite, sandstone), basalt-VG30, basalt-PMB40 and basalt-CRMB60

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358


Table 2
The CR and ranking of mixes based on the WP and SD methods.
Binder type

Aggregate

CR ratio

Individual
ranking

Overall
ranking

WP
VG30

Basalt
Limestone
Granite
Sandstone

2.79
1.96
1.81
1.20

SD

WP

SD

WP

0.66
0.36
0.26
0.26

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
3

2
3
4
6

2
6
7
7

PMB40

Basalt
Limestone
Granite
Sandstone

3.24
1.94
1.80
1.07

0.79
0.56
0.42
0.40

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
3

1
3
4
7

1
3
5
5

CRMB60

Basalt
Limestone
Granite
Sandstone

1.45
1.00
0.86
0.65

0.80
0.47
0.35
0.34

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
3

5
8
9
10

1
4
6
6

SD

0.9

CR (SD method)

Excluded
0.6

0.3

y = 0.1571x + 0.1805
R = 0.586
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

CR (WP method)
Fig. 7. Correlation between CR values estimated from WP and SD methods.

would have the best moisture resistant, while sandstone-VG30,


sandstone-PMB40 and sandstone-CRMB60 combinations would
have least and poor performance.
Bhasin and Little [4] suggested a threshold value of CR as 0.5
estimated from the WP method. A combination with a CR below
0.5 indicates high moisture damage potential (or poor performance). Considering, CR threshold value of 0.5 for pass and fail criteria, it can be seen that all combinations of binders and aggregates
evaluated using the WP method satisfy this limit, indicating a good
moisture resistant. However, for the SD method, basalt with VG30,
PMB40, and CRMB60 and limestone with PMB40 satisfy the limit
(CR greater than 0.5). It means that rest of the asphalt-aggregate
combinations may have poor moisture resistant potential. However, it should be noted that CR threshold of 0.5 was set based
on the WP method, thus this limit may not be applicable for CR
estimated based on the SD method. In this study, a correlation
was tried between CR values estimated using the WP and SD methods (Fig. 7), a trend line was fit using 11 data points (excluding one
observation, which seems to unreasonable and outlier). It was
found that a CR of 0.25 from the SD method would be approximately equal to a CR of 0.5 from the WP method. Considering,
0.25 as a threshold value of CR for the SD method, all asphaltaggregate combinations pass the limit, which is consistent with
the outcome based on the WP method. However, setting a threshold value of CR equal to 0.25 for the SD method should be validated
based on laboratory performance test.

357

and SD methods. Two different types of ranking (i) individual


ranking, (ii) overall ranking were determined for asphaltaggregate combination. The individual ranking provides moisture
damage potential for a selected binder in combinations with different types of aggregates; this can help to select the best suitable aggregates for a selected binder. Similarly, the overall
ranking considers all 12 asphalt-aggregate combinations (3
binders  4 aggregates), which can help to decide which combination of asphalt binder and aggregate can have better moisture
damage potential. The Rank 1 indicates the best possible combination of asphalt binder and aggregate, indicating strong bond
and thus better moisture resistant, while rank 10 reflects a poor
compatibility of aggregate-asphalt binder and a weak moisture
resistant.

4.6.1. Individual ranking


It can be seen that all asphalt binders (VG30, PMB40, and
CRMB60) gave the same order of ranking for different types of
aggregates estimated from both the WP and SD methods. For
example, an asphalt binder with basalt aggregate was ranked 1
(the best possible bonding between asphalt-aggregates as far as
moisture damage is concerned), while sandstone aggregate was
ranked 4 (poor performance). The WP method can clearly differentiate bonding potential for granite and sandstone aggregates.
However, the SD method did not show any difference between
granite and sandstone aggregates. The basalt, limestone, granite,
and sandstone aggregates were ranked as 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively for all three binders. The results showed that basalt aggregates with VG30, PMB40 and CRMB60 may have good moisture
damage potential, while sandstone aggregates may result in poor
moisture resistant.

4.6.2. Overall ranking


In overall ranking all 12 asphalt-aggregate combinations were
considered together. The PMB40-basalt, VG30-basalt, PMB40limestone combinations were ranked 1, 2, and 3, respectively by
both the WP and SD methods. It shows that out of 12 selected
asphalt-aggregate combinations, PMB40 with basalt may have
the best moisture damage resistant followed by VG30-basalt, and
PMB40-limestone. It can be seen that basalt aggregates exhibited
good moisture damage resistant. However, in majority of the cases
(9 out of 12 mixes), both the WP and SD methods give different
ranking. For example, VG30-limestone was ranked 3 and 6 based
on the WP and SD methods, respectively (Table 2). Similarly,
CRMB60-basalt was ranked top by the SD method, while it was
ranked 5 from the WP method. A similar trend was observed for
many other asphalt-aggregate combinations. The results show that
both the WP and SD methods may give different moisture damage
ranking of asphalt-aggregate combination. Therefore, caution
should be taken while using a selected method for measuring contact angle of asphalt binders and coming out with moisture damage ranking of a selected asphalt-aggregate combination. The
findings in the present paper are primarily based on the SFE of
selected aggregates and asphalt binders. Thus, it is recommended
to validate the concept based on the moisture damage performance tests on asphalt mixes.

4.6. Ranking of aggregate-asphalt binder combinations based on CR

5. Conclusions

Table 2 presents the ranking of different asphalt binderaggregate combinations based on CR estimated from the WP

The following conclusions can be drawn based on the results


and discussion presented in the paper.

358

A. Habal, D. Singh / Construction and Building Materials 113 (2016) 351358

 The SD method showed high variability in measurement of contact angle of asphalt binder compared to the WP method. This
variability may be due to difference in method of measurement,
preparation of sample, and principle to estimate contact angle.
 The SD method showed higher value of SFE components for an
asphalt binder than that of the WP method except for acidic
components. The SD method found to be less sensitive to capture acidic component of asphalt binders.
 The WP method estimated higher dry adhesion energy for a
selected asphalt-aggregate combination compared to the SD
method. Both the WP and SD methods showed different trend
of dry adhesion energy. The WP method ranked VG30 to have
the highest dry adhesion energy, while the SD method ranked
CRMB60 to have maximum dry adhesion energy.
 The SD method estimated high wet adhesion energy for a
selected asphalt-aggregate combination compared to the WP
method. Both the methods showed different trend in wet adhesion energy. The WP method showed CRMB60 to have the highest wet adhesion energy, while the SD method showed PMB40
to have the maximum wet adhesion energy.
 The CR value for a selected asphalt-aggregate combination calculated based on the WP method was higher than the SD
method. Based on CR value, it was noticed that both the WP
and SD methods showed opposite trend for limestone, granite,
and sandstone aggregates.
 The CR value of 0.25 estimated from the SD method would be
approximately equal to a CR of 0.5 estimated from the WP
method.
 The WP and SD methods showed that basalt aggregate may give
a better bond with selected asphalt binders in this study, while
sandstone aggregates may result in a poor bond for selected
binders.
 The PMB40-basalt, VG30-basalt, PMB40-limestone combination
were ranked 1, 2, and 3, respectively by both the WP and SD
methods. However, it was found that in majority of asphaltaggregate combinations selected in the present study, both
the WP and SD methods provided different ranking.
The outcome of the present study may not be generalized,
because the other factors such as aging and chemical composition
of binders play important role in SFE characteristics. It is recommended that a future study be conducted to evaluate and validate

effects of various factors (aging, chemical composition, freeze and


thaw) on SFE of binders based on laboratory and field based tests.
References
[1] D.N. Little, A. Bhasin, Using Surface Energy Measurements to Select Materials
for HMA Pavements, NCHRP Project 9-37, TRB, Washington DC, USA, 2006.
[2] S. Mansour, H. John, T. Maghsoud, T. Vivek, Test Methods to Predict Moisture
Sensitivity of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements, Moisture Sensitivity of Asphalt
Pavements A National Seminar, San Diego, California, 2003. February 46.
[3] R. Ghabchi, D. Singh, M. Zaman, Q. Tian, Application of asphalt-aggregates
interfacial energies to evaluate moisture-induced damage of warm mix
asphalt, Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 104 (2013) 2938.
[4] A. Bhasin, D.N. Little, Characterization of aggregate surface energy using the
universal sorption device, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (8) (2007) 634641.
[5] M. Arabani, H. Roshani, H. Hamedi, Estimating moisture sensitivity of warm
mix asphalt modified with zycosoil as an antistrip agent using surface free
energy method, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (7) (2012) 889897.
[6] A.W. Hefer, A. Bhasin, D.N. Little, Bitumen surface energy characterization
using a contact angle approach, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (6) (2006) 759767.
[7] N.M. Wasiuddin, D.C. Howell, C.M. Fogle, M.M. Zaman, E.A. O Rear, Acid-base
characteristics of an asphalt binder with and without anti-strip additives, in:
Airfield and Highway Pavements, ASCE, 2006.
[8] A.K. Apeagyei, R.A. James, Grenfell, G.D. Airey, Moisture-induced strength
degradation of aggregateasphalt mastic bonds, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 15
(S1) (2014) 239262.
[9] Z. Hossain, B. Bairgi, M. Belshe, Evaluation of moisture susceptibility of ground
tire rubber (GTR) modified asphalt binder by sessile drop method, TRB 94th
annual meeting, Transp. Res. Rec. (2015).
[10] M. Koc, R. Bulut, Evaluation of a warm mix asphalt additive using direct
contact angle measurements, Int. J. Pavements Conf. (2013). Paper 167-1, So
Paulo, Brazil.
[11] A. Khodaii, V. Khalifeh, M. Dehnad, G. Hamedi, Evaluating the effect of zycosoil
on moisture damage of hot-mix asphalt using the surface energy method, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2) (2014) 259266.
[12] J. Wei, X. Huang, Y. Zhang, Influence of commercial wax on performance of
asphalt, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2010) 760766 (Special issue: Asphalt and
Modified Asphalt Materials).
[13] J. Lambert, A. Shalaby, M. Enieb, Wettability, surface tension and surface free
energy behavior of short-term aging and liquid antistrips modified HMA
binders, Int. J. Pavements Conf. (2013). Paper 199-1, So Paulo, Brazil.
[14] V.C.J. Oss, M.K. Chaudhury, R.J. Good, Interfacial Lifshitz-van der Waals and
polar interactions in macroscopic systems, Chem. Rev. 88 (1988) 927941.
[15] J. Wei, F. Dong, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, Relationship analysis between surface free
energy and chemical composition of asphalt binder, Constr. Build. Mater. 71
(2014) 116123.
[16] A. Bahramian, Evaluating Surface Energy Components of Asphalt Binders Using
Wilhelmy Plate and Sessile Drop Techniques, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, 2012.
[17] J. Drelich, K. Bukka, J.D. Miller, F.V. Hanson, Surface tension of tolueneextracted bitumens from Utah oil sands as determined by Wilhelmy plate and
contact angle techniques, Energy Fuels 8 (3) (1994) 700704.