Article

Transportation Research Record

1–13
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Influence of Recycled Asphalt Pavement Transportation Research Board 2018
Reprints and permissions:
on Interfacial Energy and Bond Strength sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0361198118784377

of Asphalt Binder for Different Types of journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Aggregates

Ayyanna Habal1 and Dharamveer Singh1

Abstract
The bond between aggregate and asphalt binder depends on many factors, such as chemistry of materials, nature of aggregates,
and quality of asphalt binder. The present study evaluates the effects of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) on the bonding beha-
vior of asphalt binder for acidic (granite and quartzite) and basic (basalt and limestone) aggregates. AC30 binder was blended
with different proportions of RAP binder (15%, 25%, and 40%). The interfacial energy and bond strength of 16 combinations
(four asphalt binders 3 four aggregates) of aggregate-asphalt binder system were evaluated based on a surface free energy
(SFE) approach and binder bond strength (BBS) test, respectively. One of the strong motivations of the present study was to
evaluate how interfacial energy parameters calculated based on the SFE of an aggregate-asphalt binder system may correlate
with the outcome obtained from a BBS test. The results showed that AC30 binder modified with RAP binder had a good per-
formance for basic aggregates compared with acidic aggregates. Basic aggregates (limestone and basalt) showed cohesive failure
before and after conditioning, indicating minimal effects of water on interfacial bond strength. However, acidic aggregates (gran-
ite and quartzite) showed cohesive failure in dry conditions and adhesive failure after wet conditioning, implying detrimental
effects of water on interfacial bond strength for these aggregates. The failure pattern of aggregates in cohesion was supported
by a reduction in cohesion energy of asphalt binder after the addition of RAP binder. Correlation between interfacial energy
parameters (obtained from SFE) and BBS strength depends on aggregate types and failure patterns.

It is essential to ensure a good bond between aggregate
and asphalt binder to have a moisture resistant mix.
Usually, indirect test methods such as indirect tensile
strength ratio, Hamburg wheel tracking, and static and
boiling are used to evaluate bonding or moisture resis-
tance potential of an aggregate-asphalt binder system (1,
2). However, none of the test methods address expected
failure patterns (cohesive or adhesive) or the role of
chemistry of materials. The bond between aggregate and
asphalt binder depends on many factors, such as the
chemistry of materials, the nature of aggregates, and the
quality of the asphalt binder. For example, a selected
asphalt binder may act differently with granite, lime-
stone, basalt and quartzite, and sandstone aggregates.
Further, the response of asphalt binder toward an aggre-
gate may alter after the addition of a modifier or addi-
tives (e.g., anti-stripping, anti-aging, recycled asphalt
binder, polymer, etc.). Thus, the role of surface chemistry
and type of aggregate and asphalt binders cannot be
denied to ensure a good bond. Recently two new test
protocols have been developed to address the bonding
behavior of asphalt binder and aggregates: (i) the imple-
mentation of a surface free energy (SFE) concept to
quantify cohesion and adhesion bond energy of different
aggregate-asphalt binder systems (1–6), (ii) the use of a
binder bond strength (BBS) test to measure bond
strength between asphalt binder and aggregates (7). The
BBS test can help to identify types of failure (cohesion
and adhesion) of an asphalt-aggregate system before and
after water conditioning. The BBS test is repeatable and
reproducible and effectively measures the effect of moist-
ure conditioning (7).
Theoretically SFE seems to be a promising approach
to evaluate the compatibility of the aggregate-asphalt
binder; however, it was emphasized this approach should
be validated based on the mechanical performance of
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai, India
Corresponding Author:
Address correspondence to Ayyanna Habal: ayyanna.habal@gmail.com
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
compacted asphalt mixes. Hamedi and Nejad (1) corre-
lated four different energy parameters derived based on
the SFE of aggregate-asphalt binder with tensile strength
ratio (TSR) of compacted mix. They reported that energy
parameters had a good correlation with TSR results.
Similarly, many studies by Arabani et al. (3), Bhasin
et al. (8), and Howson et al. (9) showed that the energy
parameters obtained using the SFE concept can have a
good correlation with laboratory performance para-
meters of asphalt mixes, namely, dynamic modulus, resi-
lient modulus ratio, fatigue ratio, and work of fracture.
In another study, Moraes et al. (10, 11) showed that a
good relationship exists between BBS and SFE test meth-
ods (11). However, as per the authors’ knowledge, limited
studies have been conducted correlating SFE parameters
of an aggregate-asphalt binder system with strength para-
meters obtained from a BBS test, which provides a direct
measurement of bond strength and type of failures.
Therefore, one of the strong motivations of the present
study was to evaluate how interfacial energy parameters
calculated based on the SFE of an aggregate-asphalt bin-
der system may correlate with an outcome obtained from
a BBS test. Further, the present study addresses the
effects of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) binder on the
bonding behavior of asphalt binder for four different
types of aggregates (granite, limestone, basalt, and quart-
zite). These four aggregates were selected considering
their acidic and basic nature. Obviously, RAP binder
being aged and stiff may alter the chemical composition
and properties of virgin asphalt binder, which can influ-
ence bonding behavior. The authors could not find a
study that brings both SFE and BBS tests together for a
binder containing RAP.
In the present study, AC30 binder was blended with
different proportions of RAP binder (0, 15, 25, and
40%). The first phase of the work was to estimate the
SFE of aggregate and asphalt binders selected in the
study. The SFE components of asphalt binders were
measured using the Wilhelmy plate (WP) method.
Likewise, the SFE components of basalt, limestone,
granite, and quartzite aggregates were measured using a
dynamic vapor sorption (DVS) device. A total of 16
combinations of aggregate-asphalt binder systems were
selected (four asphalt binder 3 four aggregates). The
interfacial energy of all 16 combinations of aggregate-
asphalt binder system was calculated based on SFE com-
ponents. The second phase of the present work was to
measure the bond strength of all 16 combinations of
aggregate-asphalt binder in dry and wet conditions using
a BBS test. Bond strength ratio (BSR) was calculated for
each selected combination based on wet and dry bond
strength measured through a BBS test. Also, this paper
presents a comparison between bond strength obtained
through BBS- and SFE-based interfacial energy para-
meters. It is expected that the outcome of this study will
help with understanding the effects of RAP binder on
bond strength, interfacial energy, and failure pattern
with different types of aggregates.
Objectives
The objectives of the present study were to:
1. Evaluate the effects of RAP binder and aggregate
type on the interfacial energy parameters of
aggregate-asphalt binder systems using the SFE
approach
2. Evaluate pull-off tensile strength (POTS) and fail-
ure pattern of basalt, limestone, granite, and
quartzite aggregates for asphalt binder containing
RAP binder in dry and wet conditions using a
BBS test
3. Compare POTS of different aggregate-asphalt
binder combinations obtained through a BBS test
with interfacial energy parameters estimated using
the SFE approach
Materials
Virgin asphalt binder (AC30), RAP binder, and four dif-
ferent types of aggregates (basalt, limestone, granite, and
quartzite) were considered in the study. It was found that
calcareous aggregates such as basalt and limestone are
basic in nature with predominant calcite and least silica
content. Likewise, siliceous aggregates, namely, granite
and quartzite, are acidic in nature with high silica content
(12). The binder was extracted from RAP material using
centrifuge extraction and rotary evaporator methods.
AC30 binder was blended with different proportions of
RAP binder (0, 15, 25, and 40%) at 165 6 5°C, and 1,000
rpm for 1 hour. Further, the chemical changes of these
asphalt binders were studied by Fourier transform infra-
red (FTIR) spectroscopy method. A total of 16 combina-
tions of aggregate-asphalt binder systems were prepared
in this study.
Methodology and Experimental Plan
First, the SFE components of asphalt binders with and
without RAP binder, and different types of aggregates
were measured. Later, the bond strength of all 16 asphalt
binder-aggregate combinations in dry and wet conditions
was measured using a BBS test. The detailed description
of the test methods and an experimental plan is discussed
below.
Habal and Singh
Surface Free Energy
The SFE of a solid is defined as the magnitude of work
required to create a unit area of new surface in vacuum
(13). The total SFE of any material is divided into three
components, namely, Lifshitz-van der Waals component
(gLW), Lewis acid component (g + ), and Lewis base com-
ponent (g2). The total SFE (g) can be obtained using
Equation 1. The work of cohesion (WBB) for asphalt bin-
der and work of adhesion (WAB) between asphalt binder
and aggregates can be estimated using an SFE parameter
by Equations 2 and 3, respectively. Similarly, work of
adhesion in the presence of water, also known as work of
wet
debonding (WABW ), can be estimated using Equation 4. A
higher work of adhesion may imply a stronger bond
between asphalt binder and aggregate and vice versa (2).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g = g LW + g +  = g LW + 2 g+ g :
WBB = 2gB :
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
WAB = gli ð1 + cosui Þ = 2 g LW A gB
LW
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
+ 2 g+ g  + 2 g g+ :
A B A B
wet
WABW = g AW + g BW  g AB
Where, subscripts A, B, and W indicate aggregate, bin-
der, and water, respectively.
g LW LW
A and g B = Lifshitz-van der Waals component of
aggregate and binder, respectively. g + +
A and g B Lewis
acid component of aggregate and binder, respectively,
and,g 
A and g B Lewis base component of aggregate and
binder, respectively.
gAW, gBW, and gAB are interfacial energy between
aggregate-water, asphalt binder-water, and aggregate-
asphalt binder, respectively.
Interfacial energy between two materials, i and j (g ij . )
can be determined using Equation 5.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g ij = g i + gj  2 g LW g LW
 2 g + g   2 g  g + ð5Þ
i j i j
Energy Parameters
In the present study, energy parameters, EP1 (Equation
6) and EP2 (Equation 7) suggested by Hamedi and Ned
(1) were considered for quantifying the bonding behavior
of all 16 combinations of asphalt binder-aggregate sys-
tem. The surface energy of water is higher than that of
bitumen, and therefore it tries to replace bitumen from
aggregate. Therefore, the interfacial energy of adhesion
between aggregate-binder (g AB) and water-aggregate
(g WA) can be used for judging the stripping potential.
The difference between these two interfacial energies
(g AB - g WA) indicates the stripping potential. As this dif-
ference is greater, the aggregate is more likely to strip in
3
the presence of water. EP1 is the ratio of (g AB–g WA) to
g AB (Equation 6). A lower value of EP1 implies
better compatibility of an asphalt-aggregate system and
vice versa (1).
gAB  gWA
EP1 = ð6Þ
gAB
Similarly, another energy parameter, EP2 (Equation
7), can also be used as a tool to detect the compatibility
of aggregate-asphalt binder systems. EP2 is the ratio of
interfacial energy of adhesion between aggregate-binder
(in dry conditions) g dry
AB to the difference between interfa-
cial energy of adhesion in dry and wet conditions (g dryAB -
g wet
AB ). A higher value of EP2 implies better compatibility
of the aggregate-asphalt binder system and vice versa (1).
ð1Þ g Dry
AB
EP2 = ð7Þ
ð2Þ g Dry Wet
AB  g AB
ð3Þ Measurement of SFE of Asphalt Binders
The SFE components of AC30 control binder with differ-
ð4Þ ent RAP binder content (0%, 15%, 25%, and 40%) were
determined using a contact-angle based approach. First,
the contact angle of selected asphalt binders was mea-
sured with three probe liquids (distilled water, glycerol,
and formamide) using the WP method. Thereafter, the
SFE components were calculated using acid-base theory
(Equation 3) (13). Five replicate samples of each asphalt
binder were tested for contact angle. More details on
sample preparation, selection of probe liquid, and test
parameters used to find the SFE of asphalt binders can
be found in other studies (1, 6, 14). Table 1 summarizes
the SFE of all asphalt binder samples.
Measurement of SFE of Aggregates
i j In the present study, the SFE of aggregates was measured
using the DVS method. Three probe vapors (n-Octane,
ethyl acetate, and chloroform) were passed into a sealed
chamber containing a dry aggregate sample. At different
partial pressures, probe vapor is allowed to be absorbed
by the dry aggregate sample at 25ºC. At each partial pres-
sure, the amount of probe vapor absorbed was measured
by a high accuracy microbalance connected to the cham-
ber. From this data, adsorption isotherm can be plotted
for all three probe vapors. Through adsorption isotherm,
the SFE components of aggregate can be calculated. A
detailed discussion on measurement of aggregate SFE by
DVS method can be found in the literature (2). Table 1
summarizes the SFE of all the aggregates considered in
this study and a detailed discussion on results is provided
later in this paper.
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 1. SFE Components of Asphalt Binders and Aggregates

SFE components, mJ/m2

gLW g+ g– gAB
Cohesion energy
Material (Non-Polar) (Acid) (Base) (Polar) gTotal (mJ/m2)

Asphalt binders
AC30 (control) 13.99 0.00 11.21 0.00 13.99 27.98
AC30 + 15% RAP 4.50 1.52 7.79 6.88 11.38 22.75
AC30 + 25% RAP 3.88 3.15 1.22 3.91 7.79 15.58
AC30 + 40% RAP 1.33 4.05 9.55 12.44 13.77 27.54
Aggregates
Basalt 89.5 232.9 134.4 353.7 443.3 –
Limestone 84.0 51.4 122.7 158.8 242.8 –
Granite 159.6 22.1 53.3 68.7 228.2 –
Quartzite 142.1 10.6 4.20 13.3 155.4 –

Binder Bond Strength Test
The test was conducted as per AASHTO T 361-16 (15)
to measure POTS between asphalt binder and aggregate.
POTS can be calculated using Equation 8. The test can
also help to identify the type of failure (cohesion and
adhesion) in asphalt-aggregate systems before and after
water conditioning (Figure 1e). Researchers have sug-
gested POTS can be an indicator of moisture damage in
an asphalt-aggregate system (7, 16). Therefore, POTS
was measured on conditioned and unconditioned sam-
ples to check the influence of moisture. Conditioning
was done at 40° for 24 hours. Further, BSR was calcu-
lated by considering the ratio between POTS of condi-
tioned and unconditioned samples (Equation 9).
(BP*Ag )  C
POTS =
Aps
POTSwet
BSR =
POTSdry
Where, Ag = contact area of gasket with reaction plate
(mm2); BP = burst pressure (kPa); Aps= area of pull
stub (mm2); C = piston constant, POTS for conditioned
samples referred as POTSwet and for unconditioned sam-
ples POTSdry.
Aggregate Sample Preparation. Figure 1a depicts the aggre-
gate sample preparation procedure for a BBS test. For
this method, first, aggregate samples were cut in sizes of
approximately 100 mm 3 100 mm to accommodate at
least five pull-off stubs. After cutting, surface roughness
was controlled through lapping at different sized silicon
carbide grits. Polished substrates were cleaned in an
ultrasonic bath at 60ºC for 60 minutes. Then the samples
were dried in an oven at 110ºC for 24 hours.
Asphalt Sample and Stub Preparation. First, pull-off stubs
and aggregate substrates were heated at 150ºC for 30
minutes to remove the moisture. Thereafter, aggregate
substrates were kept at 60ºC for preparing BBS test sam-
ples. Molten asphalt binder was poured into silicon molds
(fabricated to accommodate the required volume) (Figure
1b). The aggregate substrate and stubs were removed from
the oven and the asphalt binder sample was placed imme-
diately on the surface of the stub for 10 s. Then, the stub
with the asphalt binder sample was pressed firmly on the
aggregate surface until it reached the surface (Figure 1c).
For testing unconditioned samples, dry samples were left
at room temperature for 24 hours. For wet conditioning,
samples were first kept at room temperature for 1 hour
then submerged in a water bath at 40ºC for 24 hours.
Testing was performed using Pneumatic Adhesion Tensile
ð8Þ Testing Instrument (PATTI) and accessories at a cali-
brated loading rate of 100 psi/sec (Figure 1d).
ð9Þ
FTIR Spectroscopy
The FTIR spectroscopy technique was used to evaluate
changes in the chemical composition of the control bin-
der after the addition of RAP binder. For this test,
asphalt and tetrachloroethylene solvent solution was pre-
pared (0.75 gm:10 ml ratio). IR spectrum was passed
through prepared samples to get FTIR spectra. For
organic materials like asphalt binder, the FTIR spectra
were obtained for a wavelength range of 4,000 cm21 to
400 cm21. Aging in asphalt binder can be captured by
observing the peaks at 1,700 cm21 (C = O), which
shows the presence of ketones and carboxylic acids.
Likewise, a peak at 1,030 cm21 indicates aging due to
sulfoxide (S = O) (17). For the purpose of quantitative
analysis, aging and stiffness indicator indices (IC=O and
IS=O) suggested by Liu et al. (17) were calculated using
Equations 10 and 11, respectively.
Habal and Singh 5

Cutting Polishing BBS Stub Binder

(a) (b)
BBS Test Specimen BBS Test Setup Cohesion

Adhesion

(c) (d) (e)

Figure 1. (a) Aggregate sample preparation, (b) stub and bitumen sample, (c) samples for BBS test, (d) BBS test set up, and (e) Failure
pattern.

Area around 1700 cm1
IC = O :
Area around 1460 cm1 and Area around 1375 cm1
ð10Þ
Area around 1030 cm1
IS = O
Area around 1460 cm1 and Area around 1375 cm1
ð11Þ
Results and Discussions
Chemical Composition of Asphalt Binders
Figure 2, a and b, presents the FTIR spectra and indices,
respectively, for AC30 asphalt binder after the addition
of 15%, 25%, and 40% RAP binder. It can be seen that
RAP binder (100% RAP) shows highest peaks at 1,700
cm21 and 1,030 cm21 wavenumbers (indicating highly
aged), followed by AC30 control binder with 40%, 25%,
15%, and 0% RAP binder (Figure 2a). The arrangement
of peaks shows the difference in aging between RAP bin-
der and AC30 control binder. Interestingly, relatively
small peaks observed at 1,700 cm21 and 1,030 cm21 for
AC30 control binder may be attributed to the sample
preparation process and short-term aging. Figure 2b
shows that both the indices (IC=O and IS=O) increased
with the addition of RAP binder. For example, IC=O for
AC30 binder increased from 0.06 to 0.10, 0.13, and 0.12
after the addition of 15%, 25%, and 40% RAP binder,
respectively. This validates the visual observations
(arrangement of peaks for different RAP content) made
in the FTIR spectral trend (Figure 2a).
SFE of Asphalt Binders
The total SFE, LW, and base SFE components of AC30
control binder decreased with the addition of RAP bin-
der (Table 1). For example, the LW component of AC30
control binder decreased from 13.99 to 4.50, 3.88, and
1.33 mJ/m2 after the addition of 15%, 25%, and 40%
RAP binder, respectively. However, the polar and acid
SFE component of AC30 binder increased with the addi-
tion of RAP binder. This may be because RAP binder is
basically aged binder, which comprised a higher amount
of polar carboxylic acids compared with the control bin-
der (18). An increment in carbonyl functional group after
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 2. (a) FTIR spectra and (b) FTIR indices for AC30 binder with different RAP binder content.
the addition of RAP binder was evident from the obser-
vation made in the FTIR test conducted in this study.
The total SFE is a function of acid, base, and non-
polar components (Equation 1). It was observed that the
acid component of the control binder increased with the
addition of RAP. However, the basic component of the
control binder decreased with the addition of RAP up to
25%, and then it increased after the inclusion of 40%
RAP. Thus, after addition of 40% RAP, basic and acidic
components showed an opposite trend, which influenced
the total SFE (Equation 1) of the control binder.
Therefore, total SFE did not yield a specific trend with
an increase in RAP content. It seems control binders
behave differently after the addition of 40% RAP (espe-
cially the basic components of the binder), and this may
be attributed to the interaction level of aged RAP binder
with the control binder. Similar trends in SFE compo-
nents were also observed in the literature for control bin-
ders with the addition of RAP binder (4). Overall, it can
be noted that the chemistry of the control binder is
altered due the addition of RAP binder, which is
reflected in terms of changes in the SFE components of
the control binder. However, a detailed chemical investi-
gation needs to be conducted to gain more insight into
the SFE of RAP blended binders.
SFE of Aggregates
Table 1 summarizes the SFE components of different
types of aggregates considered in this study. Basic aggre-
gates (basalt and limestone) had high polar and high
basic SFE components compared with acid aggregates
(granite and quartzite). The total SFE of basalt aggre-
gate was higher (443.3 mJ/m2) followed by limestone
(242.8 mJ/m2), granite (228.2 mJ/m2), and quartzite
(155.4 mJ/m2). Basalt aggregate was found to be highly
polar with a polar SFE component of 353.7 mJ/m2 and
quartzite was found to be least polar with a polar SFE
component of 13.3 mJ/m2. The non-polar component of
acid aggregates (i.e., granite and quartzite) was higher
than that of basic aggregates (i.e., basalt and limestone).
A broad range of SFE component values indicates a
Habal and Singh 7

Table 2. Interfacial Energy and Energy Parameters for Different Asphalt-Aggregate Combinations

Interfacial energy, mJ/m2

gAS gSW gASW Energy parameters

Asphalt binder Aggregate Asphalt-stone Stone-water Asphalt-stone-water EP1 EP2

AC30 (Control) Basalt 284.3 156.5 –109.7 0.45 0.72

AC30 + 15% RAP 300.8 156.5 –120.5 0.48 0.71
AC30 + 25% RAP 339.0 156.5 –149.3 0.54 0.69
AC30 + 40% RAP 294.2 156.5 –113.4 0.47 0.72
AC30 (Control) Limestone 140.2 45.7 –76.4 0.67 0.65
AC30 + 15% RAP 148.0 45.7 –78.5 0.69 0.65
AC30 + 25% RAP 159.3 45.7 –80.5 0.71 0.66
AC30 + 40% RAP 146.5 45.7 –76.5 0.69 0.66
AC30 (Control) Granite 116.3 61.8 –36.4 0.47 0.76
AC30 + 15% RAP 141.8 61.8 –56.2 0.56 0.72
AC30 + 25% RAP 150.0 61.8 –55.0 0.59 0.73
AC30 + 40% RAP 154.4 61.8 –68.3 0.60 0.69
AC30 (Control) Quartzite 58.4 63.3 23.0 –0.08 1.65
AC30 + 15% RAP 93.0 63.3 –5.9 0.32 0.94
AC30 + 25% RAP 101.8 63.3 –5.3 0.38 0.95
AC30 + 40% RAP 113.3 63.3 –25.7 0.44 0.82

significant difference in surface chemistry and mineral- interesting to check if gAS can have a correlation with a
ogy of selected aggregates. strength parameter obtained from a BBS test.

Interfacial Energy between Asphalt Binder and Aggregate in Wet

Energy Parameters Based on SFE of Asphalt Binder
and Aggregate
The SFE components of asphalt binders and aggregates
reported in Table 1 were used to calculate the interfacial
energies and energy parameters using Equations 6 and 7.
Table 2 enumerates interfacial energies and energy para-
meters for all combinations of asphalt binder-aggregates
used in the present study.
Interfacial Energy between Asphalt Binder and Aggregate in Dry
Conditions (gAS). In general, gAS increased with the addi-
tion of RAP binder for all types of aggregates. For exam-
ple, the gAS value for AC30-quartzite aggregate was
found to be 58.4 mJ/m2, which increased to 93.0, 101.8,
and 113.3 mJ/m2 with the addition of 15%, 25%, and
40% RAP binder, respectively. Nevertheless, for basic
aggregates (basalt and limestone), gAS increased up to
the addition of 25% RAP binder, and then decreased
with higher RAP binder content (40% RAP). On the
other hand, for acid type aggregates (granite and quart-
zite), gAS value continued to increase with the addition
of RAP binder. The basalt aggregate had the highest gAS
for AC30 with and without RAP binder, followed by
limestone, granite, and quartzite aggregates. This may
because surface chemistry of Lewis acids and bases in the
case of an acidic asphalt and basic aggregate favor adhe-
sion, and a good bond between basic aggregate and an
acidic asphalt can be achieved (19). It would be
Conditions (g ASW). Interfacial energy in the presence of
water (gASW) was calculated for all 16 combinations of
aggregate-asphalt binder system. A higher gASW value
indicates a greater chance of the asphalt binder being
stripped from the aggregate. In general, gASW increased
with the addition of RAP binder for all types of aggre-
gates, indicating degradation of the bond between
binder-aggregate systems in the presence of water. For
example, the magnitude of gASW for AC30-basalt combi-
nation was found to be 109.7 mJ/m2, which increased to
120.5, 149.3, and 113.4 mJ/m2 with the addition of 15%,
25%, and 40% RAP binder, respectively. Nevertheless,
for basic aggregates (basalt and limestone), gASW
increased up to the addition of 25% RAP binder, and
then decreased with higher RAP binder content (40%
RAP). On other hand, for acid type aggregates (granite
and quartzite), the gASW value showed a mixed trend
with the addition of RAP binder content. In general,
quartzite aggregate had the least gASW for AC30 with
and without RAP binder, followed by granite, limestone,
and basalt aggregates.
Energy Parameters (EP1 and EP2). Two energy parameters
(EP1 and EP2) were calculated for the 16 asphalt binder-
aggregate combinations using Equations 6 and 7, respec-
tively. As mentioned earlier, a lower value of EP1 and a
higher value of EP2 indicates better bonding potential of
asphalt binder-aggregates considering both dry and wet
conditions. In general, EP1 increased, while EP2 decreased
8 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

(a) (b)
4.00 4.00

3.03 3.10
2.94 2.91 2.91 2.74 2.85
3.00 2.74 2.78 3.00 2.54 2.59 2.67
2.59 2.62 2.44

POTS, MPa
2.46
POTS, MPa

2.00 2.00

1.05 0.96 0.99 1.05 0.96 1.03 1.04 1.02

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
POTSdry POTSwet BSR POTSdry POTSwet BSR
AC30(Control) AC30+15%RAP AC30+25%RAP AC30+40%RAP AC30(Control) AC30+15%RAP AC30+25%RAP AC30+40%RAP

(c) (d)
4.00 4.00

3.00 2.75 2.87 3.00 2.74 2.84 2.62

2.51 2.54
POTS, MPa

POTS, MPa
2.38
2.21 2.12 2.09
1.81 1.71 1.90
2.00 1.65 2.00
1.30
0.75 0.72 0.62 0.90 1.03 0.87
1.00 1.00 0.74
0.45

0.00 0.00
POTSdry POTSwet BSR POTSdry POTSwet BSR
AC30(Control) AC30+15%RAP AC30+25%RAP AC30+40%RAP AC30(Control) AC30+15%RAP AC30+25%RAP AC30+40%RAP

Figure 3. BBS of AC30 with and without RAP binder for (a) basalt, (b) limestone, (c) granite, and (d) quartzite.

with the addition of RAP binder to control binder for all quartzite) and AC30 containing different percentages of
types of aggregates. For example, the EP1 value for AC30- RAP binder 0%, 15%, 25%, and 40%) is presented in
basalt combination increased from 0.45 to 0.48, 0.54, and Figure 3. The error bars shown in Figure 3 represent the
0.47 after the addition of 15%, 25%, and 40% RAP bin- standard deviation (variability) of five replicate samples
der, respectively. This indicates that the compatibility of tested in the present study.
AC30 control binder decreased with the addition of RAP
binder. A similar trend was observed for other aggregates
as well. Nevertheless, for basic aggregates (basalt and lime- POTSdry. POTSdry value increased with the addition of
stone), EP2 did not differ much with the addition of RAP RAP binder irrespective of the nature of the aggregates.
binder to AC30 control binder. This implies that the addi- For example, POTSdry for control AC30-quartzite aggre-
tion of RAP binder may not affect the performance of gate was measured to be 2.12 MPa, which increased to
AC30 binder with basic aggregates. On other hand, for 2.54, 2.74, and 2.84 MPa with the addition of 15%,
acid type aggregates (granite and quartzite), EP2 value 25%, and 40% RAP binder, respectively (Figure 3d). A
continued to decrease with the addition of RAP binder, similar trend can also be seen for limestone, granite, and
indicating a negative effect of RAP binder on acidic aggre- basalt aggregates (Figure 3). An increase in bond
gates. This may be because carboxylic acids in bitumen strength may be attributed to the stiffer or viscous nature
readily bond with siliceous aggregate surfaces but these of AC30 binder after the addition of RAP binder (20).
bonds are easily displaced by water (12). An increase in This can also be supported by indices, IC=O and IS=O
carboxylic acids with the addition of RAP binder was evi- for AC30 binder, increased after the addition of RAP
dent from the FTIR test conducted in the study. It is to be binder, confirming the increment of binder stiffness and
noted that the EP1 for AC30-quartzite combination was aging. Therefore, Bahia et al. (20) suggested performing
found to be an erroneous value of -0.08 (EP cannot be the BBS test at iso-stiffness temperature. Interestingly,
negative) and was not considered for comparing with the the magnitude of increment in bond strength varied from
BBS results. aggregate to aggregate, indicating that the type of aggre-
gate plays an important role. For control AC30 binder,
basic aggregates (basalt and limestone) performed better
Asphalt Binder Bond Strength in dry conditions compared with acidic aggregates (gran-
The POTS value measured in dry and wet conditions for ite and quartzite). This trend changes after the addition
four different aggregates (basalt, limestone, granite, and of RAP binders, and acidic aggregates showed a
Habal and Singh
relatively similar performance to that of basic aggregates,
indicating that RAP addition is favorable for acidic
aggregates in dry conditions. The observations made in
this study are in line with the literature findings for aged
binder (16, 20).
POTSwet. For basic aggregates, the increment was consis-
tent. For example, POTSwet for AC30-limestone was
increased from 2.44 to 2.67, 2.85, and 3.10 MPa after the
addition of 15%, 25%, and 40% RAP binder, respec-
tively. Whereas, for acidic aggregates (granite and quart-
zite), POTSwet value increased for the addition of 15%
RAP binder, and then after a higher percentage of RAP
(i.e., 25% and 40%) decreased POTSwet value. Even
though POTSwet value decreased, it was still higher than
the control binder for quartzite aggregate (2.09MPa .
1.90MPa). However, granite aggregate showed a
POTSwet value lower than the control binder for 40%
RAP binder (1.30 \ 1.65MPa), indicating that very high
RAP binder content leads to degradation of bond
strength in acidic aggregate and is relatively more severe
for granite aggregate. Also, acidic aggregates (granite
and quartzite) showed the influence of moisture condi-
tioning by showing reduced POTS value on condition-
ing. This may be because carboxylic acids in bitumen
readily bond with siliceous aggregate surfaces but these
bonds are easily displaced by water (12).
BSR. POTSdry and POTSwet values indicate the strength
of an asphalt-aggregate system in dry and wet conditions,
respectively. However, in reality, both dry and wet condi-
tions are prevalent simultaneously. Therefore, in order to
consider the combined effect of wet and dry conditions,
BSR was calculated (Equation 9). For AC30 control bin-
der, BSR for basalt aggregate was the highest, followed
by limestone, quartzite, and granite. However, after the
addition of RAP binder, the order of BSR was found to
be limestone, basalt, quartzite, and granite aggregates.
Limestone had the highest BSR with the addition of
RAP binder, and granite had the least. For basic aggre-
gates, BSR value did not vary much with the addition of
RAP binder, indicating that addition of RAP binder had
a minimal effect on the performance of basic aggregates.
However, for acidic aggregates, BSR value decreased
with an increase in RAP binder content (except for
quartzite-AC30 + 15% RAP combination). Overall the
results showed that the addition of RAP binder increased
moisture-induced sensitivity in acidic aggregate combina-
tions. This may be because the acidic aggregates (granite
and quartzite) considered in this study are siliceous in
nature. Carboxylic acids in asphalt binder readily bond
with siliceous aggregate surfaces and are easily displaced
by water (12). It can be concluded that caution should be
taken while using RAP for acidic aggregates.
9
Failure Mechanism. After BBS tests, the failure pattern
(cohesive or adhesive) was captured for all 16 asphalt-
aggregate systems. The failure was classified as cohesive
failure (C) if more than 50% area asphalt binder retained
to an aggregate substrate. Likewise, it was classified as
an adhesive failure (A), when failure had occurred at an
interface, exposing the aggregate surface more than 50%
of the area. In some cases, failure may occur partly in
cohesion and partly in adhesion and was thus classified
as a C/A (7). Table 3 summarizes the failure type, and
photos represent all the replicate samples for different
combinations of asphalt-aggregates in dry and wet
conditions.
The results showed that cohesive failure (C) was domi-
nant in dry conditions for all 16 combinations of asphalt
binder-aggregates. This signifies that adhesive strength
between binder-aggregate was stronger than cohesive
strength of asphalt binder. The cohesive energy of control
AC30 binder was 27.98 mJ/m2 (Table 1), which decreased
with the addition of RAP binder. This implies that if
combination of control AC30-aggregate fails in cohesive,
then obviously other asphalt-aggregate combinations
with RAP would also fail in cohesion. And this hypoth-
esis is validated through the nature of failure observed in
the present study. On other hand, in case of wet condi-
tioned samples, the failure pattern changed from C to A
failure for acidic aggregates (i.e., granite and quartzite).
This indicates the significant influence of moisture on
asphalt binder bonding at interface for acidic aggregates.
This trend can also be supported by diminishing POTS
value in wet conditions for acidic aggregates (Figure 3).
The trends observed in this study are in line with reported
literature (7, 20). Surprisingly, the failure pattern remains
C for basic aggregates (i.e., basalt and limestone) even
after conditioning. The fact can also be validated through
minimal change in POTS value after conditioning for
basic aggregates (Figure 3). The failure pattern for
AC30-quartzite and AC30 + 15% RAP-limestone was
found to be C/A (Table 3). Therefore, these combina-
tions were not considered for correlation.
Relationship between Interfacial Energy and Asphalt
Binder Bond Strength
Energy parameters (EP1 and EP2) obtained from an SFE
approach to strength parameters (i.e., POTSdry,
POTSwet, and BSR) measured from BBS tests were com-
pared for all 16 combinations of aggregate-asphalt bin-
der. First, the correlation between POTSdry and EP1;
POTSdry and EP2; BSR and EP1; BSR and EP2 were
tried for all 16 combinations. However, a weak correla-
tion (R2 \0.25) was observed between these selected
pairs of parameters. The possible reason for not showing
any correlation may be because the failure encountered
10 Transportation Research Record 00(0)

Table 3. Failure Types for Different Asphalt-Aggregate Combinations from BBS Test

AC30 AC30+15% AC30+25% AC30+40%

Aggregate Conditioning (Control) RAP RAP RAP

FP Photo FP Photo FP Photo FP Photo

Dry C C C C

Wet C C C C
Basalt

Dry C C C C
Limestone

Wet C C/A C C

Dry C C C C
Granite

Wet A A A A

Dry C C C C
Quartzite

C/
Wet A A A
A

Note: FP = failure pattern; C = cohesive failure; A = adhesive failure; and C/A = cohesion-adhesion.
Habal and Singh 11

0.8 1.5 POTSwet Vs EP2

POTSwet Vs EP1

0.6 1.2
EP1

EP2
0.4 0.9

0.2 y = -0.2159x + 0.8974 0.6

R² = 0.8187 y = 0.2166x + 0.382
R² = 0.8721
0.0 0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
POTSwet, MPa POTSwet, MPa

(a)

0.7 BSR Vs EP1 1.4 BSR Vs EP2

0.6 1.2
0.5
1.0
0.4 EP2
EP1

0.3 0.8
0.2 y = -0.5468x + 0.8837
R² = 0.838 0.6 y = 0.5043x + 0.4284
0.1
R² = 0.7545
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Bond strength ratio (BSR) Bond strength ratio (BSR)

(b)

Figure 4. Correlation for acidic aggregates: (a) POTSwet and energy parameters (EP1 and EP2) and (b) BSR and energy parameters (EP1
and EP2).

was within asphalt phase, that is, in cohesion, and esti-
mation of EP1 and EP2 (Equations 6 and 7) parameters
takes into account interfacial energy between both
asphalt binder and aggregates (Equation 5). Also, EP1
and EP2 consider the presence of moisture, which is not
considered for POTSdry.
Results from BBS tests showed (Table 3) that, for dry
conditions, all asphalt-aggregates (both acidic and basic)
samples failed in cohesion, indicating a weak cohesive
energy of asphalt binder. Thus, checking the correlation
between POTSdry and EP may not be logical in case of
cohesive failure. Similarly, for conditioned samples, BBS
tests showed that failure was adhesive in nature for acidic
aggregates, while it was cohesive for basic aggregates. In
this case, similar correlations were tried for both acidic
and basic aggregates separately. However, no correlation
was observed for basic aggregates, because all samples
failed in cohesion.
Interestingly, a good correlation (R2 = 0.8187 and
0.8721) was observed between POTSwet and energy para-
meters (EP1 and EP2) for acidic aggregates (Figure 4a). It
can be noted that all the samples of these combinations
exhibited adhesive failure in wet conditions. These corre-
lations seem to be more logical as failure was encoun-
tered at the interface (involving aggregate and binder
simultaneously). Energy parameters derived from an
SFE approach also considered interfacial adhesion ener-
gies between asphalt binder and aggregate in wet and dry
conditions.
Similar to POTSwet, BSR also showed good
correlation (R2 = 0.838 and 0.7545) with both the
energy parameters for acidic aggregates that portrayed
adhesive failure (Figure 4b). However, as expected, basic
aggregates did not show any correlation with BSR. This
may be because all these samples exhibited cohesive
failure.
12
Conclusion and Recommendations
The effects of RAP binder on bond strength behavior of
AC30 control binder was evaluated for four different
types of aggregates using interfacial energy and bond
strength parameters. The critical conclusions drawn
based on the selected combinations of aggregate-asphalt
binder are listed below:
 In general, energy parameters EP1 increased and
EP2 decreased after the addition of RAP binder to
control binder for all types of aggregates, showing
a reduction in compatibility of control binder with
the addition of RAP binder. Results showed that
the bonding potential of basic aggregates was less
affected compared with acidic aggregates.
 methods presented in this paper.
POTSdry value of the control binder increased
after addition of RAP binder for all types of
aggregates, which may be attributed to an increase
in stiffness of the control binder after the addition
of RAP binder.
 BSR and POTSwet values showed that the addition
of RAP binder increases the performance of con-
trol AC30 binder for basic aggregates. Therefore,
usage of RAP can be suggested for basic aggre-
gates (basalt and limestone). However, addition of
higher RAP binder content degrades the bond
strength of acidic aggregates (granite and quart-
zite) in the presence of water. Also, BSR demon-
strated the effect of moisture conditioning on
acidic aggregate. Based on the selected combina-
tions of aggregate-asphalt binder used in the pres-
ent study, it is recommended that caution should
be exercised while using RAP modified binder
with an acidic type of aggregates.
 For control AC30 binder, BSR was highest for
basalt aggregate, followed by limestone, quartzite,
and granite. However, after the addition of RAP
binder, the order of BSR was found to be lime-
stone, basalt, quartzite, and granite aggregates.
For basic aggregates, BSR value did not vary
much with the addition of RAP binder, indicating
that the addition of RAP had a minimal effect on
the performance of basic aggregates. However, for
acidic aggregates, BSR value decreased with an
increase in RAP binder content.
 Basic aggregates (limestone and basalt) selected in
the present study showed cohesive failure before
and after conditioning, indicating a minimal effect
of water on these aggregates. However, acidic
aggregates (granite and quartzite) showed cohesive
failure in dry conditions, and adhesive failure in
wet conditions, implying detrimental effects of the
presence of water for these aggregates. The failure
pattern in cohesion was supported by reduction in
Transportation Research Record 00(0)
cohesion energy of asphalt binder after addition
of RAP binder.
 The analyses showed that correlation between
POTS and EP was not found for cohesive types of
failure, particularly for basic aggregate samples.
Remarkably, a good correlation was observed
between energy parameters (EP1 and EP2) and
bond strength parameters (POTSwet and BSR) for
samples that failed in adhesion, particularly acidic
aggregates.
It is recommended to conduct detailed chemical investi-
gation and comprehensive lab and field performance tests
to gain more insight into changes in SFE of asphalt bin-
der and validate the applicability of SFE and BBS test
Author Contributions
The authors confirm contributing to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: Ayyanna Habal; data collection:
Ayyanna Habal; analysis and interpretation of results:
Ayyanna Habal, Dharamveer Singh; draft manuscript prepara-
tion: Ayyanna Habal, Dharamveer Singh. All authors reviewed
the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
References
1. Hamedi, G. H., and F. Moghadas Nejad. Using Energy
Parameters Based on the Surface Free Energy Concept to
Evaluate the Moisture Susceptibility of Hot Mix Asphaltc
Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2015, pp.
239–255.
2. Little, D. N., and A. Bhasin. Using Surface Energy Mea-
surements to Select Materials for HMA Pavements.
NCHRP Project 9-37. Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., 2006.
3. Arabani, M., H. Roshani, and G. H. Hamedi. Estimating
Moisture Sensitivity of Warm Mix Asphalt Modified with
Zycosoil as an Antistrip Agent Using Surface Free Energy
Method. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 24,
No. 7, 2012, pp. 889–897.
4. Ghabchi, R., D. Singh, and M. Zaman. Evaluation of
Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Mixes Containing RAP
and Different Types of Aggregates and Asphalt Binders
Using the Surface Free Energy Method. Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 73, 2014, pp. 479–489.
5. Hossain, Z., B. Bairgi, and M. Belshe. Investigation of
Moisture Damage Resistance of GTR-Modified Asphalt
Binder by Static Contact Angle Measurements. Construc-
tion and Building Materials, Vol. 95, 2015, pp. 45–53.
6. Habal, A., and D. Singh. Moisture Damage Resistance of
GTR-Modified Asphalt Binders Containing WMA Addi-
tives Using the Surface Free Energy Approach. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2017,
p. 4017006.
7. Moraes, R., R. Velasquez, and H. Bahia. Measuring the
Effect of Moisture on Asphalt-Aggregate Bond with the
Habal and Singh
Bitumen Bond Strength Test. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2011. 2209: 70–81.
8. Bhasin, A., D. N. Little, K. L. Vasconcelos, and E. Masad.
Surface Free Energy to Identify Moisture Sensitivity of
Materials for Asphalt Mixes. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2007. 2001: 37–45.
9. Howson, J., E. Masad, D. Little, and E. Kassem. Relation-
ship between Bond Energy and Total Work of Fracture
for Asphalt Binder-Aggregate Systems. Road Materials
and Pavement Design, 2012.
10. Moraes, R. Validation of the Bitumen Bond Strength Test
Using Surface Energy Measurements. MSc thesis. Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison, 2011.
11. Moraes, R., R. Velasquez, and H. Bahia. Using Bond
Strength and Surface Energy to Estimate Moisture Resis-
tance of Asphalt-Aggregate Systems. Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 130, 2017, pp. 156–170.
12. Hefer, A., and D. Little. Bitumen-Aggregate Systems and
Quantification of the Effects of Water on the Adhesive Bond.
Report No. ICAR/505-1, Texas Transportation Institute,
the Texas A&M University, 2005.
13. Van Oss, C. J., M. K. Chaudhury, and R. J. Good. Interfa-
cial Lifshitz-van Der Waals and Polar Interactions in
Macroscopic Systems. Chemical Reviews, Vol. 88, No. 6,
1988, pp. 927–941.
14. Habal, A., and D. Singh. Comparison of Wilhelmy Plate
and Sessile Drop Methods to Rank Moisture Damage Sus-
ceptibility of Asphalt - Aggregates Combinations. Con-
struction and Building Materials, Vol. 113, 2016, pp.
351–358.
13
15. AASHTO T 361-16. Standard Method of Test for Determin-
ing Asphalt Binder Bond Strength by Means of the Asphalt
Bond Strength (ABS) Test. AASHTO, Washington D.C.,
2016.
16. Aguiar-Moya, J. P., J. Salazar-Delgado, A. Baldi-Sevilla,
F. Leiva-Villacorta, and L. Loria-Salazar. Effect of Aging
on Adhesion Properties of Asphalt Mixtures with the Use
of Bitumen Bond Strength and Surface Energy Measure-
ment Tests. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2505: 57–65.
17. Liu, G., E. Nielsen, J. Komacka, G. Leegwater, and M.
Van De Ven. Influence of Soft Bitumens on the Chemical
and Rheological Properties of Reclaimed Polymer-Modi-
fied Binders from The ‘‘old’’ surface-Layer Asphalt. Con-
struction and Building Materials, Vol. 79, 2015, pp.
129–135.
18. Siddiqui, M. N., and M. F. Ali. Studies on the Aging
Behavior of the Arabian Asphalts. Fuel, Vol. 78, 1999, pp.
1005–1015.
19. Robertson, R. E. Chemical Properties of Asphalt S and
Their Relationship to Pavement Performance. Strategic
Highway Research Program - National Research Council,
1991, p. 41.
20. Bahia, H., R. Moraes, and R. Velasquez. The Effect of
Bitumen Stiffness on the Adhesive Strength Measured by
the Bitumen Bond Strength Test. Proc., 5th Eurasphalt &
Eurobitume Congress, 13–15 June 2012, Istanbul, Turkey.
The Standing Committee on Surface Requirements of Asphalt
Mixtures (AFK40) peer-reviewed this paper (18-06664).