See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323703713

Comparison of AASHTO T283 and Moisture Induced Sensitivity Tester

Conditioning Process on the Moisture Resistance of Bituminous Concrete
Mixtures

Conference Paper · March 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 848

3 authors:

Utsav Vishal Arunkumar Goli

National Institute of Technology, Warangal Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Venkaiah Chowdary
National Institute of Technology, Warangal
16 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High Modulus Asphalt mixtures View project

PMGSY DPR Scrutiny View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arunkumar Goli on 12 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

Comparison of AASHTO T283 and Moisture Induced

Sensitivity Tester Conditioning Process on the Moisture
Resistance of Bituminous Concrete Mixtures
Utsav Vishala, Arunkumar Golib, Venkaiah Chowdaryc,*
a
Ph.D. Student, Transportation Division, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal – 506004,
Telangana, India, Email: utsavfriends@gmail.com
b
Former M. Tech Student, Transportation Division, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal –
506004, Telangana, India, Email: goliarunkumar109@gmail.com
c
Assistant Professor, Transportation Division, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal –
506004, Telangana, India, Email: chowdaryazad@gmail.com
* Corresponding Author

Abstract. Bituminous mixtures are subjected to the combined effects of vehicular traffic and climatic
conditions over its service life. Thus it is very much essential to evaluate the combined effect of
temperature and pressure on the moisture resistance of bituminous concrete mixtures which are widely
used in the construction of wearing courses for national highways in India. The combined effects of
temperature and pressure are evaluated using the Moisture Induced Sensitivity Tester (MIST). The MIST
realistically simulates the field conditions which include temperature, pressure, and number of cycles
typically experienced by the bituminous layers in the presence of moisture and subjected to vehicular
traffic. Viscosity Grade (VG-30) bitumen along with locally available aggregates satisfying bituminous
concrete gradations are used to prepare Marshall sized samples. Marshall compacted samples prepared
using optimum bitumen content were subjected to conditioning for 3500 cycles at two different
temperatures (40 C and 60 C) and two different pressures (40 psi [276 kPa] and 70 psi [483 kPa]) in the
MIST. Similarly a different set of Marshall samples satisfying bituminous concrete gradations with the
same bitumen content were subjected to American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) T283 conditioning process. The moisture resistance of unconditioned and
conditioned (both MIST and AASHTO T283) bituminous mixture samples was evaluated for tensile
strength ratio and retained Marshall stability. It is observed that there is marked difference in the tensile
strength ratio and the retained Marshall stability of the bituminous mixture samples conditioned using the
AASHTO T283 and the MIST protocols. The moisture damage evaluated in terms of tensile strength ratio
obtained through AASHTO T283 conditioning process closely matches with the moisture damage
observed in MIST conditioning process at 60 C temperature, 276 kPa pressure, and 3500 conditioning
cycles.

Keywords: Conditioning Process, Moisture Induced Sensitivity Tester, Pressure, Temperature, Tensile
Strength Ratio

Introduction
Bituminous mixtures are most widely used in the construction of pavements in India of
which bituminous concrete which is a dense mix is commonly used in the construction
of wearing courses of high volume roads, typically in the construction of expressways
and national highways. These wearing courses are directly exposed to the combined
effects of traffic and climate which includes both temperature and moisture. Moisture
susceptibility of bituminous mixtures plays a vital role in the performance of the
flexible pavements. Moisture is the major source for the initiation and propagation of
several distresses in bituminous mixtures. The moisture induced damage in bituminous
mixtures is attributed either to adhesion loss between the aggregate and the bitumen
film, or cohesion loss within the bitumen. There are several factors contributing to the
moisture induced damage in bituminous mixtures which can be classified into two
 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

groups: intrinsic factors which include the bituminous mixture characteristics and the
extrinsic factors which include factors such as temperature, and pore pressure caused
due to the application of wheel loads over the pavement surface. The conventional
method of conditioning the bituminous mixture samples using the AASHTO T283
protocol do not take into account the combined effects of the pore pressure and
temperature on the moisture resistance of bituminous mixtures.

Moisture damage can be defined as the loss of strength and durability in bituminous
mixtures caused by the presence of water [1]. The purpose of any test method is to
reproduce the moisture damage that will occur in bituminous mixtures. Moisture
induced damage test conditioning must address both environmental and repeated load
conditioning process to replicate the field condition that reduces their mechanical
capabilities [2]. It is very important to simulate field conditions through accelerating test
conditioning in the laboratory [3]. MIST conditioning takes less time and has more
detrimental effect on mechanical capabilities of bituminous mixtures than AASHTO
T283. Tests can be performed at realistic pressures similar to pressures produced by
vehicle tires [4]. AASHTO T283 fails to produce the moisture induced damage in
bituminous mixtures from leaching and film rupture, this is because no pressure is
applied (vehicle tires passing over wet pavement) on compacted bituminous mixtures
and water is not forced inside the compacted mixture during freeze and thaw cycles.
MIST appears to apply a conditioning to the bituminous samples that is more
representative of the conditioning occurring in the field such as displacement,
detachment, spontaneous emulsification, pore pressure and hydraulic scouring. MIST
builds up the pore pressure and releases pressure in one cycle inside the chamber where
bituminous concrete is submerged in water.

Tarfeder and Zaman [5] raised two fundamental questions which remain unanswered:
(i) Can the conditions that cause moisture-induced damage be accurately predicted? and
(ii) How can moisture-induced damage be mitigated? MIST causes stripping by the
application of pore pressure which is similar to pressure developed in pavement in
presence of water. MIST conditioning process does cause moisture damage to
bituminous mixtures in a manner that imitates hydraulic scouring [6]. Freeze-thaw and
MIST moisture conditioning methods had different effects on the properties of
bituminous mixtures due to their different mechanisms to induce moisture damage.
Freeze-thaw cause more damage to Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) than MIST [7]. It is
important to note that in the MIST conditioning, the researchers maintained water
temperature at 40 C and pressure at 40 psi (276 kPa) with 1000 cycles. The acceptable
ITS test ratio should be greater than 0.80 to ensure good performance in the field, but
obtaining it can be a difficult assignment [1]. It is worth to highlight here that the
current specifications for bituminous mixtures in India specify the use of retained
tensile strength to evaluate the moisture resistance of bituminous mixtures. However,
retained Marshall stability is also being used widely [8, 9]. Considering this point, both
the retained tensile strength and retained Marshall stability values are evaluated as part
of this study.

Different methods of conditioning are reported in the literature. Mallick et al. [10]
conditioned bituminous mixtures by three different methods: multiple cycles of freeze–
thaw, wet trafficking with the model mobile load simulator (MMLS3) and cycles of
stress with the MIST. They concluded that the benefits at high temperature conditioning
could be more than the benefits under freeze–thaw condition. It is important to note here

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

that in the MIST conditioning, the researchers maintained water temperature at 60 C

and pressure at 30 psi (210 kPa) with 5000 cycles. They also reported that resistance of
hot mix asphalt (HMA) to moisture damage under traffic at high temperature with
accelerated loading provides useful information. Chen and Huang [11] conditioned
bituminous mixtures by four different methods: one cycle of freeze-thaw, two cycles of
freeze-thaw, 500 cycles of pore pressure pulses with MIST, and 1000 cycles with
MIST. They reported that increasing freeze-thaw or MIST cycles would increase
moisture damage in HMA mixtures. Islam and Tarefder [12] used MIST device in
conditioning process of bituminous mix at different numbers of moisture conditioning
cycles. They reported that ITS does not change significantly with MIST conditioning at
the specific pressure and cycles.

It can be observed from literature that there are indeed very few studies comparing the
MIST and freeze-thaw conditioning process. However, the relative comparisons of
MIST and AASHTO T283 conditioning processes in the literature were made only at
one temperature and one pressure and at a particular number of conditioning cycles. It is
not clear whether the moisture damage caused in the bituminous mixtures due to
AASHTO T283 [13] is same as that of the moisture damage caused due to MIST
conditioning process at a given set of temperature, pressure and loading cycles. In this
study, an attempt has been made to understand the difference in severity caused by
AASHTO T283 and MIST conditioning processes. Following are the objectives of this
study:
 To compare the AASHTO T283 and MIST conditioning processes, and
 To identify the MIST conditioning temperature and pressure with 3500 cycles such
that the moisture induced damage in bituminous mixtures due MIST conditioning
process is same as that of AASHTO T283 conditioning process.

Table 1 Properties of VG-30 bitumen.

S. No. Property Test result Specifications [14]
1 Penetration at 25 C, 0.1 mm 66 Min. 45
2 Softening point, C 50.50 Min. 47
3 Flash point, C 260 Min. 220
4 Solubility in trichloroethylene, % 99 Min. 99

Table 2 Properties of aggregate.

S. No. Property Test result Specifications [15]
1 Cleanliness 3.90% Max. 5% passing
0.075 mm sieve
2 Combined flakiness and 27% Max. 35%
elongation index
3 Los Angeles abrasion value 21.89% Max. 30%
4 Aggregate impact value 15.82% Max. 24%
5 Water absorption 0.60% Max. 2%
5 Retained coating of bitumen 99% Min. 95%
over aggregates

Materials
VG-30 grade bitumen is used in this study. In order to characterize the properties of the
bitumen, basic tests were carried out and the results are shown in Table 1. Locally

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

available granite obtained from a single source was used for the study and the test
results are shown in Table 2. Bituminous concrete grading 1 as shown in Figure 1 is
adopted in this study to prepare bituminous mix samples.

100

80
Percent passing

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve size, mm
Figure 1 Aggregate gradation of bituminous concrete grading 1.

Selection of aggregate (bituminous

concrete grading 1) and bitumen (VG-30)

Determination of optimum bitumen content

Dry
condition
AASHTO MIST conditioning at 3500 cycles
T283 conditioning (40 C, 60 C)
(40 psi [276 kPa), 70 psi [483 kPa]),
3500 cycles

Retained Marshall Retained tensile

stability test strength

Comparison of bituminous mixtures performance conditioned through AASHTO T283 and MIST

Figure 2 Test plan adopted in this study.

Test Plan
The test plan adopted in this study is schematically represented in Figure 2. This
includes the determination of optimum bitumen content (OBC), preparation of
specimens [16] at 7±0.5% air voids, conditioning of the specimens, testing the

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

specimens and analyzing the results. The optimum bitumen content obtained through
Marshall mix design is 5.55%. The specimens are compacted to target air voids of
7±0.5% air voids as specified by AASHTO T283 protocol. The target air voids was
achieved by applying 30 blows using Marshall hammer on each face. The mixing and
compacting temperatures during preparation of the specimens are maintained as per
MORTH 2013 [15] specifications for bituminous mixtures. Three samples were tested
at each condition and the average test results of three identical samples are reported
here. The samples are conditioned either using AASHTO T283 or MIST.

AASHTO T283 Conditioning [13]

Two sets consisting of three specimens in each set were prepared in such a manner that
air voids in both the sets lies within the tolerance limits of 7±0.5%. This is followed by
saturation of the sample by applying a partial vacuum of 254 to 660 mm Hg for a short
time such as 5 to 10 minutes. The degree of saturation was obtained by dividing the
volume of the absorbed water by the volume of air voids and expressing the result as a
percentage. The degree of saturation between 70 and 80 percent were selected for
testing. For degree of saturation less than 55 percent, the procedure was repeated with
slightly higher partial vacuum. For degree of saturation more than 80 percent, the
specimen is considered damaged and is discarded. For specimens with 70 to 80 percent
saturation, each sample was wrapped with a plastic film and placed in a plastic bag
containing 10±0.5 ml of water and sealed. The samples are then subjected to freezing at
-18±3 °C for 24±1 h and thawing at 60±1 °C for next 24±1 h followed by soaking the
samples in a water bath for 2 h at 25 °C before testing. The dry subset was maintained at
a temperature of 25±1 °C for 2 h in a water bath. Both the dry and conditioned samples
were tested for tensile strength and Marshall stability values to determine the retained
tensile strength and retained Marshall stability, respectively.

MIST Conditioning [4]

In the MIST conditioning process, the samples were subjected to 3500 cycles at two
temperatures (40 C, and 60 C) and two pressures (40 psi [276 kPa] and 70 psi [483
kPa]) to simulate the moisture damage induced in bituminous mixtures due to the
combined effect of traffic and moisture. Bituminous concrete samples are placed in the
MIST testing chamber, and test parameters are selected before starting the conditioning.
Post completion of the test, the bituminous concrete samples were taken out of the
chamber and evaluated for susceptibility to moisture damage. Both tensile strength and
Marshall stability tests were performed on the samples before and after the conditioning
process to determine the retained tenisle strength and retained Marshall stability,
respectively. Further, moisture damage quantified through AASHTO T283 conditiong is
compared with the MIST conditioning at selected temperatures and pressures.

Marshall Stability
After preparation and compaction of bituminous mixtures, the specimens were
subjected to suitable conditioning process. The specimens to be tested for Marshall
stability were submerged in water at 60 C for 30 minutes. The samples were then
placed in Marshall testing apparatus to determine the stability value. Retained Marshall
stability is calculated as ratio of stability of conditioned sample to stability of dry
conditioned sample.

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

Indirect Tensile Strength

The indirect tensile strength test was performed on cylindrical specimens by subjecting
them to compressive loading acting parallel to vertical diametric plane using Marshall
loading equipment at a rate of 51 mm per minute. Steel loading strips were used with
concave face equal to radius of specimen and width of 12.7 mm. The samples were
soaked in a water bath for 2 h at 25 °C before testing. The indirect tensile strength (ITS)
test setup is shown in Figure 3 and is calculated using Equation (1). The tensile strength
ratio (TSR) is determined as ratio of the ITS of conditioned specimens to the ITS of
unconditioned specimens as given by Equation (2).
2P
ITS = πDt, (1)
Where,
P = ultimate applied load, kN,
D = diameter of specimen, mm, and
t = thickness of specimen, mm.
ITSw
TSR = , (2)
ITSd
Where,
ITSw = average indirect tensile strength of wet specimen, and
ITSd = average indirect tensile strength of dry specimen.

a b c
Figure 3(a) Sample submerged in water at 25 C, (b) Indirect tension test setup,
and (c) Sample failed under strip loading.

Results and Analysis

As the air voids in the compacted samples will affect the strength and volumetric
properties, care was taken in the preparation of bituminous mixtures so that no
significant variation occurs and the air voids lies within 7±0.5%. The volumetric
properties (bulk specific gravity of the specimen and maximum specific gravity of the
mix) of the bituminous mixtures were obtained using the CoreLok system. The degree
of saturation of the conditioned samples was measured using Equation (3) obtained
from the MIST operation guide [4]. The parameters required in calculation are obtained
from the data used for bulk specific gravity calculation. The graphical representation of
percent saturation of MIST conditioned samples is shown in Figure 4. For the same
pressures, the saturation levels increased with temperature. At 40 C, the saturation
levels increased with increase in pressure. However, at 60 C, the effect of pressure
seems to be negligible on the saturation levels. In order to determine the effect of
temperatures and pressures on volumetric properties of bituminous mixtures during
MIST conditioning process, bulk specific gravity of the bituminous mix specimen (Gmb)
and air voids were determined before and after the MIST conditioning and the data is

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

shown in Table 3. It can be seen that there is a significant effect of the temperature and
pressure applied during MIST conditioning on the volumetric properties which are
expected to affect the damage levels due to moisture. There is a significant effect of
temperature when compared to the pressure on the air voids.
𝑆𝑆𝐷−𝑊
% Saturation = 𝑉𝑇𝑀 ∗ 100, (3)
𝑉∗( )
100

Where,
SSD = surface saturated dry weight of sample after MIST conditioning,
W = dry weight,
V = sample volume before MIST conditioning, and
VTM = voids in the total mix.
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
Percent saturation

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
T40/P40 T40/P70 T60/P40 T60/P70
MIST (Temperature/Pressure)
Figure 4 Saturation as a function of temperature and pressure in MIST
conditioning.

Table 3 Specific gravity and air voids before and after MIST conditioning.
Temperature/ Bulk specific gravity (Gmb) Air voids, %
pressure dry wet dry wet
T40/P40 2.277 2.343 7.1 4.4
T40/P70 2.281 2.340 7.0 4.5
T60/P40 2.274 2.232 7.2 4.5
T60/P70 2.283 2.328 6.8 5.0

Comparison of AASHTO T-283 and MIST Conditioning

Figures 5 and 6 shows respectively the Marshall stability and retained Marshall stability
values of the bituminous mixture samples before and after AASHTO T283 and MIST
conditioning processes at various combinations of MIST temperatures and pressures. It
can be seen that there is a decrease in Marshall stability values after the conditioning
processes when compared to the dry condition. It can also be observed that the
AASHTO T283 conditioning and MIST conditioning at a temperature of 40 C and at
both the pressures resulted in similar Marshall stability and retained Marshall stability
values. This shows that MIST conditioning at 40 C irrespective of the pressure results

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

in similar moisture damage as that of the AASHTO T283 conditioning. Within the
MIST conditioning process, the Marshall stability and retained Marshall stability
decreased with increase of both temperature and pressure. The effect of temperature is
more significant than the effect of pressure. This might be possibly due to ingress of hot
pressurized water into the air voids of bituminous mixtures and resulting in cohesion
and adhesion failures within the bituminous mixtures. The moisture damage due to
MIST conditioning is higher at higher pressures (483 kPa) and higher temperatures (60
C) when compared to the AASHTO T283 conditioning. The retained Marshall stability
values are less than 0.8 for all the combinations of conditioning which indicates that
bituminous concrete grading 1 mixtures seems to be highly susceptible to moisture
damage based on retained Marshall stability results. Usage of antistripping agents are
expected to improve the moisture resistance of these bituminous mixtures. However, it
is important to look at the observations of tensile strength ratio before arriving at any
conclusion.

A - Dry
B - AASHTO T283
25 o
C - MIST 40 C, 40psi [276 kPa]
o
D - MIST 40 C, 70psi [483 kPa]
o
20 E - MIST 60 C, 40psi [276 kPa]
o
F - MIST 60 C, 70psi [483 kPa]
Marshall stability, kN

15

10

0
A B C D E F
Moisture conditioning

Figure 5 Marshall stability before and after conditioning.

A - AASHTO T283
o
B - MIST 40 C, 40 psi [276 kPa]
1.0 o
C - MIST 40 C, 70 psi [483 kPa]
o
D - MIST 60 C, 40 psi [276 kPa]
o
0.8 E - MIST 60 C, 70 psi [483 kPa]
Retained Marshall stability

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
A B C D E
Moisture conditioning

Figure 6 Retained Marshall stability before and after conditioning.

Figures 7 and 8 shows respectively the indirect tensile strength and tensile strength ratio
of the bituminous mixture samples before and after AASHTO T283 and MIST
conditioning processes at various combinations of MIST temperatures and pressures. It
can be seen that there is a decrease in tensile strength values after the conditioning
processes when compared to the dry condition. It can also be observed that the
AASHTO T283 conditioning and MIST conditioning at a temperature of 60 C and at a

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

pressure of 276 kPa resulted in similar tensile strength and tensile strength ratio. Within
the MIST conditioning process, the indirect tensile strength and tensile strength ratio
decreased with increase of both temperature and pressure. Similar to Marshall stability
observations, the effect of temperature is more significant than the effect of pressure.
However, the effect of pressure is significant at higher temperatures. The moisture
damage due to MIST conditioning is higher at higher pressures (483 kPa) and higher
temperatures (60 C) when compared to the AASHTO T283 conditioning. Similar
observations are made even for Marshall stability values.

A - Dry
B - AASHTO T283
1600 o
C - MIST 40 C, 40 psi [276 kPa]
o
1400 D - MIST 40 C, 70 psi [483 kPa]
o
E - MIST 60 C, 40 psi [276 kPa]
Indirect tensile strength, kPa

1200 o
F - MIST 60 C, 70 psi [483 kPa]
1000

800

600

400

200

0
A B C D E F
Moisture conditioning

Figure 7 Indirect tensile strength before and after conditioning.

B - AASHTO T283
o
C - MIST 40 C, 40 psi [276 kPa]
1.0 o
D - MIST 40 C, 70 psi [483 kPa]
o
E - MIST 60 C, 40 psi [276 kPa]
o
0.8 F - MIST 60 C, 70 psi [483 kPa]
Tensile strength ratio

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
B C D E F
Moisture conditioning

Figure 8 Retained tensile strength before and after conditioning.

The tensile strength ratio at 40 C and for any pressures is greater than 0.8 whereas for
MIST conditioning process at higher temperatures and AASHTO T283 conditioning,
the tensile strength ratio is less than 0.8. It is important to note here the observations
made from the evaluation of moisture damage using retained Marshall stability values.
This is possibly due to different state of stresses induced in the bituminous mixture
sample when tested for Marshall stability and tensile strengths. In a Marshall stability
test, compressive stresses are induced in the bituminous mixture sample whereas in the
case of indirect tensile strength test, tensile stresses are induced in the specimen. Even
though AASHTO T283 conditioning resulted in retained Marshall stability and tensile
strength ratio less than 0.8, the response of MIST conditioning process through indirect
tensile strength resulted in values greater than 0.8. This shows that AASHTO T283
conditioning causes more damage than MIST conditioning at 40 C for any pressures

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

based on the tensile strength ratio test which is also in tune with the observations made
by Shu et al. [7]. However, Shu et al. arrived at this observation from tests on foamed
warm mixes containing higher RAP contents.

Conclusions
The main objective of the study is to compare the AASHTO T283 and MIST
conditioning processes. Based on the results obtained from laboratory experiments on
moisture susceptibility of bituminous concrete using AASHTO T283 and MIST
conditioning, the following conclusions are drawn:

 Irrespective of the pressures, MIST conditioning at a temperature of 40 C and

AASHTO T283 conditioning resulted in similar Marshall stability and retained
Marshall stability values. In contrast to this, MIST conditioning at a temperature of
60 C and at a pressure of 276 kPa and AASHTO T283 conditioning resulted in
similar tensile strength and tensile strength ratio.
 Within the MIST conditioning process, the tensile strength ratio and retained
Marshall stability decreased with increase of both temperature and pressure. The
effect of temperature is more significant than the effect of pressure. However, the
effect of pressure is more significant for tensile strength ratio at higher temperatures.
 The moisture damage due to MIST conditioning is higher at higher pressures (483
kPa) and higher temperatures (60 C) when compared to the AASHTO T283
conditioning for both tensile strength ratio and retained Marshall stability values.
 The retained Marshall stability values are less than 0.8 for all the combinations of
conditioning. However, the tensile strength ratio at 40 C and for any pressures is
greater than 0.8 whereas for AASHTO T283 and MIST conditioning process at
higher temperatures, the tensile strength ratio is less than 0.8. This change is
possibly due to the load transfer mechanisms in both the tests. The load transfer
takes place trough the aggregate skeleton in a retained Marshall stability test
whereas the load transfer takes place through bitumen mastic in tensile strength ratio
test.
 AASHTO T283 conditioning causes more damage than MIST conditioning at 40 C
for any pressures based on the tensile strength ratio test which also agrees with the
published literature. Since the AASHTO T283 protocol do not take into account the
combined effects of the pore pressure cycles and temperature on the moisture
resistance of bituminous mixtures, MIST can closely simulate the field conditions.

References
1. Predicting moisture-induced damage to asphaltic concrete – field evaluation,
NCHRP Report 246, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA, 1982.
2. Predicting moisture-induced damage to asphaltic concrete, NCHRP Report 192,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., USA, 1978.
3. Solaimanian, M., Harvey, J., Tahmoressi, M. and Tandon, V., Test methods to
predict moisture sensitivity of hot-mix asphalt pavements, Moisture Sensitivity of
Asphalt Pavements – A National Seminar, 2003, San Diego, California, pp. 77–110.
4. http://instrotek.com/material-testing/laboratory-products/MIST/#!prettyPhoto, last
accessed May 18, 2015.

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

 3rdConference of Transportation Research Group of India (3rd CTRG)

5. Tarefder, R. A. and Zaman, A. M., Nanoscale evaluation of moisture damage in

polymer modified asphalts, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, No.
7, 2010, pp. 714–725.
6. Pinkham, R. E., Cote, S. A., Mallick, R. B., Tao, M., Bradbury, R. L. and
Regimand, A., Use of moisture induced stress testing to evaluate stripping potential
of hot mix asphalt (HMA), Report No. ME 12-08, Maine Department of
Transportation, USA, 2012.
7. Shu, X., Huang, B., Shrum, E. D. and Jia, X., Laboratory evaluation of moisture
susceptibility of foamed warm mix asphalt containing high percentages of RAP,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 35, 2012, pp. 125–130.
8. Behiry, A. E. A. E., Laboratory evaluation of resistance to moisture damage in
asphalt mixtures, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, 2013, pp. 351–363.
9. Habeeb, H., Chandra, S. and Nashaat, Y., Estimation of moisture damage and
permanent deformation in asphalt mixture from aggregate gradation, KSCE Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 6, 2014, pp. 1655–1663.
10. Mallick, R. B., Pelland, R. and Hugo, F., Use of accelerated loading equipment for
determination of long term moisture susceptibility of hot mix asphalt, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2005, pp. 125–136.
11. Chen, X. and Huang, B., Evaluation of moisture damage in hot mix asphalt using
simple performance and superpave indirect tensile tests, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 22, 2008, pp. 1950–1962.
12. Islam, M. R. and Tarefder, R. A., Tensile strength of asphalt concrete due to
moisture conditioning, International Journal of Civil, Structural, Construction and
Architectural Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 9, 2014, pp. 951–954.
13. Standard method of test for resistance of compacted asphalt mixtures to moisture-
induced damage, AASHTO T283, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., USA, 2014.
14. Indian standard paving bitumen – specification, IS 73, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, 2013.
15. Specifications for road and bridge works, Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, 2013.
16. Standard practice for preparation of bituminous specimens using Marshall
apparatus, American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D 6926, ASTM
International, USA, 2010.

Vishal, Goli and Chowdary

View publication stats