Home A modified adhesion evaluation method between asphalt and aggregate based on a pull off test and image processing
Article Open Access

A modified adhesion evaluation method between asphalt and aggregate based on a pull off test and image processing

  • Ding Kejun , Xu Xiangqian , Zhang Hui , Chen Rui and Chen Songqiang EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: February 22, 2025
Download Article (PDF)
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Open Engineering
From the journal Open Engineering Volume 15 Issue 1

Abstract

The adhesion between asphalts and aggregates is an important parameter affecting moisture damage in asphalt mixtures, and a pull-off test is usually used to evaluate the adhesion performance between asphalts and aggregates due to the ease of operation. To analyze the influence of aggregate lithology on asphalt adhesion performance, two types of asphalts and four types of aggregates were tested via pull-off tests. The pull-off force data showed that the variance in the results gradually decreased as the test temperature increased. Then, an image processing software package, cover-area, was developed based on MATLAB to calculate the asphalt coverage area of the pull-stub, and the accuracy of its calculation results was verified. Finally, the modified pull-off strength was obtained by dividing the pull-off force by the asphalt coverage area to analyze the influence of aggregate lithology on asphalt adhesion. The results show that the modified pull-off strength of basalt and diabase is the highest, followed by that of limestone, and that of tuff is the worst, which is consistent with the actual application situation. The proposed method could be used to evaluate the adhesion performance between asphalt and aggregates well.

Keywords: asphalt; aggregates; adhesion; pull-off test; image processing

1 Introduction

Moisture damage is among the most serious problems that can affect asphalt pavement and can lead to or accelerate premature damage. Premature damage is caused by the loss of adhesion between mineral aggregates and asphalt binders and/or the loss of adhesion within the emulsion [1,2,3]. Asphalt and aggregate systems are considered fundamental components of asphalt mixtures. The interfacial adhesion of an asphalt aggregate system plays a crucial role in the structural strength and moisture damage resistance of the mixture [4,5,6]. The traditional analysis method is to use the water boiling test to evaluate the adhesion between asphalt and aggregates. This method first places the asphalt-coated aggregate in slightly boiling water for a period of time and then observes the peeling of asphalt on the surface of the stone to determine the bonding performance between the asphalt and the aggregate [7]. However, this method has many unscientific aspects. This method cannot distinguish aggregates with similar adhesion properties, and the adhesion between styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS)-modified asphalt and aggregates is grade 5 [5].

The interface between the asphalt and aggregate is a weak link, and the adhesion strength between the two mainly depends on their respective properties. Numerous scholars have conducted extensive research on the adhesion performance between asphalts and aggregates [8,9,10,11]. Several new evaluation methods, such as molecular dynamics [12,13], atomic force microscopy (AFM) [14,15], the surface energy method [16,17], and the pull-off test method [18,19], have been proposed. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have been developed as effective tools for studying the relationships among the chemical structures, thermodynamic properties, and mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures at the atomic level [20,21]. The molecular dynamics method first establishes a molecular model of asphalt and a molecular model of aggregates and then analyses the adhesion performance between asphalts and aggregates [22]. MD simulations have been used to evaluate the nanoscale adhesion performance between different asphalts (virgin asphalt and aged asphalt) and aggregates of different rock types [23,24]. AFM has advantages in evaluating the surface morphology and mechanical properties of materials at the microscale and has high-resolution imaging capabilities for material surfaces, allowing for the observation of surface morphology and structure. It is generally believed that the honeycomb structure observed by AFM can qualitatively evaluate the adhesion performance of asphalt [25,26]. The surface free energy theory, as a thermodynamic theory, has been widely employed to interpret adhesion properties and suggests that energy exchange occurs when an asphalt binder wets the surface of aggregates [27,28]. The pull-off test is a macroscopic tensile test that uses tensile strength to analyze the adhesion performance between asphalts and aggregates [29,30]. Youtcheff and Aurilio [31] conducted the pull-off test to study the moisture susceptibility of binders using a pneumatic adhesion tensile testing instrument. Zhou [31,32] also studied the effects of various modifiers on the bonding performance of bitumen using the pull-off test. Moraes et al. [33] conducted a pull-off test to investigate the effects of various binders, modifiers, and minerals on the bonding strength of asphalt stone joints. The results showed that polymer modification significantly improved the bonding strength.

The above methods for evaluating the adhesion between asphalts and aggregates have their advantages; among them, MD simulations and AFM can be used to evaluate adhesion performance from a microscopic perspective, the surface energy method can be used to evaluate adhesion performance from an energy perspective, and the pull-off test can be used to evaluate the macroscopic tensile strength. Moreover, the pull-off test has greater engineering operability than the other test methods and has been applied in adhesion evaluation. The pull-off strength was calculated using the ratio of the tension to the cross-sectional area. In the actual operation process, the cross-section may appear as shown in Figure 1. Due to the thin layer of asphalt covering the surface of an aggregate substrate, the ideal scenario for the pull-off test is that the surface of the pull-stub is completely covered with asphalt. However, it can be seen from the figure that the pull-stub is composed of a portion of asphalt (area A) and a portion of the material of the pull-stub itself (area B). Area A can be seen as asphalt falling off the surface of the stone, while Area B can be approximated as asphalt not adhering well to the pulling head and breaking during the test process. The maximum measured pulling force could be considered to be the strength of the detachment between the asphalt and the aggregate substrate, which is the bonding force between the asphalt covering the pull-stub and the aggregate substrate.

Figure 1 Surface peeling of the pulled section interface.
Figure 1

Surface peeling of the pulled section interface.

Hence, this study intends to use image processing methods to calculate the asphalt coverage area (ACA) on the pull tube surface and evaluate the adhesion performance between different stones and different asphalts by calculating the modified pull-off strength, as shown in equation (1), and the research flowchart is shown in Figure 2. First, the test methods and materials are introduced. Then, the effects of temperature, rock type, and asphalt on the pull-off force are analyzed. Next, the calculation method of the ACA based on image recognition is introduced. Finally, the modified pull-off strengths are calculated and evaluated:

(1) p m = F S m ,

where p m is the modified pull-off strength, F is the pull-off force, and S m is the ACA on the pull-stub surface.

Figure 2 Research flowchart.
Figure 2

Research flowchart.

2 Materials and test methods

2.1 Materials

2.1.1 Asphalt

No. 70 and SBS-modified asphalt were used during the test, and the properties are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

General characteristics of the two types of asphalts

Asphalt No. 70 SBS-modified asphalt
Penetration (25°C), 0.1 mm 72.5 75.3
Penetration index (PI) −1.01 1.32
Ductility (cm) >100 (15°C) 57.4 (5°C)
Softening point (°C) 52.9 86.2

2.1.2 Aggregate substrate

Four types of rock, basalt, diabase, tuff, and limestone, from Zhejiang Jiaotou Resources Company, were selected for tensile testing. Due to the need for a relatively smooth surface during the pull-off test, rock materials from the quarry are used to create square specimens with similar lengths, widths, and heights using a cutting machine. The four types of aggregate substrates after cutting are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Four different rock aggregate substrates: (a) basalt, (b) diabase, (c) tuff, and (d) limestone.
Figure 3

Four different rock aggregate substrates: (a) basalt, (b) diabase, (c) tuff, and (d) limestone.

2.2 Test methods

During the preparation of the pull-off specimens, the aggregate substrates and asphalts were heated together for 4 h at the same temperature, with the virgin asphalt at 150°C and SBS-modified asphalt at 180°C. A small amount of hot asphalt was poured into the surface of the aggregate substrates, and a thin layer was spread using an iron scraper, as shown in step 2 of Figure 4. After the asphalt and aggregate substrate temperatures cooled to room temperature, the pull-stub was attached to the asphalt surface using an ethyl acetate xylene adhesive. Once the pull-stub was completely bonded, a circular cutter was used to cut around the pull-stub to prevent the influence of the asphalt near the pull-stub on the pull-off test results, as shown in step 3 of Figure 2. After a 12-h rest (complete solidification between the pulling head and asphalt), the pull-off test was conducted after the test specimens were heated for 4 h, and the results are shown in Figure 5. Ten sets of data were tested for each type of aggregate and asphalt. The test temperatures were 10, 20, 30, and 40°C. The instrument adopts the PosiTest AT-M pull-off instrument produced in the United States, with a range of 20 MPa, a resolution of 0.01 MPa, and a pull-stub diameter of 20 mm.

Figure 4 Pull-off test operation process.
Figure 4

Pull-off test operation process.

Figure 5 Pull-off test.
Figure 5

Pull-off test.

3 Pull-off force analysis

The pull-off force was an important test result of the pull-out test. The pull-off force test results at different temperatures are shown in Tables 2 and 3. As shown in the tables, the pull-off force between the asphalt and aggregate substrates continuously decreases as the temperature increases, which is caused by the softening of the asphalt material due to the increase in temperature. It is known from practical experience that the adhesion performance between basalt and asphalt is the best, followed by that between diabase and limestone, and the adhesion performance between tuff and asphalt is the worst. However, the pull-off forces of the four rock types at four different temperatures did not significantly differ in numerical terms.

Table 2

Pulling force (kN) and variance of 70# at different temperatures

Temperature (°C) Diabase Tuff Limestone Basalt
Mean Variance Mean Variance Mean Variance Mean Variance
10 1.82 0.149 1.68 0.086 1.21 0.061 1.32 0.128
20 1.75 0.135 1.41 0.041 1.56 0.187 1.25 0.064
30 0.89 0.038 0.61 0.010 0.59 0.009 0.83 0.007
40 0.55 0.003 0.51 0.009 0.40 0.007 0.61 0.009
Table 3

Pulling force (kN) and variance of SBS-modified asphalt at different temperatures

Temperature (°C) Diabase Tuff Limestone Basalt
Mean Variance Mean Variance Mean Variance Mean Variance
10 2.07 0.203 2.25 0.271 2.14 0.169 1.87 0.229
20 1.73 0.141 1.88 0.188 1.78 0.148 1.56 0.120
30 0.91 0.027 0.72 0.018 0.79 0.010 0.92 0.015
40 0.59 0.017 0.64 0.022 0.61 0.006 0.54 0.002

It can be seen from the tables and figures that the variance in the pull-off forces for the four rock types is between 0.05 and 0.3 kN at 10 and 20°C, which indicates a very high degree of dispersion in the pull-off forces and low credibility of the data. This may be because the asphalt material becomes brittle at lower temperatures, and the numerical value of the pull-off force is mainly affected by the properties of the asphalt and the thickness of the asphalt film during the pull-off test. The pull-off forces are more consistent at 30 and 40°C, with basalt exhibiting a greater pull-off force and limestone and tuff exhibiting smaller pull-off forces, which is consistent with the actual engineering situation. Moreover, the variance of the test results is less than 0.04 kN at 30 and 40°C, which indicates a low degree of dispersion in the pull-off forces and a higher credibility of the data. This is because at higher temperatures, the asphalt material softens, and the pull-off force is more affected by interfacial bonding. However, from the data, it can be seen that using only the pull-off force as an adhesion evaluation criterion is insufficient at 30 and 40°C, and the discriminative ability of the adhesion performance between different rock types of asphalt aggregates is low. The test results are also different from those of the water boiling method test, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Adhesion level results of the water boiling method test

Asphalt type Diabase Tuff Limestone Basalt
70# asphalt 4 3 4 4
SBS asphalt 5 5 5 5

4 Calculation of asphalt coverage on the pull-stub

Due to the irregular shape of the asphalt covering the pull stub section, the area calculation formula cannot be used for calculation. Therefore, the ACA on the pull-stub was calculated using image recognition methods. Since the surface of the stones is covered by asphalt, the surface remains black after the pull-off test, as shown in Figure 6, which makes it difficult to calculate the peeling area of the surface. However, the surface of the pull-stub, as shown in Figure 7, clearly shows the peeling condition of the interface. Therefore, the calculation of the ACA on the pull-stub section was carried out using the difference in color.

Figure 6 The surface of the specimen after the pull-off test.
Figure 6

The surface of the specimen after the pull-off test.

Figure 7 The pull-stub section after the pull-off test.
Figure 7

The pull-stub section after the pull-off test.

Image processing is relatively simple due to the significant color difference. First, the pull-stub section was photographed using a camera, after which the image was processed. Subsequently, the MATLAB program is used to perform grayscale processing on the image, and the black and white pixel counts are calculated. The ratio of black to white pixels is then multiplied by the area of the image to calculate the area of the black part, which is the ACA on the pull-stub section S b .

4.1 Image processing

For image recognition, a clear dimension is required to calculate the ACA. The size of the pull-stub in the image varies due to issues such as the distance and angle of the photograph. The diameter of the circular section of the pull-stub is 2 cm. Hence, the image captured could be cropped using Photoshop (PS) software to include only the image of the pulled-off head (2 cm × 2 cm), as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Images before and after processing: (a) image before processing and (b) image after processing.
Figure 8

Images before and after processing: (a) image before processing and (b) image after processing.

4.2 Image recognition

After processing the image, a MATLAB program (cover area) was used to calculate the ACA at the pulling-stub, and the image recognition process is shown in Figure 9. First, grayscale processing is performed on the image, and filtering is subsequently performed to reduce the noise in the image. Finally, the ACA on the surface of the pull-stub was calculated through binarization processing. The processed image is shown in Figure 10. It is evident from the image that the asphalt covering part turns black while the rest turns white. Since the image is composed of pixels, the number of black pixels n b and the total number of pixels n t in the image are calculated. By calculating the ratio of black pixels to total pixels and then multiplying by the size of the image (2 cm × 2 cm), the area of the black part S b is obtained, as shown in equation (2).

(2) S b = n b n t × 4 .

Figure 9 Image recognition process.
Figure 9

Image recognition process.

Figure 10 Images before and after processing.
Figure 10

Images before and after processing.

4.3 Program verification

Based on previous research, the calculation of the area of the black section can be performed with the program Cover-area, which was written in MATLAB software. Verifying its accuracy was crucial after the program was completed. Therefore, manually constructed images with known black areas are used to verify the accuracy of the developed program. Four images, as shown in Figure 11, with a size of 2 cm × 2 cm were selected for verification. A circle with a diameter of 2 cm was inscribed inside the large circle, representing the pull-stub, and various shapes (circular, square) were added inside the circle to represent the asphalt-covered part. The size of the black area can be calculated using the area formula for geometric images. Then, the cover-area program was used to calculate the coverage area of the black part, and the error between the calculated and actual values was calculated. The results are shown in Table 5. It can be seen from the table that the error for all four images is less than 2%, which indicates that the program calculation results are highly reliable and can be applied to calculate the ACA of the pull-stub.

Figure 11 Four types of original and processed graphs for verification.
Figure 11

Four types of original and processed graphs for verification.

Table 5

Program verification results

Sequence Real coverage area/cm2 Program calculation/cm2 Error/%
a 3.142 3.137 0.14
b 0.196 0.199 1.51
c 0.589 0.600 1.79
d 1.196 1.208 1.01

5 Analysis of modified pull-off strength

Interface peeling occurred on the cross section of the pull-stub, as shown in Figure 8. After cropping the images of the pull-stubs, the MATLAB program cover area was used to calculate the ACA at the pull-stub interface. The original and processed images are shown in Figure 12, and the calculation results are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The asphalt coverage rate of the cross-sections of the pull-out piles with different rock types varies, among which the coverage area of tuff is the largest, indicating that the adhesion of tuff is poor.

Figure 12 Original and processed images of the pull-stub.
Figure 12

Original and processed images of the pull-stub.

Table 6

ACA and coverage rate of different rock types of pull-stub sections (70# asphalt)

Rock types 30°C 40°C
Coverage area/cm2 Coverage rate % Coverage area/cm2 Coverage rate %
Tuff 2.85 0.91 2.64 0.84
Basalt 2.70 0.86 2.26 0.72
Limestone 2.68 0.86 2.45 0.78
Diabase 2.59 0.83 2.20 0.70
Table 7

ACA and coverage rate of different rock types of pull-stub sections (SBS asphalt)

Rock types 30°C 40°C
Coverage area/cm2 Coverage rate/% Coverage area/cm2 Coverage rate %
Tuff 2.71 0.86 2.80 0.89
Basalt 2.38 0.76 2.05 0.65
Limestone 2.32 0.74 1.93 0.62
Diabase 2.17 0.69 2.11 0.67

The results of calculating the tensile strength using equation (1) are shown in Table 8 and Figure 13. It can be seen from the table and figure that the pull-off strength decreases continuously as the temperature increases, and the pull-off strength of SBS-modified asphalt is greater than that of 70# asphalt. At the same time, it can be seen that the pull-off strength of the calculated results is more distinguishable using this calculation method. Among them, the adhesion between tuff and basalt is better, followed by that between limestone and tuff, which is the worst. The calculated results are more consistent with the actual application of these four types of rock aggregates in engineering. The evaluation method of asphalt aggregate adhesion based on pull-off tests and image processing has certain feasibility.

Table 8

Modified pull-off strength (MPa)

Rock types 70# asphalt SBS asphalt
30°C 40°C 30°C 40°C
Diabase 3.44 2.50 4.19 2.80
Tuff 2.14 1.93 2.66 2.28
Limestone 2.20 1.72 3.02 3.16
Basalt 3.07 2.70 3.87 2.63
Figure 13 Modified pull-off strength: (a) 70# asphalt and (b) SBS asphalt.
Figure 13

Modified pull-off strength: (a) 70# asphalt and (b) SBS asphalt.

6 Conclusion

In this study, a modified pull-off strength adhesion evaluation method is proposed, which is obtained by dividing the pulling force by the ACA of the pull-stub. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results:

  1. A pull-off test was employed to measure the pull-off force between the asphalt and aggregate substrates, and the variance in the pull-off force gradually decreased with increasing temperature. It is difficult to distinguish the influence of aggregate lithology on adhesion performance when using the pull-off force as an indicator of adhesion performance.

  2. By performing grayscale, denoising, and binarization processing on pull-stub images, a clear map of the ACA can be obtained. The software can accurately calculate the ACA with an error controlled within 2%.

  3. The modified pull-off strength is obtained by dividing the pull-off force by the ACA. The calculation results of adhesion for different rock types are similar to the actual engineering application results (basalt and diabase have better adhesion, followed by limestone, and tuff has the worst adhesion). The modified pull-off strength can be used to clearly distinguish the influence of different rock types on adhesion.

  1. Funding information: The authors state that no funding was involved.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and consented to its submission to the journal, reviewed all the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. DK and CS provided research ideas and wrote the manuscript. XX developed a program for asphalt coverage on the pulled head section. ZH and CR conducted experiments and data analysis.

  3. Conflict of interest: D.K., X.X., Z.H., and C.R. are employees of Zhejiang Jiaotong Transportation Technology Development Co., Ltd. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.

  4. Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Yin Y, Chen H, Kuang D, Song L, Wang L. Effect of chemical composition of aggregate on interfacial adhesion property between aggregate and asphalt. Constr Build Mater. Aug 2017;146:231–7.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.061Search in Google Scholar

[2] Guo M, Yin X, Du XL, Tan YQ. Effect of aging, testing temperature and relative humidity on adhesion between asphalt binder and mineral aggregate. Constr Build Mater. 2023;363:129775.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129775Search in Google Scholar

[3] Xu G, Wang H. Molecular dynamics study of interfacial mechanical behavior between asphalt binder and mineral aggregate. Constr Build Mater. 2016;121:246–54.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.167Search in Google Scholar

[4] Han S, Dong SH, Liu MM, Han X, Liu YM. Study on improvement of asphalt adhesion by hydrated lime based on surface free energy method. Constr Build Mater. Dec 2019;227:116794.1–9.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116794Search in Google Scholar

[5] Guo F, Pei J, Zhang J, Xue B, Li R. Study on the adhesion property between asphalt binder and aggregate: A state-of-the-art review. Constr Build Mater. 2020;256:119474.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119474Search in Google Scholar

[6] Tu C, Xi L, Luo R, Huang T, Luo J. Effect of water vapor concentration on adhesion between asphalt and aggregate. Mater Struct. 2022;55(9):1–15.10.1617/s11527-022-02073-wSearch in Google Scholar

[7] Cui P, Wu S, Xiao Y, Wang F, Wang F. Quantitative evaluation of active based adhesion in Aggregate-Asphalt by digital image analysis. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2019;33:1544–57.10.1080/01694243.2019.1602912Search in Google Scholar

[8] Canestrari F, Cardone F, Graziani A, Santagata F, Bahia H. Adhesive and cohesive properties of asphalt-aggregate systems subjected to moisture damage. Road Mater Pavement Des. 2010;11(Sup 1):11–32.10.1080/14680629.2010.9690325Search in Google Scholar

[9] Yu X, Burnham NA, Mallick RB, Tao M. A systematic AFM-based method to measure adhesion differences between micron-sized domains in asphalt binders. Fuel. 2013;113:443–7.10.1016/j.fuel.2013.05.084Search in Google Scholar

[10] Li Y, Yang J, Tan T. Study on adhesion between asphalt binders and aggregate minerals under ambient conditions using particle-modified atomic force microscope probes. Constr Build Mater. Dec 2015;101(PT. 1):159–65.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.011Search in Google Scholar

[11] Xu N, Wang H, Chen Y, Kamani M, Wang H. Microscopic analysis of aging effects on the adhesion properties between asphalt and mineral aggregate. J Mater Civ Eng. 2023;35(7):04023200.10.1061/JMCEE7.MTENG-15381Search in Google Scholar

[12] Gong Y, Jian X, Yan E-H. Intrinsic temperature and moisture sensitive adhesion characters of asphalt-aggregate interface based on molecular dynamics simulations. Constr Build Mater. 2021;292:123462.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123462Search in Google Scholar

[13] Sun G, Zhang J, Che Z, Niu Z. Interfacial performance of asphalt-aggregate system under different conditions based on molecular dynamics simulation. J Mater Civ Eng. 2023;35(6):04023116.10.1061/JMCEE7.MTENG-15083Search in Google Scholar

[14] Cui B, Gu X, Wang H, Hu D. Numerical and experimental evaluation of adhesion properties of asphalt-aggregate interfaces using molecular dynamics simulation and atomic force microscopy. Road Mater Pavement Des. 2021;23(7):1564–84.10.1080/14680629.2021.1910547Search in Google Scholar

[15] Guo M, Hou Y, Tan Y, Yu J, Wang L. A direct characterization of interfacial interaction between asphalt binder and mineral fillers by atomic force microscopy. Mater Struct. 2017;50(2):141.10.1617/s11527-017-1015-9Search in Google Scholar

[16] Yi JY, Pang XY, Feng DC, Pei ZS, Xu M. Studies on surface energy of asphalt and aggregate at different scales and bonding property of asphalt–aggregate system. Road Mater Pavement Des. 2017;19(5):1102–25.10.1080/14680629.2017.1300597Search in Google Scholar

[17] Xu W, Shah YI, Luan D, Tian S. Evaluation of moisture damage of cold patch asphalt using the surface free energy method. Arab J Sci Eng. 2021;46(11):11267–77.10.1007/s13369-021-05740-2Search in Google Scholar

[18] Arabani M, Hamedi GH. Using the surface free energy method to evaluate the effects of liquid antistrip additives on moisture sensitivity in hot mix asphalt. Int J Pavement Eng. 2014;15(1–2):66–78.10.1080/10298436.2013.778410Search in Google Scholar

[19] Lachance-Tremblay É, Vaillancourt M, Perraton D, Di Benedetto H. Comparison of the moisture damage of bituminous binder coupled with glass and limestone substrate using pull-off test. Can J Civ Eng. 2019;46(3):188–94.10.1139/cjce-2018-0152Search in Google Scholar

[20] Lu P, Huang S, Shen Y, Zhou C, Shao L. Mechanical performance analysis of polyurethane‐modified asphalt using molecular dynamics method. Polym Eng Sci. 2021;61(9):2323–38.10.1002/pen.25760Search in Google Scholar

[21] Fu Z, Tang Y, Peng C, Ma F, Li C. Properties of polymer modified asphalt by polyphosphoric acid through molecular dynamics simulation and experimental analysis. J Mol Liq. 2023;382:121999.10.1016/j.molliq.2023.121999Search in Google Scholar

[22] Boek ES, Skipper NT, Headen TF. Evidence for asphaltene nanoaggregation in toluene and heptane from molecular dynamics simulations. Energy Fuels. 2009;23(3):1220–9.10.1021/ef800872gSearch in Google Scholar

[23] Wang H, Lin E, Xu G. Molecular dynamics simulation of asphalt-aggregate interface adhesion strength with moisture effect. Int J Pavement Eng. 2017;18(5–6):414–23.10.1080/10298436.2015.1095297Search in Google Scholar

[24] Zheng C, Shan C, Liu J, Zhang T, Lv D. Microscopic adhesion properties of asphalt–mineral aggregate interface in cold area based on molecular simulation technology. Constr Build Mater. 2020;268(29):121151.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121151Search in Google Scholar

[25] Pawelczyk T, Matecki A, Dettlaff A, Loeber L, Muller G, Morel J, et al. Bitumen in colloid science: A chemical, structural and rheological approach. Fuel. 1998;77(13):1443–50.10.1016/S0016-2361(98)00054-4Search in Google Scholar

[26] Xing C, Zhao G, Li M, Liu N, Wang M. Analysis of bitumen material test methods and bitumen surface phase characteristics via atomic force microscopy-based infrared spectroscopy. Constr Build Mater. 2022;346(5):1–10.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128373Search in Google Scholar

[27] Pillaiyan G, Muniandy R, Aburkaba E. An overview of conventional and surface free energy methods used to determine asphalt aggregate adhesion. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2015;9(5):98–102.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Kakar MR, Hamzah MO, Akhtar MN, Woodward D. Surface free energy and moisture susceptibility evaluation of asphalt binders modified with surfactant-based chemical additive. J Clean Prod. 2016;112:2342–53.10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.101Search in Google Scholar

[29] Huang W, Lv Q. Investigation of critical factors determining the accuracy of binder bond strength test to evaluate adhesion properties of asphalt binders. J Test Eval: A Multidiscip Forum Appl Sci Eng. 2017;45(4):1270–9.10.1520/JTE20150444Search in Google Scholar

[30] Huang W, Lv Q, Xiao F. Investigation of using binder bond strength test to evaluate adhesion and self-healing properties of modified asphalt binders. Constr Build Mater. 2016;113:49–56.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.047Search in Google Scholar

[31] Youtcheff J, Aurilio V. Moisture sensitivity of asphalt binders: Evaluation and modeling of the pneumatic adhesion test results. Proceedings of the annual conference-Canadian technical asphalt association. 1997, pp. 180–200.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Zhou L, Airey G, Zhang Y, Wang C, Zhong H. Investigation of the bonding properties of bitumen using a novel modified binder bond strength test. Constr Build Mater. 2024;434:136784.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136784Search in Google Scholar

[33] Moraes R, Velasquez R, Bahia HU. Measuring the effect of moisture on asphalt-aggregate bond with the bitumen bond strength test. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. 2011;2209(1):70–81.10.3141/2209-09Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-05-23
Revised: 2024-11-21
Accepted: 2024-11-22
Published Online: 2025-02-22

© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Research Article
  2. Modification of polymers to synthesize thermo-salt-resistant stabilizers of drilling fluids
  3. Study of the electronic stopping power of proton in different materials according to the Bohr and Bethe theories
  4. AI-driven UAV system for autonomous vehicle tracking and license plate recognition
  5. Enhancement of the output power of a small horizontal axis wind turbine based on the optimization approach
  6. Design of a vertically stacked double Luneburg lens-based beam-scanning antenna at 60 GHz
  7. Synergistic effect of nano-silica, steel slag, and waste glass on the microstructure, electrical resistivity, and strength of ultra-high-performance concrete
  8. Expert evaluation of attachments (caps) for orthopaedic equipment dedicated to pedestrian road users
  9. Performance and rheological characteristics of hot mix asphalt modified with melamine nanopowder polymer
  10. Second-order design of GNSS networks with different constraints using particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithms
  11. Impact of including a slab effect into a 2D RC frame on the seismic fragility assessment: A comparative study
  12. Analytical and numerical analysis of heat transfer from radial extended surface
  13. Comprehensive investigation of corrosion resistance of magnesium–titanium, aluminum, and aluminum–vanadium alloys in dilute electrolytes under zero-applied potential conditions
  14. Performance analysis of a novel design of an engine piston for a single cylinder
  15. Modeling performance of different sustainable self-compacting concrete pavement types utilizing various sample geometries
  16. The behavior of minors and road safety – case study of Poland
  17. The role of universities in efforts to increase the added value of recycled bucket tooth products through product design methods
  18. Adopting activated carbons on the PET depolymerization for purifying r-TPA
  19. Urban transportation challenges: Analysis and the mitigation strategies for road accidents, noise pollution and environmental impacts
  20. Enhancing the wear resistance and coefficient of friction of composite marine journal bearings utilizing nano-WC particles
  21. Sustainable bio-nanocomposite from lignocellulose nanofibers and HDPE for knee biomechanics: A tribological and mechanical properties study
  22. Effects of staggered transverse zigzag baffles and Al2O3–Cu hybrid nanofluid flow in a channel on thermofluid flow characteristics
  23. Mathematical modelling of Darcy–Forchheimer MHD Williamson nanofluid flow above a stretching/shrinking surface with slip conditions
  24. Energy efficiency and length modification of stilling basins with variable Baffle and chute block designs: A case study of the Fewa hydroelectric project
  25. Renewable-integrated power conversion architecture for urban heavy rail systems using bidirectional VSC and MPPT-controlled PV arrays as an auxiliary power source
  26. Review Articles
  27. A modified adhesion evaluation method between asphalt and aggregate based on a pull off test and image processing
  28. Architectural practice process and artificial intelligence – an evolving practice
  29. Special Issue: 51st KKBN - Part II
  30. The influence of storing mineral wool on its thermal conductivity in an open space
  31. Use of nondestructive test methods to determine the thickness and compressive strength of unilaterally accessible concrete components of building
  32. Use of modeling, BIM technology, and virtual reality in nondestructive testing and inventory, using the example of the Trzonolinowiec
  33. Tunable terahertz metasurface based on a modified Jerusalem cross for thin dielectric film evaluation
  34. Integration of SEM and acoustic emission methods in non-destructive evaluation of fiber–cement boards exposed to high temperatures
  35. Non-destructive method of characterizing nitrided layers in the 42CrMo4 steel using the amplitude-frequency technique of eddy currents
  36. Evaluation of braze welded joints using the ultrasonic method
  37. Analysis of the potential use of the passive magnetic method for detecting defects in welded joints made of X2CrNiMo17-12-2 steel
  38. Analysis of the possibility of applying a residual magnetic field for lack of fusion detection in welded joints of S235JR steel
  39. Eddy current methodology in the non-direct measurement of martensite during plastic deformation of SS316L
  40. Methodology for diagnosing hydraulic oil in production machines with the additional use of microfiltration
  41. Special Issue: IETAS 2024 - Part II
  42. Enhancing communication with elderly and stroke patients based on sign-gesture translation via audio-visual avatars
  43. Optimizing wireless charging for electric vehicles via a novel coil design and artificial intelligence techniques
  44. Evaluation of moisture damage for warm mix asphalt (WMA) containing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)
  45. Comparative CFD case study on forced convection: Analysis of constant vs variable air properties in channel flow
  46. Evaluating sustainable indicators for urban street network: Al-Najaf network as a case study
  47. Node failure in self-organized sensor networks
  48. Comprehensive assessment of side friction impacts on urban traffic flow: A case study of Hilla City, Iraq
  49. Design a system to transfer alternating electric current using six channels of laser as an embedding and transmitting source
  50. Security and surveillance application in 3D modeling of a smart city: Kirkuk city as a case study
  51. Modified biochar derived from sewage sludge for purification of lead-contaminated water
  52. Special Issue: AESMT-7 - Part II
  53. Experimental study on behavior of hybrid columns by using SIFCON under eccentric load
https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2024-0096
Keywords for this article
asphalt; aggregates; adhesion; pull-off test; image processing
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Research Article
  2. Modification of polymers to synthesize thermo-salt-resistant stabilizers of drilling fluids
  3. Study of the electronic stopping power of proton in different materials according to the Bohr and Bethe theories
  4. AI-driven UAV system for autonomous vehicle tracking and license plate recognition
  5. Enhancement of the output power of a small horizontal axis wind turbine based on the optimization approach
  6. Design of a vertically stacked double Luneburg lens-based beam-scanning antenna at 60 GHz
  7. Synergistic effect of nano-silica, steel slag, and waste glass on the microstructure, electrical resistivity, and strength of ultra-high-performance concrete
  8. Expert evaluation of attachments (caps) for orthopaedic equipment dedicated to pedestrian road users
  9. Performance and rheological characteristics of hot mix asphalt modified with melamine nanopowder polymer
  10. Second-order design of GNSS networks with different constraints using particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithms
  11. Impact of including a slab effect into a 2D RC frame on the seismic fragility assessment: A comparative study
  12. Analytical and numerical analysis of heat transfer from radial extended surface
  13. Comprehensive investigation of corrosion resistance of magnesium–titanium, aluminum, and aluminum–vanadium alloys in dilute electrolytes under zero-applied potential conditions
  14. Performance analysis of a novel design of an engine piston for a single cylinder
  15. Modeling performance of different sustainable self-compacting concrete pavement types utilizing various sample geometries
  16. The behavior of minors and road safety – case study of Poland
  17. The role of universities in efforts to increase the added value of recycled bucket tooth products through product design methods
  18. Adopting activated carbons on the PET depolymerization for purifying r-TPA
  19. Urban transportation challenges: Analysis and the mitigation strategies for road accidents, noise pollution and environmental impacts
  20. Enhancing the wear resistance and coefficient of friction of composite marine journal bearings utilizing nano-WC particles
  21. Sustainable bio-nanocomposite from lignocellulose nanofibers and HDPE for knee biomechanics: A tribological and mechanical properties study
  22. Effects of staggered transverse zigzag baffles and Al2O3–Cu hybrid nanofluid flow in a channel on thermofluid flow characteristics
  23. Mathematical modelling of Darcy–Forchheimer MHD Williamson nanofluid flow above a stretching/shrinking surface with slip conditions
  24. Energy efficiency and length modification of stilling basins with variable Baffle and chute block designs: A case study of the Fewa hydroelectric project
  25. Renewable-integrated power conversion architecture for urban heavy rail systems using bidirectional VSC and MPPT-controlled PV arrays as an auxiliary power source
  26. Review Articles
  27. A modified adhesion evaluation method between asphalt and aggregate based on a pull off test and image processing
  28. Architectural practice process and artificial intelligence – an evolving practice
  29. Special Issue: 51st KKBN - Part II
  30. The influence of storing mineral wool on its thermal conductivity in an open space
  31. Use of nondestructive test methods to determine the thickness and compressive strength of unilaterally accessible concrete components of building
  32. Use of modeling, BIM technology, and virtual reality in nondestructive testing and inventory, using the example of the Trzonolinowiec
  33. Tunable terahertz metasurface based on a modified Jerusalem cross for thin dielectric film evaluation
  34. Integration of SEM and acoustic emission methods in non-destructive evaluation of fiber–cement boards exposed to high temperatures
  35. Non-destructive method of characterizing nitrided layers in the 42CrMo4 steel using the amplitude-frequency technique of eddy currents
  36. Evaluation of braze welded joints using the ultrasonic method
  37. Analysis of the potential use of the passive magnetic method for detecting defects in welded joints made of X2CrNiMo17-12-2 steel
  38. Analysis of the possibility of applying a residual magnetic field for lack of fusion detection in welded joints of S235JR steel
  39. Eddy current methodology in the non-direct measurement of martensite during plastic deformation of SS316L
  40. Methodology for diagnosing hydraulic oil in production machines with the additional use of microfiltration
  41. Special Issue: IETAS 2024 - Part II
  42. Enhancing communication with elderly and stroke patients based on sign-gesture translation via audio-visual avatars
  43. Optimizing wireless charging for electric vehicles via a novel coil design and artificial intelligence techniques
  44. Evaluation of moisture damage for warm mix asphalt (WMA) containing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)
  45. Comparative CFD case study on forced convection: Analysis of constant vs variable air properties in channel flow
  46. Evaluating sustainable indicators for urban street network: Al-Najaf network as a case study
  47. Node failure in self-organized sensor networks
  48. Comprehensive assessment of side friction impacts on urban traffic flow: A case study of Hilla City, Iraq
  49. Design a system to transfer alternating electric current using six channels of laser as an embedding and transmitting source
  50. Security and surveillance application in 3D modeling of a smart city: Kirkuk city as a case study
  51. Modified biochar derived from sewage sludge for purification of lead-contaminated water
  52. Special Issue: AESMT-7 - Part II
  53. Experimental study on behavior of hybrid columns by using SIFCON under eccentric load
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 10.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/eng-2024-0096/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button