Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials


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

Shear bond strength between asphalt layers for laboratory prepared


samples and field cores
A.C. Collop a,*, M.H. Sutanto a, G.D. Airey a, R.C. Elliott b
a
Nottingham Transportation Engineering Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
b
Scott Wilson, 12 Regan Way, Chetwynd Business Park, Chilwell, Notts, NG9 6RZ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes the laboratory measurement of shear interface properties between asphalt layers
Received 4 June 2008 using the Leutner test. Results are presented and compared for both laboratory prepared specimens
Accepted 28 November 2008 and field cores. The standard Leutner test was modified by the introduction of a 5 mm gap into the shear
Available online 9 January 2009
plane to reduce edge damage caused by misalignment of the specimen and specimens that incorporate a
thin surfacing material were extended using a 30 mm thick grooved metal cylinder to eliminate depen-
Keywords: dence of the shear strength on surfacing thickness. The laboratory produced surfacing/binder course
Bond between layers
combinations incorporating the 20 mm Dense Bitumen Macadam (20 DBM) binder course showed the
Interface properties
Shear strength
highest average shear strengths when nothing was applied at the interface and the lowest average shear
Laboratory shear test strengths when the tack coat was applied at the interface. The average shear strength from field cores was
Leutner test found to increase as the class of the road increases for both surfacing/binder course interfaces and binder
course/base interfaces.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction caused by interface bond problems affected 5% of the French high-


way network. In Japan, airport runway surfacing failures caused by
Asphalt pavements are usually constructed in several layers and bond problems have been frequently reported in locations where
proper bonding between adjacent layers is required to ensure good there are high braking and turning forces [9]. Charmot et al. [10]
performance. However, this is not always achieved and a number reported that interface slippage occurred on 44% of an overlay pro-
of pavement failures have been linked to poor bond condition ject in Nevada, USA soon after completion of the work. Results
[1–10]. Although only a small detail in terms of overall pavement from simulations have also shown that poor bond condition can in-
cost, the bond between asphalt layers is an important component crease the stress and strain distributions around the interfaces and
of the whole structure, for which there is little knowledge of the hence reduce pavement life [11–17].
implications of any shortcomings in terms of pavement life. Typically, interface properties between two asphalt layers can
This paper is focused on the laboratory measurement of shear be measured using in situ testing or laboratory testing. Al Hakim
interface properties between asphalt layers. Results from a modi- et al. [16,18,19] performed in situ measurement of interface prop-
fied version of the Leutner test procedure are presented and com- erties between asphalt layers using the falling weight deflectome-
pared for both laboratory prepared specimens and field cores. The ter (FWD). The direct shear test seems to be the most commonly
research described in this paper forms part of a larger project, used laboratory test method to investigate interface properties
funded by the UK Highways Agency and Road Emulsion Associa- [12,20–22]. This type of test typically incorporates the application
tion Ltd, with the overall aim to produce a laboratory-based spec- of a normal force in addition to a constant rate of shear loading (or
ification test to measure the bond between asphalt layers. a constant rate of shear displacement) until interface failure
occurs.
2. Background Uzan et al. [12] performed direct shear tests on laboratory pre-
pared prismatic specimens to investigate interface properties be-
In the early 1970s, a significant number of premature bond fail- tween asphalt layers. They found that the shear resistance of the
ures were reported between surfacing and binder course materials interface decreased significantly with increasing temperature and
[5,7]. Lepert et al. [8] reported that severe pavement failures decreasing normal force. They also found that, for the material
combinations they tested, there was an optimum amount of tack
coat at which the shear resistance of the interface was at a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 115 9513913; fax: +44 115 9513909.
E-mail address: andrew.collop@nottingham.ac.uk (A.C. Collop).
maximum.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.11.017
2252 A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258

Table 1
Mixture characteristics.

Mixture type Binder grade Binder content (mass %) Air void content (%) Max. density (Mg/m3) Layer thickness (mm)
a
14 mm SMA 40/60 pen 6 4 2.501 40
TS1b – – – – 15/35
TS2b – – – – 20
30/14 HRA 50 pen 7.2 5 2.368 40
20 mm DBM 30/45 pen 4.7 5.5 2.490 60/40
0/14 EME 15 pen 5.4 5 2.522 60
28 mm DBM 30/45 pen 4 6 2.498 60
0/20 EME 15 pen 5.2 5 2.530 80
a
Includes 0.3% cellulose fibres (of mixture weight).
b
Proprietary material.

Although shear box type tests where both normal and shear Sholar et al. [25] developed a similar direct shear device based
stresses are applied to the interface are popular, there are a num- around testing core samples with no normal load. They used a
ber of limitations. For example, it is well recognised that the shear loading rate of 50 mm/min, a test temperature of 25 °C and a gap
stress distribution on the interface is not uniform due to the ab- between the shearing platens of 4.8 mm. Three field projects were
sence of complimentary shear stresses [21,23]. One of the other constructed and investigated at different times after construction.
limitations is the experimental complexity associated with the Other variables investigated included the effects of tack coat appli-
application of a normal as well as shear load. Although this may cation rate and the effects of water for three different combinations
be acceptable for detailed research, a simpler approach is required of material. They found that the presence of water on the surface of
if testing for interface properties are to become more routine in the tack coat reduced the shear strength and the gradation of the
nature. upper and lower layer mixtures played a critical role in the shear
The Leutner test was developed in Germany in the late 1970s as strength achieved with the project containing the milled interface
a simple means of undertaking a direct shear test on the bond be- achieving the highest strengths. They also found that, for some
tween two asphalt layers [24]. The test is performed on 150 mm material combinations, increasing the tack coat application rate in-
diameter cores comprising at least two layers taken either from a creased the shear strength whereas, for other material combina-
pavement or fabricated in the laboratory. The principle of the test tions, there was little effect.
is to apply a constant shear displacement rate across the interface
under investigation and monitor the resultant shear force. No nor- 3. Materials and specimen preparation
mal force is applied to the cylindrical specimen. A standard shear
3.1. Laboratory manufactured specimens
displacement rate of 50 mm/min is used so that marshall and
CBR loading devices can be utilised. It should be noted that, To investigate the bond between the upper two interfaces in a flexible pave-
although the Leutner test arrangement has the advantage of sim- ment structure, four typical surfacing materials (14 mm stone mastic asphalt
plicity (compared to shear box type tests) it also suffers from (SMA), two proprietary thin surfacings (TS1 and TS2) and 30/14 hot rolled asphalt
non-uniform interface shear stresses. (HRA)), two binder course materials (20 mm Dense Bitumen Macadam (20 DBM)

Table 2
Site information.

Site Road class Traffic Construction


#1 Two-lane A-road 4060 vehicles/day northbound 3811 vehicles/day southbound Surfacing laid in June 2002
#2 Two-lane A-road 4895 vehicles/day eastbound 6044 vehicles/day westbound Surfacing laid in April 2002
#3 Two-lane B-road 3355 vehicles/day northbound 3111 vehicles/day southbound N/A
#4 B-road N/A Surfacing laid in August 2003
#5 Two-lane C-road 2204 vehicles/day eastbound 1969 vehicles/day westbound Surfacing laid in September 2003
#6 Two-lane C-road 3746 vehicles/day eastbound 3373 vehicles/day westbound Surfacing laid in June 2002
#7 A-road N/A Surfacing had not been laid when the cores were taken
#9 Motorway N/A N/A
#10 Motorway N/A N/A
#11 A-road N/A N/A
#12 A-road N/A N/A
#13 Two-lane B-road Medium Surfacing laid in August 2005
#14 Two-lane D-road Light to medium residential Surfacing laid in July 2005
#15 Two-lane B-road Medium Surfacing laid in April 2005
#16 Two-lane D-road Light to medium Surfacing laid in June 2005
#17 Two-lane D-road Rural light Surfacing laid in June 2005
#18 Two-lane D-road Very light residential Surfacing laid in October 2005
#19 A-road N/A Surfacing had not been laid when the cores were taken
#20 Motorway N/A N/A
#21 Motorway N/A N/A
#22 Two-lane A-road N/A N/A
#23 Two-lane A-road N/A N/A
#24 Two-lane A-road N/A N/A
#25 Two-lane A-road N/A N/A
#26 Two-lane C-road N/A N/A
#27 Two-lane A-road N/A N/A
#28 Two-lane A-road N/A N/A
#29 Motorway N/A N/A
#30 Motorway N/A N/A
A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258 2253

50mm/min 50mm/min

35mm Interface

10mm

Lower Layer Upper 150mm


14mm
Layer

17.5mm
5mm gap
67.5mm
Specimen
70mm 50mm
Photograph Cross Section Shearing Insert
Fig. 1. Photograph and schematic diagram of Leutner load frame.

and 0/14 Enrobe a Module Eleve (14EME)) and two base material (28 mm DBM (28 ature controlled cabinet. Fig. 1 shows a photograph and a sche-
DBM) and 0/20 EME (20 EME)) were used. A gritstone aggregate was used for the
matic of the Leutner load frame.
SMA, TS1, TS2, HRA and EME and a limestone aggregate was used for the DBM mix-
tures. All materials were designed according to the relevant standards [26,27]. De-
tails of the mixtures are given in Table 1.
4.1. Introduction of a 5 mm gap into the shear plane
Slabs of plan dimensions 305 mm by 305 mm and 100 mm in thickness, each
comprising two layers, were manufactured in a laboratory roller compactor to sim-
ulate site compaction conditions as closely as possible. The material for the lower From an examination of failed specimens during preliminary
layer, once mixed, was placed in the mould and compacted to the desired thickness. testing, it was frequently observed that large aggregate particles
The layer was then allowed to fully cool and the surface was treated to give one of
on the edge of the specimen close to the interface had been
the following interface conditions.
crushed during the test [28]. This was particularly evident when
(a) A ‘standard’ amount of tack coat, comprising K1-40 emulsion, was spread
the shear strength of the interface was high and was thought to
on the lower layer surface using a clean brush to give an average of be due to misalignment between the specimen interface and the
200 g/m2 residual bitumen. The emulsion was allowed to break before lay- shear plane in the Leutner load frame. The standard test frame does
ing the upper layer. not have sufficient tolerance in the shear plane and it was found to
(b) A polymer modified bond coat was spread on the lower layer surface to give
be very difficult to align the interface to the shear plane, especially
an average of 300 g/m2 residual bitumen.
(c) No tack (bond) coat was applied. when the specimen has an irregular interface (due to coarse aggre-
gates interlocking or an uneven bottom layer surface). Conse-
After the interface has been prepared, the material for the upper layer was quently, the Leutner load frame was modified to introduce a
mixed and compacted on top of the lower layer to the desired thickness. From each
slab, two 150 mm diameter cores were obtained for Leutner testing. Nominally six
5 mm gap into the shear plane by machining the standard shearing
identical tests were undertaken for each test condition to assess variability. inserts (see Fig. 1).
A comparison of results obtained using the standard and mod-
3.2. Field compacted cores ified Leutner load frames for the SMA surfacing over a 20 mm DBM
A number of 150 mm diameter cores from the wheel path were taken from the
using two different interface conditions is shown in Table 3. It can
following 30 in-service roads in the UK as shown in Table 2. Unfortunately, not be seen from Table 3 that the modification to the Leutner load
much information was available for the sites and in many cases construction and frame significantly reduced crushing at the edge of the specimens.
traffic details were not available. Note that the traffic for sites #1–4 and #6 shown It can also be seen that the modification also results in lower var-
in Table 2 are averages values.
iability as shown by the lower coefficients of variation (COVs). Fol-
lowing modification, alignment of the interface to the shear plane
4. Leutner test
became much easier and occurrences of edge aggregate crushing
were virtually eliminated. The modified frame was used through-
Leutner testing was undertaken using standard conditions
out the rest of this study.
(50 mm/min, 20 °C) in a hydraulic testing machine with a temper-

Table 3
Comparison between standard and modified Leutner results.

Interface condition Standard Leutner Modified Leutner


a
Tack coat Mean shear strength (MPa) 1.89 1.78c
COV (%) 18 6
Slurry Mean shear strength (MPa) 2.27b 1.96c
COV (%) 20 13
a
Four out of six specimens crushed.
b
Five out of six specimens crushed.
c
No crushing.
2254 A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258

4.2. Testing thin surfacings tions. The error bars represent the 95th percentile confidence lim-
its. It can be seen from Table 4 and Fig. 2 that all the surfacing/
An investigation into the bond beneath thin surfacings revealed binder course combinations incorporating the 20 mm DBM show
that the shear strength decreased significantly when the thickness the highest average shear strengths when nothing is applied at
of the surfacing is reduced to less than 35 mm. After testing, the cores the interface and the lowest average shear strengths when the tack
were inspected and it was found that, for those specimens with the coat is applied at the interface. The pattern with the surfacing/bin-
15 mm thickness surfacings, the failure was not restricted entirely der course combinations incorporating the 14 mm EME (HRA/14
to the interface but extended into the surfacing material. It was also EME) is less clear. This trend is similar to the results found by
found that there was significant localised bulging in the surfacing Canestrari et al. [30] on AC11/AC16 material combination. Two of
material adjacent to the top of the frame where the load is applied. the four combinations (SMA/14 EME, TS2/14 EME) showed the
To avoid this problem, the thickness of the surfacing was artificially highest average shear strength with tack coat at the interface
extended by attaching additional material to the top of the surfacing. whereas the other two combinations showed the highest average
A range of materials was tested and a 30 mm thick grooved metal shear strength with either bond coat at the interface (TS1/EME)
cylinder was adopted (see [29] for a more detailed discussion). or nothing at the interface (HRA/EME). The two combinations that
included the thin surfacing materials (TS1/14 EME, TS2/14 EME)
showed the lowest average shear strength with nothing at the
5. Result interface whilst the other two combinations (SMA/14 EME, HRA/
14 EME) showed the lowest average shear strength with bond coat
5.1. Leutner test on laboratory manufactured specimens at the interface.
For the binder course/base combination (14EME/20EME), the
Table 4 shows summary results for all the material and inter- highest and lowest average shear strengths were obtained for the
face combinations tested. Note that six individual tests were combinations with nothing and tack coat at the interface,
undertaken for each combination to quantify variability. It can be respectively.
seen from this table that the shear strengths range between The gradient of a line joining a particular point to the origin in
1.12 MPa and 2.68 MPa which generally indicates a high level of Fig. 2 is the average secant shear modulus for that combination of
bond. It can also be seen from this table that the displacements materials and bond condition. It can be seen from Table 4 and Fig. 2
at the point at which the shear strength is reached range from that in the majority of cases, the general pattern for the average se-
1.05 mm to 2.40 mm and the secant shear moduli range from cant shear modulus is the same as for the average shear strength. It
0.48 MPa/mm to 1.90 MPa/mm. is interesting to note that both the highest average shear strength
Fig. 2 shows the average shear strength plotted against the and average secant shear modulus are for the 14 EME/20 EME bin-
average shear displacement for all the material and bond combina- der course/base combination with nothing at the interface.

Table 4
Summary of test results from the laboratory manufactured specimens.

Material combination Bond conditiona Shear strength Displacementb Secant shear modulusc
Average (MPa) COV (%) Average (mm) COV (%) Average (MPa/mm) COV (%)
SMA/20 DBM (a) 1.63 10.0 2.40 7.8 0.68 6.6
(b) 1.93 7.9 2.30 10.8 0.84 8.0
(c) 2.36 10.9 2.10 6.8 1.12 8.1
SMA/14 EME (a) 1.86 11.0 1.96 9.3 0.95 11.4
(b) 1.20 16.0 1.84 4.2 0.65 16.1
(c) 1.52 18.8 1.75 8.0 0.87 13.5
TS1/20 DBM (a) 1.43 10.8 1.96 12.0 0.74 20.7
(b) 1.50 10.7 1.77 10.1 0.86 20.1
(c) 1.64 8.4 2.18 14.1 0.76 11.9
TS1/14 EME (a) 1.86 13.6 1.89 17.1 1.01 20.0
(b) 2.09 11.9 1.82 13.4 1.17 19.0
(c) 1.16 23.7 1.45 13.2 0.80 15.9
TS2/20 DBM (a) 1.37 20.2 2.17 28.9 0.68 31.5
(b) 1.48 4.7 1.91 4.6 0.78 7.3
(c) 1.57 12.3 1.77 10.3 0.89 10.8
TS2/14 EME (a) 1.56 13.4 1.53 8.4 1.03 19.5
(b) 1.27 27.7 1.53 7.5 0.83 27.5
(c) 1.21 9.8 1.24 10.8 0.98 16.8
HRA/20 DBM (a) 1.12 14.3 2.36 6.4 0.48 15.5
(b) 1.50 11.6 2.04 7.4 0.74 14.1
HRA/14 EME (a) 1.37 18.9 1.61 13.5 0.87 22.5
(b) 1.22 12.3 1.57 8.5 0.78 12.8
(c) 1.54 12.1 1.55 7.9 1.00 13.1
14 EME/20 EME (a) 1.75 21.0 1.31 12.4 1.33 11.3
(b) 2.32 25.6 1.48 16.1 1.56 17.7
(c) 2.68 13.5 1.42 8.4 1.90 13.9
20 DBM/28 DBM (a) 1.65 12.6 1.05 12.0 1.58 5.2
a
(a) Tack coat, (b) bond coat and (c) no emulsion.
b
Determined at the shear strength.
c
Shear strength divided by displacement at the shear strength.
A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258 2255

4.0
SMA/20DBM (a) SMA/20DBM (b) SMA/20DBM (c) SMA/14EME (a)
SMA/14EME (b) SMA/14 EME (c) TS1/20DBM (a) TS1/20DBM (b)
TS1/20DBM (c) TS1/14EME (a) TS1/14EME (b) TS1/14EME (c)
3.5 TS2/20DBM (a) TS2/20DBM (b) TS2/20DBM (c) TS2/14EME (a)
TS2/14EME (b) TS2/14EME (c) HRA/20DBM (a) HRA/20DBM (b)
HRA/14EME (a) HRA/14EME (b) HRA/14EME (c) 14EME/20EME (a)
14EME/20EME (b) 14EME/20EME (c) 20DBM/28DBM (a)
3.0

Shear Strength (MPa) 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

Fig. 2. Shear strength against displacement at maximum shear strength.

3.6
Site #9 surfacing over binder Site #10 surfacing over binder
Site #9 binder over base Site#10 binder over base
Site #21 surfacing over binder Site #20 binder over base
3.2 Site #21 binder over base Site #29 surfacing over binder
Site #30 surfacing over binder Site #29 binder over base
Site #30 binder over base
2.8
Shear Strength (MPa)

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

Fig. 3. Leutner test results from motorway cores.

5.2. Leutner test on field specimens course/base interfaces (B/B), together with their coefficients of var-
iation (COVs), are shown in Table 5.
Results from Leutner testing on cores from five different classes It can be seen from Table 5 that for both interfaces the general
of road (Motorway, A-road, B-road, C-road and D-road) are shown trend is for the average shear strength to increase as the class of
in Figs. 3–6 and average shear strength values for each class of road the road increases. For example, there is an increase in average
for the surfacing binder course interface (S/B) and the binder shear strength of approximately 80% for the binder course/base
2256 A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258

4.0
Site #1 surfacing over binder Site #2 surfacing over binder Site #8 surfacing over binder
Site #1 binder over base Site#2 binder over base Site #7 binder over base
3.6 Site #8 binder over base Site #7 base over sub-base Site #8 base over sub-base
Site #11 surfacing over binder Site #12 surfacing over binder Site #22 surfacing over binder
Site #11 binder over base Site #12 binder over base Site #19 binder over base
3.2 Site #23 surfacing over binder Site #24 surfacing over binder Site #25 surfacing over binder
Site #27 surfacing over binder Site #28 surfacing over binder

2.8
Shear Strength (MPa)

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

Fig. 4. Leutner test results from A-road cores.

2.4
Site #3 surfacing over binder Site #4 surfacing over binder
Site #3 binder over base Site#4 binder over base
Site #13 surfacing over binder Site #15 surfacing over binder
2.0

1.6
Shear Strength (MPa)

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

Fig. 5. Leutner test results from B-road cores.

interface (B/B) from C- and D-roads to motorways. It can also be the effect of traffic and material combinations on shear strength
seen from the data in Table 5 that the average shear strength tends of the field cores.
to be greater for the surfacing/binder course interface (S/B) com- It should also be noted that there is a considerable amount of
pared to the binder course/base interface (B/B), although for the scatter in the data as shown by the COVs in Table 5 which tend
Motorways there is little difference. Because construction and traf- to be slightly higher for the lower class roads. For example,
fic details were not available in many cases, it is difficult to asses although the average shear strength for the motorway surfacing/
A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258 2257

2.4
Site #5 surfacing over binder Site #6 surfacing over binder
Site #5 binder over base Site#6 binder over base
Site #14 surfacing over binder Site #16 surfacing over binder
Site #17 surfacing over binder Site #18 surfacing over binder
2.0 Site #26 surfacing over binder

Shear Strength (MPa)


1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

Fig. 6. Leutner test results from C- and D-road cores.

binder course interfaces (S/B) is 1.67 MPa it can be seen from Fig. 3 specification. Most recently, Stöckert [33] proposed limits based
that individual values range between 0.7 MPa and 2.7 MPa. on a wide series of Leutner tests performed on cores taken from
typical German pavements of differing ages (see Table 6). He found
6. Discussion that a maximum increase in shear strength of 30% was found after
one year of trafficking.
Codjia [31] proposed minimum limits for shear load (strength) It can be seen that the limits proposed in Table 6 range from
from Leutner tests performed on cores taken from German roads. 0.85 MPa to 1.41 MPa for the surfacing/binder course interface
These are shown in Table 6; note that the shear load (kN) has been and from 0.57 MPa to 1.13 MPa for the binder course/base inter-
converted to a shear strength (MPa) using the nominal cross sec- face. It is interesting to note that the requirements do not change
tional area of the 150 mm diameter Leutner specimens. A study for the class of road under consideration.
at the Swiss Federal Laboratory (EMPA) [32] investigated the shear It can be seen that applying the lower values of 0.85 MPa and
resistance between new asphalt layers using modified Leutner 0.57 MPa to the data shown in Figs. 3–6 would exclude approxi-
equipment called layer parallel direct shear (LPDS). The results mately 12% of the surfacing/binder course interface (S/B) speci-
were used to assess the achievable bond in a new Swiss pavement mens and approximately 5% of the binder course/base interface
and also a pavement after at least 3 years of service. A minimum (B/B) specimens. The majority of these excluded data points
value of 1.3 MPa for the shear strength was proposed as a Swiss (approximately 55% of the surfacing/binder course interface (S/B)
specimens and 80% of the binder course/base interface (B/B) spec-
Table 5 imens) are from the B-, C- and D-roads.
Average site shear strength values. Applying the upper values of 1.41 MPa and 1.13 MPa would ex-
Shear strength Motorway A-road B-road C- and D-roads clude approximately 50% of the surfacing/binder course interface
(S/B) specimens and approximately 40% of the binder course/base
S/B B/B S/B B/B S/B B/B S/B B/B
interface (B/B) specimens with the majority of these (approxi-
Average (MPa) 1.67 1.65 1.40 1.16 1.32 0.98 1.16 0.90
mately 85% for both interfaces) from the A-, B-, C- and D-roads.
COV (%) 20.4 9.7 7.5 42.3 32.4 44.3 31.4 35.9
It can also be seen that for the upper values (1.41 MPa and
1.13 MPa) some sites would fail to meet the specification com-
Table 6 pletely. For example, Sites #4, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #22,
Published Leutner test limits. #23, #26, #27 and #28 would fail to meet the surfacing/binder
Source Equipment Spceimen size Displacement rate Shear
course specification of 1.41 MPa and Sites #1, #2, #4 and #6 would
(mm diameter) (mm/min) strength fail to meet the binder course/base specification of 1.13 MPa.
(MPa)
S/B B/B
7. Conclusions
Codjia [31] Leutnera 150 50 0.85 0.57
Partl and LPDS 150 50 1.3
 The standard Leutner test was modified by the introduction of a
Raab 5 mm gap into the shear plane to reduce edge damage caused by
[32] misalignment of the specimen interface with respect to the
Stöckert Leutnera 150 50 1.41 1.13 shear plane and specimens that incorporate a thin surfacing
[33]
material were extended with a 30 mm thick grooved metal
a
Standard, without gap at the shear plane. cylinder.
2258 A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258

 The shear strengths, displacements at the point at which the [7] Shaat AA. Investigation of slippage of bituminous layer in overlaid pavement in
Northern Ireland. Consultancy report submitted for the DOE in Northern
shear strength is reached and secant shear moduli for the labo-
Ireland; 1992.
ratory produced materials ranged from 1.12 MPa to 2.68 MPa, [8] Lepert P, Poilane JP, Villard-Bats M. Evaluation of various field measurement
1.05 mm to 2.40 mm and 0.48 MPa/mm to 1.90 MPa/mm, techniques for the assessment of pavement interface condition. In: 7th
respectively. The 14 mm EME surfacing over the 20 mm EME International conference on asphalt pavements; 1992: 3. p. 224–37.
[9] Hachiya T, Sato K. Effect of tack coat on bonding characteristics at interface
binder course combination was found to give both the highest between asphalt concrete layers. In: 8th International conference on asphalt
average shear strength and average secant shear modulus. pavements. Seattle; 1997.
 The laboratory produced surfacing/binder course combinations [10] Charmot S, Romero P, Dunning M. Forensic analysis of slippage cracking. In:
Proceeding of the 84th TRB annual meeting. Washington (DC); 2005.
incorporating the 20 mm DBM binder course showed the high- [11] Romain JE. Contraintes, déformations et déflexions dans les systémes
est average shear strengths when nothing was applied at the quadricouches élastiques. Rapport de recherche No. 147/JER/1968. Centre de
interface and the lowest average shear strengths when the tack Recherches Routiéres, Bruxelles; 2005.
[12] Uzan J, Livneh M, Eshed Y. Investigation of adhesion properties between
coat was applied at the interface. Two of the four combinations asphalt concrete layers. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 1978;47:495–521.
incorporating the 14 mm EME binder course showed the highest [13] Brown SF, Brunton JM. The influence of bonding between bituminous layers.
average shear strength with tack coat at the interface whereas Highways and Transportation 1984;31(5):16–7.
[14] Shahin M, Kirchner K, Blackmon EW. Analysis of asphalt concrete layers
the other two combinations showed the highest average shear slippage and its effect on pavement performance and rehabilitation design. In:
strength with either bond coat or nothing at the interface. 6th International conference on the structural design of asphalt
 The average shear strength from field cores increases as the class pavements. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan; 1987.
[15] Tschegg KE, Kroyer G, Tan DM, Stanzl-Tschegg SE, Litzka J. Investigation of
of the road increases for both surfacing/binder course interfaces
bonding between asphalt layers on road construction. J Transp Eng – ASCE
and binder course/base interfaces. 1995(July/August):309–17.
 The average shear strength from field cores tends to be greater [16] Al Hakim, B. An improved backcalculation method to predict flexible
for the surfacing/binder course interface compared to the binder pavement layers moduli and bonding condition between wearing course and
base course. PhD thesis. Liverpool John Moores University; 1997.
course/base interface. [17] Kruntcheva MR, Collop AC, Thom NH. Theoretical and practical aspects of the
 Applying the lower limits of 0.85 MPa and 0.57 MPa to the data importance of bonding in a pavement structure. Project report PGR 2000–08.
from field cores would exclude approximately 12% of the surfac- The University of Nottingham; 2000.
[18] Al Hakim B, Al Nageim H, Pountney D, Lesley L. The development of an
ing/binder course interface specimens and approximately 5% of improved pavement back-calculation. In: 1st Conference on rehabilitation and
the binder course/base interface specimens. The majority of development of civil engineering infrastructure systems, Paper No. 72.
these excluded data points (approximately 55% of the surfac- Lebanon; 1997.
[19] Al Hakim B, Armitage R, Thom N. Pavement assessment including bonding
ing/binder course interface (S/B) specimens and 80% of the bin- condition: case studies. In: 5th International conference on bearing capacity of
der course/base interface (B/B) specimens) come from the B-, C- roads and airfields, vol. 1. Trondheim; 1998. p. 439–48.
and D-roads. [20] Carr AG. The behaviour of layered pavement structures: the dynamic shear
box. Project report. School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham;
 Applying the upper limits of 1.41 MPa and 1.13 MPa to the data 2001.
from field cores would exclude approximately 50% of the surfac- [21] Kruntcheva MR, Collop AC, Thom NH. Shear box test: finite element modelling.
ing/binder course interface (S/B) specimens and approximately Project report PGR01–05. School of Civil Engineering, University of
Nottingham; 2001.
40% of the binder course/base interface (B/B) specimens. The
[22] Mohammad LN, Raqib MA, Wu Z, Huang B. Measurement of interlayer bond
majority of these excluded data points (approximately 85% for strength through direct shear tests. In: 3rd International conference of
both interfaces) come from the A-, B-, C- and D-roads. bituminous mixtures and pavements, 21–22 November. Thessaloniki,
Greece; 2002.
[23] de Bondt A. Anti-reflective cracking design of (reinforced) asphalt overlays.
PhD thesis. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; 1999.
Acknowledgements [24] Leutner R. Untersuchung des schichtenverbundes beim bituminosen
oberbau. Hamburg, Germany: Bitumen, Heft 3, ARBIT; 1979.
[25] Sholar GA, Page GC, Musselman JA, Upshaw PB, Moseley HL. Preliminary
The work reported herein was carried out under a contract investigation of a test method to evaluate bond strength of bituminous tack
placed with Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering Ltd by the UK coats. Asphalt Paving Technol 2004;73.
Highways Agency (HA) and the Road Emulsion Association (REAL) [26] Anon. Specification for coated macadam for roads and other paved areas.
British Standards Institute, BS4987–1&2; 2001.
Ltd. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of [27] Anon. Bituminous mixtures. Material specification. Part 5. Stone mastic
the HA, the Department for Transport or REAL. asphalt. British Standards Institute, BS EN 13108–5; 2000.
[28] Collop AC, Thom NH, Sangiorgi C. Assessment of bond condition using the
Leutner shear test. ICE J Transp 2003;156(TR4):211–7.
References [29] Sutanto MH, Collop AC, Airey GD, Elliott RC. Laboratory measurement of shear
interface strength beneath a thin asphalt layer. In: International conference on
[1] Anon. Interim report of the working party on the slippage of rolled asphalt advanced characterization of pavement and soil engineering materials.
wearing courses. TRRL report SR 213UC; 1976. Athens; 2007.
[2] Kennedy CK. The development of slip-planes in rolled asphalt surfacings. TRRL [30] Canestrari F, Ferrotti G, Partl MN, Santagata E. Advanced testing and
report LR 813; 1978. characterization of interlayer shear resistance. TRB 84th Annual Meeting.
[3] Anon. Final report of the working party on the slippage of rolled asphalt Washington (DC); 2005.
wearing courses. TRRL report SR 493; 1979. [31] Codjia H. Erarbeitung eines bewertungshintergrundes für das prüfverfahren
[4] Kennedy CK, Lister NW. Experimental studies of slippage, the performance of ‘schichtenverbund nach Leutner’ und bestimmung der präzision.
rolled asphalt road surfacings. London: The Institution of Civil Engineers; 1980. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Straßen-und Eisenbahnwesen der
p. 31–56. Universität Karlsruhe (TH); 1994.
[5] Peattie KR. The incidence and investigation of slippage failures, the [32] Partl MN, Raab C. Shear adhesion between top layers of fresh asphalt
performance of rolled asphalt road surfacings. London: The Institution of pavements in Switzerland. In: 7th Conference on asphalt pavements for
Civil Engineers; 1980. p. 3–15. Southern Africa; 1999.
[6] Anon. Le décollement des couches de revêtement de chaussées. Note [33] Stöckert U. Schichtenverbund–prüfung und bewertungshintergrund. Straße
d’information chaussées – terrassement n’ 250 , SETRA; 1986. und Autobahn 2001;11/2001.