Interface Behavior of Asphalt Pavements Constructed by Conventional and Double-Decked Paving Methods
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Test Methods
2.1. Specimens Preparation
2.2. Test Methods
2.2.1. Quantifying the Interlocking of Upper and Lower Layers of Asphalt Mixture
- (a)
- AC-20 was put into the iron hoop and 75 blows of Marshall compactor were applied to simulate the conventional paving method in practical engineering. For the double-decked paving method, 30 light compactions were applied to the specimen to obtain a smooth surface.
- (b)
- An aluminum slice with an internal diameter of 101.6 mm and a thickness of 0.1 mm was placed on the top of the lower layer of asphalt mixture.
- (c)
- The AC-13 mixture was added into the iron hoop and compacted 75 times from top and bottom sides. The conventional and double-decked paving method share a similar procedure for this step.
- (d)
- The specimens were separated along the middle plane, and the aluminum slice was removed, as shown in Figure 3. The middle plane was selected as the reference plane for the quantification of interlocking depth. Ten points were selected along the radial direction of the aluminum slice. The average height of the convex and concave was used to quantify the interlocking depth. The measurements were abandoned when their values are larger than 20% of the average value, and then the average value was determined again with left measurements as the value of interlocking depth.
2.2.2. Direct Shear Apparatus
2.2.3. Uniaxial Tensile Apparatus
3. Experimental Results
3.1. Interlocking Depth
3.2. Interface Shear Strength
3.3. Interface Tensile Strength
4. Field Test from the Trial Road
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- For the conventional paving method, the interface strength is mainly provided by the tack coat. When failure occurs, the failure section is located in the tack oil layer. For the double-decked paving method, the interface strength is mainly provided by the interlocking of the upper and lower layers of asphalt mixture. When failure occurs, the failure section extends to upper or lower layer of asphalt mixture.
- (2)
- For the double-decked paving method, the interface shear strength and tensile strength are 1.5–1.8 and 1.6–1.8 times larger than that of the conventional paving method, respectively. The average horizontal deformation at failure is 5.3 cm and 6.2 cm under conventional and double-deck paving method, respectively. Compared with the conventional paving method, the ductility (the horizontal deformation at failure) is improved by 17% for specimens prepared by the double-decked paving method.
- (3)
- The test results for the trial road are consistent with the laboratory test, which indicates that the double-decked paving method can enhance the interface strength of asphalt pavement not only under the laboratory conditions, but also in terms of practical engineering. Moreover, the interlocking depth, shear strength, and tensile strength measured by cored specimens from the trial road are higher than that in the laboratory test, mainly because of the higher compaction temperature and larger compaction efforts in the field.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, L. The Double Layer Paving Technique of Asphalt Pavement. Constr. Mach. Tech. Manag. 2007, 7, 75–78. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.H.; Mu, K.; Zhao, J.J. Heat losing and effective compacting time of double layer spreading pavement. J. Chang’an Univ. 2013, 33, 7–12. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.H.; Zhang, T.; Bao, X.Z. Study of Construction Technology for Asphalt Pavement Double Layer Paving Based on Flow Line Technique. Highway 2014, 4, 11–16. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Canestrari, F.; Ferrotti, G.; Partl, M.N.; Santagata, E. Advanced testing and characterization of interlayer shear resistance. Transp. Res. Rec. 2005, 1929, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haritha, M.; Cassie, C. Field measurements of emulsion application rates and pavement emulsion absorption in tack coats and chip seals. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 218, 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, C.-J. Evaluation of Shear Strength on Pavement Layers by Use Tack Materials. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 3176–3179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, L.; Raqib, M.A.; Huang, B. Influence of Asphalt Tack Coat Materials on Interface Shear Strength. J. Transp. Res. Recoard 2002, 1789, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruntcheva, M.R.; Collop, A.C.; Thom, N.H. Properties of Asphalt Concrete Layer Interfaces. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006, 18, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.G. Effect of tack coat application on interlayer shear strength of asphalt pavement: A state-of-the-art review based on application in the United States. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2017, 10, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diakhaté, M.; Millien, A.; Petit, C. Experimental investigation of tack coat fatigue performance: Towards an improved lifetime assessment of pavement structure interfaces. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1123–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elma, K.T.; Georg, K.; Tan, D.T.; Stanzl-Tschegg, S.E.; Litzka, J.H. Investigation of bonding between asphalt layers in road construction. J. Trans. Eng. 1995, 121, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, G.; Wang, X.; Zhou, X.; Wang, Y. Experimental Study on the Phase Transition Characteristics of Asphalt Mixture for Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer. Materials 2020, 13, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zou, G.; Xu, X.; Li, J.; Yu, H.; Wang, C.; Sun, J. The Effects of Bituminous Binder on the Performance of Gussasphalt Concrete for Bridge Deck Pavement. Materials 2020, 13, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rith, M.; Kim, Y.K.; Hong, S.J.; Lee, S.W. Effect of horizontal loading on RCC-base composite pavement performance at heavy duty area. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 131, 741–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assogba, O.C.; Tan, Y.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, C.; Anato, J.N. Numerical investigation of the mechanical response of semi-rigid base asphalt pavement under traffic load and nonlinear temperature gradient effect. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 235, 117406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Guo, Z.Y.; Li, Z.Q.; Yang, Q. Shear destruction mechanism of asphalt pavement under movingload. China J. Highw. Transp. 2009, 22, 34–39. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Burmister, D.M. The general theory of stresses and displacements in layered systems. J. Appl. Phys. 1945, 16, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acum, W.A.; Fox, L. Computation of load stresses in a three-layer elastic system. Géotechnique 1951, 2, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Jiang, Y. A study on launch site ground of vehicle-mounted missile based on elastic layer theory. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2018, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roach, C.C.; Lu, Y.C. Finite element analysis of the effect of interlayer on interfacial stress transfer in layered graphene nanocomposites. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2019, 35, 1147–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roach, C.C.; Lu, Y.C. Analytical modeling of effect of interlayer on effective moduli of layered graphene-polymer nanocomposites. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2017, 33, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, S.; Kim, K.; Greene, J.; Choubane, B. Evaluation of interlayer bonding condition on structural response characteristics of asphalt pavement using finite element analysis and full-scale field tests. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suresha, S.N.; Varghese, G.; Shankar, A.R. Characterization of porous friction course mixes for different Marshall compaction efforts. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2887–2893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.J.; Amirkhanian, S.N.; Kwon, S.Z. The effects of compaction temperature on CRM mixtures made with the SGC and the Marshall compactor. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1122–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raposeiras, A.C.; Castro-Fresno, D.; Vega-Zamanillo, A.; Rodriguez-Hernandez, J. Test methods and influential factors for analysis of bonding between bituminous pavement layers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, L.N.; Bae, A.; Elseifi, M.A.; Button, J.; Scherocman, J.A. Evaluation of bond strength of tack coat materials in field: Development of pull-off test device and methodology. Transp. Res. Rec. 2009, 2126, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronuela, L.; Ryu, S.; Cho, Y.H. Cantilever and pull-out tests and corresponding FEM models of various dowel bars in airport concrete pavement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 83, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Dai, P.; Yu, L.M.; Ge, S.M.; Liu, Q.Q.; Qian, G.C. Bond condition between surface layer and immediate layer in porous asphalt pavement. J. Southeast Univ. 2007, 23, 588–593. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Penetration (25 °C) | Ductility (15 °C) | Softening Point | Solubility |
---|---|---|---|
7.2 mm | 105 cm | 50 °C | 99.7% |
Crushed Stone Value | Wearing Stone Value | Apparent Specific Gravity |
---|---|---|
22% | 25% | 2.7 |
Paving Method | Sample Numbers | Test Item | |
---|---|---|---|
Laboratory | Trial Road | ||
Conventional | 3 groups (3 samples for each group) | 3 groups (3 samples for each group) | ① Interlocking depth ② Direct shear test ③ Tensile test |
Double-decked | 9 groups (3 samples for each group) | 3 groups (3 samples for each group) |
Paving Method | Compaction Temperature ℃ | Interlock Depth (mm) | Average Value (mm) |
---|---|---|---|
Conventional paving method | 160 | 0.3 | 0.6 |
0.4 | |||
1.1 | |||
Double-decked paving method | 120 | 4.3 | 4.1 |
3.8 | |||
4.2 | |||
140 | 4.4 | 4.7 | |
4.6 | |||
5.1 | |||
160 | 6.2 | 6.0 | |
5.7 | |||
6.1 |
Paving Method | Compaction Temperature (°C) | Tensile Strength (MPa) |
---|---|---|
Conventional paving method | 160 | 0.53 |
Double-decked paving method | 120 | 0.87 |
140 | 0.92 | |
160 | 0.98 |
Thickness | Compaction under Double-Decked Paving | Compaction under Conventional Paving |
---|---|---|
4 cm AC-13 + 6 cm AC-20 |
|
|
Interface Strength | Conventional Paving Method | Double-Decked Paving Method | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Laboratory | Trial Road | Laboratory | Trial Road | |
Interlocking depth (mm) | 0.6 | 0.6 | 6 | 7.6 |
Shear strength (MPa) | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.87 | 1.09 |
Tensile strength (MPa) | 0.53 | 0.54 | 0.98 | 1.14 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mu, K.; Gao, Z.; Shi, X.; Li, Y. Interface Behavior of Asphalt Pavements Constructed by Conventional and Double-Decked Paving Methods. Materials 2020, 13, 1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061351
Mu K, Gao Z, Shi X, Li Y. Interface Behavior of Asphalt Pavements Constructed by Conventional and Double-Decked Paving Methods. Materials. 2020; 13(6):1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061351
Chicago/Turabian StyleMu, Ke, Zhiwei Gao, Xin Shi, and Yanwei Li. 2020. "Interface Behavior of Asphalt Pavements Constructed by Conventional and Double-Decked Paving Methods" Materials 13, no. 6: 1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061351
APA StyleMu, K., Gao, Z., Shi, X., & Li, Y. (2020). Interface Behavior of Asphalt Pavements Constructed by Conventional and Double-Decked Paving Methods. Materials, 13(6), 1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061351