Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

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
Weiguang Zhang
School of Transportation Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

Received 16 March 2017; received in revised form 5 July 2017; accepted 12 July 2017
Available online 23 July 2017

Abstract

The effect of tack coat application on pavement interlayer shear strength attracts strong interest during asphalt paving. Given its
extensive use, tack coat is known to behave as a bond material to reduce pavement distresses such as slippage crack. The effectiveness
of tack coat in increasing shear strength may be affected by multiple factors, such as tack coat material, test condition, pavement surface
condition, and moisture. This article is a literature review focus on how the interlayer shear strength varied when relevant influential
factors are changing. Review results indicate that the interlayer shear strength increased with the decreased test temperature, increased
traffic load (within design limit), and increased test confinement pressure. Additionally, the milled pavement surface always has higher
shear strength then the non-milled pavement surface. It is also found that laboratory-prepared specimens resulted in higher interlayer
shear strength than field pavement cores. The effect of other factors on tack coat application may follow different trends depending
on mix type and existing pavement condition. For instance, optimum tack coat rate that corresponds to peak shear strength is widely
reported, while it is also found that tack coat does not greatly affect shear strength on dry, clean and milled pavement surface. Further-
more, shear strength reduced when mixture is designed with high percentage of air voids or coarse aggregate structure, such as porous
asphalt and stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixtures. More findings and recommendations can be found in this paper.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Tack coat; Interlayer shear strength; Asphalt pavement; Temperature; Milling; Mixture type

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
2. Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
2.1. Tack coat type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
2.2. Tack coat rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
2.3. Aggregate gradation and aggregate chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
3. Test conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
3.1. Test temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438

E-mail address: wgzhang6@gmail.com

Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.07.003
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445 435

3.2. Sample preparation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

3.3. Test loading rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
3.4. Test equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
3.5. Traffic load and test confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
4. Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
4.1. Curing time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
4.2. Pavement aging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
5. Paving surface conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
5.1. Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
5.2. Cleanliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
5.3. Pavement texture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
5.4. Moisture content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444

1. Introduction non-absorptive surface to provide a thorough bond

De-bonding between pavement layers could have
significant effect on pavement behavior which may cause
large tensile strains to occur at overlay bottom. When
de-bonding appears, the hot mix asphalt (HMA) at
either side of the slipped surface distorts in different
directions, and horizontal loads could only be supported
by the slipped layer, and therefore the structural bearing
capacity of a pavement is decreased [1]. Problems com-
monly associated with de-bonding are premature slippage
cracking, top-down cracking, and fatigue cracking [2–6].
These distresses can dramatically reduce pavement life up
to 25–50% and prompting the need for extensive repairs
such as full-depth patches or complete reconstruction
[1,2,7].
To reduce the distresses that may be caused by
de-bonding of HMA layers, tack coat is typically used to
endure adequate adhesive bond between existing pavement
surface and new asphalt mixture surface, or between two
new asphalt mixture layers. According to ASTM D8,
Standard Terminology Relating to Materials for Roads
and Pavements, ‘‘Tack coat (bond coat) is an application
of bituminous material to an existing relatively
between old and new surfacing”.
In laboratory, interlayer shear strength has been found
the most fundamental parameter to express the effective-
ness of tack coat in increasing interlayer bonding [8–10].
However, it is not clear how the tack coat affect interlayer
shear strength when other conditions varied, such as tack
coat rate, test temperature, aggregate gradation and pave-
ment age. For instance, the optimum tack coat rate corre-
sponds to the maximum interlayer shear strength can be
found in most cases while some researchers reported that
the application of tack coat rate in specific conditions do
not improve bonding since tack coat introduced a slippage
plane. The situations that tack coat may create a slippage
film including (1) extreme high application rate or residual
rate is used; (2) the density of existing pavement is very
high and tack coat cannot thoroughly penetrate into the
pavement surface can be found in this paper, and (3) con-
struction issue such that low ambient temperature/con-
struction temperature in which the tack coat may not be
totally melted when overlay mixture is placed on.
This article reviews the effect of various factors on the
interlayer shear strength when tack coat is used. These
factors consisting of material properties (i.e., tack coat

Table 1
Tack type and major composition of tack coat.
Tack name Tack type Asphalt, % Water, % Anti-strip, % Polymer modifiers, %
NTSS-1HM Trackness 30–70 70–30 0 0–6
CRS-1 Cationic emulsion 57–70 30–43 0 0
CRS-2P Cationic emulsion 57–70 30–43 0 0
CRS-2L Cationic emulsion 57–70 30–43 0 0
SS-1 Anionic emulsion 30–80 20–70 0–1 0–25
SS-1h Anionic emulsion 30–80 20–70 0–1 0–25
SS-1hp Anionic emulsion 30–80 20–70 0–1 0–25
SS-1L Anionic emulsion 30–80 20–70 0–1 0–25
RC-70 Cutback 60–90 10–40 (stoddard solvent) 0 <0.1
PG 64–22 Liquid asphalt 94–100 0 Varying Varying
PG 67–22 Liquid asphalt 94–100 0 Varying Varying
PG 76–22M Liquid asphalt 78–96 0 0–1 4–20
Note: RS-rapid setting, SS-slow setting, QS-quick setting, L-latex, 1-low viscosity, 2-high viscosity, h-hard grade asphalt (low penetration), RC-rapid
curing, PG-performance grade, cationic emulsion-positively charged, anionic emulsion-negatively charged.
436 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445

type, tack coat rate and aggregate gradation), test condi-
tions (i.e., test temperature and test device), time (curing
time and pavement aging), and paving surface conditions
(milling, cleanliness, texture and moisture). Table 1 sum-
marizes the tack coat type and the major components for
all the types of tack coat evaluated in this paper. The effect
of each individual parameter on interlayer shear strength is
discussed in detail below.
2. Material properties
2.1. Tack coat type
Tack coat type could affect shear strength between pave-
ment layers significantly [7,9,11–14]. Generally, asphalt
binder, cut-back asphalt, and emulsified asphalt have all
been used as tack coat materials, in which the most widely
used one is asphalt emulsion such as SS-1, SS-1h, CSS-1,
and CSS-1h.
Among asphalt emulsions, trackless tack coat exhibited
the highest interlayer shear strength at room temperature
(i.e., 25 °C) and high temperature (i.e., 55 °C) [9,10,15–
17]. However, the trackless material is brittle at low tem-
perature (i.e., 10 °C) and therefore may not be appropri-
ate for cold regions. Some asphalt emulsions, including
CRS-2, CRS-2P, CRS-2L and NTSS-1HM consistently
exhibited higher interlayer shear strength than CSS-1, SS-
1, SS-1h and SS-1L [18–21]. In contrast, some other tack
coats continuously yielded lower interlayer shear strength,
namely CRS-1, polymer modified tack coat, cutback
asphalt RC-70 and CQS-1H [9,15,21–24]. No significant
interlayer shear strength difference was found between
SS-1hP and SS-1h [1,2]. Compared with SS-1h, a low con-
tent polymer was added to SS-1hP and such small amount
of polymer seems not affecting the bonding property of
tack coat.
Although not used as much as asphalt emulsion, the PG
64-22, PG 67-22 and PG 76-22M asphalt performed well in
bonding two pavement layers. These asphalt binders pro-
vided higher interlayer shear strength than emulsions
CRS-2, CRS-2L, CSS-1 and SS-1 [7,18,19,21], especially
for the fine-graded mixture tested at high temperature
(i.e., 55 °C). When utilizing asphalt binder as tack coat
materials, the asphalt binder needs to be heated to high
temperature to ensure flowability which costs more energy.
The advantages of using asphalt binder as tack coat includ-
ing higher interlayer shear strength and less construction
time (no curing time is required).
Several heat-adhesive emulsions were designed for speci-
fic climate conditions. For the three most used heat-
adhesive tack coat, E2-h-m performs best at high tempera-
ture [25]. E1-h performs well at medium temperatures, but
at low temperatures it does not achieve the shear resis-
tances compared with other emulsions. E3 is manufactured
with a softer bitumen and displayed a high shear resistance
at low temperatures, while at medium or high temperatures
it has less shear resistance.
2.2. Tack coat rate
The asphalt sprayed on the top of the lower layer can fill
voids of underneath pavement and increase contact area,
and in consequence, increase the adhesion of the interlayer.
In comparison, if the tack coat was placed too heavy, a slip
plane can be introduced at the interlayer and decrease the
adhesion and interlocking resistance. Therefore, appropri-
ate tack coat rate is important to obtain high interlayer
shear strength between pavement layers.
The effect of tack coat rate on interlayer shear strength
received no agreement. Some researchers observed an opti-
mum tack coat rate which corresponds to the maximum
interlayer shear strength [10,16,24], while others found that

Table 2
Optimum tack coat rate.
Tack type Optimum tack coat rate, L/m2 Test temperature, °C Sample type Refs.
CRS-2P 0.09 (0.09)(a), residual 25 (55)(a) Lab-prepared [9,18,20,26]
CRS-2L 0.09 (0.09), residual 25 (55) Lab-prepared & test track core(b)
SS-1h 0.0 (0.0), residual 25 (55) Lab-prepared
SS-1 0.0 (0.0), residual 25 (55) Lab-prepared
PG 64-22 0.23 (0.0), residual 25 (55) Lab-prepared
PG 76-22M 0.23 (0.9), residual 25 (55) Lab-prepared
SS-1L 0.23 (0.9), residual 25 (55) Lab-prepared
Pen 60-70 0.97 (0.49), application 25 (55) Lab-prepared
CRS-1 0.7, application 10 to 60 Test track core, field cores(c) [16,24]
Trackless 0.7, application 10 to 60 Test track core, field cores [15,16]
SS-1h 0.7, application 25 Test track core [15]
SS-1hP 0.18, residual 20 Field core [22,24]
RC-70 0.18, residual 20 Field core [24]
PG 64-22 0.18, residual 20 Field core [24]
CRS 0.12, residual 25 Lab-prepared [30]
(a)
The optimum tack coat rates in the parentheses corresponding to the test temperatures in the parentheses.
(b)
Lab-prepared: gyratory or slab compacted samples at laboratory; test track core: cores taken from test track.
(c)
Field cores: cores drilled in the field roads.
 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445 437

changing tack coat rate does not obviously affect the inter- Table 3
layer shear strength [18,26–36]. Effect of milling and sample preparation method on optimum residual
tack coat rate [6,21].
Table 2 summarizes the conditions where optimum tack
coat rates were observed in either application rate or resid- Tack type Optimum tack Optimum tack Sample type
coat rate, L/m2 coat rate, L/m2
ual tack rate. As seen, the optimum tack coat rates are un-milled surface milled surface
varying with sample preparation method. For instance,
SS-1hp 0.18 0.06 Lab-prepared
the optimum tack coat rate is different based on laboratory HFE 0.18 0.06 Lab-prepared
prepared specimen (0.23 L/m2) and field core (0.18 L/m2) SS-1vh 0.18 0.06 Lab-prepared
for the same PG 64-22 binder. PG 64-22 asphalt 0.18 0.06 Lab-prepared
The optimum tack coat rate may also be affected by PG 67-22 asphalt 0.29 0.29 Field core
existing pavement condition. As seen in Table 3, the milled PG 67-22 asphalt 0.23 0.23 Lab-prepared
NTSS-1HM 0.41 0.42 Field core
surface always gives equivalent or lower optimum tack coat NTSS-1HM 0.27 0.27 Lab-prepared
rate than un-milled pavement sections, for both CQS-1h 0.46 0.39 Field core
laboratory-prepared specimens and field cores using differ- CQS-1h 0.23 0.23 Lab-prepared
ent types of tack coat materials. It is also seen that for the CRS-2 0.45 0.34 Lab-prepared
same type of tack coat (PG 67-22, NTSS-1HM, and CQS- Note: All the tack coat rates shown in the table are residual rate.
1h), the optimum tack coat rate for field cores is always
higher than the lab-prepared samples.
Although optimum tack coat rates were noticed, occa-
sionally researchers observed no significant shear strength
difference among different tack coat rates. Such finding
was seen regardless specimen type (field cores or lab-
prepared specimen), tack coat type, pavement age, as well
as pavement surface conditions (milled or un-milled). In
some cases, even though there is a general trend that higher
tack coat application rates result in higher strengths, the
shear strength started to equalize after months’ service, as
an example shown in Fig. 1 by comparing no tack coat sec-
tion to dry sections with varying tack coat rates. This indi-
cates that the effect of application rate may have less effect
in a long term situation.
It should be noted that calibration of tack coat rate in Fig. 1. Shear strength test data for I-95 project (non-milled of existing
HMA). (Figure source: [28]).
the field is critical. Although both application rate and
residual rate are important, it is the residual rate that deter-
mines the bonding characteristics after tack coat applica-
tion. Application rate includes both tack coat and water, Chen and Huang [30] evaluated the interlayer shear
and residual rate indicates the amount of asphalt binder strength by different gradation combinations, including
remaining on the pavement surface after the water has dense-grade asphalt concrete (DGAC), porous asphalt
evaporated. Application rate may be affected by many fac- pavement (PAC), and stone-mastic-asphalt (SMA). Results
tors and less asphalt residual remains if the sprayer was indicate that the DGAC–DGAC system generally has the
clogged, improper dilution was used. Thus the field calibra- highest shear strength value, followed by the PAC–DGAC
tion is generally necessary to obtain accurate tack coat rate. system. The combination of PAC–SMA results in the low-
In the field, tack coat rate in both transverse and longitudi- est shear strength. These trends are observed at different
nal direction can be conducted in accordance with ASTM residual rates. Similar results were also reported that inter-
D2995. Such method measured two weights of calibration layer shear resistance clearly appears to increase with
pads (i.e., geotextile pads and butcher paper) before and increasing mixture density within specific air voids range
after tack coat application. The weight of asphalt applied (7.5–20%) [8,11,34].
to the pads is determined by subtraction of the two Interlayer shear strength is achieved by interlocking
weights. which comes from the penetration of aggregates of one
layer into the voids of the other layer. When both the upper
2.3. Aggregate gradation and aggregate chemistry and lower layers are paved with dense-graded mixtures, an
adequate adhesion becomes pronounced because of exten-
It is widely agreed that aggregate gradations of the mix- sive contact areas between interlayer surfaces, as seen in
tures being bonded together played a critical role in the Fig. 2(a). The porous asphalt mixture (Fig. 2b) manifests
magnitude of the shear strengths achieved itself in a high air void content which could weaken the
[7,11,26,28,30,33,34,37]. interlayer shear resistance in the initial stage due to lack
438 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445

Fig. 2. Three types of interlayer surface: (a) DGAC-DGAC, (b) PAC-DGAC, and (c) PAC-SMA. (Figure source: [30]).

of adhesion for the upper mix to contact with the lower mix Table 4
[30]. When contact points among aggregates further Failure shear strength vs. temperature (data from [28]).
reduced in the case of PAC–SMA, the peak shear strength Sample ID Failure shear strength (kPa)
would be become lower (Fig. 2c). 25.0 °C 37.8 °C 48.9 °C 60.0 °C
The PAC and SMA are extreme cases with either high 1 724 331 110 48
air void content or gap-graded aggregate. If the mix type 2 621 324 103 76
was specified to be Sueprpave mix, then fine-graded mix- 3 724 310 117 83
tures in general achieved lower shear strengths than the 4 758 262 90 28
5 648 276 76 48
coarse-graded mixtures [7,28,33]. For the coarse-graded Average 695 301 99 57
mixture, shear strength does not change much when appli-
cation rate varies [7,28].
It is also noted that the interaction between asphalt and the test temperature from 25 to 37.8 °C decreased the failure
aggregate are dominated by aggregate chemistry which shear strength by more than half. Very low shear strength
could accordingly affect interlayer shear strength [38,39]. were observed at high test temperatures of 48.9 °C and
Aggregates used for road pavements are generally from 60 °C. It is possible that at elevated temperatures, the
local sources, and consequently, they vary widely in terms viscosity of asphalt binder reduced and asphalt binder
of composition, surface chemistry, and morphology. flowed easier between pavement interlayer, resulting in
Therefore, it is more reasonable to modify the asphalt decreased shear strength.
property to fit aggregate property and achieve good bond- The optimum tack coat application rates can be affected
ing. If asphalt emulsion and aggregate had same charge, by test temperature. In Table 2, compared with that at
components from asphalt drops and aggregate could repeal 25 °C, the optimum tack coat rates at 55 °C either main-
each other. In this case, the bonding between asphalt and tained constant (CRS-2P, CRS-2L, SS-1h, and SS-1,
aggregate cannot be strong and may highly susceptible to CRS-1, Trackless), decreased (PG64-22, pen 60-70 asphalt)
water and are readily removed from the aggregate surface. or increased (PG76-22M and SS-1L). The optimum tack
For instance, cationic emulsions (positively charged) give coat ranking may change as well. For instance, CRS-2P
better adhesive and coating characteristics when used with provided the highest interface shear strength compared
negatively charged aggregates such as gravel and siliceous with PG 62-22, PG76-22M, SS-1, and CSS-1 at 25 °C.
aggregates. Anionic emulsions (negatively charged) gener- However, at 55 °C, PG76-22M provided the highest inter-
ally have better adhesion on positively charged aggregates face shear strength than the others.
such as limestone. The temperature effect on interlayer shear strength may
vary according to the types of interlayer surface. In Fig. 3,
the dense-graded mixtures (DGAC)–DGAC generally have
3. Test conditions higher shear strength than porous asphalt concrete (PAC)–
stone matrix asphalt (SMA) mixtures and PAC–DGAC do
3.1. Test temperature when tested at 25 °C and 35 °C. At 50 °C, the PAC–SMA
system has the highest peak strength value among the three
Test temperature is one of the most important factors systems. Since the texture between the PAC–SMA inter-
influencing interlayer shear strength since emulsions and layer surfaces is rough, it is possible that at lower temper-
asphalt binders have different characteristics when atures (25 and 35 °C), the cohesion between asphalt
temperature varies. For both field cores and laboratory mixture dominates. At elevated temperatures (50 °C), the
compacted specimens, increasing the temperature within interlocking among aggregates becomes more predomi-
specific range resulted in a reduction in shear strength nant. This implies that the peak shear strength at high tem-
[7–10,26–30,40–42]. As shown in Table 4 based on cores peratures is more related to the interlayer surface
from Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) test track, increasing characteristics than that at lower temperatures.
 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445
Fig. 3. Temperature dependence of peak shear stress with 0.12 L/m2 CRS
under confinement stress of 552 kPa. (Figure source: [30]).
3.2. Sample preparation method
Compared with field pavement cores, laboratory-
prepared specimens always overestimated the interlayer
shear strength at difference tack coat rates, test conditions
(i.e., temperature, confinement) and paving surface condi-
tions (i.e., new surface or milled surface) [8,9,18,21,26,43–
45]. The possible reasons that contribute to such discrep-
ancy are (1) field compaction conditions (i.e., not confined,
weathering conditions of lower layer) is very different from
laboratory compaction (confined, cylinder surface is
smooth), and (2) tack coat variation in the field is much
higher compared to well controlled laboratory tack coat
application.
It is also observed that when increasing tack application
rates, a decreasing trend in interlayer shear strength was
observed in laboratory prepared specimens, while an
increasing trend was observed in the field, as seen in Fig. 4.
3.3. Test loading rate
The samples tested at the 50.8 mm/min displacement
rate exhibited a higher average failure shear strength
(414 kPa) compared to the samples tested at 19.1 mm/
min (262 kPa) [28]. It is possible that samples tested at
greater displacement rates require a greater load to fail
which is due to the viscoelastic nature of asphalt cement.
Fig. 4. Effect of sample preparation method on interlayer shear strength. (Figure source: [9]).
439
Fig. 5. Interlayer peak shear strength with 0.06 L/m2 MAE at 25 °C.
(Figure source: [28]).
3.4. Test equipment
Many devices are used to characterize tack coat applica-
tion and performance. The test modes can be typically
divided into shear, tension and torsion, in which shear
mode is the most widely used one.
Shear load can be applied in either vertical or horizontal
direction. The apparatus that measure shear strength in
vertical load consisting of FDOT Shear Tester test, Louisi-
ana Interlayer Shear Strength Tester (LISST), Leutner
Shear Test, Layer-Parallel Direct Shear Test, NCAT Shear
Test, and so forth. By contrast, LTRC Direct Shear Test
and ASTRA Interface Shear Test applies horizontal shear
load to test specimen until the sample is separate. Most
devices consisted of two main parts: a shearing frame and
a reaction frame. Only the shearing frame is allowed to
move, while the reaction frame is stationary.
Taking FDOT Shear Tester test into consideration, it
applies a vertical shear load to asphalt concrete specimen
with strain control mode at a constant rate of 50.4 mm/
min at 25 °C until failure. The test device can accommo-
date samples with diameter between 147 and 152 mm.
Cores do not need to be trimmed with a saw since the
machine can accommodate very thick cores (i.e.,
>250 mm). The test requires to shear the cores in the direc-
tion of traffic, which is important especially for interlayer
shear strength between overlay and milled pavement
440 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445
surface. Detailed test procedure can be found in FM 5-599.
In contrast, the LISST can be applied to both 150-mm and
100-mm diameter specimens. The total specimen thickness
must not exceed 150 mm. Detailed test procedure of LISST
can be found in AASHOT TP-114.
Bond strength can also be evaluated by applying ten-
sile load (Switzerland Pull-Off Test, Traction Test, the
ATackerTM Test), twisting moment (TTI Torsional Shear
Test, shear strength) or cyclic shear load (Virginia Shear
Fatigue Test, shear stress). In the field, Impulsive Hammer
Test can be used to determine the vertical dynamic
response of pavement and fractal dimension to evaluate
the bond condition between asphalt layers. In situ Shear
Stiffness Test can also be used to evaluate the shear
properties of asphalt concrete pavements (shear strength
and shear modulus) in the field.
3.5. Traffic load and test confinement
Traffic load and laboratory test confinement could help
improving interlayer shear strength [2,7–9,20,26,27,29,30,
47–48]. A preliminary results performed by Florida
Department of Transportation [46] indicates that shear
strength from HVS loading areas after 100,000 passes is
13.3% higher than the core shear strength outside wheel
path. However, if traffic volume exceeds the design limits
over a certain period of time, the pavements start to dete-
riorate which are measurable in a decrease of shear
strength [21,45]. In laboratory, field boundary conditions
(i.e., traffic load, base support) can be simulated by intro-
ducing confinement that parallel to core length direction.
An example of increased shear strength due to confinement
pressure in laboratory is shown in Fig. 5.
Under traffic load and test confinement, the friction and
adhesion between pavement layers increased. Friction
comes from tightness between the interlayers and it
increases shear strength through prevention of aggregate
movement. The adhesion component improves the ability
of asphalt to cling to aggregate particle which provides
good bond between layers. It should be noted that
Fig. 6. Effect of curing time on peak shear strength under confinement
stress of 552 kPa at 25 °C. (Figure source: [30]).
no-confinement testing conditions would yield a conserva-
tive estimate of the interlayer shear strength values.
The effect of confinement pressure on shear strength can
be influenced by testing temperatures and tack coat rate
[7,9,26,30,49]. Such influence is more obvious at low con-
finement pressure and is reduced with increasing confine-
ment pressure. For instance, confinement affected shear
strength more at higher test temperature compared to
room test temperatures (i.e. 25 °C) [47]. In addition, the
shear strength under confinement increased as the residual
application rate decreased. This may due to the fact that at
low confinement levels, the adhesion component is
predominant. As the confinement pressure increases, the
interlocking component becomes more involved and pre-
dominant at high confinement pressure.
4. Time
4.1. Curing time
Curing time indicate the period after tack coat was
placed on existing pavement and before the new overlay
was constructed. Curing time was generally used to ensure
fully broken of tack coat material. Most laboratory and
field studies concluded that slight increases in shear
strength are obtained by allowing increased curing time,
based on different types of tack coats on both milled and
non-milled pavements [21,28,30,31]. Adequate bonding
could be achieved even with little curing time as an example
shown in Fig. 6.
In Europe, the emulsion tack coat is often applied to the
pavement surface underneath the paver without curing. It
is believed that the emulsion will break immediately upon
contact with the loose hot mix, and the bond between the
interlayer surfaces is created as soon as the asphalt emul-
sion is broken [1,30].
The above finding needs more field validations and con-
struction period can be shorten if the curing time was
proved to be not necessary. However, curing period may
still necessary to ensure sufficient bonding when pavement
is not clean.
4.2. Pavement aging
The specimen aging in laboratory generally increased
interlayer shear strength since specimen can be well con-
trolled in asphalt content, gradation, density, compaction
effort and so on. In terms of field cores, the interlayer shear
strength either increase or maintain constant over time
based on cores taken between wheel-path.
Sholar et al. [28,35] evaluated a field pavement project
US 90 consisted of milling the existing distressed asphalt
pavement and replacing it with hot-mix asphalt con-
structed in two layers. A rapid set (RS-1) emulsified tack
coat was used to bond the two layers together. Roadway
cores were obtained between wheel-path at four different
times (day 1, 13, 40, and 99). As seen in Fig. 7, shear
 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445 441

Fig. 7. Shear strength test data for US-90 project (milled of existing HMA). (Figure source: [28]).

the shear strength increased at the two pavement age under

Fig. 8. Shear Strength Change over Time (Figure source: [46]).
strengths for all of the test sections increased with time. It is
interesting to note that pavement section without tack coat
and wet sections also increased with time, but never
reached the same magnitude as the strengths for the dry
test sections with tack coat.
A preliminary study performed by FDOT [46] checked
interlayer bond strength between two new pavement over-
lays based on cores from HVS test lane. Cores were taken
outside wheel path on two different days after construction,
237 day and 379 day. Results are shown in Fig. 8. As seen,
varying tack coat rates.
However, Sholar et al. [28] found that there was an
insignificant increase in shear strength in another field pro-
ject I-95 in which rapid set (RS-2) emulsified tack coat was
applied. Cores were taken on day 1, 12 and 32 after con-
struction between wheel-path. As shown in Fig. 1, shear
strength values do not change greatly over time for dry sec-
tions. Although shear strength increased with time for wet
test sections, such increase may due to the evaporation of
water instead of aging.
Tran, Willis, & Julian [21] compared core shear strength
right after construction and four years after the road was
opened to traffic using cores drilled between wheel-path.
Project information is presented in Table 5 and shear
strength results are shown in Fig. 9. As seen, even for the
same tack coat CRS-2, different pavement projects (sites
2 and 4) experienced varied magnitude of shear strength
increase. It is also observed that site 5 with Portland
Cement Concrete (PCC) as existing pavement has the most
increase of shear strength.
Fig. 10 compares core shear strength between the inside
of slippage area and the outside of slippage area. It is
shown that although field core from the two areas is phys-
ically close, the shear strength of core from inside of slip-
page area was much lower than its companion.

Table 5
Information of five sites constructed in previous ALDOT study (data from [21]).
Site no. Location City Mix type Surface layer thickness (mm) Receiving surface Tack type
1 CR 32 Lafayette Dense 17.8–22.9 New AC PG 64-22
2 AL22 W Roanoke Dense 38.1–48.3 Milled AC CRS-2
3 CR 19 Montgomery Dense 43.2–53.3 New AC CRS-2
4 US 31 Prattville Dense 35.6–48.3 mm Milled AC CRS-2
5(1) US 280 Brimingham OGFC 22.9–25.4 mm Old PCC CQS-1HP
5(2) US 280 Brimingham OGFC 20.3–25.4 mm Old PCC CQS-1HP
Note: OGFC = open graded friction course; PCC = portland cement concrete; AC = asphalt concrete.
442 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445

Fig. 9. Interlayer shear strength for five sites constructed in previous study. (Figure source: [21]).

Fig. 10. Interlayer shear strength for nine sites showing slippage failures. (Figure source: [21]).

5. Paving surface conditions than non-milled pavement surface [7,9,21,24,28,31,50].

The paving surface conditions of an existing pavement
including milling, cleanliness, pavement texture, and water,
which are important factors that influence the shear
strength at the interlayer.
5.1. Milling
According to field cores and laboratory-compacted
specimens, milled surface of both asphalt and PCC pave-
ments always provides significant higher shear strength
Such effect of milling is expected since the rough striations
in the pavement surface created by milling machine would
provide greater interlock between pavement layers and
result in higher shear resistance. If asphalt emulsion was
sprayed on existing milled pavement surface, the bonding
between tack coat and aggregate is important because in
such case, the contact area between tack coat and exposed
aggregate is large. In contrast, if asphalt emulsion was
applied on the top of newly paved mixture, the bonding
between tack coat material and asphalt binder becomes
more critical [38].
 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445
5.2. Cleanliness
Research results appeared that pavement with dust on
existing asphalt pavement exhibited greater interlayer shear
strength than clean conditions, especially when tested with
a confining pressure [9]. This likely resulted when the dust
combined with the asphalt and formed mastic with a resul-
tant viscosity higher than that of the neat residual asphalt,
plus the sand particles may have provided grit at the inter-
layer to further increase the interlayer shear strength. How-
ever, one should note that these results are based on using a
uniform and clean sand to simulate dusty conditions. Addi-
tionally, for the placement of HMA on existing PCC pave-
ment, cleanness of PCC pavement surface is always
important to ensure good bonding between HMA and
PCC (Leng et al. [51]).
5.3. Pavement texture
For dense-graded HMA, shear strength increases with
the increase of pavement roughness in terms of mean pro-
file depth (MPD) [9,10,27,43]. Regarding porous asphalt
concrete (PAC), although it has much higher MPD values
(i.e.,>1.5 mm) than dense-graded mixture (i.e., 0.4 mm or
less), the bonding between PAC and dense-graded asphalt
concrete is not as good as dense-dense graded asphalt con-
crete. In such case, the increased contact areas is more crit-
ical than higher pavement texture. For HMA constructed
on existing PCC pavement, Leng et al. [51] indicate that
the direction of tining in the PCC surface was found to
have no effect on interlayer shear strength, the PCC smooth
surface showed a higher interface shear strength than tined
surfaces.
5.4. Moisture content
The effect of moisture on interlayer shear strength
depends on the amount of water existed. When small
amount of water exists, it can be flashed away by the hot
HMA mat, and no statistically significant difference
between dry and wet conditions are observed in the major-
ity of the cases [1,9,15]. Large amount of water can reduce
shear strength of sections with tack coat, compared with
equivalent sections without water applied [28,35]. As seen
in Figs. 1 and 7, the test sections with rain water (‘‘wet”)
never reached the shear strength of the sections without
water even after weeks. This is believed to be due to an
inability of the two asphalt layers to bond properly because
of the interference of the water.
The effect of moisture on interlayer shear strength also
correlates with tack coat type applied. For those heat-
resistance tacks, the water does not have obvious effect
on shear strength compared with most other tack coat
types [25]. For example, a small amount of water negatively
affect interlayer shear strength with PG 64-22 asphalt while
the effect was less evident for heat-resistance tack such as
E3, E1-h and E2-h-m [25,43,44].
443
Realizing that it is difficult to find a threshold value to
define ‘‘small amount of water” below which interlayer
shear strength was not greatly affected by water, a dry
and clean surface is recommended before placing the
hot-mix asphalt in responses to water concern on interlayer
bonding. This is of special importance when a moisture
sensitive mix or warm mix is used.
6. Summary
Over the past 35 years, the tack coat has become an
important option to ensure good bonding between pave-
ment layers in both USA and Europe. Based on the
reviewed literatures, some interesting findings are noticed,
such as that curing time has no significant effect on shear
strength, and shear strength increases with the increase of
pavement texture for dense-graded mixture. Furthermore,
shear strength either increases or maintains constant with
field aging. However, it is also observed that the effect of
specific parameters on interlayer shear strength using tack
coat is project specific. Other conclusions and recommen-
dations include:
 Among the factors reviewed, a good agreement between
interlayer shear strength and the following are widely
observed: test temperature, milling, traffic load or test
confinement, and sample preparation method. The shear
strength increased with decreased test temperature,
increased traffic load (within design limit) or confine-
ment pressure. The milled pavement surface always
had significantly higher shear strength than the non-
milled pavement surface. In addition, laboratory-
prepared specimens resulted in higher interlayer shear
strength than field pavement cores, thus conversion fac-
tors between laboratory compared specimens and field
cores could be necessary to predict field bonding condi-
tion based on gyratory prepared samples.
 Trackless material, PG64-22, PG67-22, PG 76-22M,
CRS-2, CRS-2P and CRS-2L, NTSS-1HM provided rel-
ative higher interlayer shear strength than most other
tack coats. In contrast, polymer modified tack coat,
RC-70, CQS-1H and CRS-1 in general resulted in lower
interlayer shear strength.
 The optimum tack coat rate that corresponding to max-
imum shear strength may vary in terms of tack coat
type, test temperature, and sample preparation method.
In some cases, no significant shear strength difference is
observed by applying different tack coat rates, especially
when tack coat was applied on clean, dry and milled
pavement surface. Some suggested that as long as the
pavement condition is dry, clean and the existing pave-
ment is milled, tack coat is not necessary any more.
 Fine graded mixtures may achieve lower shear strengths
than the coarse graded mixtures based on Superpave
mix type. However, the shear strength of dense-graded
mixture reduced when the mixture was designed with
444 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445
high air voids or high percentage of coarse aggregate,
such as PAC and SMA mixtures. Higher shear strength
can also be reached by modifying asphalt binder prop-
erty to fit aggregate property.
 Although small amount of water may be flashed away
by hot HMA mat, moisture conditioning can decrease
interlayer shear strength. Therefore, a dry and clean sur-
face is recommended before placing the hot-mix asphalt
to avoid the negative effects of water and dust on the
bonding at the interlayer.
 The effect of different variables on interlayer bond
strength is more complicated in field than that in labora-
tory. For instance, laboratory aging of gyratory-
compacted specimens always increased interlayer bond
strength, while such trend was not constantly observed
according to field cores at different pavement age.
Acknowledgement
This study was sponsored by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (project number 51508095).
The author would like to acknowledge the NSFC staff
for their assistance.
References
[1] S.A. Cross, P.P. Shrestha, Guidelines for Using Prime and Tack
Coats (Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-05-002), Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005.
[2] S.A. Romanoschi, J.B. Metcalf, Characterization of asphalt concrete
layer interlayers, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 1778 (2001) 132–139.
[3] M. Diakhat, A. Millien, C. Petit, A. Mardele, B. Pouteau, Experi-
mental investigation of tack coat fatigue performance: towards an
improved lifetime assessment of pavement structure interlayers,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 1123–1133.
[4] X. Hu, L. Walubita, Effects of layer interfacial bonding conditions on
the mechanistic responses in asphalt pavements, J. Transp. Eng. 137
(1) (2011) 28–36.
[5] L. Mohammad, M. Hassan, N. Patel, Effects of shear bond
characteristics of tack coats on pavement performance at the
interlayer, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2209 (2011) 1–8.
[6] H. Ozer, I. Al-Qadi, H. Wang, Z. Leng, Characterisation of interlayer
bonding between hot-mix asphalt overlay and concrete pavements:
modelling and in-situ response to accelerated loading, Int. J. Paving
Eng. 13 (2012) 181–196.
[7] R.C. West, J. Zhang, J. Moore, Evaluation of Shear Strength
Between Pavement Layers (Report No. 05-08), National Center for
Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Alabama, 2005.
[8] F. Canestrari, G. Ferrotti, M.N. Partl, E. Santagata, Advanced
testing and characterization of interlayer shear resistance, J. Transp.
Res. Rec. 1929 (2005) 69–78.
[9] L.N. Mohammad, M.a. Elseifi, A. Bae, N. Patel, Optimization of
Tack Coat for HMA Placement (Report No. NCHRP 712), Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
[10] A.C. Raposeiras, D. Fresno, A. Zamanillo, J. Hernandez, Test
methods and influential factors for analysis of bonding between
bituminous pavement layers, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 372–
381.
[11] M.R. Kruntcheval, A.C. Collop, N.H. Thom, Properties of asphalt
concrete layer interlayers, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (3) (2006) 467–471.
[12] L. Liu, P. Hao. Investigation of interlayer shear fatigue performance
and evaluating index between asphalt layers, in: International
workshop on energy and environment in the development of
sustainable asphalt pavements, 2010, pp. 337–341.
[13] J. Du, Evaluation of shear strength on pavement layers by use tack
materials, Adv. Mater. Res. 255–260 (1) (2011) 3176–3179.
[14] L. Mohammad, S. Saadeh, Y. Qi, J. Button, J. Scherocman,
Worldwide state of practice on the use of tack coats: a survey, J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 77 (2008) 1–34.
[15] L.N. Mohammad, A. Bae, M.A. Elseifi, J. Button, J.A. Scherocman,
Interlayer shear strength characteristics of emulsified tack coats, J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 78 (2009) 249–278.
[16] A. Bae, L.N. Mohammad, M.A. Elseifi, J. Button, N. Patel, Effects of
temperature on interlayer shear strength of emulsified tack coats and
its relationship to rheological properties, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2180
(2010) 102–109.
[17] S. Hakimzadeh, W.G. Buttlar, R. Santarromana, Shear- and tension-
type tests to evaluate bonding of hot-mix asphalt layers with different
tack coat application rates, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2295 (2012) 54–62.
[18] L.N. Mohammad, M.A. Raqib, B. Huang, Influence of asphalt tack
coat materials on interlayer shear strength, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 1789
(2002) 56–65.
[19] M.S. Buchanan, M.E. Woods, Field Tack Coat Evaluator (attachers)
(Report No. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-04-168), Mississippi Department
of Transportation, Jackson, Mississippi, 2004.
[20] L.N. Mohammad, Z. Wu, A. Raqib, Investigation of the Behavior of
Asphalt Tack Interlayer Layer (Report No. FHWA/LA.04/394),
Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 2005.
[21] N.H. Tran, R. Willis, G. Julian, Refinement of the Shear Strength
Procedure and Investigation of a Specification (Report No. 12-04),
National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Alabama, 2012.
[22] I.L. Al-Qadi, S.H. Carpenter, Z. Leng, H. Ozer, Tack Coat
Optimization for HMA Overlays: Laboratory Testing (Report No.
FHWA-ICT-08-023), Illinois Department of Transportation, Spring-
field, Illinois, 2008.
[23] C. Raab, M.N. Partl, Laboratory Study on Interlay Bonding Using
Cationic Tack Coats, Taylor & Francis Group, London, London,
2009.
[24] I.L. Al-Qadi, S.H. Carpenter, Z. Leng, H. Ozer, J.S. Trepanier, Tack
Coat Optimization for HMA Overlays: Accelerated Pavement Test
Report (Report No. FHWA-ICT-09-035), Illinois Department of
Transportation, Springfield, Illinois, 2009.
[25] R. Recasens, A. Martinez, F. Jimenez, Assessing heat-adhesive
emulsions for tack coats, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. (2004) 45–51
[26] J. Uzan, M. Livneh, Y. Eshed, Investigation of adhesion properties
between asphaltic-concrete layers, J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol.
47 (1978) 495–521.
[27] Y. Hachiya, K. Sato, Effect of tack coat on binding characteristics at
interlayer between asphalt concrete layers, in: Eighth International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, vol. 1, 1997, pp. 349–362.
[28] G.A. Sholar, G.C. Page, J.A. Musselman, P.B. Upshaw, H.L.
Moseley, Preliminary investigation of a test method to evaluate shear
strength of bituminous tack coats, J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol.
73 (2004) 771–806.
[29] F. Canestrari, E. Santagata, Temperature effects on the shear
behaviour of tack coat emulsions used in flexible pavements, Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 6 (1) (2005) 39–46.
[30] J. Chen, C. Huang, Effect of surface characteristics on bonding
properties of bituminous tack coat, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2180 (2010)
142–149.
[31] L. Tashman, K. Nam, T. Papagiannakis, Evaluation of the Influence
of Tack Coat Construction Factors on the Shear Strength Between
Pavement Layers (Report No. WA-RD 645.1), Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington, 2006.
[32] D. Mrawira, D. Yin, Field evaluation of the effectiveness of tack coats
in hot mix asphalt paving, in: TRB 2006 Annual Meeting, 2005, pp.
1–15.
 W. Zhang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 10 (2017) 434–445
[33] M. Wheat, Evaluation of Shear Strength at Asphalt Interlayers,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 2007.
[34] C. Raab, M. Partl, Effect of tack coats on interlayer shear bond of
pavements, in: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Asphalt
Pavements for Southern Africa, 2004, pp. 1–9.
[35] G.A. Sholar, G.C. Page, J.A. Musselman, P.B. Upshaw, H.L.
Moseley, Preliminary Investigation of a Test Method to Evaluate
Shear Strength of Bituminous Tack Coats (Report No. FL/DOT/
SMO/02-459), Florida Department of Transportation State Material
Office, Gainesville, Florida, 2002.
[36] D. Mrawira, D. Damude, Revisiting the effectiveness of tack coats in
HMA overlays: the shear strength of tack coats in young overlays, in:
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference, Canadian Technical
Asphalt Association Proceedings, 1999, pp. 116–129.
[37] A.C. Collop, M.H. Sutanto, G.D. Airey, R.C. Elliott, Shear shear
strength between asphalt layers for laboratory prepared samples and
field cores, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 2251–2258.
[38] C.W. Curtis, K. Ensley, J. Epps, Fundamental Properties of Asphalt-
Aggregate Interactions Including Adhesion and Absorption (Report
No. SHRP-A-341), Strategic Highway Research Program, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1993.
[39] D.R. Salomon, Asphalt Emulsion Technology (Report No. E-C102),
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[40] U.S. Army, The Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Handbook (Report No.
AC150/5370-14A), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.
C., 2000.
[41] ODOT, Proper Tack Coat Application (Technical Bulletin), Ohio
Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio, 2001.
[42] TXDOT, Proper Use of Tack Coat (Technical Advisory 2001-1),
Construction and Bridge Divisions, Texas Department of Trans-
portation, Austin, TX, 2001.
445
[43] N.N. Mohammad, A. Bae, M.A. Elseifi, J. Button, N. Patel, Effects of
pavement surface type and sample preparation method on tack coat
interlayer shear strength, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2180 (2010) 93–101.
[44] FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction,
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, 2016.
[45] C. Raab, J. Grenfell, A.O. Abd El Halim, M.N. Partl, Comparison of
interlayer bond behavior due to ageing, in: 8th RILEM International
Symposium on Testing and Characterization of Sustainable and
Innovative Bituminous Materials, vol. 11, 2016, pp. 323–334.
[46] FDOT, Effect of Tack Coat Application Rates on Fatigue Perfor-
mance of Asphalt Pavement (Interim report), Florida Department of
Transportation State Material office, Gainesville, Florida, 2016.
[47] R.C. West, J.R. Moore, J. Zhang, Evaluation of Shear Strength
Between Pavement Layers, Meeting Today’s Challenges with Emerg-
ing Technologies, Airfield and Highway Pavement, 2006, pp. 578–
588.
[48] H.R. Paul, J.A. Scherocman, Friction testing of tack coat surfaces, J.
Transp. Res. Rec. 1092 (1998) 6–12.
[49] S.T. Muench, T. Moomaw, De-Bonding of Hot Mix Asphalt
Pavements in Washington State: An Initial Investigation (Report
No. WA-RD 712.1), Washington State Department of Transporta-
tion, Olympia, Washington, 2008.
[50] Z. Leng, I.L. Al-Qadi, S.H. Carpenter, H. Ozer, Interface bonding
between hot-mix asphalt and various Portland cement concrete
surfaces: assessment of accelerated pavement testing and measure-
ment of interface strain, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2127 (2009) 20–28.
[51] Z. Leng, H. Ozer, I.L. Al-Qadi, S.H. Carpenter, Interface bonding
between hot-mix asphalt and various Portland cement concrete
surfaces: laboratory assessment, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2057 (2008) 46–
53.