Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Review

Application of tack coat in pavement engineering

Jiayu Wang a, Feipeng Xiao a,⇑, Zheng Chen b, Xinghai Li c, Serji Amirkhanian d,⇑
a
Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China
b
College of Materials & Mineral Resources, Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, Xi’an 710055, China
c
Beijing Key Laboratory of Highway Engineering Materials and Testing & Authentication Technology, Beijing Road Engineering Quality Supervision Station, Beijing 100076, China
d
State Key Laboratory of Silicate Materials for Architectures, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 Emulsified asphalt was the most common asphalt among all types of tack coats.
 Tack coat should be applied to a clean, dry and well-compacted under layer.
 The use of trackless emulsions was a solution to tack coat removed from the surface by construction equipment.
 The shear tests were the most commonly used approaches to verify the interlayer bonding strengths.
 The intrinsic factors and application conditions together influenced the properties of interlayer bonding.

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

Article history: The interlayer bonding between pavement layers has significant effects on the pavement performance
Received 24 April 2017 responses during the traffic loading. The insufficient bond adhesion may increase the transferred stresses
Received in revised form 28 June 2017 and extended strains in the relevant layers when applied to traffic. Over the last 30 years, many research
Accepted 4 July 2017
studies focused on these related fields and found some useful conclusions to help conduct field practices
of tack coat materials. In this review, it was found that the shear mode tests were the most common
methods to verify bond strength and some non-destructive tests were becoming more and more useful
Keywords:
to investigate tack coat properties. In addition, some test parameters including shear strength, cracking
Tack coat
Asphalt emulsion
resistance and fatigue performance were used to assess tack coat properties. The intrinsic factors such as
Shear strength tack coat type, application rate, curing time and the application conditions including temperature, mois-
Application rate ture, and surface texture together influenced the characteristics of interlayer bonding. However, pave-
Temperature ment failure mechanisms and the interactions between influence factors are needed to be investigated
in the future.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
2. Tack coat type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
2.1. Hot asphalt cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
2.2. Asphalt emulsion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
2.3. Cutback asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
2.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
3. Tack coat application method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
3.1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
3.2. Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
3.3. Proper application of tack coat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
3.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
4. Test devices for tack coat evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860

⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: fpxiao@tongji.edu (F. Xiao), serji.amirkhanian@gmail.com (S. Amirkhanian).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.056
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871 857

4.1. Shear tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860

4.2. Tensile tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
4.3. Torque test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
4.4. Non-destructive test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
4.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
5. Tack coat characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
5.1. Interface shear strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
5.2. Cracking resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
5.3. Shear fatigue performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
5.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
6. Influence factor of tack coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
6.1. Intrinsic factor of tack coat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
6.1.1. Tack coat types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
6.1.2. Application rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
6.1.3. Curing time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
6.1.4. Asphalt aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
6.1.5. Application conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
6.1.6. Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
6.1.7. Mixture type and surface texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
6.1.8. Surface state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
6.1.9. Compaction effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
6.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869

1. Introduction
For decades, performances and conditions of pavements (both
flexible and rigid) have been improved to meet the increasing need
of traffic loads. Pavement engineers generally followed the mecha-
nistic design methods that are based on algorithms to compute
pavement responses, such as stresses, strains and displacements.
In order to simplify the structure, materials and its computation
models, most of these approaches assume that the layers are com-
pletely bonded or fully unbounded to each other. However, many
research results illustrated that the interlayer bonding between
pavement layers had significant influence on the pavement
response in term of stresses and strains subject to traffic loading
[1,2]. A good layer bonding will disperse traffic stress from one
layer into the next, while an insufficient interface bonding accom-
panied with unfavorable load conditions may increase tensile
stresses and strains at the bottom of the respective layers, which
may result in premature distresses (e.g. slippage cracking, pot-
holes, raveling, deformations, bulging or cracking) and decrease
the service life of pavement [3–8]. Thus, the interface bonding is
important and must be considered in the design methods [9]. In
addition, careful construction and maintenance are also needed
in the field.
According to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
D8-02 [10], the Asphalt Institute [11], and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) [12,13], tack coat can be defined as a
light application of asphalt emulsion or liquid asphalt placed on
an existing hot-mixed asphalt layer or Portland concrete cement
layer as well as a new HMA pavement surface to create a thor-
oughly and strongly adhesive bond between two layers. A world-
wide survey about tack coat conducted by Mohammad et al.
indicated that asphalt emulsion was the most widely used tack
coat type [14], which was small particles of carbohydrate binder
(between 3 and 8 lm) in a water solution with an anionic, cationic
or nonionic emulsifying agent [15]. In addition, tack coat is also
able to enhance the bonding strength between steel plate and
overlay on the bridge deck. Due to the far more stringent design
requirements of bridge deck overlays than those of roadway pave-
ment, the upgraded tack coat materials were introduced and devel-
oped to improve the interlayer bonding properties, including
polymer modified asphalt [16], epoxy resin [17,18], rubber asphalt
mastics [19], the Eliminator system [20], and so on.
Though the material design and performance evaluation meth-
ods of tack coat have been developed for many years, there are no
standard specifications to determine tack coat material quality in
the laboratory or in the field [14], because the properties of tack
coat between the two layers were influenced by numerous factors
and their interactions, including tack coat type, dosage, tempera-
ture, surface texture, moisture condition, surface cleanliness, and
so on. In terms of performance evaluation methods, researchers
have developed some approaches and corresponding test equip-
ment to study the interlayer bonding properties under several con-
ditions. The most frequently used test was designed by Leutner
[21] in Germany. Some other specific equipment such as the wedge
splitting test [22,23], torsion test [24], Anocona Shear Testing
Research and Analysis (ASTRA) [25], the Louisiana Tack coat qual-
ity tester (LTCQT) [26], and so on were proposed. Moreover, some
advanced approaches were developed for deeply analyzing bond-
ing characteristics, including Finite Element (FE), X-ray Computed
Tomography (CT), Falling Weight Reflectometer (FWD), and Digital
Images Correlation (DIC).
The objective of this study was to summarize the evaluation
methods and discuss the influence factors of tack coat material
in the laboratory and in the field. The main contents below
included the types of tack coat, field application methods, the test
devices and characteristics of tack coat evaluation, and critical fac-
tors of tack coat.
2. Tack coat type
Generally, hot asphalt cement, asphalt emulsion, and cut back
asphalt have been used as tack coat materials, but the latter one
is not commonly used because of its environmental concerns [27].
Among these types of tack coat, asphalt emulsion was the most
common one and its properties can be improved with polymer
modifier and other additives. Moreover, research results [28,29]
showed that tack coat types have critical influences on the inter-
layer bonding strength. In this section, several tack coat types were
introduced and their comparisons were shown in Table 1.
858 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
Table 1
Classifications and comparisons of various tack coat types.
Tack coat types Subclasses
Hot Asphalt cement PG 64-22, PG 76-22
PG 58-28
Epoxy asphalt
Asphalt emulsion Slow setting (SS-1, SS-1h, SS-1hp,
CSS-1, CSS-1h, SS-1vh (non-track tack
coat))
Rapid setting (RS-1, RS-2, CRS-1, CRS-
2, CRS-2P (polymer-modified), CRS-
2L (latex-modified)
Trackless tack coat (a polymer-
modified emulsion with a hard-base
asphalt cement)
Cutback asphalt RC-70 (Rapid Curing), MC-70
(Medium Curing)
Notes: SS-1 (Slow-Setting, low viscosity); SS-1h (Slow-Setting, low viscosity with hard base asphalt); SS-1hp (Slow-Setting, low viscosity, polymer modified with hard base
asphalt); SS-1vh (Slow-Setting, low viscosity with very hard base asphalt); CSS-1 (Cationic Slow-Setting, low viscosity); CRS-2 (Cationic Rapid-Setting, high viscosity); CRS-2P
(cationic rapid-setting, high viscosity, polymer modified asphalt); CRS-2L (Cationic Rapid-Setting, high viscosity, latex modified); RC-70 (Rapid Curing cutback asphalt); MC-
70 (Medium Curing cutback asphalt).
2.1. Hot asphalt cement
It has been reported that hot asphalt cement has higher inter-
face bonding than emulsified asphalt, however asphalt cement
needs adequate heating to allow spray application. Otherwise, it
would be very difficult to apply asphalt cement binder uniformly
on pavement layer surface, especially at low application rates
[43]. In addition, test results indicated that hot-melt coating, with
a high content copolymer-modified asphalt, provided better inter-
face shear strength than the solvent-borne coating at high temper-
atures. Therefore, hot-melt coating is a strong candidate for the
tack coat material [32]. A survey showed that only one responding
state (Georgia, the United States) routinely used hot asphalt
cement (AC-20 and AC-30) as tack coat [14].
Conventional plastomers or elastomers polymers-modified
asphalt mixture flow easily at high temperatures, because these
polymers are not able to change the thermoplastic characteristics
of asphalt binders, but the combination of asphalt binders and
epoxy resin with curing agent can solve these problems [44].
Hence, some researchers upgraded tack coat by adding epoxy
asphalt with a higher strength and a better ductility, or applying
fiber or textile to reinforce the tack coat material [32,33]. The spec-
imens with epoxy asphalt tack coat provide much higher interface
shear strengths than those with polymer modified asphalt tack
coat at 25 °C and 60 °C. The layer combination for steel bridge is
shown in Fig. 1. The epoxy asphalt tack coat was applied between
Fig. 1. Steel bridge deck overlay for ride lane.
References Features
Mohammad et al. [26,30] High bond strength, difficult to spray
Bae et al. [31]
Jia et al. [32]
Yao et al. [33]
Bjornstad [16]
Mohammad et al. [26] Easy handling, energy saving, environmental
Al-Qadi et al. [34] friendly, and personnel safety.
Tashman et al. [35]
Mohammad et al. [30]
Bae et al. [31]
Clark et al. [36]
Chen et al. [37]
Mohammad et al. [26]
Miro et al. [38]
Bae et al. [31]
Seo et al. [39]
Ghaly et al. [40] Environment problems, Require more energy
Al-Qadi et al. [34]
Du [41]
Leng et al. [42]
the epoxy asphalt layers with an application rate at 0.1 Gal/yd2
(0.45 L/m2) and it was also employed between the overlay and
the steel deck to serve as a tack coat and a waterproof layer with
an application rate at 0.15 Gal/yd2 (0.68 L/m2) [32].
2.2. Asphalt emulsion
Emulsified asphalt or asphalt emulsion is produced by combin-
ing asphalt and water with an emulsifying agent such as anionic or
cationic agent. Mohammad et al. [27] pointed out that the most
common kinds of asphalt emulsions include slow-setting (SS)
grades of emulsion such as SS-1, SS-1h, CSS-1, and CSS-1h and
the rapid-setting (RS) grades of emulsion such as RS-1, RS-2,
CRS-1, CRS-2, CRS-2P (polymer-modified), and CRS-2L (latex-
modified). Asphalt emulsions are more widely used than hot
asphalt binder or cutback asphalt because they can be easily
applied at lower temperatures taking into a more uniform,
energy-saving, and safer application. In addition asphalt emulsions
do not contain any harmful volatile solvents and are not flammable
and do not pose risks to workers’ health [40].
Compared with conventional tack coat, polymer modified
asphalt emulsion (PMAE) can seal the bottom layer and produce
high binder content near the interface when high application rates
were applied. In Switzerland, tack coats are normally polymer
modified primers on an asphalt-solvent base or asphalt emulsion,
which are sprayed in a thin film on the existing layer surface before
the construction of the next layer [45]. The PMAE is known to
greatly increase pavement top-down cracking resistance and sur-
face mixture fracture resistance near the interface as well as
decrease the stress transmitted through the interlayer [46,47].
Yin et al. [48] found that SBS modified emulsified asphalt per-
formed better than the ordinary emulsified asphalt, the best
dosage is 0.74 Gal/yd2 (0.4 kg/m2), and immersion strength of
SBS modified emulsified asphalt adhesive layer material increased
nearly 20%.
However, tack coat can be easily picked up by the rubber tires of
construction equipment when emulsion asphalt was not applied
appropriately on the layer surface. Under this circumstance, the
existing layer would have little or no tack coats left, leading to
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
slippage and delamination. The survey conducted by Mohammad
et al. [14] indicated that 38% of the respondents required that tack
coat should be completely set before haul trucks were allowed on
it to reduce the tracking problem. Only 13% of respondents allowed
haul trucks to drive on the tack coat before it broke. Hachiya and
Sato [42] found that the strength of the wearing course enhances
as the time allowed for the tack coat to break increases.
Trackless tack coat, composed of polymer modifier and hard
base asphalt, was recently used to solve the tracking problems
and reduce its setting time down from 5 to 15 min. As compared
with conventional tack coat (CRS-1 and SS-1), trackless tack coat
has a superior shear strength [31,36,49]. Moreover, the interface
characteristics of trackless tack coat have been reported to strongly
affect pavement performance. Due to its high brittleness, trackless
tack coat has high interface shear strength but low top-down
cracking resistance [37,46,50–53]. Hakimzadeh et al. pointed that
under the shear mode test, trackless tack coat exhibited a stronger
interlayer bonding than the SS-1hp, while showed a worse perfor-
mance than SS-1hp tack coat on the basis of interface fracture
energy at a low temperature [54]. However, Tran et al. [55] com-
pared the field performance of a heavier polymer modified tack
coat and a trackless tack coat and found that the open grade fric-
tion course (OGFC) layer using a polymer modified tack coat per-
formed better than the trackless tack coat in term of pavement
stiffness, pavement structural response, surface functional charac-
teristics, and pavement distress.
2.3. Cutback asphalt
Cutback asphalt, a combination of asphalt cement and petro-
leum solvent, is used to reduce asphalt viscosity for the application
at a lower temperature, such as tack coat and slurry seal. Similar to
emulsified asphalts, the cutback asphalt applies the petroleum sol-
vent evaporates and leaves behind asphalt binder residue on the
pavement surface. This process of cutback asphalt is called to
‘‘cure”, and the most common types of cutback asphalt are slow
cure and medium cure.
The use of cutback asphalt is decreasing because it contains
volatile chemicals that evaporate into the atmosphere and cause
environmental issues. In addition, the utilizations of petroleum
solvents require higher amounts of energy to manufacture and
are more expensive compared to the water and emulsifying used
in emulsified asphalt [56]. Therefore, in many places, cutback
asphalt is restricted to patch materials in cold weather. Some test
results showed that the asphalt emulsions SS-1h and SS-1hP pro-
duced greater interface bonding strength than the cutback asphalt
RC-70 [34,40].
(a) Tack coat distributor truck
Fig. 2. Application equipment of tack coat [27].
859
2.4. Summary
Several tack coat types were introduced in this section. Nowa-
days, the use of hot asphalt binders and cutback asphalt binders
was limited due to their disadvantages while asphalt emulsions
were commonly used in the field. Different modifiers and emulsi-
fying agents can lead to different interlayer bonding strength and
setting time. The epoxy asphalt tack coat was recommended to
apply between the overlay and steel deck. The new type of asphalt
emulsion named trackless emulsion was recommended to solve
the tracking problems.
3. Tack coat application method
Proper application of tack coat in the field is one of the most
crucial factors to achieve high interface bonding strength and
improve pavement quality. In this section, the problem of tack coat
application equipment and the approaches of tack coat application
were discussed.
3.1. Preparation
The surface conditions of the under layer including cleanliness
and wetness are very important because they influence the inter-
face bonding strength. Jia et al. [32] investigated the alligator
cracking observed along the wheel path distress in bridge surface
and found that the possible factors might derive from the failure
of the tack coat during construction including the presence of
water, incomplete curing process, and contamination from the
paving machine, and so on. Therefore, it is recommended that
the preparation of tack coat construction is one of the most impor-
tant procedures and tack coat be applied to a clean, dry and well-
compacted under layer [57].
3.2. Equipment
An asphalt distributor truck was traditionally used to apply tack
coat, but many equipment companies have developed a special
paver with tack coat tank and spray bar. Researchers found that
tack coat constructed by spray paver had higher interlayer bonding
strength than it applied by conventional methods (distributor and
HMA paver) [27]. And the main advantages of spray paver are time
and cost-effectiveness, but the disadvantages could be functional
problems during the paving. Fig. 2 shows the two types of tack coat
equipment.
The distributor truck was used to apply tack coat on the pre-
pared surfaces. The truck had a heated tank for storing tack coat
(b) Paver with tack coat tank and spray bar
860 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
at the desired application temperature. In addition, different types
of tack coats require different working temperatures. A spray bar
fitted with nozzles distributed tack coat at the specified application
rate is mounted on the back of the truck. The total width of the
spray bar was 4.7 yd. (4.3 m) to cover a single lane. The computer-
ized system inside the truck can be programmed to apply multiple
application rates. The application rate could be adjusted by altering
the truck speed as well as nozzle type and size [58].
The problem of distributor truck to construct tack coat is that
the haul trucks normally drive on the applied tack coat, which
track the tack coat material and remove it from the layer surface.
Many methods are useful to solve this problem, one way was dis-
cussed in Section 2.2, by applying trackless tack coat material.
Another way is to apply the tack coat to the pavement surface
underneath the paver just ahead of the screed. This can be done
through a special paver fitted with a tack coat spray bar, as shown
in Fig. 2(b). In addition, using the material transfer vehicle (MTV)
which must be used with the second tank is also a great way to
solve this problem [27].
3.3. Proper application of tack coat
In order to achieve proper interlayer bonding strength between
the pavement layers it is necessary to spread the precise amount of
tack coat on the pavement layer [59]. Two elements are required to
obtain a good paving quality: uniformity and amount of applica-
tion. Uniformity controls tack coat distribution consistency in
bonding strength along the pavement surface and the uniformity
at the optimum application rate with about 90%–95% of the surface
covered showed the maximum strength between layers [27].
Therefore, according to Mohammed and Button [27], several fac-
tors affect the tack coat application as follows:
 The uniformity of nozzle spray patterns. To prevent the spray of
emulsion asphalt from interfering with adjacent spray nozzles,
all nozzles should be set at the same angle (about 30°) to axis
of the spray bar. Without a uniform angle, some areas of pave-
ment would have thicker or thinner coverage and be possible
interference between nozzles.
 The size of nozzles. Compared with surface treatment, chip seal,
or seal coat, the nozzle size of tack coat is much smaller. How-
ever, the small nozzle may cause too much pressure of liquid
asphalt, which results in a spider web coating on the surface.
 The height of spray bar. With the decreased weight of tack coat,
the truck becomes lighter and the spray bar rises. The vehicle
should keep the height constant because low spray results in
streaks while high spray leads to nonuniform coverage.
 The pressure of the application. The pressure in the distributor
must force the tack coat material out of the spray nozzles at a
constant rate. Inconsistent pressure would lead to non-
uniform application rates.
 The temperature of tack coat. Tack coat equipment should be able
to keep the temperature of tack coat to ensure the asphalt
flowability. The spraying temperature for slow-setting asphalt
emulsions such as SS-1 should be maintained between about
75.2 °F (24 °C) and 129.2 °F (54 °C). Excessive heating may
cause the emulsion to break in the distributor.
The tack coat residual application rate can be verified in situ by
using 12  12 in (0.3048  0.3048 m) geotextile squares based on
the ASTM D2995 [60]. Before tack coat applied, the pre-weighed
geotextile pads should be placed across the width of each lane.
After tack coat applied, the pads should sit in the position for 3 h
to ensure that the water was thoroughly evaporated. The initial
and the final weights of the pads were used to compute the resid-
ual application rates. Additionally, Rawls et al. [61] introduced the
tack lifter as a means to measure in-situ effective tack coat appli-
cation rates. The Tack Lifter contains a weighted device that is
placed on the top of a super-absorbent, foam sheet applied to the
pavement surface. The emulsion is soaked up by the absorbent
sheet from the surface. The weight of emulsion absorbed by the
sheet and the sheet area is used to compute emulsion application
rate.
3.4. Summary
The construction quality of tack coat in the field was an impor-
tant factor to improve pavement quality. It was recommended that
tack coat be applied to a clean, dry and well-compacted under
layer. The spray paver was preferred to distributor or HMA paver.
Uniformity and amount of application were two elements for tack
coat construction quality control. In addition, two methods were
introduced for residual application rate verification.
4. Test devices for tack coat evaluation
Numerous different test methods and devices for tack coat eval-
uation have been developed by researchers for different conditions
(laboratory or field). These test methods can be divided into shear,
tensile, and torque tests, as well as some other non-destructive
approaches. The mechanical test modes of shear, torque, and ten-
sile tests are shown in Table 2 [2,62]. The choice of a test method
depends on several factors, such as loading mode (shear, torque or
tensile), application conditions (in-situ or laboratory), the failure
mode (bond failure due to shear stress or due to tensile stress) as
well as the accuracy and repeatability of certain test method.
4.1. Shear tests
Shearing mode test is a most common test for evaluating inter-
layer bonding properties of tack coat. The first test device was
developed by Uzan et al. [6] in 1978. They used a type of direct
shear test on a dual-layer system of asphalt mixtures. Varying tem-
peratures, quantities of tack coat and vertical loads were applied to
the specimens during the test. Based on Uzan device, Santagata
et al. [63,64] did some modifications for testing cylindrical samples
and developed a simple shear test device under Anocona Shear
Testing Research and Analysis (ASTRA) program, the significant
feature of this testing apparatus is the measurement of displace-
ments in the normal direction as well as the shear direction, which
allows measurement of volumetric expansions. In addition, the
SuperPaveTM Shear Test was also developed as a test method for
tack coat evaluation, the interlayer bonding strength was esti-
mated by measuring the shear strength of the test specimens at
the interface [30].
Table 2
Test modes for tack coat evaluation.
Shear mode Torque mode Tensile mode
Direct Indirect
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
One of the most frequently used shear test, the Leutner shear
test [21], was developed in Germany in the late 1970s. It provided
shear strength values in the application area of tack coat, located at
the interface between two samples of 5.9 in (150 mm) in diameter.
This apparatus applied a constant shear displacement at the rate of
1.97 in/min (50 mm/min) and its loading mode is strain-controlled.
Later, the same test procedure was found in the draft copy of the
German specification. After few years’ development, several
Leutner-based equipment has been employed for research, includ-
ing Florida Department of Transportation test (FDOT) [65], Layer-
Parallel Direct Shear tester (LPDS) [66], Laboratorio de Caminos
de Barcelona shear test (LCB) [38]), the Alabama Department of
Transportation-National Center for Asphalt Technology (ALDOT-
NCAT) bond strength device [67] and Louisiana Interlayer shear
strength tester (LISST) [58].
The main advantage of FDOT shear test is that the specimens
can be tested at different temperatures because specimens are
placed inside the environmental chamber, and the rings for holding
the specimen can easily be manufactured. The LPDS test device
which is also a strain-controlled test is widely used in Swiss and
Italian pavements, this device is more versatile in geometry and
more defined in the clamping mechanism than the original Leutner
device, and its gap is 0.079 in (2 mm) between the shearing rings
[68]. The LCB test, unlike existing tests, is better suited to the
equipment and the testing procedures used in Spain. The test is
simple to conduct and capable of measuring tangential stress resis-
tance caused by a shear force between the two layers. British pave-
ments were investigated used the modified UK Leutner shear
device with a gap width of 0.197 in (5 mm) [69]. The LISST is a
direct shear device, developed for characterizing interlayer shear
strength of cylindrical specimens. The device consists of two main
parts: a shearing frame and a reaction frame. Only the shearing
frame is allowed to move, while the reaction frame is fixed [70].
A modified version of a direct shear apparatus developed by
Donovan et al. [71] is designed to apply shear force in the vertical
direction and normal force in the horizontal direction. The testing
apparatus is in specially designed steel chambers, 3.87 in
(98.4 mm) diameter for PCC and 3.94 in (100 mm) diameter for
HMA specimens. Both cyclic and monotonic tests can be performed
by this test device [34]. This test provides the maximum shear
stress at each cycle and the maximum shear stress against the
number of cycles to failure.
A Double Shear Test was developed by Millien et al. [72] in
1996. Different from other test apparatus, a prismatic sample of
three asphalt layers with tack coat applied at the interlayer surface
is tested. The two external asphalt layers are held in position when
a specific load is applied in the interlayer to produce shear force.
Abdo et al. [73] adapted a direct shear test on cylindrical spec-
imens, with the specimen dimensions normally used in France in
3.94 in (100 mm) diameter. In this test, the two layers that make
up the specimen are held by cylindrical clamps and subjected to
a tensile force, at a constant load speed of 5.62 kip/min (25 KN/
min).
Premature failures of overlaid runways, in Japan, lead to the
development of a test system by Hachiya and Sato [42] to measure
the effect of tack coat on interlayers bonding characteristics. This
test could be used to measure shear strength as well as tensile
strength. To evaluate the characteristics of the new emulsified
asphalt, both shear and viscosity tests are conducted and the shear
test specimen is prepared. The emulsified asphalt is evaporated,
heated and bonded to stainless plates.
Romanoschi and Metcalf [74] developed a direct shear device to
measure interface bonding strength between asphalt concrete
specimens, named ‘‘Kansas State Test Set-up”. Before testing, the
asphalt cores are kept for 24 h in a temperature-controlled cham-
ber at the desired temperature. During the test, a normal load is
861
applied close to the joint surface between the asphalt layers, and
the sample is broken through the joint surface by applying a lateral
displacement of the surfaces, with a load inclination angle of 22.5°
from the applied side. This test can be used for evaluation of the
durability of tack coat. D’Andrea and Tozzo [75] introduced the
Sapienza inclined shear test machine (SISTM) to study dynamic
performance of double-layered cylindrical specimens under vari-
ous inclinations. The results showed that the dynamic failure of
interface was influenced by both normal and shear components.
The Road and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (Australia)
also developed a test set-up to measure the shear strength at the
interface between the existing pavement and the asphalt overlay
bonded with tack coat [74]. The shear strengths of two wet bri-
quettes are averaged and reported. T620 cannot find the refer-
ences. Koch Material Company developed a test set-up, which is
portable and it can be easily transported from the field to the lab-
oratory. This setup can apply constant strain rates at 1.7 in/min
(43.18 mm/min).
In addition, the ATACKERTM shear device is a recently developed
field device. The device can measure shear strength and tensile
strength. In the laboratory test set-up, a test aluminum plate is
used, with a groove in the center where the tack coat is applied.
For field evaluation, the bottom plate is eliminated and the device
is directly placed on top of the pavement to evaluate the bonding
strength.
4.2. Tensile tests
Except for shearing tests, several studies used tensile tests to
characterize the performance of bonding layers [22,23,26]. In
1994, Litzka et al. [76] used the Schenck-Trebel test setup to study
interface bonding properties under different asphalt layer combi-
nations. Few years later, a Schenck-Trebel-based test device was
developed by Intecasa. However, in these tests, clamps have to
be tightened or attached directly onto the material that makes
up each layer. The results from these test methods could be erro-
neous due to variations in the eccentricities. In order to solve these
problems, an indirect test rather than direct tensile test was used.
In 1995, Tschegg et al. [22] developed the on-situ Pull-Off Test,
where the bottom layer was still bonded to the pavement while
the top layer was fixed to a steel plate to produce a vertical load
and cause the interlayer failure.
In 1997, Tschegg [23] introduced the wedge splitting test. In
this test, specimens were prepared with a groove at the interface
and were split with a wedge of a specified angle with a tensile
stress on the interface. The vertical and horizontal displacements
and vertical loads were measured and converted into horizontal
loads based on the wedge angle. The fracture energy (G) was
derived from the area below the load-displacement curve. And it
indicated that the specific fracture energy was more proper to
characterize the fracture power than the maximum load. Youtcheff
and Aurilio [77] suggested to use pneumatic adhesion test to iden-
tify the moisture sensitivity of asphalt binders. The pneumatic
adhesion tester was initially developed at National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to test coatings and is now part
of the ASTM D4541, named ‘‘Pull-off strength coating using porta-
ble adhesion tester”.
The InstroTeck ATACKERTM pull-off device can be also used in
tension mode. During the pull off strength test, the locks are
engaged to prevent the rod from moving sideways. The readings
of the force required to detach the contact plate from the tack
coated surface is obtained in pounds from the dial gauge at the
center of the rod. After that, the University of Texas-EI Paso (UTEP)
Pull-Off Device and the Louisiana Tack Coat Quality Tester (LTCQT),
were developed for interlayer bonding tensile strength. The LTCQT
was used to evaluate the quality of the interlayer bonding strength
862 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
of tack coat in the field [26]. Results indicated that the LTCQT can
successfully measure the quality of the bond strength and to dis-
tinguish between the responses of the evaluated tack coats in the
field [26]. A good correlation was observed between the absolute
viscosity of residual tack coat material and its tensile strength.
The study showed that the softening point can be an adequate
parameter to determine the optimum temperature for the tack
coat pull-off test, and therefore this temperature is recommended
for field tack coat evaluation [26].
Composite specimen interface cracking (CSIC) test used
repeated tensile loading and monitored the rate of damage devel-
opment on composite layer specimens [37]. In addition, the Inter-
face bond test (IBT), developed by Hakimzadeh et al. was easy to
utilize. The specimens can be fabricated from field cores or lab-
fabricated cylindrical specimens. The IBT can evaluate the bond
characteristics of thin layers such as thin-bonded overlays. The
fundamental tensile fracture data from IBT test can be readily used
in computational models to facilitate system optimization and
linkage between material properties and field performance [78].
4.3. Torque test
Another type of test was developed to determine the bond
strength between a thin surface and its substrate, and was typically
undertaken on situ [24]. At the required temperature, a shearing
torque was applied to a metal plate bonded to the surface of the
top layer. This procedure was called the torque bond test and
had been issued as a draft for development by the British Board
Agreement (BBA) [79]. Tashman et al. indicated that the bond tor-
que test could be a feasible test [80].
Based on this test, Collop et al. [81] used a laboratory-based
automatic torque bond test that is capable of quasi-static and
repeated load interface testing. In addition, the ATACKERTM device
could also be used to measure torque strength both in the labora-
tory and in situ. The test procedure is the same as the tensile test,
and is applied instead of a tensile vertical load.
A single test set up was developed at University of Texas-EI Paso
(UTEP) to measure shear strength of tack coat in the field and lab-
oratory [82]. The test system used a torque wrench to measure
shear strength. The maximum torque at the failure could easily
be recorded by the torque wrench in inch pounds. The recorded
torque was then converted to shear strength for identifying the
bond shear strength. Another test device named Oregon Field Tor-
que Tester (OFTT) was developed at Oregon State University to
evaluate long-term post-construction tack coat performance [83].
The OFTT can be easily used in the field and its specimens were
only 2.5 in (63.5 mm) in diameter. Therefore, the OFTT device
was considered to reduce test timing, cost and the damage to pave-
ment structure.
4.4. Non-destructive test
Several non-destructive tests were developed by researchers to
further study the properties of tack coat.
The optical techniques were increasingly applied to the inter-
face behavior analysis. Among these experimental techniques, Dig-
ital Image Correlation (DIC) [9,84–86] seems to be most adapted to
analyze the interface behavior of asphalt concrete layers. Associ-
ated with full-field techniques, the DIC can be easily used to mea-
sure the displacements and strain fields at different scales.
The roughness is another parameter which provides a lot of
interests in the characterization of interface behaviors. Today, the
volumetric patch technique is the most common standard to calcu-
late the surface Mean Texture Depth (MTD) in the road structure
[87]. However, the alternative methods such as the profile comb,
laser profilometer, 3D scanner and X-ray Computer Tomography
(CT) can be utilized to investigate the surface profiles [88,89].
The different kinds of mixtures by using steel balls with various
size diameters is another method to access surface roughness.
[90]. CT was employed to analyze the interface characteristics
between OGFC and dense-graded HMA [46].
Jia et al. [32] used the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
(FTIR) to detect chemical functional groups in the tack coat mate-
rial. The result showed that the components proportions of the
bottom of the overlay epoxy asphalt were less than those of the
top [32]. This may be one of the causes responsible for the failure
of the tack coat in the deck overlay.
A finite element (FE) approach was used to investigate the
effects of interface shear bond characteristics of tack coats on pave-
ment. A 2D FE modeling approach incorporated laboratory-
measured bond characteristics of tack coats to describe the consti-
tutive behavior at the interface. The FE simulation analysis indi-
cated that the performance of tack coat materials at the interface
was primarily determined by the pavement structure with no pro-
nounced change in the field stresses from one tack coat material to
another [49].
Falling Weight Reflectometer (FWD) is widely used for flexible
pavement evaluation and its residual life assessment. The FWD
applies an impact load to the pavement surface, to simulate the
traffic loading, and the pavement deflection is measured at several
radial locations from the load center. Hakim et al. [91] conducted a
new back-analysis method to assess the bonding condition
between asphalt binder layers in addition to the pavement layer
stiffness, from FWD test results.
Gwendal Josse et al. [92] proposed a new methodology to assess
the adhesion of a soft viscoelastic layer on a solid surface. A specific
experimental geometry was used to minimize the bulk deforma-
tion of the layer. A flat-ended probe was first put in contact with
a thin layer of soft material and then was removed at a constant
velocity. The probe was then stopped at a preset level of tensile
force and the time for complete debonding the layer from the
probe was measured. This methodology was relatively simple to
implement and could be widely applicable for weakly adhering
soft layer of arbitrary viscoelastic properties.
4.5. Discussion
After the introductions of the different interlayer bonding test
approaches, the shear method was the most widely used method
for analyzing bond characteristics, because this type of test mode
shows the similar behavior to the real case of slippage between
layers in the field. However, it also has some limitations.
The major concern to the shear tests is the difficulty to produce
pure shear at the interface. These tests assume that the shear force
generates uniform shear stresses at the interface. Strain localiza-
tions are inevitable no matter how sophisticated the loading mech-
anism. But the use of shorter cores with smaller moment arms can
minimize the effect of strain localizations to a certain extent in
direct shear test mechanisms [93,94].
Another problem related to the experimental complexity is
associated with the application of normal load and shear load. Raab
and Partl reported that the interface failure can be attributed to
shear or tensile type failures under the reality conditions [95].
However, Woods [8] applied both the pull-off test and torsional
test to obtain the tensile and torque shear strength of the tack coat
material. The results showed that the tack coat interlayer strength
was not sensitive to normal pressure [8]. Dave et al. [96] and
Hakimzadeh et al. [54] found the situations when tension can play
a role in pavement interface failure, one was when a HMA overlay
is placed on the top of PCC with poor load transfer, another was
when an HMA overlay is placed on the top of a milled surface.
Moreover, studies showed that the optimum tack coat application
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
rates obtained from shear-type tests can be significantly different
from those obtained from tension-type tests [54].
5. Tack coat characteristics
5.1. Interface shear strength
Interlayer shear performance was widely investigated and the
results illustrated that the behavior of in-service pavement show
several types of premature distresses occasionally, potentially
due to the inadequate interface boundary during the pavement
design stage.
As discussed in Section 4.1, several set-ups and approaches
were developed to evaluate the interlayer shear strength. Roma-
noschi and Metcalf [97] employed a direct shear test on 3.74 in
(95 mm) core sample to assess the interface properties of materials
extracted from full-scale accelerated pavement testing in the USA.
During the early stages of the test, the shear stress increased
approximately linearly. Failure occurred when the shear stress
reached the shear strength of the interface and then frictional
behavior was observed.
Du et al. [98] conducted a shear stress model based on the expo-
nential equations between shear stress and temperature. This
model was reasonable and was not significantly different to the
shear stress from experimental field test. However, Mohammad
et al. [58] pointed out that compared with the field-extracted
cores, the laboratory-prepared specimens extremely overesti-
mated the interface shear strength.
Collop et al. [81] used a laboratory-based automatic torque
bond test which is capable of quasi-static and repeated load inter-
face testing to investigate the influencing factors. The shear
strength and shear reaction moduli increased as the temperature
decreased. In addition, the influence of tack coat type, application
rate, and test temperature on the interface shear strength was
studied by several researchers [6,8,30,66,80]. A simple shear test
was conducted by researchers with simple shear test. The shear
strengths with normal stress were affected significantly by the
interfacial friction, roughness of interface and normal stress [48].
Furthermore, the results indicated that the use of tack coat did
not necessarily result in a better interlayer shear strength. The
influences of moisture, heat and water on the effect of tack coats
indicated that the application of tack coat increases the shear
strength of interface bonds [30].
5.2. Cracking resistance
A relatively thick polymer modified asphalt emulsion (PMAE) is
a way to potentially resist top-down cracking performance at the
pavement layer interface. Molenaar [99] used the direct shear test
to assess the shear force and the shear stiffness index of an anti-
cracking membrane between two layers of applying a load at
2 in/min (50.8 mm/min).
Another common distress mode is reflective cracking on the
pavements with thin hot mixture asphalt (HMA) overlay as a main-
tenance and/or rehabilitation method. Traditionally, engineers use
an anti-reflective cracking interlayer and special treatments on
existing pavements and cracks. Recently, using highly PMAE inter-
face was proposed to improve HMA overlay. Chen et al.
[46,100,101] compared the effects of conventional tack coat and
PMAE on reflective cracking. And a new approach to represent
reflective cracking (a Teflon spacer) instead of the traditional notch
method was introduced to the composite specimen interface
cracking test. The results clearly indicated that the proposed test
method with the Teflon spacer was effective. Caltabiano and Brun-
ton [102] used the shear box test developed by Hughes [103] in a
863
study on the reflection or propagation of cracks in the asphalt lay-
ers of pavements.
The layer slippage generates large tensile strain at the bottom of
the slipped layer and causes slippage cracking [104]. At either side
of the slipped interface, asphalt distorts in different direction,
which results in the layer slippage. If the layer slippage occurred,
the top layer must withstand the horizontal load. Gradually, the
crescent cracks appeared in slipped overlays. A pavement with
interlayer slippage should be repaired by milling the slipped over-
lay and replacing it with a well-bonded overlay. After that the ten-
sile strains can be controlled.
In order to fully understand the global and local structure
behavior of interface bonding, Rahma et al. [9] used the Digital
Images Correlation (DIC) to analyze interface characterization.
The failure modes show the crackings localization at the inter-
phase. The damage (dN), the characteristic time of damage (sc)
and the dissipated energy density (G1) of the interface were
deduced directly from the experimental interface constitutive law.
5.3. Shear fatigue performance
Two aspects need to be considered to more effectively simulate
the field situations [105]. The first one is that a one-time traffic
impact exceeded the bearing capacity does not lead to tack coat
damage but accumulate shear damage under repetitive traffic
loads, namely, shear fatigue damage [51]. Another one is that the
mechanism of shear fatigue damage of the tack coat is not simply
dominated by direct shear or pull-off damage. The direct shear test
simulates the horizontal shear force because of vehicle accelerate
and braking while the pull-off test simulates the vertical shear
force as a result of the pumping effect of tires. In addition, Khweir
and Fordyce reported that interface bonding failure could lead to a
potential life loss of between 40% and 83% [106].
The shear fatigue behavior was studied by many investigators
[105,107–111]. Li and Yu [105] found that epoxy tack coat pro-
vided a remarkably superior shear fatigue performance than
Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene (SBS) modified asphalt and emulsified
asphalt tack coat. Diakhaté [107] designed a customized double
shear testing (DST) device, applying a tack coat to improve inter-
face fatigue shear performance at 50 °F (10 °C). In addition, the
interface fatigue model is expressed based on the model currently
used to determine the lifetime of asphalt concrete mixtures. Tack
coat type, temperature, and stress level are important factors that
affect the fatigue properties between pavement layers [109,112].
Some researchers used power law equations to describe the
relationship between fatigue life and stress level for direct shear
test and oblique shear test [108,109]. A new model (a 3D regres-
sion surface) was proposed to join the contributions of normal
stress and shear stress to the interlayer fatigue behavior [113]. Dia-
khate et al. [114] employed shear fatigue test at 41 °F (5 °C) and
1 Hz and found that the interface shear strength increases linearly
with the decimal logarithm of the displacement rate.
Romanoschi and Metcalf [74,115] proposed a laboratory test
equipment to run shear fatigue tests on asphalt concrete interlayer.
The specimen was subjected to both a normal load and a shear
load, allowed for the longitudinal axis of the test specimen at a
22.5° angle with the vertical, so that the shear stress at the inter-
face was half of the normal stress. The parameter ND1 (number
of loading cycles that leads to an increase of permanent shear dis-
placement of 0.04 in (1 mm)) provides information of the interface
bond fatigue performance. In addition, a dynamic version of the
Leutner shear test was developed at the Technical University of
Dresden [116]. The asphalt concrete specimen is under both a
shear force and a normal force. Different parameters such as tem-
perature, normal stress and the loading function were included to
864 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871

find an interlayer bonding indicator which can be used for pave-
ment design.
Tozzo et al. [117] observed dilatancy effect during shear test
which can be attributed to interface random distribution of aggre-
gates, different peak overriding demands and volumetric expan-
sion. Based on the dilatancy speed, a new interpretation of
interface fatigue performance was presented. The number of load-
ing cycles at the beginning (Noverride) and end (Ncrisis) was intro-
duced to describe interface fatigue evolution.
Song et al. [118] concluded that, with an increase in tack coat
application rate, the plateau value (PV) increased and the total
cumulative dissipated energy decreased for both combined struc-
tures. Thus, the open-graded friction course (OGFC) with TLD
(dense graded asphalt mixture in Tennessee) structure provided
a better shear fatigue performance than OGFC with BM (another
type of dense graded mixture in Tennessee).
5.4. Summary
Interface shear strength (ISS), cracking resistance and shear fati-
gue performance were mechanical characteristics of tack coat.
Inadequate interface shear strength resulted in several types of
premature distresses and shear strength was affected by the inter-
layer friction, roughness, and normal stress. Polymer modified
asphalt emulsion was recommended to reduce tensile strain
between two layers and improve cracking resistance. Several shear
fatigue models were proposed to describe the relationship
between tack coat fatigue life and different parameters such as
temperature, stress level, loading function, and so on.
6. Influence factor of tack coat
In this section, some important parameters for tack coat were
discussed. By listing the different parameters separately, the inter-
actions between them were also considered, as shown in Table 3.
For example, aggregate size, asphalt properties and mixture com-
position were affected by the pavement type, while these parame-
ters were also responsible for the frictions and the interlock
properties. The shear strength of interlayer bonding decreased
with an increased temperature. There was an optimum tack coat
application rate at which the shear resistance reached a maximum
value [98].
6.1. Intrinsic factor of tack coat
6.1.1. Tack coat types
Mohammad et al. [30] and West et al. [67] concluded that tack
coat type was one of the factors influenced the bonding properties
of pavement layers and different tack coats lead to different bond-
ing strength. A survey conducted by Mohammad [14] showed that
most states reported that the slow setting emulsions were used.
Most of the emulsions used were SS-1, SS-1h, CSS-1, and CSS-1h.
Only one state (Georgia, the United States) used hot asphalt
cement (AC-20 and AC-30) as tack coat.
Emulsion types used in the tack coat was found to be a factor
which affected the maximum shear strength at the interface. Com-
monly, cationic emulsion was found to show higher shear
strengths and higher fatigue lives under repeated loads than other
tack coats. West et al. [67] reported the superiority of PG 64–22

Table 3
Influence factors interactions of tack coat.

Factors References
Single factors
Aging Raab et al. [119,120]
Surface texture Chen and Huang [121], Raab et al. [95], D’Andrea et al. [89], Partl et al. [122], Collop et al. [123], and so on
Surface state Miro et al. [124], Mohammad et al. [58], and so on
Setting time Tashman et al. [35], Hachiya and Sato [42], Chen and Huang [121], and so on.
Compaction effectiveness P. Jaskula [7]
Interactions
Types & application rate Al-Qadi et al. [34], Mohammad et al. [30], Leng et al. [42], and so on
Types & temperature Mohammad et al. [26,30], Canestrari and Santagate [28], Bae et al. [31], and so on
Types & surface texture Al-Qadi et al. [34], L. Tashman et al. [35], Uzan et al. [6], Z. Leng et al. [42], and so on
Types & surface state Al-Qadi et al. [34]
Surface texture & application rate Raposeiras et al. [26,87,125], Tashman et al. [35], and so on
Surface texture & temperature Song [126], Ferrotti et al. [25], and so on

Fig. 3. Shear Strength in different tack coat types [1,25,30,33,67] p. Note: SS-1hp (slow-setting, low viscosity, polymer modified with hard base asphalt); SS-1vh (slow-setting, low
viscosity with very hard base asphalt); CRS-2P (cationic rapid-setting, high viscosity, polymer modified asphalt); SS-1 (slow-setting, low viscosity); CSS-1 (cationic slow-setting, low
viscosity); SS-1h (slow-setting, low viscosity with hard base asphalt); CRS-2 (cationic rapid-setting, high viscosity) PMA (polymer modified asphalt).
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871 865

Table 4
Typical tack coat and application rates [130].
Pavement condition Application Rate (L/m2)
Residual Undiluted
New HMA 0.14–0.18 0.23–0.32
Oxidized HMA 0.18–0.27 0.32–0.45
Milled surface (HMA) 0.27–0.36 0.45–0.59
Milled surface (PCC) 0.27–0.36 0.45–0.59
Portland cement concrete 0.18–0.27 0.32–0.45
over CRS-2 and CSS-1. Mohammad et al. [30] found that CRS-2P
emulsion was the best tack coat type and 0.02 Gal/yd2 (0.09 L/
m2) was the optimum application rate. Hu et al. [127] also studied
spray-cationic emulsified asphalt binder (PC-3). A polymer modi-
fied emulsion (NovaTM bond) tack coat at the rate of 0.2 Gal/yd2
(0.9 L/m2) increased the bond strength between existing layer
and the overlay material [67]. Miro et al. [38] assessed the heat-
adhesive emulsions, which developed from very low-penetration
asphalt and had no flux. In addition, they found that the modified
heat-adhesive emulsion performs best over the test temperature.
Salinas et al. [128] found that SS-1vh performed better than SS-
1hp and SS-1h, and it is more cost-effective according to the life
cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Fig. 3 shows the different shear
strengths of several common tack coat materials.
Bae et al. [31] found that interface shear strength had a relation-
ship with rutting factor G⁄/sind. This relationship can be used to
establish a laboratory design threshold for this parameter to
ensure that the selected application rate and tack coat material
perform adequately in the field.
One special finding was that the maximum shear strength of the
SS-1 tack-coated layers was slightly lower than that of the non-
tacked layers, because the tack coat weakened the interface by
introducing a slip plane instead of increasing shear strength
[129]. Although the range of tack coat application rate might not
be sufficient to judge such a conclusion, the results were consistent
with the studies by Mohammad et al. [30].
6.1.2. Application rate
Tack coat application rate is the amount of liquid asphalt
sprayed by the distributor. Several research results showed that
the interlayer bonding properties were not influenced by the appli-
cation rate dominantly and they were affected by other factors,
such as temperature, type and texture of the under layer as well
as tack coat type [1,15]. At intermediate temperature 77 °F
(25 °C), tack coat application rate played a significant role in deter-
Diluted (1:1) mining shear strength, while at high temperature 122 °F (50 °C),
tack coat application rate did not result in significant change in
0.45–0.59
0.59–0.90
shear strength [126]. Mohammad et al. [49] found that the influ-
0.90–1.22 ence of tack coat type and application rate became more relevant
0.90–1.22 in thin pavements and less dominant in thick pavement structures.
0.59–0.90 West et al. [67] concluded that low application rates usually
yielded higher interface bond strength than high application rates
for fine graded mixes. Salinas et al. [128] studied the tack coat
application rate on different under layer conditions and the results
showed that an application rate of 0.06 Gal/yd2 (0.27 L/m2) for
milled HMA surfaces provided good bonding, and an application
rate of 0.02 Gal/yd2 (0.09 L/m2) was needed for freshly placed
HMA. Woods [8] pointed out that when emulsions were not fully
broken, the highest strength was achieved at the low application
rate of 0.05 Gal/yd2 (0.23 L/m2). In addition, when emulsions were
fully broken, the application rate of 0.09 Gal/yd2 (0.41 L/m2)
yielded the highest tensile and torque-shear strength. As shown
in Table 4, the overall rates vary from 0.03 to 0.08 Gal/yd2 (0.14–
0.36 L/m2) for different pavement types.
An optimum tack coat application rate is required to provide
good interface bonding at low cost. Whether the optimal tack rate
exists and how to determine it have been studied for several years.
Al-Qadi et al. [34] summarized the previous literatures and con-
cluded that two criteria were used to determine the optimum
application rate: maximum shear stress for monotonic tests and
maximum number of failure cycles for cyclic tests. Due to its sim-
ple operation and control during the test, the first is more widely
used. However, the second criterion simulates the real pavement
condition better because the monotonic testing more precisely
assessed the effect of interface properties than cyclic testing. Chen
et al. [121] pointed out that an increased residual application rate
increased shear strength up to a maximum value, and then shear
strength decreased gradually.
Raposeiras et al. [87] and Mohammad et al. [30] evaluated the
effect of different tack coat application rate and concluded that
there existed an optimal tack coat application rate in which the
shear strength reached the maximum value. Additionally, the opti-
mal tack coat rate generally increased with the increased surface
texture depth of underlying layer at the intermediate temperature

Fig. 4. Optimum application rates [37,43,87,98,133,134,136].

866 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
[57,126]. However, Collop et al. [131] found that better results can
be obtained even without tack coat application and Gong [132]
obtained similar findings. Pavement surfaces of different ages
may require different application rates to provide proper bonding
between the existing layer and overlay.
Fig. 4 indicated several optimal application rates from different
researchers. Uzan et al. [6] were one of the first researchers studied
the pavement interface problem through laboratory tests. The opti-
mum tack coat application rates yielding the maximum shear
strength were found to be 0.22 Gal/yd2 (0.97 L/m2) at 77 °F
(25 °C) and 0.11 Gal/yd2 (0.49 L/m2) at 131 °F (55 °C). Mohammad
et al. [30] found that the CRS-2P emulsion provided the highest
interface shear strength at the residual application rate at
0.02 Gal/yd2 (0.09 L/m2). Du [98] investigated three types of tack
coats, the application rates of CRS-1, RC-70, and MC-70 are 0.04,
0.38, and 0.02 Gal/yd2 (0.18, 0.17, and 0.09 L/m2), respectively. In
Chen’s [37] study, 0.16 Gal/yd2 (0.7 L/m2) trackless tack coat
showed highest interface shear strength. Recasens et al. [38] found
that the most adequate dosage value for thermo-adherent emul-
sion was in the range from 0.56 to 0.74 lb/yd2 (0.3–0.4 kg/m2) of
residual asphalt binder, but when considered the surface texture
he pointed out that 0.7 lb/yd2 (0.375 kg/m2) tack coat performed
best amongst all dosages.
Zamora-Barraza et al. [133] made different combinations of
geotextiles and ECR-3 emulsion dosages, and obtained the best
results with emulsion dosage values in the range from 0.65 to
0.93 lb/yd2 (0.35–0.5 kg/m2) of residual bitumen. The Asphalt
Institute (AI) specification [134] on tack coats reported that the
application rates ranged from 0.05 to 0.15 Gal/yd2 (0.23–0.68 L/
m2). The residual asphalt contents, as specified in the HMA Pave-
ment Handbook 2000 [43], should range from 0.04 to 0.06 Gal/
yd2 (0.18–0.27 L/m2). Deysarkar [135] proposed that better results
were obtained in samples with 0.1 Gal/yd2 (0.45 L/m2) than those
with 0.04 Gal/yd2 (0.18 L/m2). Sholar et al. [65] believed that the
least efficient dosage range of emulsion was between 0.02 and
0.08 Gal/yd2 (0.091 and 0.362 L/m2).
6.1.3. Curing time
Curing time was also an important factor, indicating that pave-
ment could be performed right after the emulsion was broken
[121]. Curing time varies from various types of tack coat due to dif-
ferent emulsifying agents. Normally, most tack coats require 1–2 h
to fully cure. Hasiba et al. [137] reported that the optimum value of
curing time was 2 h, and this value was applied when a conven-
tional paver was used. However, Destrée et al. [57] found that
Fig. 5. Shear strength in different bond conditions [136,138]. Note: HAE (Heat-Adhesive Emulsion); HAmE (Heat-Adhesive modified Emulsion); RSCE (Rapid Setting Conventioonal
Emulsion).
two curing times (1 and 3 h) had a similar impact on interlayer
bonding strength and this could be explained by the poor under
layer compaction. Raposeiras et al. [87] found that the ECR-1 emul-
sion had a break speed of 40–50 g/min. Sholar et al. [65] concluded
that shear strength increased with the curing time. To be more
quantitative, Hachiya et al. [42] concluded that the strength after
one hour curing is much less than that after 24-h curing.
Chen et al. [121] found that the bonding strength increased
when tack coat was applied and upper layer was compacted right.
Deysarkar [135] concluded that the pavements having waited for
30–60 min to compact the upper layer has higher interlayer
strength than those with upper layer compacted 5 min after the
tack coat application. However, Tashman et al. [80] reported that
curing time had a minimal effect on the bond strength. In the Uni-
ted State, Alaska regulated a maximum curing time of 2 h for CSS-
1. Arkansas specified a maximum curing period of 45 min for SS-1
and MS-2. Four states indicated that paving upper layer was
required the same day the tack coat application. Many states spec-
ified a minimum time between tack coat application and place-
ment of hot mix asphalt to provided adequate curing time [30].
6.1.4. Asphalt aging
It is still disputed if the bonding properties should be tested
directly after construction and how the tack coat properties are
influenced by aging. Some recent investigations [68,131] on long
term performance of bonding properties of tack coats indicated
that aging could have a positive effect on the bonding properties
Raab and Partl et al. [68,119,120,138,139] did a serials of
research studies to investigate the effect of aging, used Artificial
Neural Network (ANN) techniques to derive models from datasets
and to predict interlayer bonding strength. The findings demon-
strated that aging had a positive effect on the interlayer bonding
of asphalt pavements and that a long-term oven aging could lead
to similar results as in situ. According to the results of this investi-
gation, maximum strength roughly increased by 1% per month
over a period of 10 years by a linear model Fig. 5 shows the shear
strengths in different bond conditions after a few months.
6.1.5. Application conditions
Destrée et al. [57] believed that although the intrinsic charac-
teristics of tack coat materials played an important role in the
bonding strength between layers, the application conditions of
tack coats are equally crucial. The appropriate conditions for tack
coat application is that emulsions spread evenly to cover the under
layer at an adequate temperature.
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
6.1.6. Temperature
As it is well known, the temperature is an important factor on
asphalt behavior. The increased or decreased temperature would
change the characteristic of asphalt binder as well as tack coat.
Several researchers such as Mohammad et al. [30], West et al.
[67], Chen and Huang [121], Raab et al. [90]. and Recasens et al.
[136] found that, generally, as the temperature increased, shear
strength decreased because tack coat binder became less stiff with
the increased temperature.
Song et al. [126] pointed out that, at low temperatures, asphalt
binder was so stiff that the effects of both application rate and sur-
face texture depth of underlying layers became less significant.
With an increase in the temperature from low to high, the failure
mode of the shear between OGFC and underlying layer changed
from brittle to plastic. In addition, at a very low temperature (close
to the binder and/or tack coat glassy temperature), the interlayer
strength reduced because of material brittleness and possible
debonding from thermal characteristic differences [34].
Mohammad et al. [30] found that the test temperature reduced
shear strength significantly and the test setup was not able to dis-
cern well and poor performing tack coat at high temperatures.
Hachiya and Sato [42] run tests at different temperatures, applica-
tion rates, loading rates, and film thicknesses on four different tack
coats and the results suggested that at a high temperature there
are no shear strength for film thickness higher than 0.08 in
(2 mm) except for PK-HR-2 emulsion.
Other researchers used the FDOT test set up to investigate in
influence of temperature, and suggested that shear strength
reduced by more than 90% for the temperature from 77 °F to
140 °F (25 °C–60 °C) [65], as shown in Fig. 6. Bae et al. [31] con-
cluded that the bonding performance, as measured by the Interface
Shear Strength (ISS), of the trackless emulsion was superior to CRS-
1 emulsion, specifically at temperatures greater than 104 °F (40 °C).
Canestrari and Santagata [28] used Ancona shear testing research
and analysis (ASTRA) interface shear test for the performance-
related characterization of tack coat emulsions. The latest version
of the testing apparatus may be conveniently used to evaluate
temperature-related effects. Mohammad et al. [30] reported that
at 77 °F (25 °C), an increase in tack coat application rate resulted
in a decrease in interface shear strength. However, at 131 °F
(55 °C), shear strength was not sensitive to application rate. And
the application of tack coat did not necessarily increase the inter-
face shear strength. West et al. [67] concluded that interface bond
Fig. 6. Shear strength at various temperatures from several researches [1,16,28,33,136].
867
strength was sensitive to normal pressure only at a high
temperature.
However, Deysarkar [135] found that bond strength was
improved with an increased temperature. This result was related
to faster water evaporation of the tack coat, which accelerated
the emulsion break. The bond strength depended on the waiting
time to place the top layer. When the top layer was constructed
without considering the breaking time of the emulsion, a high tem-
perature produced a faster water evaporation, resulting in an
increase of bond strength.
6.1.7. Mixture type and surface texture
Tack coat was usually applied on existing asphalt or concrete
pavement surfaces to provide adhesive bonding between existing
pavement surface and newly constructed asphalt surface layer
[37]. Therefore, the characteristics such as mixture type and sur-
face texture of upper and under layers have remarkable influence
on tack coat properties.
West et al. [67] evaluated the bonding properties of fine-graded
and coarse-graded mixtures and found that the shear strength of
fine-graded mixture with a 0.19 in (4.75 mm) nominal maximum
aggregate size (NMAS) was larger than that of coarse-graded mix-
ture with a 0.75 in (19 mm) NMAS. Chen et al. [121] tested the bond-
ing strength of the specimens combined by Dense-Graded Asphalt
Concrete (DGAC), Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA), and Porous Asphalt
Concrete (PAC). The results showed that, due to the different adhe-
sions from different combinations, DGAC-DGAC (upper layer-
lower layer) system generally exhibited the best bonding perfor-
mance, followed by PAC-DGAC and PAC-SMA. Song et al. [140] found
that the shear force to overcome the adhesive bonding between
OGFC-BM (base material) was larger than that of OGFC-TLD (thin
layer D mixture) at the same application rate because of the larger
interlayer roughness caused by BM’s coarser aggregate gradation.
In addition, the bonding properties at elevated temperatures
were more associated with the surface characteristics than at
lower temperatures. Collop et.al [123] also studied several combi-
nations of multiple layers. For the hot-rolled asphalt with 20 mm
dense bitumen macadam (HRA/20DBM) and stone mastic asphalt
with 20 mm dense bitumen macadam (SMA/20DBM) combina-
tions, if no tack coat was used, the interface shear strength was
slightly reduced. However, for the very dirty condition, the inter-
face shear strengths were significantly reduced because extra tack
coat did not compensate. In addition, for the fine-graded mixture,
868 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
Fig. 7. Shear strength in different surface texture [1,57,89].
low application rates of tack coat generally provided high bond
strength; while for the coarse-graded mixture, tack coat applica-
tion rate was not an significant factor [67].
Surface texture depth of underlying layer played a significant
role in the shear strength. Usually, the higher the surface texture
depth, the higher the shear strength between OGFC and underlying
layer [126]. Raposeiras et al. [87] investigated the influence of sur-
face macro-texture of asphalt mixtures on the adhesion and found
that a rough texture of 0.007 in (0.17 mm) provided the maximum
shear strength. Raab et al. [90] evaluated the interlock of aggre-
gates between pavement layers by using steel balls with different
diameters and found that the highest shear strength was achieved
for the combination of small/big aggregates, where good interlock-
ing between the steel balls was observed. Raab, and Partl [66]
found that specimens with the smooth surface had higher shear
forces than the specimens with rough surface. Mohammad et al.
[58] found that the milled HMA surface provided the greatest
interface shear strength followed by the PCC surface, existing
HMA, and new HMA surface. The new HMA surface was smooth
and un weathered, having a coating of asphalt [58]. Leng et al.
[51] pointed out that milled PCC surfaces performed better than
smooth and tined surfaces.
The surface texture also has the relationship with tack coat
application rate. Once the spread rate is high enough, there is no
influence on the strength. But for low (insufficient) spread rates,
milling type has an influence on the strength, because the tack coat
would be unable to cover the surface entirely [57]. As shown in
Fig. 7, Al-Qadi et al. [34] found that the milled concrete surface
provided greater interface shear strength than both tined and
smooth PCC surfaces as used the same tack coat application rate.
At the optimum tack coat application rate, the smooth PCC surface
produced a higher interface shear strength than the tined surface.
Tashman et al. [80] investigated the factors that affect bond
strength between HMA layers and quantified the effectiveness of
the tack coat. Their study indicated that milling the existing sur-
face improved the bonding strength, while tack coat application
was not needed for the milled surfaces [80].
6.1.8. Surface state
Water is generally inevitable during construction stage. Sholar
et al. [65] pointed out that there are differences between samples
in which water presented at the surface of the tack coat or not. The
watering of the surface had a negative influence on the adhesion
but the water condition had not shown clear influence on the
adhesion properties [66]. Thus, the water potential of tack coats
should not be ignored.
Other study evaluated the effect of moisture on the strength
characteristics of the tack coat and suggested that water applied
to the surface of the tack coat, representing rainwater, significantly
reduced the shear strength in comparison to no water applied [65].
In addition, the reduction of interface shear strength was more
pronounced when a stripping-vulnerable binder mix IM-19.0B
was used [34]. A small amount of water seemed to affect interface
shear strength negatively in the case of the use of PG 64-22 as a
tack coat material [58,141]. However, the effect of surface wetness
on interface shear strength was less evident for emulsion based
tack coat materials. In this case, results indicated that a small
amount of water could be flashed away by the hot HMA mat and
had inconsequential effects on the quality of the tack coat [58].
Additionally, Hachiya et al. [42] concluded that the interval
between the construction influenced the bonding properties: The
strength decreased as the interval increased because the dirt accu-
mulated on the binder course. Mohammad et al. [70] pointed out
that the majority of the cases showed statistically significant dif-
ferences between clean and dusty conditions. Dirty surfaces were
found to have negligible effects on the interface bonding if the tack
coat was properly cured. However, if improperly cured, emulsion
was ineffective on bonding the layers. Moreover, Salinas et al.
[128] found that Air-blast cleaning significantly improves interface
bonding. But this method is inconvenient in the field, especially in
urban areas where dust clouds can be hazardous. It is also time
consuming, which reduce work efficiency.
6.1.9. Compaction effectiveness
Piotr Jaskula [7] investigated four compaction techniques in
laboratory conditions: rolling with and without vibrations, gyra-
tory compaction and compaction with slab compactor, including
both hot-to-cold and hot-to-hot. It was found out that interlayer
bonding strengths strongly depended on the applied compaction
technique, as well as the compaction effort. In some cases, efficient
compaction produced a maximum shear force without tack coat.
The highest bond strengths were obtained for gyratory compaction
and the lowest ones for compaction with a static roller.
Canestrari et al. [25] made a conclusion on the effect of the
proper degree of compaction by laboratory tests. The effect of good
quality compaction on the bond strength was studied on the cores
from the existing pavements [142]. The results showed that the
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
bond strength was related to quality of compaction of the upper
layer.
6.2. Discussion
Tack coat application is necessary to enhance bonding strength
between two layers during pavement construction. However, the
quality of tack coat construction depends on several factors such
as an appropriate application rate and tack coat type. In addition,
the use of trackless emulsions is most recommendable, followed
by conventional cationic emulsions, conventional anionic emul-
sions and finally asphalt binders. Furthermore, a clean, dry, enough
friction, and well-compacted under layer is recommended to
improve tack coat characteristics and the lifetime of the pavement.
7. Conclusion
This study showed an extended overview on the application of
tack coat in pavement engineering. First of all, the common tack
coat types were introduced, and the application methods were pre-
sented. Based on the previous literature and research, the evalua-
tions of tack coat properties and test methods were discussed.
Finally, the influence factors of tack coat properties were pre-
sented. According to the results provided by researchers, the fol-
lowing statements and conclusions can be drawn.
 Emulsified asphalt was the most common asphalt among all
types of tack coats. Different modifiers leaded to different per-
formances of tack coats. For steel-asphalt interlayer, the epoxy
resin asphalt tack coat was recommendable. The use of trackless
emulsions was a solution to tack coat removed from the surface
by construction equipment.
 It was recommended that tack coat should be applied to a clean,
dry and well-compacted under layer. Paver with tack coat tank
and spray bar showed great workability than distributor truck.
The uniformity of nozzle spray patterns, the size of nozzles, the
height of spray bar, the pressure of the application, and the tem-
perature of tack coat needed to be concerned to obtain a good
paving quality
 The shear tests were the most commonly used approaches to
verify the interlayer bonding strengths because the shear mode
was similar to the real cases of debonding and slippage and they
were simple to conduct. Other test devices were developed
from different usages, some non-destructive tests were become
more and more useful to evaluate tack coat properties.
 The intrinsic factors and application conditions together influ-
enced the properties of interlayer bonding. Choosing proper
material and application rate as well as construction condition
are of great benefit to form a high shear strength interface layer.
 However, the bonding effects between binder layers on flexible
pavement failure mechanisms and long-term pavement behavior
were not well understood. The future investigation should be
focused on trial pavement sections with controlled bonding con-
ditions, using the FWD and other testing techniques to under-
stand bonding development. This could help conduct a more
comprehensive model for pavement design and evaluation.
Acknowledgements
This paper is possibly funded from the Natural Science and
Technology Foundation of Shaanxi Province, P.R. China (No.
2014JQ7239) and the State Key Laboratory of Silicate Materials
for Architectures (Wuhan University of Technology) (No.SYSJJ2014
02).
869
References
[1] I.L. Alqadi, K.I. Hasiba, A.S. Cortina, H. Ozer, Z. Leng, D.C. Parish, et al., Best,
Practices for Implementation of Tack Coat: PART I – Laboratory Study, Civil
Engineering Studies Illinois Center for Transportation, 2012.
[2] C. Raab, M.N. Partl, A.E.H.O.A.E. Halim, Evaluation of interlayer shear bond
devices for asphalt pavements, Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 4 (4) (2009) 186–
195.
[3] A.H. De Bondt, A. Scarpas, Reflective Cracking Control via Stress-Relieving
Systems, H-Law, H-Review, 1996.
[4] A. Vanelstraete, L. Francken, Prevention of Reflective Cracking in Pavements,
2014.
[5] H. Al Nageim, A. Hakim, Bonding conditions between pavement layers and
their influence on pavement layers moduli and remaining life, in: 3rd
European Symposium on Performance and Durability of Bituminous
Materials and Hydraulic Stabilised Composites, UK, 1999, pp. 725–736.
[6] Uzan J, Livneh M, Eshed Y. Investigation of Adhesion Properties Between
Asphaltic-Concrete Layers, Asphalt Paving Technology, 1978, vol. 47, pp.
495–521.
[7] P. Jaskula, Influence of compaction effectiveness on interlayer bonding of
asphalt layers, in: The International Conference ‘‘Environmental Engineering”,
22–23 May 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2014.
[8] M.E. Woods, Laboratory Evaluation of Tensile and Shear Strengths of Asphalt
Tack Coats, Master Thesis, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS:
Mississippi State University, 2004.
[9] R. Ktari, A. Millien, F. Fouchal, I.O. Pop, C. Petit, Pavement interface damage
behavior in tension monotonic loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 106 (2016) 430–
442.
[10] Materials ASfTa, ASTM D 8-02 Standard Terminology Relating to Materials for
Roads and Pavements, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2003, Section 4:
Construction, West Conshohocken, PA, vol. 04.03, 2003.
[11] Institute TA, Construction of Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements, Manual Series No.
22 (MS-22), second ed., Lexington, KY, 2003.
[12] Engineers USACo, Guide Specifications for Military Construction, CEGS-
02556, Washington, DC, 1991.
[13] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NFEC, Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency,
Unified Facilities Criteria Standard Practice Manual for Flexible Pavements,
2001.
[14] L. Mohammad, S. Saadeh, Y. Qi, J.W. Button, J. Scherocman, Worldwide state
of practice on the use of tack coats: a survey, in: Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologists (AAPT) Meeting, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Philadelphia PA, 2008.
pp. 1–34.
[15] A.C. Raposeiras, D. Castro-Fresno, A. Vega-Zamanillo, J. Rodriguez-Hernandez,
Test methods and influential factors for analysis of bonding between
bituminous pavement layers, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (3) (2013) 372–381.
[16] J. Bjornstad, C. Bognacki, J. Marsano, George Washington bridge asphalt-
wearing course and bond coat analysis, in: Airfeld and Highway Pavements
Conference, ASCE, Bellevue, Washington, Reston, Va, 2008, pp.
596–607.
[17] B. Balala, Studies leading to choice of epoxy asphalt for pavement on steel
orthotropic bridge deck of San Mateo-Hay ward bridge, Highway Res. Rec.
(1969).
[18] M.S. Stenko, A.J. Chawalwala, Thin polysulfide epoxy bridge deck overlays,
Transp. Res. Rec. 1749 (2001) 64–67.
[19] G.R. Morris, C.H. Mcdonald, Asphalt-rubber stress-absorbing membranes:
field performance and state of the art, Transp. Res. Rec. (1976).
[20] D. Helliwell, Watershed developments in bridge protection, Construction
Repair, 1989, p. 3.
[21] R. L. Untersuchung des Schichtenverbundes beim bituminosen Oberbau
(investigation of the adhesion of bituminous pavements), Bitumen, 1979, vol.
3, pp. 84–91.
[22] E.K. Tschegg, G. Kroyer, D.M. Tan, S.E. Stanzl-Tschegg, J. Litzka, Investigation
of bonding between asphalt layers on road construction, J. Transport. Eng.
121 (4) (1995) 309–316.
[23] E.K. Tschegg, An efficient fracture test method for bituminous materials and
layer bonds, in: Proc. of the Fifth Intern. RILEM Symposium on Mechanical
Tests for Bituminous Materials, Lyon, 1997, pp. 405–411.
[24] I.D. Walsh, J. Williams, HAPAS certificates for procurement of thin surfacing,
Highways & Transportation, 2001.
[25] F. Canestrari, G. Ferrotti, M. Partl, E. Santagata, Advanced testing and
characterization of interlayer shear resistance, Transp. Res. Rec. 1929 (1)
(2005) 69–78.
[26] L.N. Mohammad, M.A. Elseifi, A. Bae, J. Button, J.A. Scherocman, Evaluation of
bond strength of tack coat materials in field, Transp. Res. Rec. 2126 (2126)
(2009) 1–11.
[27] L.N. Mohammad, M.A. Elseifi, A. Bae, N. Patel, J. Button, J.A. Scherocman,
Optimization of Tack Coat for HMA Placement, Nchrp Report, 2012.
[28] F. Canestrari, E. Santagata, Temperature effects on the shear behaviour of tack
coat emulsions used in flexible pavements, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 6 (6) (2007)
39–46.
[29] P. Jaskuła, Ocena sczepności mie˛dzy warstwami asfaltowymi na-wierzchni
(evaluation of interlayer bonding in asphalt pavements), Drogownictwo
magazine, 2006, vol. 12, pp. 412–414.
[30] L. Mohammad, M.A. Raqib, B. Huang, Influence of asphalt tack coat materials
on interface shear strength, Transp. Res. Rec. 1789 (1) (2002) 56–65.
870 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
[31] A. Bae, L.N. Mohammad, M.A. Elseifi, J. Button, N. Patel, Effects of temperature
on interface shear strength of emulsified tack coats and its relationship to
rheological properties, Transp. Res. Rec. 2180 (1) (2010) 102–109.
[32] X. Jia, B. Huang, B.F. Bowers, T.E. Rutherford, Investigation of tack coat failure
in orthotropic steel bridge deck overlay, Transp. Res. Rec. 2444 (2014) 28–37.
[33] B. Yao, F. Li, X. Wang, G. Cheng, Evaluation of the shear characteristics of
steel–asphalt interface by a direct shear test method, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 68
(2016) 70–79.
[34] I.L. Alqadi, S.H. Carpenter, Z. Leng, H. Ozer, J. Trepanier, Tack Coat
Optimization for HMA Overlays: Laboratory Testing, Civil Engineering
Studies Illinois Center for Transportation, 2008.
[35] L. Tashman, K. Nam, T. Papagiannakis, K. Willoughby, L. Pierce, T. Baker, et al.,
Evaluation of construction practices that influence the bond strength at the
interface between pavement layers, J. Perform. Constr. Facil 22 (3) (2008)
154–161.
[36] T.M. Clark, T. Rorrer, K.K. McGhee, Trackless tack coat materials: a laboratory
evaluation for performance acceptance, in: Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting: Transportation Research Board, 2012.
[37] Y. Chen, G. Tebaldi, R. Roque, G. Lopp, Effects of trackless tack interface on
pavement top-down cracking performance, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 53 (3)
(2012) 432–439.
[38] J.R.M. Recasens, A. Martínez, F.E.P. Jiménez, Assessing heat-adhesive
emulsions for tack coats, Transport 158 (1) (2005) 45–51.
[39] A.Y. Seo, M.S. Sakhaeifar, B.T. Wilson, Chemical-mechanical interaction of
non-tracking tack coat and aggregate on bond strength, Airfield and Highway
Pavements, 2015, vol. 2015, pp. 191–202.
[40] N.F. Ghaly, I.M. Ibrahim, E.M. Noamy, Tack coats for asphalt paving, Egypt. J.
Pet. 23 (1) (2014) 61–65.
[41] J.C. Du, Evaluation of shear strength on pavement layers by use tack
materials, Adv. Mater. Res. 255–260 (2011) 3176–3179.
[42] Y. Hachiya, S. Umeno, K. Sato, Effect of tack coat on bonding characteristics at
interface between asphalt concrete layers, in: Eighth International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, Washington, 1997, pp.
349–362.
[43] Engineers USACo, Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Handbook 2000 AC 150/5370-14A,
Washington, DC, 2000.
[44] P. Cong, S. Chen, J. Yu, Investigation of the properties of epoxy resin-modified
asphalt mixtures for application to orthotropic bridge decks, J. Appl. Polym.
Sci. 121 (4) (2011) 2310–2316.
[45] J.T. Harvey, T. Hoover, N.F. Coetzee, W.A. Nokes, F.C. Rust, Caltrans accelerated
pavement test (CAL/APT) program – results from tests on asphalt pavements
1994–1998, Analysis, 1999.
[46] Y. Chen, G. Tebaldi, R. Roque, G. Lopp, Y. Su, Effects of interface condition
characteristics on open-graded friction course top-down cracking
performance, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 81 (Suppl. 1) (2012) 1–20.
[47] R. Li, F. Xiao, S. Amirkhanian, Z. You, J. Huang, Developments of nano
materials and technologies on asphalt materials–a review, Constr. Build.
Mater. 143 (2017) 633–648.
[48] H. Yin, Y.T. Zhu, C.L. Yin, Study on the mechanical properties of tack coat
between asphalt layers by interlaminar shear tests, Appl. Mech. Mater. 361–
363 (2013) 1490–1494.
[49] L.N. Mohammad, M. Hassan, N. Patel, Effects of tack coat shear bond
characteristics on pavement performance at the interface, Transp. Res. Rec. 3
(2011) 1–8.
[50] H. Ziari, M.M. Khabiri, Interface condition influence on prediction of flexible
pavement life, J. Civ. Eng. Manage. 13 (1) (2007) 71–76.
[51] L. Zhen, I.L. Al-Qadi, S.H. Carpenter, H. Ozer, Interface bonding between hot-
mix asphalt and various portland cement concrete surfaces: laboratory
assessment, Transp. Res. Rec. 11 (2057) (2009) 46–53.
[52] S. Ahmed, E.V. Dave, B. Behnia, W.G. Buttlar, M. Exline, Fracture
characterization of gap-graded asphalt mixtures and thin bonded wearing
courses, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 3 (3) (2010) 128–134.
[53] D.H. Chen, Slippage failure of a new hot-mix asphalt overlay, J. Perform.
Constr. Facil 24 (3) (2010) 258–264.
[54] 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, Transp. Res. Rec. 2295 (1) (2012) 54–62.
[55] N. Tran, D. Timm, B. Powell, G. Sholar, R. Willis, Effectiveness of heavier tack
coat on field performance of open-graded friction course, Transp. Res. Rec.
2372 (1) (2013) 1–8.
[56] F. Roberts, Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction,
NAPA Eduction Foundation, 1991.
[57] A. Destrée, J.D. Visscher, N. Piérard, A. Vanelstraete, Field Study to Investigate
the Impact of Conditions of Application of Tack Coats on the, Interlayer Bond
Strength, Springer, Netherlands, 2016.
[58] L.N. Mohammad, A. Bae, M.A. Elseifi, J. Button, N. Patel, Effects of pavement
surface type and sample preparation method on tack coat interface shear
strength, Transp. Res. Rec. 2180 (1) (2010) 93–101.
[59] A.C. Raposeiras, A. Vega-Zamanillo, M.A. Calzada-Pérez, D. Castro-Fresno,
New procedure to control the tack coat applied between bituminous
pavement layers, Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (3) (2013) 228–235.
[60] Materials ASfTa, Standard Practice for Estimating Application Rate and
Residual Application Rate of Bituminous Distributors, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2014.
[61] M. Rawls, J.H. Im, C. Castorena, Tack lifter for in situ measurement of effective
emulsion application rates, Transp. Res. Rec. 2550 (2550) (2016) 80–88.
[62] A. Rahman, C. Ai, C. Xin, X. Gao, Y. Lu, State-of-the-art review of interface
bond testing devices for pavement layers: toward the standardization
procedure, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. (2016). ISSN:169-4243.
[63] E. Santagata, Laboratory Shear Testing of Tack Coat Emulsion, 1993.
[64] E. Santagata, Tensile and Shear Tests of Interfaces in Asphalt Mixes: A New
Prospective on Their Failure Criteria, 1994.
[65] G.A. Sholar, G.C. Page, J.A. Musselman, P.B. Upshaw, H.L. Moseley, Preliminary
investigation of a test method to evaluate bond strength of bituminous tack
coats (with discussion), J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 73 (2004).
[66] C. Raab, M.N. Partl, Effect of Tack Coats on Interlayer Shear Bond of
Pavements, 2004.
[67] R.C. West, J. Zhang, J. Moore, Evaluation of Bond Strength Between Pavement
Layers, NCAT, 2005. pp. 5–8.
[68] C. Raab, M.N. Partl, Investigation into a long-term interlayer bonding of
asphalt pavements, Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 3 (2) (2008) 65–70.
[69] Y.K. Choi, A. Collop, G.D. Airey, R.C. Elliot, Comparison between interface
properties measured using the Leutner test and the torque test, Environ. Int. 9
(5) (2005) 361–362.
[70] L.N. Mohammad, A. Bae, M.A. Elseifi, J. Button, J.A. Scherocman, Interface
shear strength characteristics of emulsified tack coats, J. Assoc. Asphalt
Paving Technol. 78 (2009) 249–278.
[71] E.P. Donovan, I.L. Al-Qadi, A. Loulizi, Optimization of tack coat application rate
for geocomposite membrane on bridge decks, Transp. Res. Rec. 1740 (1740)
(2000) 143–150.
[72] A.M., C.P., J.R., Comportement au cisaillement des couches d’accrochage dans
les chausse es (shear behavior of the tack coats on pavements), 1996.
[73] J. A, L. B, X. B, E. G, P. G, B. H, et al., L’e ‘tude du collage d’un BBTM sur un
revêtement en beto nâge de quelques jours, Un nouveau project de recherche
fruit du partenariat CIMBETON/SPECBEA/SNBPE, Revue Ge ‘ne ‘rale des
Routes, 2001, vol. 798, pp. 22–28.
[74] S. Romanoschi, J. Metcalf, Characterization of asphalt concrete layer
interfaces, Transp. Res. Rec. 1778 (1) (2001) 132–139.
[75] A. D’Andrea, C. Tozzo, Dynamic tests on bituminous layers interface, Mater.
Struct. 49 (3) (2016) 917–928.
[76] J.H. Litzka, F. Pass, E. Zirkler, Experiences with thin Bituminous Layers in
Austria, 1994.
[77] J. Youtcheff, V. Aurilio, Moisture sensitivity of asphalt binders: evaluation and
modeling of the pneumatic adhesion test results, in: Proceedings of the
Annual Conference-Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Polyscience
publications inc., 1997, pp. 180–200.
[78] S. Hakimzadeh, N.A. Kebede, W.G. Buttlar, S. Ahmed, M. Exline, Development
of fracture-energy based interface bond test for asphalt concrete, Road Mater.
Pavement Des. 13 (Suppl. 1) (2012) 1–12.
[79] Agreement BB, Guideline Document for the Assessment and Certification of
Thin Surfacing Systems for Highways, 1998.
[80] A.T. Papagiannakis, L. Tashman, K. Nam, Evaluation of the influence of tack
coat construction factors on the bond strength between pavement layers,
Milling, 2006.
[81] A.C. Collop, M.H. Sutanto, G.D. Airey, R.C. Elliott, Development of an
automatic torque test to measure the shear bond strength between asphalt,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 623–629.
[82] S.R. Eedula, V. Tandon, Tack Coat Field Acceptance Criterion, Field Tests, 2007.
[83] A. Mahmoud, E. Coleri, J. Batti, D. Covey, Development of a field torque test to
evaluate in-situ tack coat performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 135 (2017) 377–
385.
[84] M.A. Sutton, W.J. Wolters, W.H. Peters, W.F. Ranson, S.R. Mcneill,
Determination of Displacement Using an Improved Digital Correlation
Method, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, 1977.
[85] B. Birgisson, A. Montepara, E. Romeo, An optical strain measurement system
for asphalt mixtures, Mater. Struct. 42 (4) (2009) 427–441.
[86] W.G. Buttlar, B.C. Hill, Y.R. Kim, M.E. Kutay, A. Millien, A. Montepara, et al.,
Digital image correlation techniques to investigate strain fields and cracking
phenomena in asphalt materials, Mater. Struct. 47 (8) (2014) 1373–1390.
[87] A.C. Raposeiras, Á. Vega-Zamanillo, M.Á. Calzada-Pérez, D. Castro-Fresno,
Influence of surface macro-texture and binder dosage on the adhesion
between bituminous pavement layers, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1) (2012)
187–192.
[88] F.A. Santagata, M.N. Partl, G. Ferrotti, F. Canestrari, A. Flisch, Layer
characteristics affecting interlayer shear resistance in flexible pavements, J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 77 (2008).
[89] A. D’Andrea, C. Tozzo, A. Boschetto, L. Bottini, Interface roughness parameters
and shear strength, Mod. Appl. Sci. 7 (10) (2013).
[90] C. Raab, A.O.A.E. Halim, M.N. Partl, Interlayer bond testing using a model
material, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 190–199.
[91] B.A. Hakim, L.W. Cheung, R.J. Armitage, Use of FWD Data for Prediction of
Bonding Between Pavement Layers, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 1 (1) (2000) 49–59.
[92] G. Josse, P. Sergot, C. Creton, M. Dorget, Measuring interfacial adhesion
between a soft viscoelastic layer and a rigid surface using a probe method, J.
Adhes. 80 (1–2) (2010) 87–118.
[93] R. KM, C. CA, H. TN, Shear Box Test: Finite Element Modelling, Project Report
PGR01-05, School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, 2001.
[94] A.H.D. Bondt, Anti-reflective Cracking Design of (reinforced) Asphaltic
Overlays, 1999.
[95] C. Raab, M.N. Partl, Interlayer Shear Performance: Experience with Different
Pavement Structures, 2004.
 J. Wang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 152 (2017) 856–871
[96] E.V. Dave, S. Ahmed, W.G. Buttlar, J. Bausano, T. Lynn, Investigation of strain
tolerant mixture reflective crack relief systems: An integrated approach, J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 79 (4) (2010) 119–154.
[97] S.A. Romanoschi, J.B. Metcalf, The characterization of pavement layer
interfaces, in: International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, 2002.
[98] J.C. Du, Evaluation of asphalt pavement layer bonding stress, J. Civ. Eng.
Manage. 21 (5) (2015) 571–577.
[99] A. Molenaar, Evaluation of pavement structure with emphasis on reflective
cracking, in: Proceeding of 2nd international RILEM conference on reflective
cracking in pavements, 1993. pp. 21–48.
[100] Y. Chen, G. Lopp, R. Roque, Test method to evaluate the effect of interface
bond conditions on top-down and reflective cracking, Eng. J. 16 (4) (2012)
91–98.
[101] Y. Chen, G. Tebaldi, R. Roque, G. Lopp, M. Exline, A mechanistic test to
evaluate effects of interface condition characteristics on hot-mix asphalt
overlay reflective cracking performance, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 14
(Suppl. 1) (2013) 262–273.
[102] M.A. Caltabiano, J.M. Brunton, Reflection cracking in asphalt overlays, J.
Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 60 (1991).
[103] D.A.B. Hughes, Polymer Grid Reinforcement of Asphalt Pavements, University
of Nottingham, 1986.
[104] M.Y. Shahin, K. Kirchner, E.W. Blackmon, H. Tomita, Effect of layer slippage on
performance of asphalt-concrete pavements, Transp. Res. Rec. (1986).
[105] H. Li, B. Yu, Fatigue performance and prediction model of multilayer deck
pavement with different tack coat materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (5) (2014)
872–877.
[106] D. Fordyce, K. Khweir, Influence of layer bonding on the prediction of
pavement life, Transport 156 (2) (2003) 73–83.
[107] M. Diakhaté, A. Millien, C. Petit, A. Phelipot-Mardelé, B. Pouteau,
Experimental investigation of tack coat fatigue performance: Towards an
improved lifetime assessment of pavement structure interfaces, Constr.
Build. Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 1123–1133.
[108] M. Boudabbous, A. Millien, C. Petit, J. Neji, Energy approach for the fatigue of
thermoviscoelastic materials: Application to asphalt materials in pavement
surface layers, Int. J. Fatigue 47 (1) (2013) 308–318.
[109] S. Li, X. Liu, Z. Liu, Interlaminar shear fatigue and damage characteristics of
asphalt layer for asphalt overlay on rigid pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 68
(2014) 341–347.
[110] Q. Lv, W. Huang, F. Xiao, Laboratory evaluation of self-healing properties of
various modified asphalt, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 192–201.
[111] Q. Lv, W. Huang, X. Zhu, F. Xiao, On the investigation of self-healing behavior
of bitumen and its influencing factors, Mater. Des. 117 (2017) 7–17.
[112] X. Wang, Z. Su, A. Xu, A. Zhou, H. Zhang, Shear fatigue between asphalt
pavement layers and its application in design, Constr. Build. Mater. 135
(2017) 297–305.
[113] C. Tozzo, N. Fiore, A. D’Andrea, Dynamic shear tests for the evaluation of the
effect of the normal load on the interface fatigue resistance, Constr. Build.
Mater. 61 (61) (2014) 200–205.
[114] M. Diakhaté, A. Phelipot, A. Millien, C. Petit, Shear fatigue behaviour of tack
coats in pavements, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 7 (2) (2006) 201–222.
[115] R. Stefan Anton, Characterizaton of Pavement Layer Interfaces, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, 1999.
[116] D. A., F. W., Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit des Haftverbundes und dessen
Auswirkungen auf die Lebensdauer von Asphaltbefestigungen (Investigation
of the effectiveness of bonding and its influence on the service life of asphalt
pavements), Technical University of Dresden, Germany, 2007, p. 100.
[117] C. Tozzo, A. D’Andrea, I.L. Al-Qadi, Dilatancy in the analysis of interlayer cyclic
shear test results, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (12) (2016) 04016171.
[118] W. Song, X. Shu, B. Huang, M. Woods, Laboratory investigation of interlayer
shear fatigue performance between open-graded friction course and
underlying layer, Constr. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 381–389.
[119] C. Raab, J. Grenfell, A.O.A.E. Halim, M.N. Partl, Comparison of Interlayer Bond
Behavior Due to Ageing, Springer, Netherlands, 2016.
871
[120] C. Raab, J. Grenfell, A.O. Abd El Halim, P. Manfred Norbert, The influence of
age on interlayer shear properties, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 16 (6) (2015) 559–
569.
[121] J.S. Chen, C.C. Huang, Effect of surface characteristics on bonding properties of
bituminous tack coat, Transp. Res. Rec. 2180 (1) (2010) 142–149.
[122] M. Partl, F. Canestrari, G. Ferrotti, F. Santagata, Influence of contact surface
roughness on interlayer shear resistance, in: 10th international conference
on asphalt pavements – August 12 to 17, 2006, Quebec city, Canada, 2006.
[123] C. Sangiorgi, N.H. Thom, A.C. Collop, Assesment of bond condition using the
Leutner shear test, Transport 156 (4) (2003) 211–217.
[124] R. Miro Recasens, F. Perez Jimenez, J.M. Borras Gonzalez, Evaluation of the
effect of tack coats, LCB shear test, in: Proceedings of the 6th International
Rilem symposium, Zurich, Switzerland, 2003, pp. 550–556.
[125] A.C. Raposeiras, J. Rojas-Mora, E. Piffaut, D. Movilla-Quesada, D. Castro-
Fresno, Development of an estimative model for the optimal tack coat dosage
based on aggregate gradation of hot mix asphalt pavements, Constr. Build.
Mater. 118 (2016) 1–10.
[126] W. Song, X. Shu, B. Huang, M. Woods, Factors affecting shear strength
between open-graded friction course and underlying layer, Constr. Build.
Mater. 101 (2015) 527–535.
[127] X. Hu, Y. Lei, H. Wang, P. Jiang, X. Yang, Z. You, Effect of tack coat dosage and
temperature on the interface shear properties of asphalt layers bonded with
emulsified asphalt binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 141 (2017) 86–93.
[128] A. Salinas, I.L. Al-Qadi, K.I. Hasiba, H. Ozer, Z. Leng, D.C. Parish, Interface layer
tack coat optimization, Transp. Res. Rec. 2372 (1) (2013) 53–60.
[129] D.J. Mrawire Dad, Revisiting the effectiveness of tack coats in HMA overlays:
the shear strength of tack coats in young overlays, in: Proceeding of 14th
Annual Conference, Canadian Technical Asphalt Association Proceedings,
Canada, 1999. pp. 116–129.
[130] Ohio FPo, Proper Tack Coat Application, Columbus, OH, 2001.
[131] A.C. Collop, M.H. Sutanto, G.D. Airey, R.C. Elliott, Shear bond strength
between asphalt layers for laboratory prepared samples and field cores,
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (6) (2009) 2251–2258.
[132] H. Gong, Some Researchers also took into Account Breaking Time of Tack Coat
in Their Studies of Bonding Properties of Pavement Layers, Chongqing
Jiaotong University, 2013.
[133] D. Zamora-Barraza, M. Calzada-Peréz, D. Castro-Fresno, A. Vega-Zamanillo,
New procedure for measuring adherence between a geosynthetic material
and a bituminous mixture, Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (5) (2010) 483–489.
[134] Institute TA, The Asphalt Handbook, Manual Series No.4 (MS-4), 1989 edition,
Lexington, XY, 1989.
[135] I. Deysarkar, Test Set-up to Determine Quality of Tack Coat, 2012.
[136] J.R.M. Recasens, A. Martínez, F.E.P. Jiménez, Evaluation of effect of heat-
adhesive emulsions for tack coats with shear test: from the road research
laboratory of Barcelona, Transp. Res. Rec. 1970 (1970) (2006).
[137] K. Hasiba, Development of a testing approach for tack coat application rate at
pavement layer interfaces, Radiology 237 (1) (2012) 57–66.
[138] C. Raab, M.N. Partl, Interlayer bonding of binder, base and subbase layers of
asphalt pavements: long-term performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (8)
(2009) 2926–2931.
[139] C. Raab, A.E.H.O.A.E. Halim, M.N. Part, Utilisation of artificial neural network
for the analysis of interlayer shear properties, Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng. 8 (2)
(2013) 107–116.
[140] W. Song, X. Shu, B. Huang, M. Woods, Influence of interface characteristics on
the shear performance between open-graded friction course and underlying
layer, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (8) (2017) 04017077.
[141] S. Xu, F. Xiao, S. Amirkhanian, D. Singh, Moisture characteristics of mixtures
with warm mix asphalt technologies–a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 142
(2017) 148–161.
[142] A. Vaitkus, D. Čygas, A. Laurinavicius, V. Vorobjovas, R. Kleiziene, Research of
asphalt layer bonding in lithuanian pavement structures, Gradevinar 64 (11)
(2012) 915–921.