Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Shear bond strength between asphalt layers for laboratory prepared

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1
Mixture characteristics.

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

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

Table 2
Site information.

Site Road class Traffic Construction

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

50mm/min 50mm/min

35mm Interface

10mm

Lower Layer Upper 150mm

14mm
Layer

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

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

Table 3
Comparison between standard and modified Leutner results.

Interface condition Standard Leutner Modified Leutner

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

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

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

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

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

Shear Strength (MPa) 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

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

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

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

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

Fig. 3. Leutner test results from motorway cores.

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

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

2.8
Shear Strength (MPa)

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

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

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

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

1.6
Shear Strength (MPa)

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

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

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

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

Shear Strength (MPa)

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Displacement at Shear Strength (mm)

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

binder course interfaces (S/B) is 1.67 MPa it can be seen from Fig. 3 specification. Most recently, Stöckert [33] proposed limits based
that individual values range between 0.7 MPa and 2.7 MPa. on a wide series of Leutner tests performed on cores taken from
typical German pavements of differing ages (see Table 6). He found
6. Discussion that a maximum increase in shear strength of 30% was found after
one year of trafficking.
Codjia [31] proposed minimum limits for shear load (strength) It can be seen that the limits proposed in Table 6 range from
from Leutner tests performed on cores taken from German roads. 0.85 MPa to 1.41 MPa for the surfacing/binder course interface
These are shown in Table 6; note that the shear load (kN) has been and from 0.57 MPa to 1.13 MPa for the binder course/base inter-
converted to a shear strength (MPa) using the nominal cross sec- face. It is interesting to note that the requirements do not change
tional area of the 150 mm diameter Leutner specimens. A study for the class of road under consideration.
at the Swiss Federal Laboratory (EMPA) [32] investigated the shear It can be seen that applying the lower values of 0.85 MPa and
resistance between new asphalt layers using modified Leutner 0.57 MPa to the data shown in Figs. 3–6 would exclude approxi-
equipment called layer parallel direct shear (LPDS). The results mately 12% of the surfacing/binder course interface (S/B) speci-
were used to assess the achievable bond in a new Swiss pavement mens and approximately 5% of the binder course/base interface
and also a pavement after at least 3 years of service. A minimum (B/B) specimens. The majority of these excluded data points
value of 1.3 MPa for the shear strength was proposed as a Swiss (approximately 55% of the surfacing/binder course interface (S/B)
specimens and 80% of the binder course/base interface (B/B) spec-
Table 5 imens) are from the B-, C- and D-roads.
Average site shear strength values. Applying the upper values of 1.41 MPa and 1.13 MPa would ex-
Shear strength Motorway A-road B-road C- and D-roads clude approximately 50% of the surfacing/binder course interface
(S/B) specimens and approximately 40% of the binder course/base
S/B B/B S/B B/B S/B B/B S/B B/B
interface (B/B) specimens with the majority of these (approxi-
Average (MPa) 1.67 1.65 1.40 1.16 1.32 0.98 1.16 0.90
mately 85% for both interfaces) from the A-, B-, C- and D-roads.
COV (%) 20.4 9.7 7.5 42.3 32.4 44.3 31.4 35.9
It can also be seen that for the upper values (1.41 MPa and
1.13 MPa) some sites would fail to meet the specification com-
Table 6 pletely. For example, Sites #4, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #22,
Published Leutner test limits. #23, #26, #27 and #28 would fail to meet the surfacing/binder
Source Equipment Spceimen size Displacement rate Shear
course specification of 1.41 MPa and Sites #1, #2, #4 and #6 would
(mm diameter) (mm/min) strength fail to meet the binder course/base specification of 1.13 MPa.
(MPa)
S/B B/B
7. Conclusions
Codjia [31] Leutnera 150 50 0.85 0.57
Partl and LPDS 150 50 1.3
 The standard Leutner test was modified by the introduction of a
Raab 5 mm gap into the shear plane to reduce edge damage caused by
[32] misalignment of the specimen interface with respect to the
Stöckert Leutnera 150 50 1.41 1.13 shear plane and specimens that incorporate a thin surfacing
[33]
material were extended with a 30 mm thick grooved metal
a
Standard, without gap at the shear plane. cylinder.
2258 A.C. Collop et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2251–2258
 The shear strengths, displacements at the point at which the
shear strength is reached and secant shear moduli for the labo-
ratory produced materials ranged from 1.12 MPa to 2.68 MPa,
1.05 mm to 2.40 mm and 0.48 MPa/mm to 1.90 MPa/mm,
respectively. The 14 mm EME surfacing over the 20 mm EME
binder course combination was found to give both the highest
average shear strength and average secant shear modulus.
 The laboratory produced surfacing/binder course combinations
incorporating the 20 mm DBM binder course showed the high-
est average shear strengths when nothing was applied at the
interface and the lowest average shear strengths when the tack
coat was applied at the interface. Two of the four combinations
incorporating the 14 mm EME binder course showed the highest
average shear strength with tack coat at the interface whereas
the other two combinations showed the highest average shear
strength with either bond coat or nothing at the interface.
 The average shear strength from field cores increases as the class
of the road increases for both surfacing/binder course interfaces
and binder course/base interfaces.
 The average shear strength from field cores tends to be greater
for the surfacing/binder course interface compared to the binder
course/base interface.
 Applying the lower limits of 0.85 MPa and 0.57 MPa to the data
from field cores would exclude approximately 12% of the surfac-
ing/binder course interface specimens and approximately 5% of
the binder course/base interface specimens. The majority of
these excluded data points (approximately 55% of the surfac-
ing/binder course interface (S/B) specimens and 80% of the bin-
der course/base interface (B/B) specimens) come from the B-, C-
and D-roads.
 Applying the upper limits of 1.41 MPa and 1.13 MPa to the data
from field cores would exclude approximately 50% of the surfac-
ing/binder course interface (S/B) specimens and approximately
40% of the binder course/base interface (B/B) specimens. The
majority of these excluded data points (approximately 85% for
both interfaces) come from the A-, B-, C- and D-roads.
Acknowledgements
The work reported herein was carried out under a contract
placed with Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering Ltd by the UK
Highways Agency (HA) and the Road Emulsion Association (REAL)
Ltd. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of
the HA, the Department for Transport or REAL.
References
[1] Anon. Interim report of the working party on the slippage of rolled asphalt
wearing courses. TRRL report SR 213UC; 1976.
[2] Kennedy CK. The development of slip-planes in rolled asphalt surfacings. TRRL
report LR 813; 1978.
[3] Anon. Final report of the working party on the slippage of rolled asphalt
wearing courses. TRRL report SR 493; 1979.
[4] Kennedy CK, Lister NW. Experimental studies of slippage, the performance of
rolled asphalt road surfacings. London: The Institution of Civil Engineers; 1980.
p. 31–56.
[5] Peattie KR. The incidence and investigation of slippage failures, the
performance of rolled asphalt road surfacings. London: The Institution of
Civil Engineers; 1980. p. 3–15.
[6] Anon. Le décollement des couches de revêtement de chaussées. Note
d’information chaussées – terrassement n’ 250 , SETRA; 1986.
[7] Shaat AA. Investigation of slippage of bituminous layer in overlaid pavement in
Northern Ireland. Consultancy report submitted for the DOE in Northern
Ireland; 1992.
[8] Lepert P, Poilane JP, Villard-Bats M. Evaluation of various field measurement
techniques for the assessment of pavement interface condition. In: 7th
International conference on asphalt pavements; 1992: 3. p. 224–37.
[9] Hachiya T, Sato K. Effect of tack coat on bonding characteristics at interface
between asphalt concrete layers. In: 8th International conference on asphalt
pavements. Seattle; 1997.
[10] Charmot S, Romero P, Dunning M. Forensic analysis of slippage cracking. In:
Proceeding of the 84th TRB annual meeting. Washington (DC); 2005.
[11] Romain JE. Contraintes, déformations et déflexions dans les systémes
quadricouches élastiques. Rapport de recherche No. 147/JER/1968. Centre de
Recherches Routiéres, Bruxelles; 2005.
[12] Uzan J, Livneh M, Eshed Y. Investigation of adhesion properties between
asphalt concrete layers. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 1978;47:495–521.
[13] Brown SF, Brunton JM. The influence of bonding between bituminous layers.
Highways and Transportation 1984;31(5):16–7.
[14] Shahin M, Kirchner K, Blackmon EW. Analysis of asphalt concrete layers
slippage and its effect on pavement performance and rehabilitation design. In:
6th International conference on the structural design of asphalt
pavements. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan; 1987.
[15] Tschegg KE, Kroyer G, Tan DM, Stanzl-Tschegg SE, Litzka J. Investigation of
bonding between asphalt layers on road construction. J Transp Eng – ASCE
1995(July/August):309–17.
[16] Al Hakim, B. An improved backcalculation method to predict flexible
pavement layers moduli and bonding condition between wearing course and
base course. PhD thesis. Liverpool John Moores University; 1997.
[17] Kruntcheva MR, Collop AC, Thom NH. Theoretical and practical aspects of the
importance of bonding in a pavement structure. Project report PGR 2000–08.
The University of Nottingham; 2000.
[18] Al Hakim B, Al Nageim H, Pountney D, Lesley L. The development of an
improved pavement back-calculation. In: 1st Conference on rehabilitation and
development of civil engineering infrastructure systems, Paper No. 72.
Lebanon; 1997.
[19] Al Hakim B, Armitage R, Thom N. Pavement assessment including bonding
condition: case studies. In: 5th International conference on bearing capacity of
roads and airfields, vol. 1. Trondheim; 1998. p. 439–48.
[20] Carr AG. The behaviour of layered pavement structures: the dynamic shear
box. Project report. School of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham;
2001.
[21] Kruntcheva MR, Collop AC, Thom NH. Shear box test: finite element modelling.
Project report PGR01–05. School of Civil Engineering, University of
Nottingham; 2001.
[22] Mohammad LN, Raqib MA, Wu Z, Huang B. Measurement of interlayer bond
strength through direct shear tests. In: 3rd International conference of
bituminous mixtures and pavements, 21–22 November. Thessaloniki,
Greece; 2002.
[23] de Bondt A. Anti-reflective cracking design of (reinforced) asphalt overlays.
PhD thesis. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands; 1999.
[24] Leutner R. Untersuchung des schichtenverbundes beim bituminosen
oberbau. Hamburg, Germany: Bitumen, Heft 3, ARBIT; 1979.
[25] Sholar GA, Page GC, Musselman JA, Upshaw PB, Moseley HL. Preliminary
investigation of a test method to evaluate bond strength of bituminous tack
coats. Asphalt Paving Technol 2004;73.
[26] Anon. Specification for coated macadam for roads and other paved areas.
British Standards Institute, BS4987–1&2; 2001.
[27] Anon. Bituminous mixtures. Material specification. Part 5. Stone mastic
asphalt. British Standards Institute, BS EN 13108–5; 2000.
[28] Collop AC, Thom NH, Sangiorgi C. Assessment of bond condition using the
Leutner shear test. ICE J Transp 2003;156(TR4):211–7.
[29] Sutanto MH, Collop AC, Airey GD, Elliott RC. Laboratory measurement of shear
interface strength beneath a thin asphalt layer. In: International conference on
advanced characterization of pavement and soil engineering materials.
Athens; 2007.
[30] Canestrari F, Ferrotti G, Partl MN, Santagata E. Advanced testing and
characterization of interlayer shear resistance. TRB 84th Annual Meeting.
Washington (DC); 2005.
[31] Codjia H. Erarbeitung eines bewertungshintergrundes für das prüfverfahren
‘schichtenverbund nach Leutner’ und bestimmung der präzision.
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Straßen-und Eisenbahnwesen der
Universität Karlsruhe (TH); 1994.
[32] Partl MN, Raab C. Shear adhesion between top layers of fresh asphalt
pavements in Switzerland. In: 7th Conference on asphalt pavements for
Southern Africa; 1999.
[33] Stöckert U. Schichtenverbund–prüfung und bewertungshintergrund. Straße
und Autobahn 2001;11/2001.