Effect of Interlayer Properties on AC Airfield Pavements Main

Responses

Lama Abufares1 and Johann Cárdenas2

1 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.
Email: lamaha2@illinois.edu
2 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.

Email: johannc2@illinois.edu

ABSTRACT
Aircraft induce high loads onto airfield pavement structures. High trafficking,
landing and traversing have been proven to accelerate pavement damage, with slippage
failure being one of the most significant distresses observed in airports, especially at
locations experiencing high shear stresses. Slippage is a bonding failure that happens
at the interface between layers. Tack and prime coats are the usual treatments for
bonding problems. This study focuses on modeling different layer interface properties
using the commercial element software ABAQUS. Properties thoroughly studied are
the shear stress and friction coefficient values. Those parameters were changed while
keeping the pavement structure and other parameters fixed to understand their effect
on pavement responses. The shear stress parameter is found to be only a limit value
that doesn’t affect model responses until it is surpassed, whereas it is observed that the
friction coefficient is more influential, especially at fully-bonded condition. However,
the effects of both parameters are found to be less important when compared to the effect
of loading. This investigation could eventually help in advancing pavement modeling
and especially layer interface properties making them closer to real conditions and real
asphalt concrete (AC) pavement behavior.

1 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

INTRODUCTION
Industry needs are constantly leading to the introduction of heavier aircraft, posing
new challenges on the analysis, design and evaluation of airfield pavements. Among
these challenges, is the potential occurrence of slippage failure on flexible airfield
pavements, given the large wheel loads and high tire pressures of modern aircraft.
Thus, the adequacy of the interface bond strength between pavement layers needs to be
guaranteed (Doyle et al. 2022).
Slippage is a bonding failure at layer interface caused by relative movement. Pre-
mature cracking problems are commonly associated with de-bonding or slippage such
as top-down and fatigue cracking, as can be seen in Fig. 1 (Raab and Partl 2004). These
distresses can dramatically reduce the pavement service life up to 25–50% and urge for
extensive repairs such as full-depth patches or complete reconstruction (Zhang 2017).
Bond failures are aggravated by severe braking conditions (White 2017). Interface bond
is a combination of adhesion, friction and mechanical interlocking between the layers
(Uzan et al. 1978). It is also difficult to isolate the various components that contribute
to the overall bond. The tack/prime coat only provides the adhesion component.

Fig. 1. Slippage related cracking.

In the laboratory, test methods and protocols for measuring bond strength are gener-
ally grouped into three main load mechanisms; axial tension, torsional shear and direct
shear, as shown in Fig. 2 (White 2017). Axial tension tests measure the degree of
adhesion between the two layers. Torsional testing is less frequently reported. Direct
shear tests offer a more comprehensive assessment of the full interface strength likely
to be achieved in the field with adhesion, friction and interlock all contributing to the
resulting bond strength. Based on the test results, the interface bond can be measured
by its strength (peak stress), modulus/stiffness or work/energy.
It is well established that interface bonding characteristics are influenced by many
factors including: surface condition, preparation, temperature, tack coat material (emul-
sified asphalt, asphalt cutback or asphalt binder), tack coat curing time and tack coat
application rate (Tashman et al. 2008). According to Zhang et al., bonding shear strength
was found to decrease when the surface was not clean; had dust or moisture. Milled
surfaces always achieved higher bonding strength than non-milled, because of the added
friction. For temperature, increasing temperature results in decreased shear strength,
that is because at higher temperatures, asphalt viscosity is lowered and asphalt is more
likely to flow.

2 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 Fig. 2. Different tests for measuring bonding strength.

Additionally, AC mixtures designed with high air voids percentage or coarse aggregates
achieved lower shear strength (Zhang 2017). With regards to tack coat type, emulsified
tack coats are reported to have the highest shear strength at room temperatures. The
longer the curing time, the better the bond and finally for the application rate, there is
an optimum rate where adding more tack coat introduces a slippage plane (Du 2015).
At the interface between an AC layer and a granular layer, prime coats are used
instead of tack coats mainly to provide bonding and prevent migration of moisture.
Although emulsified asphalt prime coats can be used to help bond the top of the
granular base layer to the bottom of the AC layer (FAA 2018), little research has been
conducted on quantifying the required properties at this interface. The proper modeling
of the interface bonding conditions represents an important problem in understanding
the behavior of pavement structures and may lead to a reduction in maintenance and
rehabilitation costs (Romanoschi 1999).
This study focuses on a numerical approach for evaluating the effect of wheel load,
and the interaction properties (friction coefficient and shear stress limit) on pavement
responses, comparing the obtained maximum values for the stresses and strains of the
longitudinal, vertical and horizontal shear components. The simulations are performed
in the commercial software ABAQUS, and their inputs are based on the data obtained
from the major experimental efforts made at the National Airport Pavement Test Facility
(NAPTF). The NAPTF Construction Cycle 7 (CC7) was constructed on low-strength
DuPont Clay subgrade with a measured California Bearing Ratio (CBR) between 5%
and 6%, over two test areas, North and South, corresponding to perpetual pavement
testing and overload testing, respectively (FAA 2017). The pavement structure tested in
the South section is used in this study because its FEM model has been validated using
sensors data reported by FAA.

METHODOLOGY
A numerical model is generated using the commercial FEM software ABAQUS to
represent the chosen airfield pavement structure in order to enable a robust analysis of
the main responses under various combinations of wheel load (𝑃), friction coefficient
(𝜇), and shear stress limit (𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). All other parameters are kept constant for the purpose
of this study, using the considerations described in the following subsections. The
pavement structure corresponds to section tested as part of CC7 at the FAA’s National
Airport Pavement Testing Facility (NAPTF). A dynamic transient analysis is used to

3 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

incorporate the moving load concept: static loading applied at subsequent positions
along the pavement at different time steps. Inertial effects are also considered since the
mass inertia and damping forces are not being neglected.

Material and Layer Interface Characterization

Viscoelastic Asphalt Material
The asphalt layer meets the P-401 material requirements regarding aggregate type,
mineral filler, asphalt binder, mix volumetrics and performance. The characterization
of the PG64-22 binder was provided by the FAA, through dynamic modulus |𝐸 ∗ | tests.
The test data collected at different temperatures were shifted relative to the time of
loading or loading frequency to align various curves into a single master curve (FHWA
2012). Upon visual inspection of the data distribution, the dynamic modulus master
curve was fit to a Prony series, based on the following general expression:
𝑛
∑︁
𝐸 (𝑡) = 𝐸 0 + 𝐸𝑖 𝑒 −𝑡/𝜏𝑖 (1)
𝑖=1
where:
𝐸 (𝑡)= Dynamic Modulus at time t
𝐸 0 = Instantaneous Modulus at t=0
𝜏 = Relaxation Parameter

For convenience, 4-8 Prony series terms are usually used. A 7-term Prony series
was found adequate for this study since the predicted values for 𝐸 ∗ reach convergence.
The least square method was used to optimize the initial shift factors and the fitting
parameters for the time-temperature superposition function. The shift factors were ob-
tained using the Williams-Landel-Ferry (WLF) equation as follows:

−𝐶1 (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟 )
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝛼𝑇 ) = (2)
𝐶2 (𝑇 − 𝑇𝑟 )
where:
𝑎𝑇 = AC time-temperature shift factor
𝑇 = temperature of interest
𝑇𝑟 = reference temperature
𝐶1 , 𝐶2 = regression coefficients

Finally, the obtained Prony series was normalized to the instantaneous modulus, to
be used as an input to ABAQUS to characterize the viscoelastic nature of the AC layer.
Granular Materials
The base and subbase materials are considered nonlinear cross-anisotropic and
stress-dependent to account for the thin 3-inch AC layer considered in the model. These
materials were characterized using a simplified procedure (Tutumluer and Thompson
1998), and implemented in ABAQUS through a user material subroutine (Wang and

4 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

Al-Qadi 2013). On the other hand, the subgrade was considered to be linear isotropic
and strain-dependent. The regression parameters (𝐾 values) for the Uzan model and the
Poisson’s ratios for the P-209 base, the P-154 subbase and the subgrade are summarized
in Table 1.

Table 1. Granular Material Properties

Materials
Properties Base (P-209) Subbase (P-154) Subgrade (Dupont Clay
Material Model (1, Uzan Model) 1.00 1.00 1.00
𝐾1 1399.4 1526.0 1113.90
𝐾2 0.6075 0.7131 0.1369
𝐾3 -0.0806 -0.5467 -1.0290
𝜐12 0.35 0.35 0.40
𝜐31 0.35 0.35 0.40

Layer Interaction
The interaction properties between layers affect the pavement response to load
excitation. Therefore, their definition is critically important to understand the so-
called real conditions. An AC Coulomb friction model is usually implemented for
the interface between the AC and the granular base, the base and subbase, and the
subbase and subgrade. This model assumes that the resistance of movement is directly
proportional to the normal stress until the shear strength of the interface is reached.
Beyond this point, the layers slide relative to each other. The relationship between the
friction coefficient, the allowed maximum shear stress and normal stress is defined by
the following equation:
𝜏𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
𝜇= (3)
𝜎
where:
𝜏𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = the allowed maximum shear stress prior to relative sliding of layers
𝜎 = the normal stress at the interface
𝜇 = friction coefficient

Those two parameters, namely the critical shear stress and the friction coefficient at
the interface are the focus of this study, and their effects on the pavement main responses
are investigated thoroughly.
Aircraft Tire Loading and Environmental Conditions
A tandem load configuration, a constant speed and tire inflation pressure are used in
this study. Tire inflation pressure was set as 200 psi and the tire moving speed was set to
2.5 mph representing taxiing speed at airports. Therefore, the estimated contact stress
distribution is on only dependent on the wheel load for the simulated airfield pavement.

5 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

Three-Dimensional Contact Stresses
Given the magnitude of the applied loading, the assumption of a rectangular tire
imprint is valid. The contact stresses in the longitudinal, vertical and transverse direc-
tions are calculated based on the wheel load for each case using a parabolic distribution
(Hernandez and Al-Qadi 2015).
Continuous Moving Load and Mesh Refinement
With the aim of simulating a continuous tire movement over a given length of the
pavement structure (wheel path) at a specified speed, the tire loading was applied at a
starting point and then gradually shifted over the total loading area in the traffic direction
in several steps. The number of elements loaded at each time step is a finite value defined
by the ratio between the length of the tire imprint area and the longitudinal meshing in
the wheel path. Since the tire imprint length has been determined as 14.96 in. for the
B777-300 tire used in this study, 10 elements are considered in the loading area with
each of them being 1.496-in. long. Then, the load is shifted three elements per time
step to balance computation time and accuracy (FHWA 2016). The number of time
steps was then determined to be 32 due to the tandem configuration.
Temperature Profile
A temperature gradient is applied in the AC layer using a temperature profile model
(Wang et al. 2009). In this model, an initial temperature is defined on the AC surface
as the reference temperature, and then a temperature distribution is estimated as a
function of the AC layer thickness, pavement depth, initial temperature, and the thermal
conductivity and diffusivity of the AC and granular materials.
Mesh Refinement
An acceptable level of accuracy is achieved when the 3D FEM solution converges
into a continuous solution and the stress transition across elements is adequately smooth.
The error of the FEM solution can generally be controlled by either increasing the
number of elements or using higher order shape functions. For this study, the former
technique -also known as mesh refinement- is used. It is worth noting that the element
size is directly proportional to the computation time. In addition, infinite boundaries are
used around the sides and bottom of the 3-D FEM model to account for the stresses and
strains dissipating to nearly zero at the boundaries. Furthermore, a biased meshing is
used to optimize the number of elements being used in the model, which means a gradual
increase of the element size when moving away from the loading area. According to
previous studies (Al-Qadi et al. 2008); (Yoo et al. 2008), a total length (L), width (B),
depth (D) and wheel path length (x) of 36472mm, 31400mm, 15000m, and 5472mm,
respectively, have been found to be long enough to capture the main responses inside
the domain. The domain is divided into sub-regions for meshing purposes, as shown is
Fig. 3.

6 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 Fig. 3. Top view of the domain sub-regions of the 3D pavement model.

The final mesh configuration (i.e., layer thickness, number of elements, and bias)
for the simulated airfield pavement structures is presented in Table 2:

Table 2. Meshing criteria along the depth (units in mm)

Layers Element
Layer t # Elements Bias First Last
AC (P-401) 75 4 1.40 15.72 22.01
Base (P-209) 150 6 1.20 22.78 27.33
Uncrushed Stone (P-154) 500 15 1.10 31.77 34.95
Subgrade (P-154) 14275 40 35.00 36.49 1277.10

Numerical Matrix of Simulated Airfield Pavement Structures

The test matrix is presented in Table 3. Ten cases were selected, including a baseline
case (case 1), and three cases per parameter to be investigated: wheel load (cases 2-4),
shear stress limit (cases 5-7) and friction coefficient (cases 8-10). The baseline case has
been validated using the sensors data from CC7, for which the 3D FEM model matches
the vertical displacements and vertical compressive stresses with an error of less than
5%.

7 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 Table 3. Numerical Matrix of Simulated Airfield Pavement Structures

Case 𝑁 𝑜 . Wheel load (kN) Shear strength (MPa) Friction coefficient

1 180.15 1.41 1.0
2 157.91 1.41 1.0
3 169.03 1.41 1.0
4 200.17 1.41 1.0
5 180.15 1.50 1.0
6 180.15 0.60 1.0
7 180.15 0.20 1.0
8 180.15 1.41 0.8
9 180.15 1.41 0.6
10 180.15 1.41 ∞∗
∗ Note that an infinite friction coefficient (𝜇 = ∞) denotes a fully bonded interface

Pavement Responses
Stresses and strains in any direction can be extracted at any location within the
problem domain once a simulation is completed using the aforementioned 3D FEM
model. However, the targeted output values are located at the bottom of the AC layer, at
the interface with the granular base layer. Within this subdomain, the critical responses
include the following:

• Longitudinal stress (𝜎11 ), and longitudinal strain (𝜖11 ) for bottom-up cracking.
• Vertical compressive stress (𝜎22 ) and vertical compressive strain (𝜖22 ) for rutting.
• Horizontal shear stress (𝜎13 ) and horizontal shear strain (𝜖13 ) for slippage failure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results for the cases included in the test matrix shown in the previous section
are presented here along with a brief discussion on the effects of the wheel load (P),
friction coefficient (𝜇) and shear stress limit (𝜏𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ) on the main responses (stresses
and strains) at the bottom of the AC layer.
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the influence of the wheel load on the main responses. Fig. 4
presents the impact on longitudinal, vertical and shear strains while Fig. 5 shows the
corresponding changes in stress in those directions. It can be noted that the effect of
loading is significant and directly proportional in all the directions considered. An
increase of roughly 30% in the wheel load (from 180 to 200 kN) corresponds to an
increase of 7%, 15% and 25% in the longitudinal, vertical and horizontal shear stress,
respectively, and generate an increase of 6%, 9%, and 13% in the longitudinal, vertical
and horizontal shear strain, respectively. The rate of increase is observed to be fairly
linear.

8 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 Fig. 4. Wheel load (P) vs microstrain (𝜇𝜖) for 𝜖11 , 𝜖22 and 𝜖13
.

Fig. 5. Wheel load (P) vs stress (𝜎) for 𝜎11 , 𝜎22 and 𝜎13

Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the influence of the friction coefficient at the interface between
the AC and the granular base layer on the overall main responses. Fig. 6 presents the
longitudinal, vertical and shear strains whereas Fig. 7 shows the corresponding changes
in stress in those directions. The trend is clear, a greater bond strength (higher friction
coefficient) leads to lower responses. However, the effect is only considerable when
comparing a fully-bonded case to any other condition. A significant distortion is seen
when setting a fully-bonded interaction, with differences of 28%, 2% and 22% for the
longitudinal, vertical and horizontal shear stress, and up to 10%, 13% and 2% for the
longitudinal, vertical and horizontal shear strain. The differences observed in the main
responses when the friction coefficient is slightly modified are negligible.

9 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 Fig. 6. Friction Coefficient (𝜇) vs microstrain (𝜇𝜖) for 𝜖11 , 𝜖 22 and 𝜖13 .

Fig. 7. Friction Coefficient (𝜇) vs stress (𝜎) for 𝜎11 , 𝜎22 and 𝜎13 .

Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show the influence of the shear stress limit at the interface between
the AC and the granular base layer on the main responses. Fig. 8 shows the longitudinal,
vertical and shear strains while Fig. 9 shows the corresponding changes in stress in those
directions. It can be seen that generally there is no effect on the overall responses when
changing this parameter from 1.5 to 0.6 MPa. Only when the value is set to as low as
0.2 MPa, a distortion is noticeable. However, at this point, the model failed to reach
convergence due to large nodal displacements between two consecutive time steps. Since
𝜏𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 establishes a limit, no effect is observed unless the value is surpassed. If the
maximum horizontal shear stress at the interface, which is a specific combination of the
other normal stresses, exceeds the established limit, the model becomes non-convergent.

10 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 Fig. 8. Shear Stress Limit (𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) vs microstrain (𝜇𝜖) for 𝜖11 , 𝜖22 and 𝜖13 .

Fig. 9. Shear Stress Limit (𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) vs stress (𝜎) for 𝜎11 , 𝜎22 and 𝜎13 .

As can be seen in Fig. 10 the model doesn’t reach convergence when the shear stress
limit value is set as 0.2 MPa, and fails suddenly after 16 time steps are performed. The
longitudinal stress seems to have a normal trend up to the failure point. However, a
sharp increase in the vertical stress occurs at step number 15 (notice that numbering
starts at zero). This might be explained by the fact that when slipping happens, the
area of contact between the tire and pavement decreases, which results in an increase
in vertical stress. Horizontal shear stress increases at failure as expected. The model
failure can be explained by the displacement thresholds set for the model. The model
started to slip, displacements exceeded the thresholds and the model failed.

11 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

 (a) Longitudinal Tensile Stress (𝜎11 ) vs Step Number

(b) Vertical Compressive Stress (𝜎22 ) vs Step Number

(c) Horizontal Shear Stress (𝜏13 ) vs Step Number

Fig. 10. Progression of main stress components over time steps.

12 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a 3D FEM model resembling the south section of CC7 is used to
simulate different loading conditions and interlayer properties. In total, 17 different
cases were simulated from which ten were presented in this study. The key findings are
summarized below:
Effect of Changing Load
As expected, increasing the load increases the main responses in all directions
(stresses and strains) and is found to be the most influential factor. Changes were
noticeable at a bigger scale than all the other variables. For example, an increase of
roughly 30% in wheel load corresponds to an increase of 25% in the horizontal shear
stress, and 13% in the horizontal shear strain. The trend is observed to be fairly linear.
Effect of Friction Coefficient
Four different cases were simulated, one considering a fully tied interaction (𝜇 = ∞)
and three other cases corresponding to friction coefficients of 𝜇 = 1.00, 𝜇 = 0.80
and 𝜇 = 0.60. There was a slight difference between the main responses obtained for
friction coefficient values from 1.00 to 0.60. Contrarily, differences up to 28% are seen
when comparing the fully bonded case to the lower values of friction coefficient. This
difference was specifically remarkable for longitudinal responses.
Effect of Shear Stress Limit
Surprisingly, a change in the shear stress limit from 1.50 MPa all the way down to
0.60 MPa, had no effect on the main responses, for both stress and strain. Only when
that value was set at 0.20 MPa, changes were noticeable due to the non-convergence
issues evidenced in the trend of the main responses, which leads to the conclusion that
this value is only a limit, that plays no role in the mechanics of the model unless it is
surpassed.

The effects of changing the interaction properties when only vertical loading is
applied at every time step were not as noticeable as the effect of changing the wheel
load. The authors hypothesize that when operating conditions such as braking, cornering
and accelerating are considered, those properties will be more impactful on the pavement
overall responses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Further research is needed regarding the effect on interaction properties when

operating conditions are included (braking, cornering, accelerating). .
• A better understanding of how to estimate the interaction properties on field is
needed. Currently, 3D modelling heavily relies on parameters that are not fully
understood in practical applications such as the shear stress limit value and the
friction coefficient.
• Researchers are encouraged the investigate the effect of changing the interaction
properties for thicker AC layers or different pavement structures.

13 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and resources provided by the
Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT) staff and the Illinois Campus Cluster Program.
REFERENCES
Al-Qadi, I., Wang, H., Yoo, P., and Dessouky, S. (2008). “Dynamic analysis and in
situ validation of perpetual pavement response to vehicular loading.” Transportatiion
Research Record, 2087, 29–39.
Doyle, J., Robinson, J., Stache, J., and Cox, B. (2022). “Consideration of a tack coat
bond strength test to minimize the potential for slippage failures on flexible airfield
pavements.” Transportation Research Record, 1–15.
Du, J. (2015). “Evaluation of asphalt pavement layer bonding stress.” Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, 21(5), 571–577.
FAA (2017). “Construction cycle 7 (cc7).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2018). Standard Specifications for Construc-
tion of Airports. Advisory Circular AC No. 150/5370-10H.
FHWA (2012). “Long term pavement performance program standard data release (sdr)
26.0.” Report No. CD-ROM.
FHWA (2016). “The impact of wide-base tires on pavement – a national study.” Report
No. Final Report ; April 2011 December 2015.
Hernandez, A. and Al-Qadi, I. (2015). “Airfield pavement response caused by heavy
aircraft takeoff.” Transportation Research Record, 40–47.
Raab, C. and Partl, M. (2004). “Interlayer shear performance: Experience with different
pavement structures.” Proceedings of the 3rd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume congress,
1, 535–545.
Romanoschi, S. (1999). “Characterization of pavement layer interfaces.” Ph.D. the-
sis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State Univer-
sity,USA, (August).
Tashman, L., Nam, K., Papagiannakis, T., Willoughby, K., Pierce, L., and Baker, T.
(2008). “Evaluation of construction practices that influence the bond strength at the
interface between pavement layers.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
22(3).
Tutumluer, E. and Thompson, M. (1998). “Anisotropic modeling of granular bases.”
Final Report for the Federal Highway Administration.
Uzan, J., Livneh, M., and Eshed, Y. (1978). “Investigation of adhesion properties be-
tween asphaltic-concrete layers.” Asphalt Paving Technology: Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologists-Proceedings of the Technical Sessions, 47, 495 – 521.
Wang, D., Roesler, J. R., and Guo, D. Z. (2009). “Analytical approach to predicting tem-
perature fields in multilayered pavement systems.” Journal of engineering mechanics,
135(4), 334–344.
Wang, H. and Al-Qadi, I. (2013). “Importance of nonlinear anisotropic modeling of
granular base for predicting maximum viscoelastic pavement responses under moving
vehicular loading.” Journal of engineering mechanics, 139(1), 29–38.

14 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022

White, G. (2017). “State of the art: Interface shear resistance of asphalt surface layers.”
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 18(10), 887–901.
Yoo, P., Al-Qadi, I., and Kim, Y. (2008). “Appropriate boundary conditions for three
dimensional finite element implicit dynamic analysis of flexible pavement.” Interna-
tional Journal of Highway Engineering, 10(4), 213–224.
Zhang, W. (2017). “Effect of tack coat application on interlayer shear strength of as-
phalt pavement: A state-of-the-art review based on application in the united states.”
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 10(5), 434–445.

15 Abufares & Cárdenas, 2022