| description abstract | The mechanism of interlayer bonding and its relationship with interface morphology in asphalt pavement is not well understood yet. This study aims at investigating the effect of interface morphology on the interlayer bonding performance of double-layered asphalt systems. Four double-layered asphalt systems were prepared with rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC), asphalt concrete (AC), and stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixtures. To test the influence of different interlayer treatments, three conditions were studied: styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS)-modified asphalt gravel seal (GS) coat (SBS-GS), rubber-modified asphalt gravel seal coat (RA-GS), and fiber-reinforced rubber–modified asphalt gravel seal coat (FR-GS). The influence of surface type and interface treatment on interface morphology and bonding properties were compared and analyzed using a series of indoor interlayer shear bonding tests under three temperature conditions in two phases. In addition, based on the three-dimensional (3D) scanning and reconstruction technique, the morphology of the nondestructively separated interface of double-layered systems with no interlayer treatment was obtained, and the mechanism of the influence of the interface morphology on the interlayer shear strength was analyzed in depth. The results showed that double-layered systems exhibited different macrotexture and roughness characteristics at interlayer surfaces, creating distinct interface morphology properties for each system type. Consequently, the interlayer bonding strength and performance of double-layered asphalt systems were affected accordingly. In this respect, the order of the interlayer shear strength of double-layered systems with different interlayer treatments at different temperatures ranked as RAC-13/RAC-20 > SMA-13/RAC-20 > SMA-13/AC-20 > AC-13/AC-20. It was demonstrated that the proposed interface area ratio (K) can be used for the characterization of the interface morphology and reflect the interlayer bonding state. Moreover, it was found that the interlayer treatment could influence the interface morphology to a certain extent and change the effective bonding between layers. As a result, the order of interlayer shear strength of different interlayer bonding treatments ranked as FR-GS> RA-GS > SBS-GS. Finally, aggregate gradation of the mixtures could also affect the morphological characteristics of the interface. | |
